On the contrary. If this was left uncommented on it could be left in the hands of clueless bureaucrats (Red Cross) and lawmakers. Is that what you want? Don't you think that injecting some sanity into this is important? Publicly outing it leaves it open to the kind of condemnation that will, if they're at all wise, see them make this disappear fast.

So really, you should be thanking Kotaku. Now go kiss and make up.

No because if it wasn't for Kotaku this rubbish wouldn't even have been news.

[url=https://www.google.com/search?q=red+cross+video+games&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a]https://www.google.com/search?q=red+cross+video+games&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a[/url]

It is news. Kotaku are just taking it to the kind of audience able and inclined to point out to the fat cats of the Red Cross how they've never actually played one of these 'game things' and should probably just shut up.

I fail to see the issue. Will anything come of it? Probably not. But it is gaming news, and it's not an opinion piece.

Call me petty, but I think wishing for someone's death or crippling crosses the line, especially if it's something as tame as this. Down-voted.

Shooting the messenger for fun and profit. News at 11.

Giving this a forum is the fail IMO. Clearly you don't agree and neither do the majority so I will sign off here.

the problem is you can't explain why is it bad that kotaku reported what RC is doing. You go on how RC shouldn't be doing this yet you blame Kotaku for that while as far as we know kotaku has nothing to do with RC and their action. Then you say that it is not newsworthy comment which is fine complaint by itself (although does not deserve the ire in your first post) but you don't explain why is it not newsworthy. You don't criticize the article beyond the silly image, you don't show us how Kotaku fucked up with this article.
Hopefully you will come back to this thread with clear head and can explain yourself properly. For now have a nice sleep.

So, Delixe...answer this: Do you think that no news organization should report on a government's attempt to censor the internet because it will only give them the air time and forum? And governments have no business censoring internet, anyway.

ol' Delixe has had one too many swigs of Jack Daniel's :P

I wonder how many here also don't mind Fox News reporting the "news"? :\

Why see it at all? A red cross could very easily be construed as a universal sign for health. Why should they have a monopoly on a basic symbol?

As for the OT... I agree with most of the posters here. The Red Cross are a major global organization and have no place lobbying for a law that affects gaming. I found out about it at The Escapist. If Kotaku didn't even attempt to spin it, you're one of the most unreasonable people I've ever come across.

P.S. By your normal posting history, this would not normally have been my conclusion. Not to say that I would agree with you usually, but as a Devil's Advocate I would respect you. Not so this time.

Do you think you can easily construct this; http://images.free-extras.com/pics/n/nike_logo-702.jpg it's just a curved line.
or this
http://www.earthwatch.org/europe/images/our_work/Corporate_logos/shell.jpg I mean it's a freaking shell.

I have played medic quite a lot in Team Fortress, but unfortunately mostly as an evil medic infecting enemy players.

Anyway, in a way I can understand, even though I don't approve, their point. For them it may be a similar question as to some others whether it should be possible to molest kids and shoot dogs in games. I think the latter was why Wolfenstein 3D was illegal in Germany.