[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Chapstick [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Achronos Poor parenting? Good Lord, man. ESRB ratings are meant as guidelines, just as movie ratings are. Parents can take a kid into an R rated movie if they feel their kid can deal with it (and many do). Same goes for M rated games. The rating system is important, but as a tool for parents, who can and should be the ultimate arbiter of their kids' consumption of such content. Lil' Poison isn't going around to these things by himself, his parents oblivious, you know. He didn't buy Halo by himself, his parents judged he could play it. I'm certainly not going to tell them how to parent their child. You clearly don't understand how the ratings systems is supposed to be used.[/quote] I assure you, I [i]do[/i] understand both the design and the intent of the ESRB ratings system. I recognize that it is self-regulating, and that compliance with its tenets is strictly voluntary. I realize that it is a tool to assist parents in determining what may or may not be appropriate for their child, and that there may be unintended consequences from a child's exposure. I also understand the design and intent behind the Surgeon General's warning so conspicuously placed on cigarette packs. Strange - they seem to be virtually identical both in intent [i]and[/i] in design... I'm not saying anybody did anything illegal, I'm merely saying that Bungie has implicitly endorsed under-aged gaming, which says something - intentional or not - about the position Bungie takes with respect to under-aged gamers, and by proxy the feelings toward the ESRB ratings system in general. I recognize that it is the parent's responsibility in the end, but what happens when that responsibility is neglected? Do we not have a collective responsibility for the children? If I smoke cigarettes in my house, across the table from my three-year-old, should I not be subjected to the harshest of criticism? When my child exhibits symptoms of chronic bronchitis (or any of a number of other similar resultant diseases), am I not culpable? Say what you want about the inherent dangers of smoking tobacco versus playing video games (which have had an industry-sanctioned system created to avoid unintentional exposure to children of varying age groups), but it cannot be argued that exposing a [i][b]five-year-old[/b][/i] - and yes, I know he's currently nine, but per the [url=http://www.lilpoison.com/]Lil Poison website[/url], he started playing in MLG events at the tender age of five (and played Halo at the age of three); you know, before he could [b]read[/b] - it cannot be argued that exposing a child so young, to games so graphic in their depictions of violence, is in any way healthy. Put it this way - a typical five-year-old, at Halloween, can be in the same room as a familiar adult (a parent, uncle, etc.), and watch this adult put on a gorilla suit (or other costume) - minus the headpiece. This typical five-year-old will have no problems with the costume whatsoever - until the headpiece is put on. From the moment the mask is put on, a typical five-year-old will be overwhelmed with fear, and only the removal of the mask (or the adult wearing it) will quell the fear. To suggest that such an impressionable, and inherently naïve child can understand the differences between reality and gaming, when the same child believes his familiar adult has suddenly morphed into a gorilla, is ludicrous. [b][i]Ludicrous[/i][/b]. To similarly suggest that exposing a child at this age to "M" rated games, "R" rated movies, and even movie trailers for titles such as [i]Saw IV[/i], is [i]not[/i] potentially damaging, is ignorant. To [i]actually do so[/i] is neglect. To both do so and to [i]defend[/i] it, is malevolent. Now, before anyone accuses me of being a facist, I will say that I am a staunch advocate of free speech - even the free speech to which I might otherwise object - and I wholly support the rights of game developers to create and market games which might themselves be found objectionable. I do, however, believe that parenthood is [i]not[/i] a right as such, but is instead a privilege and a responsibility of incredible proportion. I feel very strongly that the vast majority of "parents" these days are televisions, game consoles, PCs, and other entertainment media - not the genetic donors of first order. If you want to accuse me of having non-sanctioned political ideals, call me a communist. At any rate, I sincerely wish that Bungie, MLG, Microsoft, et al would distance themselves from the under-aged gaming epidemic, and recognize (indeed, embrace) the responsibility they have of keeping potentially damaging games out of the hands of youngsters. I don't personally enjoy playing with 12- and 13-year-olds on XBL, but there is a [i]huge[/i] difference between a pre-teen and an elementary student (much less a kindergartner). Insofar as I dislike playing with pre-teens, I loathe playing with children whose ages can be expressed with a single digit. In case any potential responder didn't see my other posts on this subject, I [i]am[/i] a father of two. What I haven't said is that my children [i]are[/i] allowed to play video games, watch television, movies, etc., and although I sometimes scoff at the ratings for these various media types, I don't jump across three categories under any circumstances (E-c, E, E-10+, E, T, M - I could technically call that a jump of four...), and I'm not so deluded to think that my children can fathom the myriad of input from any of them. Sure, they'll get the gist of a Dora cartoon, or they'll enjoy [i]Cars[/i], and they love playing the Blue's Clues video game, but they don't catch the underpinnings of any of them (consciously), and certainly don't recognize things like product placement, suggestion, and other psychological bull-blam!- being played out to their senses. Moreover, my video game library consists almost exclusively of "M" rated titles, but these I can only play when my children are not present. Halo, while by far the most played game in my collection (in any of its iterations), and equally well the least worry of the "M" rated titles I own (Crackdown, Gears of War, even Call of Duty are [i]much[/i] worse), is a title I still refrain from playing in my children's presence. If the leading authorities on psychology cannot agree what impact games such as these may have on such young children, then why not exercise some caution? So barring any direct responses which I feel merit a counter, I shall leave it at this: [b]We should endorse responsibility in parenting. Even the appearance of neglect should be discouraged.[/b] Now, I'm going to watch that MLG jumping video again and see what I can learn... Love and hugs, -- Stan[/quote] You sound like a Jack Thompson rip-off. Do us all a favor and GTFO! As a parent of two (supposedly) I'm sure you have better things to do then write up essays about endorsing under-age gaming. Remember folks; games don't kill people. People kill people.