GameStop Manager Refuses to Sell to Stupid Kids

A GameStop manager in Dallas has been suspended for refusing to sell videogames to schoolkids with poor grades.

"He needs to be reading a book. He knows how to play Madden before he knows how to do his ABCs and 123s - that's backwards," said store manager Brandon Scott, who imposed a policy of refusing to sell games to school-aged children unless an adult would confirm the child's good grades. As a result, he has so far refused about two dozen game sales, he said, although most of them had returned with proof of good grades to make their purchase.

While many local parents applauded the move, GameStop has suspended Scott following reports of his actions. In a statement, the company said it is "learning about and evaluating Mr. Scott's concept. As always, GameStop maintains its corporate commitment to assisting parents and other consumers in making informed choices." Scott himself said he wasn't certain whether the suspension was the result of his policy, which he first implemented earlier this summer, or because he spoke to the media about it.

Along with his grades policy, Scott maintained other self-imposed rules of conduct in his store. "They know when they come in here, they do not curse, they do not use the N-word, pull your clothes up," he said. He also said he'd buy a brand new game for any student who showed him a straight-A report card with a teacher's signature and a parent present.

The suspension has not lessened Scott's commitment to "making a difference," he said. "I wouldn't say rebel, but I can be rebellious. I can fight for what I believe in."

Permalink

That's pretty admirable in my book, though certainly against corporate policy.

I like the idea too. The story apparently went out on CNN, so maybe GameStop will feel a little pressure to incorporate the idea into their policy, or at least let the guy keep his job. Someone on another site made a good suggestion - instead of refusing to sell them games, offer a discount on new game purchases to anyone who brings in marks of a certain level. Good publicity, makes the parents happy and it doesn't kill GameStop's bottom line.

Wow, interesting policy :)

Oddly enough I don't really have any issue with this. I'm not sure I agree that grades are a marker for intelligence, but I certainly agree with his standards for public conduct. I do think grades are currently the only marker we have for scholastic achievement, and until someone devises a better system I applaud him for using it to better the world around him.

Since when is it a retail manager's role to police children's behavior and judge their success? It'd be one thing if he started an awareness group for parents that met every Saturday morning in his store for coffee and a round table on how to best integrate video games into your child's routine. But to arbitrarily decide that only kids with good grades will get to buy games?!

If we want to rely on Gamestop to set that bar, then we need help as a society. We ought to be encouraging parents to take responsibility, not foisting it off on corporations.

While it's tempting to want to applaud this, at the core it's rotten.

First, would anyone have the same attitude if a manager was refusing to sell games to obese people, demanding instead they go outside and exercise? Well...some would probably, and we might all have a good laugh at it, but it would be harder for anyone to defend. What about single males, should they not be sold the latest World of Warcraft extension until they can demonstrate they've at least gotten to second base with someone of the same species?

As a gamer, I tend to go a little bonkers when politicians jump on the latest "gaming is bad" bandwagon and demand that "something" be done to protect "the children" from games. This is especially disturbing when people want the retailers to be the police of it. While I may agree that it's not a good idea for kids to play GTA, a game which allows players to beat prostitutes to death and take their money, I don't feel it's the role of the seller to play parent.

What happened to personal responsibility and accountability?

I'm a 35 year old woman who games. Most of my peers have offspring. I know more than a few kids who cannot balance gaming and their education. I'm still amazed I managed considering gaming in my home as a child started with Pong, and went from there. I'm actually more amazed looking back at how much money my parents shelled out on games for us, considering we had most Nintendo titles. But I digress.

I know kids who would get better grades if their parents applied better discipline. I think it's tragic the way some parents raise their kids, or in some cases fail to raise their children. And I'm sure I'm a typical non-parent in having various ideals that would be tossed out the window the first marathon tantrum I had to deal with from any hypothetical child of mine I hadn't sold into virtual slavery or had mining ore for me in WoW.

The entire point is, unless the parent is doing something illegal, the only "business" of mine it is, is to express my opinion. Which I do. Which has led to some friendships abruptly ending because some people don't like to be told that the television is a lousy babysitter, or that maybe they should lay off their level 70 priest and stop screaming at their kid with the Vent button pressed because said kid wants homework help with math.

But that's the beginning and end of it, I can say something about it. I can express my opinion in hopefully a constructive manner. I can take personal steps to help out, just as that manager did by offering to buy a game for any kid who had straight A's.

What I cannot do is police their child for them.

The manager of that store has a job to do. Perhaps in this instance his personal opinions agree with mine. But...what about when they don't? Is it okay for him to steer me towards DDR because I could stand to lose a couple of pounds? Would it be okay for him to refuse to sell me the latest splatter FPS because hey lady it's ultra-violent and as a woman perhaps you'd like to play Happy Kitchen on your DS?

No. It's just not acceptable. It's not okay just because we happen to agree with it and think it's a good idea for parents of children with low grades to take a proactive role in limiting a child's activities until they hit the books and perform better.

And in reality, the world needs people to make french fries and clean toilets.

Kids don't have all the same rights and freedoms as adults for obvious reasons. We're not talking about discriminating against adults; we're talking about some guy who decided to enforce an education first policy on video game sales to minors. I repeat, minors. If the parents of a child with poor grades don't agree with the policy, there is nothing stopping them from buying the games themselves for their children... even with their child present at the sales counter. Where's the problem here?

There are so many things that a child cannot do and cannot buy in our society already; how is this particular instance such a travesty?

Echolocating:
Kids don't have all the same rights and freedoms as adults for obvious reasons. We're not talking about discriminating against adults; we're talking about some guy who decided to enforce an education first policy on video game sales to minors. I repeat, minors. If the parents of a child with poor grades don't agree with the policy, there is nothing stopping them from buying the games themselves for their children... even with their child present at the sales counter. Where's the problem here?

There are so many things that a child cannot do and cannot buy in our society already; how is this particular instance such a travesty?

Well if they are old enough to buy the game then by rights they should be able to.

Just because they are kids doesn't mean they dont have rights like you and me and it is discrimination, what if say a kid with learning difficulties comes in to buy a game? i know a few people with learning problems and you wouldn't even pick up on it if you met them.

Its like refusing to sell a fat adult/kid KFC cause they are fat.

Echolocating:
Kids don't have all the same rights and freedoms as adults for obvious reasons. We're not talking about discriminating against adults; we're talking about some guy who decided to enforce an education first policy on video game sales to minors. I repeat, minors. If the parents of a child with poor grades don't agree with the policy, there is nothing stopping them from buying the games themselves for their children... even with their child present at the sales counter. Where's the problem here?

There are so many things that a child cannot do and cannot buy in our society already; how is this particular instance such a travesty?

Wow. So it's all right to discriminate against kids? On what basis? Intelligence? Race? Physical abilities? Good looks? Please, listen to yourself for a moment. We're not talking about driving a motor vehicle, or drinking alcohol, or enlisting in the army. We're talking about consumer behavior. Of course, we could even turn this into a constitutional issue if we decided to bring up the right to the "pursuit of happiness" as guaranteed in the constitution. With no factual evidence to suggest a child will do themselves or other harm by purchasing and playing a game, it's a bit of a stretch to support limiting this behavior.

As much as I'd like to applaud this, I think it's far more likely that the manager is just a big whomping jerk than anyone really concerned for the welfare of local youth. Now that his career at GameStop's over, watch him try and be a teacher in the Dallas school district. Get ready to laugh.

On the rights of kids issue, no , they don't have the same rights as adults. Not until they are adults. Our courts of law recognize this fact, and minors are not allowed to enter into binding agreements of any kind without parental consent. So, call it discrimination if you want, but it's the law of the land.

As far as selling games to kids on any basis, I fully support a merchant's right to discriminate on any basis he or she sees fit. There is no protected "right to buy" in our society. If they don't want to sell it to you, too bad. Buy somewhere else.

As far as this particular guy and his rule about kids with bad grades, I think he's foolish. As a representative of a larger entity, he's beholden to that entity's interests and guidelines. If he wants to run his own store, more power to him, but if I was his DM, I'd fire him.

I don't think you would once the story hit the wire, and since that horse is out of the barn I expect we'll see a compromise here. Suspension, reprimand, now get your ass back to work and do your job. Let's face it, decent retail managers are hard to find, and if this guy takes his job seriously enough to go to these lengths he may be worth holding onto.

It was a foolish move if the guy had real concerns about job security, but I spent some (cough) time in retail and knew a few guys who did the job because they enjoyed it, not because they needed it. They tended to be a lot more free-wheeling than the younger, single, "oh god I need this job" guys who made up the majority of the employees, and - draw your own conclusions here - they tended to be quite successful in the job too. Maybe that's the case here: The guy's convictions outweigh his interest in keeping the job. All speculation of course, but I find it hard to imagine that a guy so serious about education wouldn't be smart enough to realize that sooner or later management would catch on and have something to say about it.

That said, and as much as I admire the guy for making a stand, offering incentives for good grades as opposed to punishment for bad ones would be a better way to go. His "free game for straight As" policy, for instance, likely would've gone completely unremarked by management. Hopefully both sides have enough room for compromise that they can reach an agreement allowing the guy to keep his job and offer a few incentives while still accommodating potential customers who may not be the brightest bulbs on the tree.

I don't equate discrimination based on stupidity with discrimination based on gender or weight. You can disagree with me here, and that's fine. But I don't care if my friends are overweight, I don't care if they are male or female. I do care if they are intelligent, and I do care if they can avoid swearing when it's considered inappropriate. I don't believe that He is doing this to be a jerk. He may be foolish for not upholding his companies guidelines, but many GM's are given a lot of leeway in store policy, at least in the food service world that I'm far more familiar with. I'm not going to say without someone from Gamestop saying it, that he has gone against guidelines in any way except going to the media. Which is generally a no for anybody except the specifically appointed media contact for a company.

No, I don't think it's his duty to raise the poor kids whose parents won't, don't, or can't. It doesn't mean that he shouldn't make an effort to be a positive influence on these kids. Offering both a carrot and a stick is a tried and true method for achieving change. I don't think anyone is in disagreement about kids getting better grades being a good thing. So why the issue? Because he's actually willing to do something about it?

Legally these aren't OUR kids, we are not personally responsible UNDER THE LAW for them. But they are also in a more moral sense, the next generation, and therefor as their elders, we are responsible for giving them every opportunity to learn and succeed. I don't fault him for having the qualities in a human being that I look for. When I speak with other people's children, I frequently speak to them as adults, I am more than happy to play with them, but I will correct their grammar where I can, and constantly be a teacher. I am not afraid nor against starting a punishment or a reward system for someone else's child. If their parent is present, I will generally try to move through them, But as someone who learned several lessons from friends of my parents who were their to correct me when I made poor decisions I know the value of immediate tangible results.

I feel it's a shaky moral ground to say that they're someone else's problem because they aren't your kids. To me that's no excuse for inaction.

Moral compasses are great things. Everyone should have one of their very own and not expect other people to steer by them.

Children are not adults nor do they have the rights of adults as legally guaranteed under the US constitution. That's pointed out all the time in schools when it comes to free speech issues there. Moreover, neurological studies show their brains are underdeveloped compared to that of adults; in fact the latest piece I read suggested brains do not stop growing until age 25.

As far as moral compasses go, well, they would be pretty useless if they were entirely individualistic. The only real question is whether the corporation's compass is aligned closely enough with this maverick owner's to produce some kind of compromise.

I know I ruffled some feathers, but I simply wanted to make it clear that children are already discriminated against and I wonder how damning this particular incident really is.

I truly believe that education is the most important factor in remedying much of the problems going around in this world. If that importance is not illustrated to children in some manner that matters to them, I don't know how else it can be done. When people suggest educating parents as the right answer, I wonder if neglectful parents would care enough to really listen. If you don't stress the importance of education to children early enough, it becomes more difficult as times goes on... until they slip through the cracks and repeat harmful cycles with children of their own.

Even though I don't believe videogames turn people into murderers, I do believe that videogames can become an unhealthy hobby... like, when neglecting studies to play WoW, as an example.

I just want kids to have a choice when they grow up... and an education gives them that.

On a related note: the taekwon-do school in my area has a policy with children in that to advance levels, the children's teachers are contacted for further evaluation. The instructor that runs the place feels that his students must be respectful and disciplined inside and outside of the dojang. What a jerk, right?

Junaid Alam:

Moreover, neurological studies show their brains are underdeveloped compared to that of adults; in fact the latest piece I read suggested brains do not stop growing until age 25.

This may be so, and there's certainly no denying that the norm in the western world (with the possible exception of parts of Europe) is for children to have fewer rights than convicted criminals. Consequently, it's difficult to make a case against this manager's behavior in he context of our society as a whole.
That said, I'd like to suggest that the infantilization of children this way is a disease, and this specific instance is only one small symptom. Psychologist Robert Epstein makes a very good case for this in a few-month-old interview published by Psychology Today which can be found here:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-20070302-000002.html

The essence of his argument is that our attitude towards children and adolescents in particular is really an artifact of our school system, which itself is a rather outdated relic of the late 19th century. The part I found truly striking, however, was his assessment of teen intelligence:

"We came up with 14 areas of competency-such as interpersonal skills, handling responsibility, leadership-and administered tests to adults and teens in several cities around the country. We found that teens were as competent or nearly as competent as adults in all 14 areas. But when adults estimate how teens will score, their estimates are dramatically below what the teens actually score.

Other long-standing data show that teens are at least as competent as adults[...] raw scores of intelligence peak around age 14-15 and shrink thereafter. Scores on virtually all tests of memory peak between ages 13 and 15. Perceptual abilities all peak at that age. Brain size peaks at 14. Incidental memory-what you remember by accident, and not due to mnemonics-is remarkably good in early to mid teens and practically nonexistent by the '50s and '60s."

Of course none of this is definitive, but I think it provides a much needed counterpoint to the "kids can't think for themselves" mentality.

If Epstein's right, this manager was limiting the rights of kids based on their performance within the very institution that has created the societal belief that kids shouldn't have rights. I don't know if that's ironic, but it certainly leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Sorry for the sermon, but I think this is important stuff.

Personally I just find that study hard to believe because it goes against the broader pattern of data already available. Just anectodally, look at statistics of car accidents. Teenagers are several times more likely to be involved in an accident than adults. Also, "raw intelligence" and remembering random things does not amount to what could be categorized as wisdom, which is the ability to calmly assess the facts in a dispassionate manner.

If teens were really as competent as adults in the practical areas, wouldn't it logically follow that they would be running the place, as it were? I do not think that most adults, when asked, would say they were as wise or as able to make the right decisions when they were young compared to now.

There's some middle ground between both arguments. It's not really a question of raw intelligence but emotional intelligence, which is what doesn't stop developing until around 25. It's not so much a case of aptitude as it is responding to stimuli in a less hormone-driven way.

In other words, pubescent people are idiots.

Obviously, demanding a better GPA from teenagers doesn't really solve the problem, because even smart kids can act dumb when their emotions come into play. But the dude's heart was in the right place.

Speaking as a former game store jockey, I'd have demanded something like this if I thought I could get away with it, mostly to make kids bring their parents into the store to buy stuff. After working in a game store for a week, you learn that unaccompanied teenagers don't buy anything.

While your points on wisdom and emotional intelligence are on the mark, I still think you're missing the critical idea that until we actually allow teens to earn responsibility, there's no motive whatsoever for them to act responsible.

To bring this discussion back to gaming, consider this:

If you tell a 16 year old that, by demonstrating emotional and intellectual sophistication - perhaps by providing recommendations from adults and/or through performance on certain emotional and moral competency tests -- he'll be able to earn a license to play M rated games, the teen is much more likely to develop and exercise such sophistication.

Conversely, tell him that ending poverty, starvation and disease won't get him an iota closer to being recognized legally as a responsible adult with the right to play mature games - our current system. Why should he bother to cultivate the better aspects of his nature?

Only by allowing teens to earn responsibility can we ever expect them to develop their intelligence, empathy, and so on. Perhaps, as a teen myself, my view on this is a little skewed. But I doubt it would kill us to give it a shot.

Dr. Hellno:
(Jist) If teenagers are able to earn the right to buy Mature games, they're more likely to develop positive attributes to do so.

Not really. The analogy is driving a car, something far more serious in our society because you're putting teens behind a couple of tons of metal which will then travel at a high rate of speed around other human beings.

It would be great to somehow also measure maturity, responsibility, etc. ad nauseum in teens prior to giving them a license...but it's not reasonable. A teen might possess all those attributes, and be a horrible driver that will be a danger to others on the road. A teen might possess none of those attributes in any other area, but will demonstrate reasonable capacity to safely operate a car.Again, it's not that I can't understand why many would believe the sentiment to be a positive one, but placing others in a position to measure arbitrary attributes which are difficult to impossible to measure (responsibility, maturity, etc.) is a bad idea. Asking others to take on that mantle...an even worse idea.

Making parents responsible for their children? A much much better idea. Does it mean that unfortunately some children are stuck with parents that don't provide the best environment for them to succeed? Absolutely.

But it's not the job of some cockjockey gaming store manager to presume to parent children. It's the parent's job.

All that being said, could a company institute such policies? Sure. They could simply refuse to sell to all children without identification showing they're adults, unless they bring in a parent, blah blah blah.

But they won't. Because they'll lose money, and punitive programs are bad for business. Think about it, you're offered 'discounts' (a reward you pay less) not forced to pay additional when you check out because you DON'T have a coupon. You can set this up so customers are paying the exact same either way, but people don't like to feel punished. Listed price is $20...no coupon, okay it's $25.00 now. Versus, it's $25.00...oh you have a coupon it's $20 then for you. Same price, but which feels better?

They could simply do a program which is presented as a bonus, and it can't be access...because they'll simply go elsewhere to get access. But if they offered a "Good Grade Discount" then sure, parents would be happier about it, and so would students who do get good grades. Would it actually result in grade improvement? That I doubt, but it wouldn't hurt. :)

Reminds me of Gord.

http://www.actsofgord.com

"And in reality, the world needs people to make french fries and clean toilets"

- RedFeather.

And who should those people be? I can't quote a study or other Ivory tower nonsense, but I do know that it's common sense that Kids do better when someone gives a flying #@# about them.

Your view ignores the basic fact that the modern world cares very little for it's future.

Saying it's "the parent's job", while not calling said parents on their neglect is standard 1984 style doublethink.

What if he had rather called child services any time he saw a neglected child? Would that be better? More involvement from the state?

The ugly truth is that we live in a Zero parent world. Dual-income couples are just as guilty of it as single parents.

Remember the YMCA? Youth Centers? Aren't they doing a "parent's job"? Who gets more "kid traffic" these days?

Anyone who promots the idea of a "underclass" has never been on the wrong side of the divide.

I, however, think that no child should have it's future taken from it simply because mom or dad couldn't make a relationship work (or their finances in the case of dual-income households).

Osmod

geez u sound like Jack Thompson give it a break

Junaid Alam:
Just anectodally, look at statistics of car accidents. Teenagers are several times more likely to be involved in an accident than adults.

*gasp* People with less experience driving cars are MORE likely to get into accidents? Oh noes! I better go warn everyone!!! If only we could raise the legal driving age to 25, then no more 16 year olds would die in horrible, fiery car crashes.

If you'd like to provide some sort of control group of people that don't get to start driving until they're older (Europe would be a good place to start) and prove in some way that the key factor is puberty, and not inexperience at driving a car, then I'd be glad to listen. If you do provide a study, I would make sure to try and account for the various ways in which the area being studied doesn't inherently have fewer driving risks, like, I don't know, really tiny cars, fewer cars, no tractor-trailers, less time spent driving per person, or a high cost of entry culling the herd.

If teens were really as competent as adults in the practical areas, wouldn't it logically follow that they would be running the place, as it were?

Forgive my inflammation, but, if [insert oppressed group] were really as [insert measure of merit] as [insert oppressing group], wouldn't they have pulled themselves up by their bootstraps by now and become societally equal by now? [Oppressed group]'s oppression must then be evidence of their inferiority. It's all so obvious now...

Teenagers, as mentioned already, don't share equal legal rights. Who exactly is going to legislate to give teenagers the vote they would need to make a difference in their situation if they're not allowed to influence elections to start with? I've always been fascinated by historical times where the age of maturity has been lower out of necessity (not enough people over the age of 18 to fill the ranks). Society didn't exactly fall apart (any more than it already had, given the dire circumstances required for adults to start treating their offspring as equals)

I do not think that most adults, when asked, would say they were as wise or as able to make the right decisions when they were young compared to now.

I would bet that adults would say exactly that. Do you believe that your questionees are the most unbiased, impartial judges of their wisdom or abilities? Is their answer really useful in determining the truth of the statement? I don't know of a better measure, but I think this is equally as worthless as all the others.

It's a funny discrimination... one that is quite positive, motive-wise... oh well, it forces the parents to be more involved in their kids' education. But it's not his job to police the customers.

I assume he could create a social support group, start an advertising campaign on the issue he's trying to underline.
The manager had a theoretical point, but it's more political than anything else.

It's like warning smokers of the dangers of these little things called cigarettes. Hey, those things hurt you on the long term.
Now... Hey, games don't make brains grow and your kid's likely a twat, so maybe you'd like to spare those bucks and pay evening lessons instead?

The real deal is that this manager should forbid girls from buying games, because they dilute the overall population's gaming talent.
Fact.

Interesting sidepoint (related to the gord reference).

If this was a indie store, he would have the right to refuse service, correct? At least that's how it still is in the US(sr).

But as the face of your standard souless company, he's in the wrong, wrong, wrong.

Did he break corp. policy? No doubt. Was he doing something "wrong"? Doubtful.

"Not his job" doesn't mean it's not the right thing. Equating corporate policy with morality makes commodities out of us all.

Smarter kids mean a smarter tomorrow which means even cooler games for the rest of us. :D

Osmod

Arbre:
The real deal is that this manager should forbid girls from buying games, because they dilute the overall population's gaming talent.
Fact.

Sounds like someone is bitter about a woman beating him at his favorite game.

raesquirrel:

Arbre:
The real deal is that this manager should forbid girls from buying games, because they dilute the overall population's gaming talent.
Fact.

Sounds like someone is bitter about a woman beating him at his favorite game.

He probably hasn't seen a vagina since his mother shoved him out of one.

raesquirrel:

Arbre:
The real deal is that this manager should forbid girls from buying games, because they dilute the overall population's gaming talent.
Fact.

Sounds like someone is bitter about a woman beating him at his favorite game.

More bitter than the one who signs up just to post his first message here? :)

Nevermind, it was humour. Just let it go down.