Hey, Kid, Got a Dollar?

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

mfeff:
Solid argument here. Although under this categorization there are many products that could be said to fall under this umbrella. Everything from Jiffy peanut butter to Coke products to a stroll in a Target toy section loaded to the rafters with Avengers tie ins. The difficulty I still have with the position, and what you presented is a reasonable one, is that an arbiter had to facilitate a situation in which the child could of been marketed to.

I agree, to an extent. A parent has to bring the child to the store in order for the child to be face-to-face with all the merchandise, and candy bar vendors smartly put the best stuff right at eye-level with tots near the cash register... but in those situations, it stands to reason that the parent is within the vicinity.

Now, yes, parents have to buy the gaming devices. And yeah, they need to at some point put a credit card number in there. But the fact remains that advertising through games is just a bit different.

- "Advertising" in a store (Kid sees toy, kid wants toy) is usually in the presence of a parent. Even then, they are passive advertisements -- the toy is just visible, not being pushed.

- TV ads are often seen while unsupervised (Thanks to TV babysitter), but they are only half the story: the kid is being sold the product, but they can't see or feel the product, so there's a bit less power there.

In-game ads are interacting directly with the child. They're not passive.

While parents ultimately get to say Yea or Nay to the purchase, I think that comes a bit too late in the process. It's akin (bear with me) to telling parents, "Well, it's up to you what you teach your kids about sex in kindergarten," after a school has already opened up the subject. You, as the parent, should have been consulted before, not deferred to after.

There are many standards though, and in that the pass fail for demonstration of knowledge is in and around 96-100 percent, or it's a fail. I think that such precision is simply impractical in the realm of a general education. So in that, one either is or isn't interested in a high performance level for the oneself hits me as "self-determinate".

I can agree there. Sometimes it is, in fact, just lazy teaching.

It's funny you mention that... when I take new kids out sailing I often will pick out one of the kids that have been out on the boat a couple times... as soon as we clear the docks I pick em up and toss em overboard. This begins an introductory lesson in procedure under fire. I cripple training aircraft as well during flight instruction, same reason. You have a very polite way of saying what I interpreted as a "pussy-fication" of the populace.

And in those endeavors, it's easy to explain to people that you need to prepare them for these eventualities. What's more, sailing or flying lessons aren't components of compulsory education. As teachers in mandatory schooling, they unfortunately tie our hands a bit more -- "sink or swim" doesn't work when they're grading you based on whether the kid sinks or swims on the first try.

In your lines of instruction, you tend to either draw kids or parents that are seeking challenge. Public school often sticks us with folks looking for the path of least resistance.

Not sure this is a sentiment that I am able to sign off on. Sounds a bit like moving the goal post to me.

No, not at all. I'm not talking about changing the expectations before presenting the promised reward. I'm talking about rewarding a kid for Task A, and then saying, "Good. Next time, you get rewarded after completely Tasks A and B." You're increasing the expectation each go'round.

Embarrassing and shame, very effective for getting the point across.

In the right contexts, they can. They can backfire pretty quickly, too. However, we're at the other extreme at the moment: We're so afraid of them that we swear off them entirely. Shame, believe it or not, is an absolutely critical component to developing empathy -- another attribute that is sorely lacking in many kids. Now, you don't shame a kid for messing up something he's new at... but, after a touch, it might not hurt to shame him a bit if he fails to do anything about the mistake.

Dastardly:

mfeff:
snippers

I agree, to an extent. A parent has to bring the child to the store in order for the child to be face-to-face with all the merchandise, and candy bar vendors smartly put the best stuff right at eye-level with tots near the cash register... but in those situations, it stands to reason that the parent is within the vicinity.

Now, yes, parents have to buy the gaming devices. And yeah, they need to at some point put a credit card number in there. But the fact remains that advertising through games is just a bit different.

- "Advertising" in a store (Kid sees toy, kid wants toy) is usually in the presence of a parent. Even then, they are passive advertisements -- the toy is just visible, not being pushed.

- TV ads are often seen while unsupervised (Thanks to TV babysitter), but they are only half the story: the kid is being sold the product, but they can't see or feel the product, so there's a bit less power there.

In-game ads are interacting directly with the child. They're not passive.

While parents ultimately get to say Yea or Nay to the purchase, I think that comes a bit too late in the process. It's akin (bear with me) to telling parents, "Well, it's up to you what you teach your kids about sex in kindergarten," after a school has already opened up the subject. You, as the parent, should have been consulted before, not deferred to after.

Now that Sir... is a brilliant argument. There should be a medal given out for going above and beyond the call like that.

I like where you took this because what it in fact does, is demonstrate that while the parent has facilitated the means for the advertisement to work (including the middle) into the hands of the child, the child is demonstrably not mentally (or legally) prepared for dealing with the subject matter in a responsible way. The parent is likely to not know what is in the content wrapper, begging a shrink wrap contract/content.

Further underlying what one could call "an act of good faith", an implied agreement between the game developer/publisher and the end user could be called into question. It's circumstantial, but I really think it could be allowed as admissible evidence to make the case of intention... notoriously difficult to prove.

Long to short, you persuaded me to see it from your position. Good argument is good.

I can agree there. Sometimes it is, in fact, just lazy teaching.

Well, I have yet to see the perfect lesson, perfect student, or perfect teacher... it's a fine line between lazy and frustrated... I have seen both... seen one become the other and back again... we do what we can, bang on the hull twice, call it good'nuff some days.

And in those endeavors, it's easy to explain to people that you need to prepare them for these eventualities. What's more, sailing or flying lessons aren't components of compulsory education. As teachers in mandatory schooling, they unfortunately tie our hands a bit more -- "sink or swim" doesn't work when they're grading you based on whether the kid sinks or swims on the first try.

Indeed. The sailing thing was a tip I learned when I was a salt pup. It came down from an old man, yellow bearded from his pipe... he regaled me with a tale of being out and letting a young gun take the helm. The boy turned the ship sharply and the boom caught the old man right upside the head, over the gun wail he went... of course, no one on the ship knew how to stop the ship with any effect. Between that and being safety conscious with machines that will hurt the user if used improperly has simply reinforced the lessons over and over again.

As it goes and something that surprised me... was just how difficult it is to get people past the fear of the machine or the tool. Focus on that sense of "confidence", which is a great replacement for "belief".

In your lines of instruction, you tend to either draw kids or parents that are seeking challenge. Public school often sticks us with folks looking for the path of least resistance.

I get this as well (goes around comes around?), but I don't sign off on nonsense. Receiving instruction and receiving an endorsement aka. "The Blessing" are two totally different negotiations. Though I have a luxury of time, and in the school systems that is simply not an option. It's a tough racket, and clearly teachers don't get paid nearly enough for the headache.

No, not at all. I'm not talking about changing the expectations before presenting the promised reward. I'm talking about rewarding a kid for Task A, and then saying, "Good. Next time, you get rewarded after completely Tasks A and B." You're increasing the expectation each go'round.

That makes sense.

In the right contexts, they can. They can backfire pretty quickly, too. However, we're at the other extreme at the moment: We're so afraid of them that we swear off them entirely. Shame, believe it or not, is an absolutely critical component to developing empathy -- another attribute that is sorely lacking in many kids. Now, you don't shame a kid for messing up something he's new at... but, after a touch, it might not hurt to shame him a bit if he fails to do anything about the mistake.

Class act all the way around, to phrase a pun. Again I like this. Interestingly how I tend to utilize it is very similar. Mostly framed around team building exercises. In that I try to take the bully and turn him about into a team leader. I don't want him or her to "not" be a bully, I want them to take that skill and put it to something productive that benefits everyone involved. Not everyone wants to go at it like this, which is fine. Many roads to Rome I suppose.

It's food for thought... student gets carried away with another student... my first inclination is have them try it with me... but it's too heavy handed to simply bully the bully... I've lost kendo students over this, and I hate seeing talent walk out the door. I suppose perhaps it always lingers over the teacher... could'a should'a. Hmmm.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here