gamepolitics: ESRB Commits to Parents. Senators Commit to Getting Elected

Game Politics (

gamepolitics) wrote,
@ 2006-06-22 14:13:00

Entry tags:

erc, esrb, george allen, mark pryor, ratings, retailers, rick santorum

ESRB Commits to Parents. Senators Commit to Getting Elected

Question: What do you get when you combine a politically-beleaguered ESRB with a desperate incumbent Senator and a rising star with presidential aspirations?

Answer: The ESRB Retail Council's "Commitment to Parents" Wednesday press conference, attended by Senators Rick Santorum (R-PA), George Allen (R-VA) and Mark Pryor (D-AR).

GP has scoured the ERC's bullet points, which appear worthy enough, but which could just as easily have been announced at the ESRB's office in New York City rather than in the rarified political air of Washington, D.C.

The Senator with election-year problems would be the arch-conservative Santorum. Perhaps not coincidentally, the Associated Press reported yesterday that Santorum trails Democratic challenger Bob Casey, Jr. by 18 points in the latest polls. Even more telling, the same poll showed Santorum receiving an anemic 38% approval rating among Pennsylvania voters.

So, yeah, the Santorum campaign is in a bad way. Showing up to promote the ERC surely can't hurt on the family values front. And having three U.S. Senators stand by its side is a political shot in the arm for the ESRB, which suffered a Congressional beat-down just last week in a committee hearing chaired by Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL).

George Allen's career prospects are moving in the opposite direction from Santorum's. The former Virginia Governor and first-term Senator is said to have designs on filling Dubya's seat in 2008.

So what role do Senators Santorum, Allen and Pryor play in the ESRB's new initiative?

Window dressing, apparently. Allen has a blurb on his website about the event, but somehow managed to interpret what he was supporting as an announcement about "a new ratings system for video games."

Hmmmm.... new rating system? GP doesn't think so. The picture accompanying this article, by the way, is lifted from Allen's home page and shows the Senator flanked by ESA President Doug Lowenstein and ESRB boss Patricia Vance.

For his part, Santorum at least appeared to understand what he was attending. The Senator issued a press release saying, in part, "I commend these retailers for truly stepping up to the plate, and I hope parents will make great use of this information to make the best decisions for their children."

As for Pryor, GP can't find any mention of the event on his website. It's possible he wandered in for the coffee and danish.

Speaking about the Commitment to Parents campaign, ESRB President Patricia Vance terms it "an unprecedented commitment aimed at enhancing compliance with store enforcement policies regarding the sale of Mature-rated video games, providing parents with the ability to return or exchange games sold to their children in violation of those policies, and educating customers about ESRB video game ratings."

Also on board is the National PTA. Included in the new ESRB Rating Council (ERC) are retailers Best Buy, Blockbuster, Circuit City, GameStop/EB Games, Movie Gallery/Hollywood Video/Game Crazy, Target, and Wal-Mart. Between them, these corporations operate more than 20,000 retail locations. As part of their ERC commitment, the retailers have agreed to:

-participate in two "mystery shopper" audits each year

-train employees about ESRB ratings and game sales procedures

-make ESRB ratings info available in handouts and on websites

-establish a mechanism for consumer satisfaction for non-compliance wit ESRB regulations

-share "best practices" with other members

Sounds great. We wish the ERC good luck. And good luck to Sen. Allen with that new ratings system.

Want to talk about it? You can discuss this story via the "comments" feature (click below), or in the new GamePolitics Forums...

(32 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Or how about this:

andrew_eisen
2006-06-22 08:00 pm UTC (link)

Parents announce "Commitment to Children."

An unprecedented commitment on the part of parents to take an active role in their kids' lives by understanding and using the ESRB rating system to decide for themselves, without needless assistance from the government, which games are appropriate for their children.

"The tools are there," said one enlightened parent, "it's time we used them."

"The current 'alphabet soup' of ratings scared me at first," admitted a Tallahassee mother of two," until I realized the alphabet only has 26 letters. That's not so bad!"

Andrew Eisen

(Reply to this) (Thread)

	Re: Or how about this: kincyr 2006-06-22 10:08 pm UTC (link)
	I think if anyone can't comprehand that they don't deserve to reproduce. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	Re: Or how about this: gray17 2006-06-22 11:44 pm UTC (link)
	The problem is that parents that actually use the ESRB (they exist, I've seen them. Even as far back as when they were just getting started rating games) also tend to be the kind of parents that don't tell other people how to raise their kids gasp! and as such, are also generally too busy raising their own kids to weigh in on the kind of stupidity we've been seeing. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	semperar 2006-06-22 08:14 pm UTC (link)
	And good luck to Sen. Allen with that new ratings system. oh snap! is that a burn? that's a burn. (Reply to this)

typhoid
2006-06-22 08:27 pm UTC (link)

I'm... twitchy... about Wal-Mart being included in the ESRB Rating Council.

On one hand: having a company so terminally right-winged on the ERC might be a good thing so parents, religious groups and gamephobes can't claim they don't have a say or claim that the ERC is just "protecting itself."

On the other: is having a company who routinely denies health care to women, censors media (books, music, games) by not carrying items it does not politically agree with, etc REALLY a good choice for collaborating on decisions on a politically-hot form of media?

(Reply to this) (Thread)

	gamepolitics 2006-06-22 08:56 pm UTC (link)
	well I hear ya on Wal-Mart, but really, they are the single largest video game retailer. How do you have a valid retail policy of which they are not a part? (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

typhoid
2006-06-22 09:17 pm UTC (link)

It's not that I don't think they should be involved, as I am aware of their sales status. However, I hope that the retailers are more limited to participating in retail STORE policy, less to determine game rating.

I worry about the future effects from companies that are so incapable of being objecive regarding media. For instance, are we going to see a rating "B" for "Blasphemous?"* Or how about "Warning, this video game contains Feminism!"

I also worry because Wal-Mart is powerful enough to influence big changes. It could just decide not to sell "M" rated games, period. That could make game companies flip over themselves not to lose the WM dollar, and to cut out parts of which WM disapproves. So even though I will NEVER shop at WM, they now may have even more potential to severely hobble my hobby.

I'm a pessimist. I worry.

*I know no new ratings or systems are planned or involved in this restructuring, it's just the first example I came up with.

____________________________________________________________________

On an entirely different note, I have a problem with this:

providing parents with the ability to return or exchange games sold to their children in violation of those policies

1) Really. From what I've seen, a LARGE portion of "M" rated games are sold to parents FOR their kids.

2) This has the potential to hurt a lot of retail stores, as you cannot resell a game as new once opened. How do you prove WHO bought the game? Parents could just claim that little Johnny bought it, when in fact there is no Johnny they just didn't like the game (or pirated it). Is there a policy in place for retailers to send the opened packages back to get reimbursed?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

zippydsmlee
2006-06-23 12:18 pm UTC (link)

BAH! the stores have to take back stuff under at the minuim a 7 day warrenty ,and you know I will take back a game I think suxs they can try and wiggle thier way out of it but if I pay RETAIL for a NEW game they better take it back if it dosne not work or is just palin bad......Over the years I ahve seen a undermineing in the abilty to return stuff and it just sickens me...I ahve seen shops like EB take games back and while I was browesing titles they recovered it and slaped a new price tag on it of the same price as the other new games....its rather silly if the game is broke it goes back to the manufator if the game suxs and is retuend in 7-14 days then they should be let to repack and resale it as new...

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

typhoid
2006-06-23 06:01 pm UTC (link)

Warranty in any store I've bought video games from only guarantees you another copy of the same game if it has been opened, not the outright return of it. This might be different in huge retail chains that do not get a significant portion of their income from video games, but I do not buy games from them (I support real video game stores). Anyway, the language of the news seems to be that now stores would be forced to honor monetary returns of opened media. This would mean DRAMATIC change of retail policy. It also has the potential (promise?) to spill into music CD's, movies and other forms of media. After all, our laws are based on precedent.

"if the game suxs and is retuend in 7-14 days then they should be let to repack and resale it as new..."

Are you kidding?! It's hard to tell because it's difficult to decipher your typing.

If a game sucks, stores should NOT be able to resell it as new. That would be fradulent and dishonest. If EB took back opened games and labeled them new then that should be reported (BBB?). I've bought "display" copies when it was the last copy in the store and gotten a discount because the case was opened. The game was never even played, but because the case was opened it was no longer "new."

Once a game is opened, it is not new. Period. ESPECIALLY if someone has taken it home and played it. Same thing goes for used books. When I go to my favorite Sci-Fi used bookstore, I pay half price. I should not have to pay full price because someone bought it, read it, then returned it.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

zippydsmlee
2006-06-23 10:51 pm UTC (link)

So you woud rahter not have the abilty to return a game if it means you might get a lighty used game as NEW......mmmmm you could do a 15% rescock fee and 15% off the returned game I guess that works kinda? that way no one realy loses money ^^

try buyign games off ebay you'll lose that new game or nothing feeling fast *L* as lng as it works and is in reasonable shape your lucky tog et it *L* unless you want to pay 50+ a game...altho I did get Dues ex 1 mint in box for 2$ and 8$ s/h the box is a bit banged up with scratchs here and there but in all tis the whole box and a nice lil collectors tpye thing te box is in C to B- shape
seen soem whole boxed games on System shock 1 and 2 bundaled togather....mmmmmmm *drool* *L*

(Reply to this) (Parent)

zippydsmlee
2006-06-23 06:20 pm UTC (link)

Blitzkrieg
at least they cant cry foul and say they lose money on it,the reason to just repack it and sale it as new is just that if its with in the time limit and the game and packageing is not messed up theres no reason they cant take it back and sale it as new.
My whole point being currently you cant return the damn thing I would rather them resale the qucik returns as new just to speed the whole prosses up,but even then they will still bitch about something...hel they could even stick a returned sticker on it and sell it as the same price as new frankly if I am after a new game I wont care if its ben lightly tested or not..

SOrry my SPell checkign program is not working..much like my brain :P

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	typhoid 2006-06-23 09:43 pm UTC (link)
	I would throw a fit if someone tried to sell a video game to me as "new" but it was really repackaged. Seriously. "SOrry my SPell checkign program is not working..much like my brain :P" Is alright, I just wasn't sure what you meant in a lot of parts so I had to really generalize my answer :) (Reply to this) (Parent)

the1jeffy
2006-06-23 12:28 pm UTC (link)

Wal-Mart censors media? Wal-Mart hardly censors anything. The reason it only carries radio edit CDs is because music lacks a defined rating system, like the ESRB, or the MPAA. And it won't sell AO games or porn vids - neither does any other major retail chain.

And Wal-Mart does carry items it doesn't "politcally" agree with. Michael Moore anyone? Every one of his films was sold when it was released, without even a disclaimer or anything. And they were given prominent shelf space like any other release, save for maybe LOTR scale blockbusters.

And I am most interested in seeing your reasoning behind the, "Denies healthcare to women," line. I am well aware of the sub-par healthcare situation of the retail employee, but A) Wal-Mart is hardly alone in this, and B) Women are not singled out in that respect.

I really think that those claims are just a bit over-the-top, and slightly propaganda-ish. I am open to the possibility that I am wrong. Please tell me why you said all those things, I seriously am interested. I have no love for Wal-Mart myself; the day I left employment there was one of the best days of my life. (Not because of the store, it was the customers) But so much, if not all, the anti-Wal-Mart sentiment I see is just plain false, or hyperbole.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

akbarthegreat
2006-06-23 05:26 pm UTC (link)

Well, I can't help you with the healthcare thing, that one's news to me. As far as the refusing to carry items thing, I can think of a couple of times this has happened (but they were all high-profile when it did, so it's not like Wal-Mart is very covert in their policies):

The Daily Show Book (I believe the title was America: The Book)
Eminem (they may have reversed this, but for a long time, they carried nothing of his, album wise... but they had 8 mile.. odd)
Jackass: The Movie

That's not exactly an epidemic of totalitarian censorship or anything, but it {is} worth noting that there {is} precedent for this sort of thing.

Ultimately, I'm not losing sleep over any of it, however.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	the1jeffy 2006-06-23 07:52 pm UTC (link)
	True, Eminem was not sold in Wal-Mart, because refused to release radio edits of his CDs. You'll notice, he does now, because he makes more money that way. Actually, John Stewart's book was a niche book, as far as I can tell. Meaning only bookstores sold it. I could be wrong there, but I haven't seen it anywhere but Waldenbooks, etc. (Reply to this) (Parent)

terminator44
2006-06-23 05:28 pm UTC (link)

I would just like to add that it is the consumers (meaning us) that made Wal-Mart so god-damn powerful. They were smart enough to purchase goods in bulk so they can make them cheaper. Your beliefs may prevent you from shopping at Wal-Mart, but to the average consumer, the cheap prices speak for themselves. Also, I doubt that Wal-Mart would kill sales of M-rated games unless one of the retail laws were passed (which is highly unlikely). That is because they make money by selling these games, and would lose those sales if they suddenly stopped, they would have the most to lose from such a move. The people who run major businesses think like businessmen, not like censors.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

typhoid
2006-06-23 09:52 pm UTC (link)

From what I understand, Wal-Mart does not buy items in bulk. I'm told they actually do not own any of the products in their stores, the companies provide them. That is how they are able to have such low prices. I don't do their books so I can't prove it, however this is to my understanding. Am I wrong? Yes customers are to blame, I'm not trying to say US consumers are the brightest bunch.

"The people who run major businesses think like businessmen, not like censors."

Very true. However, business is a lot more complicated than just sales numbers. Keeping customers loyal and happy is a huge sales trick, and this video game situation reeks of such. It could be a way to get more video game shoppers to Wal-Mart, because they are keeping video games safe for kids! Who knows. Maybe WM is coming out with their own video game company or something :)

A weird example is with Bush and Gay Marriage during the 2004 election, and suddenly it's a big issue again in time for Fall 2006 elections. It's about votes, not about Gay Marriage.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

terminator44
2006-06-24 03:21 pm UTC (link)

Keeping customers loyal and happy is a huge sales trick, and this video game situation reeks of such. It could be a way to get more video game shoppers to Wal-Mart, because they are keeping video games safe for kids!

That approach might work out, IF the public was actually bitching about M-rated games. However, have you seen any angry mobs complaining to Wal-Mart about these games? Only the moralist fuckwads and vote-grabbing politicians have any problem with any store carrying M-rated games as long as they do their best not to sell them to children. Comparing the issue the gay-marriage is pretty shaky, because while gays are an easy target in society, the retailers don't seem to be in any immediate danger.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

the1jeffy
2006-06-27 02:09 pm UTC (link)

I'd like to clarify, Wal-Mart does buy items in bulk. Wal-Mart gets bids from item manufacturers, and the lowest price, biggest bulk items get sold in Wal-Mart stores, that is, that item won the bid. (<-- Huge simplification here)

Now, the idea the Wal-Mart doesn't "own" the items on its shelf is a slight misconception - albeit common. This come from Wal-Mart's rate of sale. The store moves so much freight out, that in most, if not all cases, the invoices from the manufacturer haven't cleared until the items on the invoice have been sold to the end customer. In many cases, because of Wal-Mart's sway, they don't even buy the items, they "rent" shelf space to private vendors.

These private vendors can be Hallmark and the like, and most notably, video games, movies, and music. Wal-Mart is often not even involved in choosing titles, except for a few notable cases. The vendors are responsible for chosing stock, and picking titles to increase sales.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Wow... seriously... Knee-Jerk reaction anyone?

typhoid
2006-06-23 09:41 pm UTC (link)

I know you somehow feel personally attacked due to your association with WM, however I didn't come out screaming "Wal-Mart is the devil!" No, I pointed out that a company that could qualify as it's own political special interest group made me a little nervous when put in a position to dictate video game policy.

I wasn't talking about anything you mentioned. I am not an Anti-Wal-Mart groupie. I don't like WM, so I don't shop there. It ended there until I voiced the mild (not manic, not desperate, not furious) concern that WM might negatively effect the situation. These aren't debatable statements, they are well-documented facts. The only rebuttle is that "as a privately-owned company, Wal-Mart should have the right to do these things." Which, with the exception of denying doctor-prescribed health care to women, is true.

1) Wal-Mart is the defendant in the largest gender discrimination lawsuit in history. The video game industry sure needs more of that kind of thinking!

2) Wal-Mart only recently started considering stocking Emercency Contraception, which it has been denying women because they pander to people who believe it is abortion (which it is not in any sense of the word, it PREVENTS pregnancy- hence the "contraception"). However because WM believes it should put politics over women's health and safety, I am concerned how they will address video game ratings.

3) Now, even if WM goes through with "politically" carrying EC, it doesn't matter. Because they encourage their "pharmacists" to not fill prescriptions for birth control pills and EC for religous reasons that WM supports. Sometimes they won't even give the prescription paper back to the woman. Basic denial of medial care. WM is often the only pharmacy close to many women (often because WM has put the other stores out of business), so denying them birth control and other medications because of the pharmacists or company's religion is nothing short of criminal. Not only do women deserve BC, but a large percentage of women take it for serious medical reasons and could DIE without it, or be in horrible pain (see: endometriosis and ovarian cysts). In many cases women would have to have their ovaries or uteruses REMOVED if not for hormonal therapy. Estrogen is merely a hormone, that has dozens of medicinal uses other than birth control. But that doesn't matter to WM, because it appeases their religious agenda. This is fact, not "propaganda."

4) As for censorship, I'm not talking about "radio edit CD's," or porn. I'm talking about not stocking or removing an item from a shelf because it contains an issue WM does not approve of. There are many specific examples that have hit the news. I remember the first one I ever heard about was a Sheryl Crow CD, because it was the first time they had removed an item specifically speaking out against the store in 1996. You specifically mention Michael Moore, as if stocking his items disproves censorship. That's like saying a corporation with 100,000 employees does not discriminate against women because they have one female manager. Strange logic.

I am not concerned about WM's health care options for their workers- that's their problem, they chose to work there and yes, many other companies are the exact same way. What I AM concerned about is that because WM puts many smaller stores out of business, sometimes WM is the only pharmacy for MILES. By denying then medical services based on religious and political reasons, that often leaves women out in the cold. And we live in the USA- basic medical services should be taken for granted, not fought for.

I would suggest knowing more about a subject before attacking someone who states mere fact, heck even if it were an opinion. The only reasons I didn't state specific examples at the time was because 1) It was already a huge post, as this one is now and 2) I didn't realize people were that ignorant about the subject. These are well-publicized issues.

I know this rant is going to be replied with "I thought you said you weren't an Anti-WM groupie! That 12 page rant proves you wrong!" No, I hate it when people knee-jerk and try to discredit/ignore politically charged issues because they are afraid of or tired of other people's ideas.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Wow... seriously... Knee-Jerk reaction anyone?

the1jeffy
2006-06-27 01:56 pm UTC (link)

I love the recent trend of calling any reaction a person doesn't agree with, a "Knee-Jerk." Try reading my arguements instead of trying to make them fit the logical fallacies. I know them too, yes, you're very smart.

1)Wal-Mart is the defendant in the largest gender discrimination lawsuit in history. I know. You are using a lawsuit to say that this makes Wal-Mart anti-woman? I say innocent until proven guilty. Let's let ths courts figure that one out.

2)Wal-Mart only recently started considering stocking Emercency Contraception, which it has been denying women because they pander to people who believe it is abortion (which it is not in any sense of the word, it PREVENTS pregnancy- hence the "contraception"). However because WM believes it should put politics over women's health and safety, I am concerned how they will address video game ratings.

Try going to a Wal-Mart in the Northeast sometime. The Wal-Marts in my district have sold contraceptives, and the emergency pill, since it was available to retail chain pharmacies. Try looking at the company as a whole, and not just the problem Bible-Belt stores. I have read all management training materials, up to and including, thst Store Manager level. This includes the Pharmacy. It is in no way official policy to deny contraceptives to anyone. Perhaps the actions of individual districts should not be used to judge and entire company that employs more people than everything but the Government. It's a large company, there WILL be graft and personal abuses. And those should be dealt with on an individual basis.

3)Now, even if WM goes through with "politically" carrying EC, it doesn't matter. Because they encourage their "pharmacists" to not fill prescriptions for birth control pills and EC for religous reasons that WM supports. Sometimes they won't even give the prescription paper back to the woman. Basic denial of medial care. WM is often the only pharmacy close to many women (often because WM has put the other stores out of business), so denying them birth control and other medications because of the pharmacists or company's religion is nothing short of criminal. Not only do women deserve BC, but a large percentage of women take it for serious medical reasons and could DIE without it, or be in horrible pain (see: endometriosis and ovarian cysts). In many cases women would have to have their ovaries or uteruses REMOVED if not for hormonal therapy. Estrogen is merely a hormone, that has dozens of medicinal uses other than birth control. But that doesn't matter to WM, because it appeases their religious agenda. This is fact, not "propaganda."

Wrong. Propaganda at worst, or using individual examples to account for the whole at best. See above. The Bible-Belt is a horrid place for women to live, this is not simply Wal-Mart. You are preaching to the choir on the BC issue. The Wal-Mart stores in my distrcit, the top district in 2004 nationwide, sells BC. To anyone with a prescription. Now that is fact. Again, try not the throw out the bushel because of one bad egg (or region of bad eggs in this case).

4)As for censorship, I'm not talking about "radio edit CD's," or porn. I'm talking about not stocking or removing an item from a shelf because it contains an issue WM does not approve of. There are many specific examples that have hit the news. I remember the first one I ever heard about was a Sheryl Crow CD, because it was the first time they had removed an item specifically speaking out against the store in 1996. You specifically mention Michael Moore, as if stocking his items disproves censorship. That's like saying a corporation with 100,000 employees does not discriminate against women because they have one female manager. Strange logic.

I mentioned Moore as one example, yes. And then you countered with only one. Strange logic indeed.

I know the concern of the cooling effect of Wal-Mart's stocking an item, but why not just support initiatives that circumvent it? Online distibution for one. Personally, I can't wait until I can buy all my games online (and not buying a "box"). Where's Wal-Mart if you DL your game stright to from the game maker?

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: Wow... seriously... Knee-Jerk reaction anyone? PT2

the1jeffy
2006-06-27 01:56 pm UTC (link)

5)I am not concerned about WM's health care options for their workers- that's their problem, they chose to work there and yes, many other companies are the exact same way. What I AM concerned about is that because WM puts many smaller stores out of business, sometimes WM is the only pharmacy for MILES. By denying then medical services based on religious and political reasons, that often leaves women out in the cold. And we live in the USA- basic medical services should be taken for granted, not fought for.

You perhaps should be concerned about the health care options for it's workers, because it's indicative of the larger problem with healthcare on the whole. If a company as large as Wal-Mart is forced to raise health insurance rates by the insurnace providers, there is no company in existance that could hope to actually lower them. Medical services in general are a problem today.

Also, Wal-Mart DOES drive small businesses under. Do you think this is because Wal-Mart is "bad," or is this simply the way America works? Americans created the monstrosity that is Wal-Mart. If the American consumer would be willing to pay higher prices to those Mom and Pop's, they would still be in business. I can't blame Wal-Mart for providing what it's customers want. Another telling question: Do you think Target would do anything different, if it were the retail king? I doubt it. This is the nature of big retail. I don't like it. But calling down Wal-Mart as the cause of these problems is silly. I'm glad you don't shop there. My biggest peeve is the customers who hate Wal-Mart, very vocally, as they swipe their credit card at the cashier there. Especially in urban areas - there is probably a Target across the street. Now, the situtation is different if there truly is no where else to go. Why not call down Target for not putting in a "better" store in those towns? (I am using Target as an example, but you can really use an large retailer.) Again, Target (etc.) won't move in on a Wal-Mart only samll town, because people won't pay the higher prices. It's business thinking to a T.

I would suggest knowing more about a subject before attacking someone who states mere fact, heck even if it were an opinion. The only reasons I didn't state specific examples at the time was because 1) It was already a huge post, as this one is now and 2) I didn't realize people were that ignorant about the subject. These are well-publicized issues.

LOL. I am hardly ignorant of the subject. Well-publicized issues dooesn't not always mean accurately publicized. And If you look back at my post, you'll see that I was genuinely interested in your reasoning behind you original staments. Because, I am very interested in the plight of Wal-Mart employees. And if there is a large company-wide policy that hurts employees, I want to know about it. So far, all I can see is remote examples that were store-level, or district at most. And no proof that this was a company policy to discriminate or kill competition.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	Mark Pryor grumpy_archmage 2006-06-22 09:10 pm UTC (link)
	""As for Pryor, GP can't find any mention of the event on his website. It's possible he wandered in for the coffee and danish."" I knew my Senator was there for some reason, and what better reasons than coffee and danish... (Reply to this) (Thread)

	Re: Mark Pryor gamepolitics 2006-06-22 09:20 pm UTC (link)
	mmmmmm..... danish..... (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	Re: Mark Pryor j_man924 2006-06-23 01:04 pm UTC (link)
	Coffeeeeeee...... (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	Re: Mark Pryor terminator44 2006-06-23 05:22 pm UTC (link)
	Danishes dunked in coffee! (Reply to this) (Parent)

Commitment #5, refunds & exchanges

jabrwock
2006-06-22 09:31 pm UTC (link)

Resolving complaints received directly from customers, or forwarded from ESRB's website, arising from an ERC member's non-compliance with their store policy not to sell or rent M and AO rated games to children under the age of 17 or 18 respectively by providing a full refund or an exchange for an age-appropriate game to the customer;

This one caught me by surprise. Do they intend to allow returns of opened games, as most of the time the game will be found by the parent after the kid has already opened it and is happily playing away?

If so, does this supercede their policy of not allowing returns of opened software/games, due to piracy concerns?

(Reply to this) (Thread)

	Re: Commitment #5, refunds & exchanges enmitywithin 2006-06-23 01:17 pm UTC (link)
	silly silly colin. this is for the kids! I mean, rather than have the parents actually do their job let's just let piracy run rampant! Because we all know that the children are the most important resource, piracy be damned! (Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: Commitment #5, refunds & exchanges

the1jeffy
2006-06-23 01:23 pm UTC (link)

That's a dang good question Jabr. I guess in the case of, "Oops, we sold your kid an M game," I think they'd take back and open game. But still, unscrupulous customers will easily take advantage of this. Buy M game, copy it, get kid, return game for another, copy that one. But either way, this just shows that retailers are willing to LOSE MONEY to keep parents and politicians happy.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	We need... curiousthompson 2006-06-22 09:50 pm UTC (link)
	We need Ricky Kang () to enforce this... He'll be the best protecter we've ever seen. But, you need medical insurance when you break the rules because he'll smack the parent with a stick. (FANS OF MARTIN SARGENT WILL GET THIS JOKE) But his son never played videogames, but he's frightening with a three-segmented nunchuck. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	Re: We need... terminator44 2006-06-23 10:18 pm UTC (link)
	LOL, I thimk Ricky's hairdo would be enough to discourage criminals. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	blackmanta 2006-06-23 11:07 am UTC (link)
	So, yeah, the Santorum campaign is in a bad way. When your name has become identified with a sexual substance, your campaign's pretty much in the toilet. Sounds to me like a desperation play, but I don't think this would salvage his political campaign. (Reply to this)

(32 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Username:		Create an Account Forgot your login or password? Login w/ OpenID
Password:
	Remember Me
	English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…

About

Help

Get Involved

Legal

Store

LJ Labs