Jim Sterling (The Jimquisition)

We have a trope for that.

Two, even.

Let's go for a hat trick!

Edited by TobiasDrake on May 8th 2019 at 2:13:55 AM

It won't last. Next thing you know he's going to be trying to ban portrayals of LGBTQ relationships in videogames.

Shit, for all we know, that might even be in that very bill as a rider or something.

Edited by M84 on May 8th 2019 at 4:14:22 PM

Of course he will.

The point is to work with him on this and then fight him on that. Nobody's talking about joining the dude's fanclub or making him President.

The phrase is "A stopped clock is right twice a day," not "When a stopped clock is right, always assume that it is showing correct time in the future."

Edited by TobiasDrake on May 8th 2019 at 2:15:29 AM

Or hope for a representative that isn't an asshole to propose something similar and let that person get the credit.

Let's also not forget that the main reason he hates these industries is because he thinks they have an anti-conservative bias.

So yeah...I don't trust this man or his bill. Which is a shame because I really don't like lootboxes.

Edited by M84 on May 8th 2019 at 4:17:51 PM

Actually making a bipartisan bill that ends this obnoxious anti-consumer practice isn’t a bad thing, but the public should be vigilant at every step.

Hey, stopped clock and all. I hope this bill gets passed!

I don't. Not without it being reviewed very carefully to make sure it's both effective and free of horrible riders.

The details matter when it comes to legislation.

I don't want to have lootboxes banned only to later find out that the same law also censors LGBTQ romances in games or something.

If it seems too good to be true...

Edited by M84 on May 8th 2019 at 4:30:38 PM

A Republican proposing something like this first is probably because the Democrats are busy doing fixing, stymieing, or preparing to stop everything else the Trump administration's doing. They can't exactly tackle something relatively minor like "shitty $60 is grindy and has microtransactions for gambling boxes" at the moment.

Hell, probably won't be able to for a good long while either. But at this rate I don't think anyone in the realm of politics is going to be a friend to the video game industry, and they have no one but themselves to blame for digging the hole so deep.

Edited by NesClassic on May 8th 2019 at 1:59:06 AM

You know the western side of game development is fucked up when people like this senator sound reasonable

Sometimes shitty people fall ass-backwards into good ideas.

Remember that time Trump wanted to take people's guns away? Should we abandon gun control because Trump liked it?

This concept that we shouldn't ban lootboxes, that we should kill an anti-lootbox bill just because an asshole proposed it feels like exactly the wrong way to legislate. It reminds me more than anything of Trump's fervent "Nuke any bill or policy that Obama touched, I don't care what it is" policy.

Edited by TobiasDrake on May 8th 2019 at 11:05:24 AM

I think the issue people have with a GOP politician proposing it is that they fully expect the GOP to attach some terrible shit to it as well.

It's less "this is bad because a GOP politician proposed it", but "this is bad because they're gonna try and sneak something horrible past people".

Edited by DrunkenNordmann on May 8th 2019 at 7:12:25 PM

Y'all know that the Democrats get to read the bill, right? This dude isn't just walking it down to Trump's office to have it signed into law tomorrow.

In fact, if the Senate passes it, the House can then vote on it or revise it and vote on their own version. If they do the latter, it then gets sent back to the Senate, who can vote on it or revise it. And vice versa.

This is how bipartisan legislature gets created. Every bill begins its life as one person's brainchild. Introducing a bill is the first step to creating a law, not the last one.

Edited by TobiasDrake on May 8th 2019 at 11:17:32 AM

I'd be more confident if more Congresspeople were also gamers or something and thus would have a better understanding of how fucked up lootboxes and microtransactions are.

...see, now it just sounds like you're against anyone in Congress legislating against lootboxes and microtransactions.

If it was a Democratic party member I'd feel just a bit better about it. They seem a bit more willing to listen to younger people in general.

As opposed to Republicans who tend to have a more condescending view of younger people.

I'm just saying I'd greatly prefer if more Congresspeople actually had some first-hand experience with this industry and its products.

We shouldn't let our hatred of lootboxes, microtransactions, and other predatory monetization in the game industry cloud our judgement here.

Maybe the bill won't be so bad. Or maybe the bill will have so much toxic stuff in it or be written so badly that it's beyond salvaging.

Edited by M84 on May 9th 2019 at 1:36:42 AM

Well, good news in that regard. Because 45 Democratic Senators and 235 Democratic House Representatives will have the opportunity to review the bill and propose revisions as needed.

This is not 2018. Republicans can't just unilaterally pass things whenever they feel like it anymore.

Edited by TobiasDrake on May 8th 2019 at 11:37:27 AM

It also depends on whether whatever awful shit that is inevitably included in it is stuff the GOP will actually budge on.

We shouldn't celebrate until the final bill actually becomes law. Actually, as Jim said, we shouldn't be celebrating this at all. We should be mortified that it got to this point in the first place.

Edited by M84 on May 9th 2019 at 1:40:15 AM

Which is what committees and negotiations are for.

I'll say it again: this bill is the beginning of the process, not the end of it. There's a lot we don't know and a lot that needs to be hashed out between parties. All that's certain now is that a process for regulating lootboxes has begun. A lot of legislative work is still ahead; as of right now, a bill exists.

But it's a bill that did not exist yesterday. The first step's been taken.

When the first step on the road is already laden with potential problems, that doesn't bode well for the rest of the trip.

Honestly, I don't think it's a problem that Hawley has a hate-boner for the tech industry. If anything, that makes the intent behind this bill that's meant to f*ck with the tech industry seem more sincere.

If it was someone whose wonk is, say, banning LGBT marriages, a video game legislation would seem a bit more suspicious. Bit outside their field of emphasis. I'd be a lot more wary of what else is hiding in it.

But this guy loves to talk about how he hates Silicon Valley and how he thinks tech companies are anti-conservative devils and how he wants to bring the hammer of government regulation down upon them.

And that says to me that when he's introducing a bill meant to regulate a particular tech industry, his true intention is that he wants to regulate that particular tech industry. He's a shit, but he's exactly the kind of shit that leaves zero question as to his intentions with this particular issue. Because it's precisely his issue that he's a shit about.

Edited by TobiasDrake on May 8th 2019 at 11:48:28 AM

It's the "anti-conservative" bias thing that concerns me. Like, why does he think stuff like Facebook and Google have an anti-conservative bias? Does he think they are too liberal because there's too much diversity or something? Too much LGBTQ content? Is he angry that sexist alt-right content sometimes gets banned?

It may also be tied into what Burr mentioned about him blaming women for steel prices rising.

I trust him about as much as I trust people who complain about "SJW" unironically.

This guy doesn't just have a hate-boner for the tech industry, if what Burr said is any indication.

Edited by M84 on May 9th 2019 at 1:54:53 AM

Because every Republican thinks Facebook and Google have an anti-conservative bias. They're utterly convinced that the existence of left-leaning opinions on those platforms automatically means those platforms are leftist propaganda, which is partly fueled by their existing disdain for the California's liberal-leaning Silicon Valley.

Last year, Google's CEO had to answer questions from lawmakers about search results. He was asked to explain why Trump's picture shows up if you google the word "idiot". Republican Steve Chabot accused Google of burying positive coverage of their attempts to repeal the ACA. Republican Lamar Smith outright said that Google has a "political bias" baked into their culture.

Public opinion of Republican activities over the last few years has not been kind, and those opinions are conveyed through Google and Facebook. But Republicans can't accept the fact that people simply don't like them and have taken to accusing those tech companies of conspiring propaganda against them through their platforms by restricting viewability of pro-conservative ideology.

It's ridiculous bullshit, but it's the same ridiculous bullshit a lot of Republicans believe. Republicans believe a lot of bullshit.

You don't have to like the guy. I certainly don't. I'm just asking you not to cut off the nose to spite the face. Congress is not voting on whether or not Senator Hawley is a Cool Dude. He has not been nominated for an Academy Award. They're voting on a piece of legislation he's written the first draft of, but that is now out there to be reviewed and revised as needed. Hawley is not Congress's topic of discussion here.

Edited by TobiasDrake on May 8th 2019 at 12:01:23 PM

And all I'm asking is that we don't celebrate prematurely. This bill is going to have a lot of baggage due to its source. Baggage that may very well ensure it ultimately goes nowhere.

Edited by M84 on May 9th 2019 at 2:07:24 AM

Is this from the guy who said women were responsible for fucky steel prices?

Are we not allowed to think he's probably crossing his fingers behind his back?