Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Games Entertainment

Jack Thompson Weighs In On Hot CoffeeGate 94

Posted by Zonk from the so-tired-of-it dept.
Gamespot is reporting that Jack Thompson, the anti-gaming crusader, has weighed in on the Rockstar/ESRB situation. His message is, essentially, that the ESA is a criminal organization run by a thug. From the article: "Doug Lowenstein embarrasses each and every one of you when he holds forth about what the 'Founders' intended when they drafted the Bill of Rights [the first 10 amendments to the Constitution]. For Doug, the Founders are GTA's Tommy Vercetti and Carl Johnson. Doug never met a pixilated prostitute he didn't like, and I'm sure James Madison would be impressed."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Jack Thompson Weighs In On Hot CoffeeGate More

Jack Thompson Weighs In On Hot CoffeeGate

Comments Filter:

  • OK (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Otter ( 3800 ) on Friday July 15, 2005 @11:44AM (#13074340) Journal
    So, now that we've thrown today's chunk of "Mean Grownups Are Mean To Gamerz Because Their Mean!" red meat to the kids...

    Has the underlying technical question been figured out yet? Last I heard Rockstar was still claiming the hax0rs had rearranged content from the game to create the "sex scene". The hax0rs are claiming they just unlocked a flag. Obviously one of them is lying -- I don't understand why it's so difficult for someone in possession of the patch to figure out who.

    • Re:OK (Score:4, Insightful)

      by sH4RD ( 749216 ) on Friday July 15, 2005 @11:49AM (#13074408) Homepage
      Does it matter? The point is that it's locked content that's not intended to be accessable, and thus doesn't contribute to the games rating and is not Rockstar's responsiblity. Yes, they should be more careful about leaving bits and pieces in, but no, if it takes someone else's external mod to activate it, that is not their problem. For example, what if someone took the Unreal engine and created a game on top of it to train terrorists. Then the terrorists used this training to kill people. Is that the Unreal engine creator's fault? No, someone just took their engine and without their knowledge created something else with it. Not their problem, nor should they be held responsible for the games content.

      • Re:OK (Score:2)

        by Otter ( 3800 )
        Does it matter?

        Sure. It matters because -- I'm curious.

        Beyond that, I'd say it matters at least a little bit whether someone has played a really nasty, destructive hoax on Rockstar or if the Rockstar guys are just lying. But it matters to me because I'm curious.

        • Why would the mod author have lied in the first place? It's right in the readme (http://www.gtagarage.com/mods/show.php?id=28 [gtagarage.com]), as it was before the mediots got ahold of it. I would think that if he had to go to great lengths to dissassemble the code, or whatever R* proposed, to enable this mod he would have mentioned it.
      • Even if the content wasn't intended to be accessible, Rockstar developed it and burned it to disc. It failed to disclose that to the ratings board. This isn't the result of hackers creating porn using the GTA engine. This is actually a locked part of the game. http://www.gametab.com/news/321173/ [gametab.com] Imagine you buy a house and the realtor tells you there are no skeletons in the closet. That shouldn't mean there are lots of skeletons in the closet but the closet is locked. If it is your home, you'll find a wa
        • What if the realtor didn't know those skeletons were there in the first place? And let's avoid a rebuttal of "negligence" and just assume we've a situation where they were really well-hidden: cemented up in the wall or something. :)

          This could be an unauthorized "easter egg" inserted by a developer at Rockstar that the company didn't even know about. That individual should be held responsible (to the extent of losing their job, and perhaps legally responsible if it can be shown they knew they were contrave
          • It couldn't have been one person. One person does not to all the art, animation, voice work, scripting , and code it takes to put sucha minigame together. If it was as the Hacker says, just fliping a bit to enable it, then rockstar knew about it. Does it matter? Only because the ESRB probably would have given it an AO rating wich would have kept it out of the major chains. I don't think any kids were hurt by this, but it does show that rockstar is not capable of honestly communicating the content of thier

            • Re:OK (Score:2)

              by Qzukk ( 229616 )
              It couldn't have been one person.

              Why couldn't it have been? How long has GTA:SA been out? 1.24MB [gamershell.com] is a pretty big file for "just flipping a bit", but perhaps not too big for someone to use someone else's 3D engine, someone else's objects and textures (they're still wearing their clothes even!) to insert a minigame where the player gets to bump two 3D objects together for a while.

              I'm inclined to believe Rockstar's report on this one, until whoever was responsibile for the Hot Coffee mod releases a documen
              • I don't know where you got that, but the actual "mod" is around 40 kilobytes.

              • You can do the mod on a PS2 with an Action Replay code. And there's a much smaller version of the PC mod than the one you linked to.


          • I disagree. Whether authorized or not Rockstar is still ultimately responsible for the content they produce. Supposing it is unauthorized, that really doesnt. Also, you say to ignore the negligence rebuttal, but your scenario of a rogue employee doing this on the sly is the very definition of a company being negligent. Supposing a daycare hires a child molester because they don't do background checks, does that relieve the daycare management from responsibility. Thankfully, no.

            I do think that the "

        • Re:OK (Score:2, Insightful)

          by XenoRyet ( 824514 )
          Rockstar bears zero responsibility in this. No matter how much of the code is on the disc, there is no in-game way to access that code or content. Any method of accessing this content would certainly be a violation of the EULA, thus absolving Rockstar of responsibility, and excluding that code and content from the raiting. The simple fact is that no matter how much or little the modders had to do, the content is not a part of Rockstar's published work.
          • I agree.

            You know... the "family values" crowd pushing for Rockstar's downfall concerning this *may* be doing us a favor. If the EULA is not found by the courts sufficient to protect Rockstar, then that sets legal precedent (a high profile one, at that) that could help others put software companies in their place.

            Because then, why should Microsoft be protected by their EULA when a 3rd party program (insert "Worm of the Week") causes problems, but Rockstar not be allowed such protection?

            Sure, the Roc

          • Any method of accessing this content would certainly be a violation of the EULA, thus absolving Rockstar of responsibility, and excluding that code and content from the raiting....

            This Geek mind at work. Very interesting, but stupid.

            No one else thinks like this. They see adult content burnt to disk that can be trivially unlocked and a company that has been ratcheting up the level of sex and violence in its games since day one.

      • It's not the same thing. One thing is an individual that modifies the game to provide new content that was never intended to be, another is unlocking content that was _deliberately_ left in by the developers as a fun prank so that someone would dig it up. A better comparision would be someone who writes "Heil Hitler" on the page of a book he bought and someone who finds it erroneously published as a mistake by the author, revealing the authors true political views.

        Also, I cannot believe that Rockstar forg

    • It's supposedly in the PS2 version as well. (Score:4, Interesting)

      by goodenoughnickname ( 874664 ) on Friday July 15, 2005 @12:00PM (#13074532)
      This forum post [thegfcc.com] is making the rounds today. It claims that by using Action Replay for the PS2, the hot coffee mini-game can be unlocked.

      If that's true, then it looks like Rockstar is the one with their pants on fire. Also, it means I have to go get an Action Replay, because I play the game for blood and boobs, not because going around on a bike bunny hopping shit is super fun.

    • It's both (Score:3, Informative)

      by scribblej ( 195445 )
      I have tried the mod "both ways." The original mod did several things: it unlocked the flag, AND it replaced Rockstar's skins for the hot coffee with naked chicks. In Rockstar's code, they are clothed. It also sets you up to be dating all the girls in the game from the get-go, and it changes things so you get invited in for "coffee" after *every* date.

      There is a newer version of the mod (which still was out well before this scandal) which only sets the flag. The girls remain clothed in the hot coffee s
    • Why not look at the size of the mod? If it's more than 20 KB it's probably doing more than unlocking a flag.

      *checks, 1.2MB*

      I dunno, isn't a meg a little big for simply releasing existing content? Sounds like just about enough to add/manipulate content if you ask me.

  • Hot CoffeeGate??? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Cecil ( 37810 ) on Friday July 15, 2005 @11:44AM (#13074349) Homepage
    That is the worst bastardization of that suffix that I've ever seen. That is horrible. You should be ashamed of yourself for inventing that. Go sit in the corner RIGHT NOW. If any mass media sees that term and picks it up and runs with it, I expect you to commit ritual suicide.
    • If any mass media sees that term and picks it up and runs with it, I expect you to commit ritual suicide.

      SeppukuGate!

    • Already Taken? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by kaellinn18 ( 707759 )
      I thought Hot CoffeeGate was when that stupid bitch spilled hot coffee on herself, sued McDonald's, and the legal system ruled in her favor. That marks the earliest I can remember of the beginning of the end in this lawsuit happy country. (I'm only 25.)
      • Comment removed based on user account deletion
        • AAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHh why can't people actually take the time to look up the facts of this case? If I have to explain this one more time...

          Actually, I'm not going to explain it. You can see it here:
          http://stellaawards.com/stella.html [stellaawards.com]

          McDonalds coffee was not "too hot". It was just right. It's just that most people appearently don't know coffee is supposed to be served hot. Despite the usual attitude of holding people responsible for their own ignorance, here you blame McDon
        • The coffee was served between 180 and 190 degrees, or around 50 degrees higher than coffee is normally served at.

          According to Google, that's 87 degrees Celsius. That doesn't seem too hot for coffee to me. To make instant coffee I add boiling water to the coffee, so it's close to 100 C. I don't doubt it would cause some nasty burns if I dumped it over my bollocks but I let it cool first.

          McDonalds has had over 700 claims regarding burns from its coffee, some also involving third-degree burns.

          So? Repeat
        • Paraphrase: [The coffee was very hot. Hot, hot, hot.]

          Which might matter if she had, say, received burns in her mouth from sipping it. Coffee is intended to be drunk, not dumped into one's lap. The woman used it in a nonstandard way, and was injured by it. She should not have had a case.

          Unless you believe screwdriver manufacturers should be liable for making their flatheads "too angular" if someone pokes their eye out with one rather than using it to turn screws.

          I've been fully aware of the fact
      • I know this gets pointed out every time some idiot bring up this incident, but that lawsuit wasn't frivilous. McDonald's brews it's coffee from 195 to 200 degrees and maintains it at 180-190. That's over 20 degrees hotter than other places and enough to cause serious burns in mere seconds. At 190 degrees it only takes three seconds to produce a third degree burn. Most people are unaware that spilling their coffee would cause third degree burns in three seconds. McDonalds' in fact was the only company a
        • I was unaware of this information. Thank you for bringing it to my attention so that I don't make myself look like an ass in the future. Also, thank you for doing it in a polite manner, as I imagine many others would not have done so. I'm man enough to know when I'm wrong or said something out of place. Others, please mod my GP post down to hell please :-) As a side note, the name Hot CoffeeGate (if it's ever actually used, and I hope it won't be) should still apply to that McDonald's case, regardless.
        • What's even more ironic about this issue is that originally McDonald's agreed to pay for the woman's medical expenses. That's ALL she asked for. It was only after McDonald's reniged on their promise that she took the case to court.
        • I know this gets pointed out every time some idiot bring up this incident, but that lawsuit wasn't frivilous.

          Still, I think the "Hot CoffeeGate" name is justified. Why? Whether or not the case was meritless, it has still been debated for a long time. It certainly became a widely-known, sensationalized case! That's what the -gates are all about!

        • Well considering many people brew their coffee with boiling water (212F) and McDonalds did not make her spill the coffee on herself I do think it was rather ridiculous. Who sits with hot coffee on their lap anyways? I know I have spilled freshly brewed coffee that was recently boiling and I never sat their and said, "ouch that burns", for three seconds. I jumped up and shoke it off with no more than a red mark that went away by the end of the day. For her to get burns as bad as she recieved she had to wilfu

          • I jumped up and shoke it off with no more than a red mark that went away by the end of the day. For her to get burns as bad as she recieved she had to wilfully sit there.

            Are you suggesting that she should jump up *WHILE FASTENED BY A SEATBELT*, causing her to be pulled back down as the electronics/mechanics of the car assume that a sudden forward movement must be an unsafe shock?

            In order to shake it off, she would need to unfasten the seatbelt, and open the car door first. Even if she did those actio

            • Apparently you have never spilled coffee of the temperature being discussed here on your lap. You would be amazed at the what you (or even an elderly woman) can do while in pain in under three seconds. Most of the liquid will pool under you and not directly on you. In three seconds you could easily remove the belt and get out of the liquid or simply arch your butt up removing it from the puddle. You may have small amounts still on your lap and clothing, but most can be brushed off wit a wipe of the hand tha
              • Apparently you have never spilled coffee of the temperature being discussed here on your lap.I had that temperature of coffee spilled on my left arm. Instant second-degree burn, with blisters.

                Coffee only has to touch skin to inflict damage. If it has enough kinetic energy to penetrate clothing that touches the skin, a burn will result.

                You would be amazed at the what you (or even an elderly woman) can do while in pain in under three seconds. Third-degree burns [wikipedia.org] are painless - the nerve endings are dest
      • This is often brought up as an example of ridiculous lawsuits, but was actually quite reasonable. You'd sue, too, if the coffee you bought was so hot that you received third degree burns on your genitals and needed skin grafts.

        See http://www.citizen.org/congress/civjus/tort/myths/ articles.cfm?ID=785 [citizen.org]

    • No kidding. When did appending "-gate" to everything signify it was a scandal. Watergate was so named because the hotel involved was named Watergate.

      It's almost as bad as appending "-oholic" onto anything that one is addicted to. "I'm a choco-holic. I'm a rage-aholic". Ugh. Yeah. Right. You're addicted to rageahol, then?" (With apologies to the Simpsons).
    • That is the worst bastardization of that suffix that I've ever seen.

      It's better than Hot KarlGate, which we have going on as well.

    • You forget about David Letterman's "Bill Clinton Monica Lewinski Sex Scandal Gate?"

  • *gate (Score:1, Redundant)

    by Nasarius ( 593729 )
    Can I please kill everyone who feels the need to add "gate" to the end of every scandal? "Whitewatergate" was kinda cute, but everything else is nonsensical and annoying. Maybe I'll start adding dome [wikipedia.org] instead.

  • ThunderDome (Score:4, Funny)

    by Detritus ( 11846 ) on Friday July 15, 2005 @11:50AM (#13074416) Homepage
    Two men enter, one man leaves!

    It would be cheaper than a lawsuit, and more entertaining :).

  • I just wanna know who to sue (Score:5, Insightful)

    by da_Den_man ( 466270 ) <dcruise&hotcoffee,org> on Friday July 15, 2005 @12:08PM (#13074617) Homepage
    /sarcasm Because I OWN the HotCoffee label...../Sarcasm

    Seriously, how is it that in an M rated game that contains Cursing (to an amazing level I will say), Gang shootouts, carjacking, pimping, etc,... that this little blurb that was OBVIOUSLY a hack can cause this much controversy? Have these people NO lives? Is no one dying of vegatative states this week?

    I own the game. I own ALL the GTA games. They are and HAVE been rated for ADULTS.

    Why do people with a voice in the media feel they need to regulate WHAT I as a PRIVATE citizen do in my own home? Why aren't we after the parents that are too busy smoking Meth (I live in the Great NW Meth capital of the world), or the idiots that are planting bombs.....oh...I know....cause that is a DAILY event these days. Nudity in an M rated GAME is NEW!!! UGH.
    • Yeah...

      Gangsta: Yeah, I've fucking killed 500 people just like *THAT* with one molotov cocktail.

      Modern puritan: OK...

      Very little reaction, see?

      Gangsta: Oh, and I had great sex with my girlfriend last night.

      Modern puritan: OMG, OMG, OMG SEX BEFORE MARRIAGE BURN THE HEATHENS AT THE STAKE!!!!1111oneoneone

      Sex == natural. Blowing people up == not natural.

      See something weird?

  • Jack Thompson is a waste of time (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Cornflake917 ( 515940 ) on Friday July 15, 2005 @12:12PM (#13074671) Homepage
    This guy does not have a brain. He is personally attacking Doug Lowenstein, who:

    A. Had no say in what got put in GTA:SA.
    B. Did not know anything about Hot Coffee Mod when GTA:SA was released (as far as I know).
    C. Recommended that the game was innappropriate for children under 17. Which is STILL an adequate recomendation.

    Why he isn't attacking the retailers, Rockstar or the hackers, I have no idea. I'm glad Lowenstein didn't respond to Thompson's attacks. The guy is an idiot and only wants to take away people's rights.
    • A little bit of misinformation here. While Jack Thomson is an attention starved media jackass, he has never said (that I have seen) that he wants to take away the rights of adults. What he wants to do is make the ratings system more offical, and legally enforcable.

      So in his world, you would still be able to play GTA as long as you are over 18 and don't mind going to an "adult entertainment" store... because no way is Best Buy going to carry a "adult only" type game.

      • While Jack Thomson is an attention starved media jackass, he has never said (that I have seen) that he wants to take away the rights of adults.

        He definetly is a jackass and I don't know much about him but: Doug Lowenstein embarrasses each and every one of you when he holds forth about what the 'Founders' intended when they drafted the Bill of Rights [the first 10 amendments to the Constitution].

        Sounds to me like he is interested in taking away people's rights. Assuming that quote was not taken out of
  • "From the 'so-tired-of-it' department"

    Well, Zonk... it's not like we're MAKING you put dupes up here... in fact, I bet we'd all appreciate it if you DIDN'T dupe so much. 'Cause we're all tired of it, too. Really.

  • ID: 10-T (Score:5, Informative)

    by Safety Cap ( 253500 ) on Friday July 15, 2005 @12:29PM (#13074868) Homepage Journal

    From the article...

    Addressed to an assortment of developers and publishers ranging from Electronic Arts to id Software, the latter of which Thompson partly blames for the Columbine massacre, ~. [emphasis mine]

    Okay, we're through--nothing more to see here. Thompson 'partly' blames id for Columbine. Jee-zus

    Thompson is a friggin idiot and his opinions are worth as much as a pinch of owl-shite. id was not responsible for Columbine in any way: Eric Harris and Klebold Dylan's [rotten.com] parents were responsible, if you consider that they were both minors (if you believe that they were adult 'enough', then they alone had the responsibility).

    The fact that Thompson can't even get that right, leads little to his credibility on anything else.

    • The link that you reference as support for your assertion that the parents were responsible doesn't say anything at all to that effect; gentle readers should not assume that the above assertion is supported by the facts presented.

      (I'm not making any assertions about whether or not the statement is true, BTW - just that the case hasn't been made here.)

  • This is why we're doomed. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by thomas.galvin ( 551471 ) <slashdot&thomas-galvin,com> on Friday July 15, 2005 @12:57PM (#13075195) Homepage
    [T]he Bill of Rights [the first 10 amendments to the Constitution].

    This is why we're doomed. If the Bill of Rights needs a footnote, we're pretty much finished.
    • That's right. Because everyone in the entire world knows all about the ins-and-outs of the United States Constitution.

      Forget the fact that, according to answers.com [answers.com], it could also refer to "A declaration of certain rights of subjects, enacted by the English Parliament in 1689."

      So there.

    • There is only one amendment to the Bill of rights that means anything close to what you might think it means: the third. Though if the military ever needs more barracks that will change, the supreme court will just say that you cannot [when killing someone in a private house] quarter them, you are limited to drawing. (which is meaningless because bullets and poison are more common)

      Some examples:

      First: not if you are within 60 days of an election and want to talk politics.

      Second: just trying buying

  • I particularily like the statement that the head of the ESA demonizes its critics.

    Demonizing your critics is as old as humanity, and wielded with vigor by every politician and industry group.
  • First they wanted somesort of rating system so that parents could choose what was appropriate for their children. Now that it is in place, they don't seem to care that the appropriate warning is already on the box!

    They just take, and take, and take...
    • That's exactly the problem... for one thing, these people won't stop complaining/protesting until games like GTA are banned altogether (in other words, they'll never stop), and another reason: for a lot of people who have weighed in on the issue (i.e. Hillary, congressman Yee), it is their job to create and represent a particular public image, in this case taking a known source of controversy (GTA) and voicing their stance on it. They do what they think the parents aka voters want. Do you think they really
  • With what Thompson wrote, were I in Doug Lowenstein's shoes I would for certain go to court over that kind of libel.
  • For anyone wanting to know about radical right nutcase Jack Thompson, see the following Wikipedia entry:

    Jack Thompson's Wikipedia Entry [wikipedia.org]

    Here's another article about him:

    Exhibit 8: Is This Guy Nuts? [tripod.com]

    You know, I had somehow mangled that story up in my mind that Thompson was the one who bit a stripper, but it is still an interesting article.

    I don't know why the gaming media is so quick to give this guy a platform, unless it is because he is good at discrediting his side of the debate.

  • I really wish someone would just shut this guy up.

    Reminds me of this quote from The American President:

    "People don't drink the sand because they're thirsty. They drink the sand because they don't know the difference."

    Someone needs to start blaring Prof. Jenkin's interveiews from the rooftops or something. I think he's the only person who's arguments can deflate Thompson.
    • And for what it's worth...

      It sure took good ol' jack long enough to hop on the bandwagon. You'd think he would've had something to say when Yee first made his public statement regarding the issue. I mean, c'mon this guy can't wait to see Rockstar and id flushed down the toilet.

      I guess when you want to ride the coat-tails of a possible presidential candidate things are a bit more important.
  • They did their best with this release, and the pwnage came out and broadsided them. Anyway, it sounds like the article's writer needs a slander lawsuit levelled at him. What a fucking tosser.
  • To the Honorable Mrs. President Clinton,


    I commend and confederate your uprighteous efforts to put in their place these so-called games producers. The auspices of the Rockstar company have poisoned the wells of the soil of our children's fertile minds and ripped the tranquilacity out from under our citizens' noses.

    We are seeing in our streets violence of imprecedented levels which has been scientifically demonstrated to have these violent rampages of simulatory criminality as its explanation. When t
  • But I wager Benjamin Franklin would be thrilled. Ha ha, Founding Fathers were saints, news at 11...

  • What's Next... (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    News Flash: Hidden sex scene found in latest Potter novel

    Reports are surfacing that JK Rowling's latest book includes a deleted scene where Harry successfully seduces a female classmate and performs sex with her. Rowling's publisher, Bloomsbury, managed to hide the page from readers by gluing it inbetween two other pages. However, readers have been able to find instructions on the Internet how to separate the pages and open up the mini sex-story. Congressmen are crying out at the ommission. More detail
    • There's a hack at bash.org that enables hidden porn in the first HP book, it involves changing only one letter! Get Jackass Thompson on the case!
  • By this one statement:
    "...parents take advantage of the effective tools on the market to regulate the games their kids play."

    They want parents to actually parent!? No way man!! It'll never happen! I have the right to dump my progeny on someone else, and the TV gives them every thing they need!
    /sarcasm
  • If James Madison were to answer this shrill, pathos-centric diatribe he'd not only tell him he's dead wrong, but would also rhetorically wipe Jack Thompson all over the floor. What a rediculous thing for Thompson to say.
  • ----- Original Message ----- From: (me) To: Jack Thompson Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2005 4:27 PM Subject: Re: I just read Gamespot's article on Jack Thompson, and I am angry that Mr. Thompson does not have all his facts straight. Even after the update, he still believes the Sims 2 is a terrrible, terrible game. I want to reassure Mr. Thompson that the Sims 2 is a wonderful, non-violent game where I, as a 46-year old Christian woman, can not only play without being offended, but enjoy the official Sims2 web

Slashdot Top Deals

Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man -- who has no gills. -- Ambrose Bierce

Close