International Red Cross wants to Work with Video Gaming Industry
"Serious violations of the laws of war can only be committed in real-life situations, not in video games."
The International Red Cross is open to working with the video games industry, which is sees as a good medium for, "spreading knowledge of the laws of armed conflict."
Earlier this week, The Escapist reported that, "The International Committee of the Red Cross may want the rules of the Geneva Convention applied to videogames."
What actually happened was that a side-panel convened at the recent 31st meeting of the International Committee of the Red Cross that debated, "Exactly how videogames influence individuals is a hotly debated topic, but for the first time, Movement partners discussed our role and responsibility to take action against violations of IHL in video games."
The ICRC has now issued an FAQ that actually lays out its relationship to gaming.
It states, "The ICRC is interested in issues relating to video games of this type, i.e. games simulating warfare where players face choices just like on a real battlefield."
It continues, "The ICRC has expressed its readiness to engage in a dialogue with the video gaming industry in order to explore the place of humanitarian rules in games. The ICRC welcomes the fact that certain video games on war-related themes already take the law of armed conflict into account."
Then it helpfully points out that, "Serious violations of the laws of war can only be committed in real-life situations, not in video games."
Interestingly it asks the question of itself, "Why does the ICRC show interest in video games but not, for example, in books, comics, TV series or films?"
Wit this:
"The ICRC is occasionally approached by filmmakers or authors who want to portray its activities in past or present armed conflicts. It has thus had contacts with various segments of the entertainment world beyond the developers of video games. The ICRC is not interested in all video games – only in those simulating armed conflict. Some of these games are being designed and produced by the same companies developing simulated battlefields for the training of armed forces."
Earlier this week, The Escapist reported that, "The International Committee of the Red Cross may want the rules of the Geneva Convention applied to videogames."
What actually happened was that a side-panel convened at the recent 31st meeting of the International Committee of the Red Cross that debated, "Exactly how videogames influence individuals is a hotly debated topic, but for the first time, Movement partners discussed our role and responsibility to take action against violations of IHL in video games."
The ICRC has now issued an FAQ that actually lays out its relationship to gaming.
It states, "The ICRC is interested in issues relating to video games of this type, i.e. games simulating warfare where players face choices just like on a real battlefield."
It continues, "The ICRC has expressed its readiness to engage in a dialogue with the video gaming industry in order to explore the place of humanitarian rules in games. The ICRC welcomes the fact that certain video games on war-related themes already take the law of armed conflict into account."
Then it helpfully points out that, "Serious violations of the laws of war can only be committed in real-life situations, not in video games."
Interestingly it asks the question of itself, "Why does the ICRC show interest in video games but not, for example, in books, comics, TV series or films?"
Wit this:
"The ICRC is occasionally approached by filmmakers or authors who want to portray its activities in past or present armed conflicts. It has thus had contacts with various segments of the entertainment world beyond the developers of video games. The ICRC is not interested in all video games – only in those simulating armed conflict. Some of these games are being designed and produced by the same companies developing simulated battlefields for the training of armed forces."
Comments
DoctorDee 10 Dec 2011 16:56
1/1
I can't help but feel that, for all their good work, the International Red Cross are a set of pompous idiots. Not only are my favourite band called Redd Kross after a threat from the battlefield medics. But once a magazine I used to edit, called Amiga Format, ran a review of a product called Doctor Wellman or Dr Wellbeing or something. It was A First Aid advice program for the Amiga.
In one of the screenshots of the product we did not make, but were merely reviewing, there was a picture of an ambulance. On the ambulance, all of five pixels in size was a... Red Coloured Cross.The International Red Cross sent me a legal threat letter telling me to remove their symbol from my product on peril of prosecution.
If we overlook the fact that it was not in "my" product, and if we overlook their complete and utter failure to try and engage in a reasonable manner, or to communicate and educate why it is they are such a set of miserable po-faced c**ts about mis-use of their symbol, it still left me thinking they were tossers. Indeed, it left me suspecting that, if I were ever at war, how I might shoot at anything upon which that particularly "aim here" symbol was emblazoned.
In one of the screenshots of the product we did not make, but were merely reviewing, there was a picture of an ambulance. On the ambulance, all of five pixels in size was a... Red Coloured Cross.The International Red Cross sent me a legal threat letter telling me to remove their symbol from my product on peril of prosecution.
If we overlook the fact that it was not in "my" product, and if we overlook their complete and utter failure to try and engage in a reasonable manner, or to communicate and educate why it is they are such a set of miserable po-faced c**ts about mis-use of their symbol, it still left me thinking they were tossers. Indeed, it left me suspecting that, if I were ever at war, how I might shoot at anything upon which that particularly "aim here" symbol was emblazoned.