Children

[liquidcactus 719]

For mental damages there can be a waiver, and an NC-17? 18+? Mature Rating? game... if a person under the age of the set requirement buys it or a parent purchases for a child and they clicked the ToA stating that they were of age and were not going to hold the Devs responsible for anything...

 

Thus being said..

 

Crisis averted.

Hey ahh.. did you just pull that from thin air or is it legit ? sounds a bit too easy to me haha 

[carcinovich 156]

I don't feel comfortable with this idea. There's just nothing about it that resonates with me.

 

I mean, I really, really don't want to shoot little kids. Maybe it's just me...

[teufel937 49]

Hey ahh.. did you just pull that from thin air or is it legit ? sounds a bit too easy to me haha 

 

I am just saying you can get away with A LOT of stuff now-a-days with a simple "agree" to the Terms of Agreement, the "Mature 18+" rating for a game, and disclaimers.

[burkino_026@yahoo.com 14]

i'd be happy with the choice of a teen character. I just cant stand the male characters, they're ugly lol. And the females ones look mean. And ugly too. lol

 

PLUS

 

Now there are children carrier bags to loot, it's just logical to be able to play as a lil-kid hiding around, sneaking around, staying out-of trouble, and carrying those precious beans in da kiddie bag. Along with a picture of your parents (now dead), a compass, and a .38 special.

 

No, seriously. Maybe this game isnt suitable for such an element. Maybe because it requires modulation, which itself doesnt go well with the principle of this game, which is to have no rules, or only basic gameplay ones.

I dont think having to kill, or avoid, the odd child zombie, every 1 in 10000, would ruin the game or hurt people. You can just run away in the rare case you encounter one. You don't HAVE to kill everything you come across in this game, you know. You can just sneak away.

 

Just the same as, given the necessary and plausible limitations and penalties for choosing a child/teen or whathaveyou character, wouldnt ruin this game or hurt people. Again, it'd need to be a 1 in 10000 occurances, to be moderated enough so that it doesnt get in your face or become a spam/exploit/endgame to harass these characters.

I mean, it'd be SO cool to be, or to find and help, that child/teen character sneaking around. And, with the addition of sewers, it'd be cool if they could access places easier than adults.

 

So, apart from a roleplay point of view, children characters are almost entirely useless.

Maybe, if devs like the idea, they could have the option available for private servers.

 

Or, maybe, you could just play walking dead S2 (mind you, you cant loot for can of beans in that one)

Edited February 6, 2014 by burkino_026

[teufel937 49]

i'd be happy with the choice of a teen character. I just cant stand the male characters, they're ugly lol. And the females ones look mean. And ugly too. lol

 

PLUS

 

Now there are children carrier bags to loot, it's just logical to be able to play as a lil-kid hiding around, sneaking around, staying out-of trouble, and carrying those precious beans in da kiddie bag. Along with a picture of your parents (now dead), a compass, and a .38 special.

 

No, seriously. Maybe this game isnt suitable for such an element. Maybe because it requires modulation, which itself doesnt go well with the principle of this game, which is to have no rules, or only basic gameplay ones.

I dont think having to kill, or avoid, the odd child zombie, every 1 in 10000, would ruin the game or hurt people. You can just run away in the rare case you encounter one. You don't HAVE to kill everything you come across in this game, you know. You can just sneak away.

 

Just the same as, given the necessary and plausible limitations and penalties for choosing a child/teen or whathaveyou character, wouldnt ruin this game or hurt people. Again, it'd need to be a 1 in 10000 occurances, to be moderated enough so that it doesnt get in your face or become a spam/exploit/endgame to harass these characters.

I mean, it'd be SO cool to be, or to find and help, that child/teen character sneaking around. And, with the addition of sewers, it'd be cool if they could access places easier than adults.

 

So, apart from a roleplay point of view, children characters are almost entirely useless.

Maybe, if devs like the idea, they could have the option available for private servers.

 

Or, maybe, you could just play walking dead S2 (mind you, you can loot for can of beans in that one)

 

Well played :D

 

I just think it would be a great and interesting addition to the aspect of the game.

[ZedsDeadBaby 2287]

So mental damages are not grounds for a lawsuit ?

 

They are, but you say that like you can just claim to be "mentally damaged" and sue with no actual evidence to support the fact that you have suffered such damage. That's not how it works.

 

"Mental damage" is a real thing. It's not just being "really upset about something." You would need a licensed physician to testify to the fact that you were mentally damaged by viewing the content.

 

You would further have to show that Dean Hall or Bohemia Interactive knew ahead of time that viewing such content would cause mental damage. You cannot accuse someone of being negligent if they had no way of knowing that their actions might cause you damage.

 

Since you would absolutely be completely making up the fact that you were mentally damaged, and no such thing has ever happened in the history of mankind you would neither be able to produce a physician willing to testify to your imaginary mental damage, nor evidence to show that Dean or Bohemia had any reason to believe such a thing were possible.

 

You seem to have this early-elementary school concept of litigation where you can just sue someone who does something to make you uncomfortable and claim "mental damage" and have your case heard. You absolutely cannot do that. Cases are reviewed and if you have neither evidence of damage nor evidence of neglect on the part of the defendant, your case will not go to court. Period.

Edited February 6, 2014 by ZedsDeadBaby

[glowfow@hotmail.com 55]

Well played :D

 

I just think it would be a great and interesting addition to the aspect of the game.

 

Beans from orlok, they're on it ;)

 

Since you would absolutely be completely making up the fact that you were mentally damaged, and no such thing has ever happened in the history of mankind you would neither be able to produce a physician willing to testify to your imaginary mental damage, nor evidence to show that Dean or Bohemia had any reason to believe such a thing were possible.

 

Unless you split the cash 50/50 with said physician :) Nah you're right, it's hard to get solid evidence that would hold up in court, but still I think some quasi charity organizations will jump on it if only for the publicity. They might loose and be willing to take the losses, but can Bohemia afford to fight off those cases? I'm not sure how American law works(if that would even apply) regarding to reinstating lost legal fees after winning a case. Lawsuits aside the media will probably jump on it and the same organizations would lobby for a shelf ban and I'm sure it would pass in some countries.

[skyline-gtr 130]

That doesn't make any sense. What is the basis for the lawsuit? You can't just sue someone for doing something that makes you uncomfortable dude. That's not how it works. A lawsuit must have grounds in order to be heard by a court of law. A law must be broken or someone must suffer damages either physically or financially. "That guy did something icky!" is not going to make it to court.

 

I was right to question this statement as in fact Mental damages are a reason for a lawsuit.

 

They are, but you say that like you can just claim to be "mentally damaged" and sue with no actual evidence to support the fact that you have suffered such damage. That's not how it works.

 

"Mental damage" is a real thing. It's not just being "really upset about something." You would need a licensed physician to testify to the fact that you were mentally damaged by viewing the content.

 

You would further have to show that Dean Hall or Bohemia Interactive knew ahead of time that viewing such content would cause mental damage. You cannot accuse someone of being negligent if they had no way of knowing that their actions might cause you damage.

 

Since you would absolutely be completely making up the fact that you were mentally damaged, and no such thing has ever happened in the history of mankind you would neither be able to produce a physician willing to testify to your imaginary mental damage, nor evidence to show that Dean or Bohemia had any reason to believe such a thing were possible.

 

You seem to have this early-elementary school concept of litigation where you can just sue someone who does something to make you uncomfortable and claim "mental damage" and have your case heard. You absolutely cannot do that. Cases are reviewed and if you have neither evidence of damage nor evidence of neglect on the part of the defendant, your case will not go to court. Period.

 

When I posed the question "So mental damages are not grounds for a lawsuit ?" Your response is to question the way I said it. I did not say it, it was a question.

I am well aware of the need for evidence in a court of law.

Being negligent is not the only reason for a case that has the basis of mental damages.

Now it could be argued that video imagery of a representation of a child in a game being abused, could indeed cause some form of emotional distress such as anxiety or grief.

There are a lot of lawsuits in the history of mankind with a very similar reason.

Again I am aware of the need for evidence.

 

Yeah so if you could not talk about law when you are skipping over certain aspects or just you actually dont really know, then that would be great!

It would also be nice if you were not so arrogant about it as well, after all I was right and you were wrong. Thanks.

Edited February 6, 2014 by Skyline-GTR

[burkino_026@yahoo.com 14]

Even if a player harassed a child character, cant imagine being able to call it "child abuse". There's no nudity in game. Devs smartly gave us full underwear. Killing isnt graphic either. You just produce some random blood and your character stops moving. How is that "abuse"?

 

Abuse would be the amount and commonness of these occurrances, but more to other players because they'd get annoyed, rather than actual depiction of child abuse. I think this law envolvement talk is being a bit exaggerated.

Sure the topic is controversial, but i think it's far from depiction of abuse.

[skyline-gtr 130]

I think your idea of abuse is a bit different from the standard definition.

Let me quote from wikipedia:

 

Abuse is the improper usage or treatment of an entity, often to unfairly or improperly gain benefit.[1] Abuse can come in many forms, such as: physical or verbal maltreatment, injury, assault, violation, rape, unjust practices; crimes, or other types of aggression.

[burkino_026@yahoo.com 14]

I know skyline, but common people interpretation of the phrase "child abuse" is much more serious and scandalous than simply physical and verbal maltreatment. I dont think, if i taunted a child and made him cry, and you'd define it as child abuse, when told this to other people, they'd imagine that scene. I think they'd get a much DARKER image in their head. So, yes, it does scares me to read "child abuse" when talking about a videogame character.

 

Applied in game. If it is not considered in the slightest accetable to have a child character be held hostage, be covered his/her head with a burlap sack, be shot in any part of the body even though it makes no graphical difference, be stripped to full underwear (shorts and t-shirt like female character), be punched, be stabbed with edged weapons, and be made screenshots of the mentioned practices, then no, there should not even be a continuing of this thread.

 

But then i'd have to stop playing the sims 3, too? There are children in there, they can get naked, they can get in fights, can be killed, harassed, be put into embarassing situations, etc.

It's a fine line. But i just cant imagine calling "child abuse" holding a child character in dayz hostage. Not even shooting him/her in the head with a shotgun. It's just no different graphically than doing it to a woman or man character. I would morally feel more emotionally involved, with any type of child character in game, either played by myself or somebody else, or AI zombie. But i can't imagine feeling offended by the graphical depiction of them in game. Not from the game's engine. It's a good engine, but i cant imagine it giving disturbing effects. Maybe if it had limb destruction, then of course, i could see a point. Or if there could be ambigious interactions between characters, like procreation or wrestling, or other full contact. But in this engine you just stab, or smack, or shoot, characters. If that's considered abuse, then i think this thread should end here, as there's no point wishing any longer.

 

BUT, if there's light at the end of the tunnel, i found another GOOD reason to be a child: hide under the bed! OMG, 20 minutes ago i tried doing it, as i was terrified of a possible armed player in the vicinity. Would have felt legit to hide under it because im a scaredypants XD ahahaha and hate to get KOSed.

[skyline-gtr 130]

yes common interpretation and law are two different things.

I made my stance know in my first post which is the second post in this topic.

 

If you like I could post the definition of abuse again.

[akafugitive 244]

Great idea for a future mod

[burkino_026@yahoo.com 14]

yes common interpretation and law are two different things.

I made my stance know in my first post which is the second post in this topic.

 

If you like I could post the definition of abuse again.

 no need. I think we discussed this topic enough. Great sharing and contrast of opinion, and learning of new information.

 

Now, lets go play.

[teufel937 49]

Why is everyone so "afraid" of this topic... in the end it is JUST A GAME.

[JiJi (DayZ) 223]

Because of reasons already discussed, and the amount of work required (anims/skeleton among other things) : There will be no child.

Althought they could be "evoked" ...There are plenty of room we cannot access (door locked), It would not be too difficult to add sound emitter inside, playing muffled screams & cries, making us think they are barricaded behind with their parents or waiting for them.

Edited February 8, 2014 by JiJi

[carcinovich 156]

Great idea for a future mod

Lord of the Flies?

[Trigger Hippy 176]

I don't need to stumble around a corner to find a child, undressed, handcuffed with a bag on their head...at gunpoint.

 

I can't see how it would enrich the game in any useful or positive way.

[Eight Ball 26]

What if instead of spawning as a child, players would actually need to "make" them ?

There are already male and female characters ingame but so far only one of the fundamental aspect of our life is represented.

Love is something completely absent of the game mechanics.

 

You could choose to meet with another character for the opposite sex and...well...have babies !

No need to add unnecessary controversy, you wouldn't see anything. You'd need, say, one of those small tent, you'd enter it with another player and that's it ! That's how babies are done in DayZ :)

 

Now the female character would get pregnant for some time. She would need more food, would run slowler and be less agile.

After a while a baby would born. At first he could be just represented as an item you constantly need to carry.

If you take good care of him, feed him, keep him warm, etc he would eventually become a playable character.

This would open a "child" slot in the server. The parents could either choose who is spawning into their child or not.

Edited February 8, 2014 by Sooke

[burkino_026@yahoo.com 14]

What if instead of spawning as a child, players would actually need to "make" them ?

There are already male and female characters ingame but so far only one of the fundamental aspect of our life is represented.

Love is something completely absent of the game mechanics.

 

You could choose to meet with another character for the opposite sex and...well...have babies !

No need to add unnecessary controversy, you wouldn't see anything. You'd need, say, one of those small tent, you'd enter it with another player and that's it ! That's how babies are done in DayZ :)

 

Now the female character would get pregnant for some time. She would need more food, would run slowler and be less agile.

After a while a baby would born. At first he could be just represented as an item you constantly need to carry.

If you take good care of him, feed him, keep him warm, etc he would eventually become a playable character.

This would open a "child" slot in the server. The parents could either choose who is spawning into their child or not.

 

I like it.

[skyline-gtr 130]

Love is present in the game mechanics, as the game is run mostly on human nature at this time.

[Jhunt7507 29]

I think with the current options for degrading of another player then adding children would be akin to asking for a law suit which effectively shuts down your whole business.

The game is protected by your right to free speach though

[skyline-gtr 130]

The game is protected by your right to free speach though

 

I doubt that. As you are using privately owned servers.

[Eight Ball 26]

Love is present in the game mechanics, as the game is run mostly on human nature at this time.

My bad, I was in a hurry and didn't even took the time to re-read myself.

 

I was talking about death vs birth and not  love vs hate, wrong formulation.

 

Anyway, it doesn't solve at all the controversy problem. It actually make it worst, not only you'd get to shoot kids but also pregnant women.

That might be a little bit too far for some.

 

On the other hand, the doors it opens in terms of role playing and the depth it gives to players interactions and bonding, in my eyes, largely outweight any controversy.

[Zeeb (DayZ) 75]

It is actually possible to have child zombies in the game, since there is another zombie game called "No More Room In Hell" which features zombie children and you can actually blast them in the face with a shotgun!

So why the f*ck not son?

Edited February 8, 2014 by Zeeb