Category: Politica

Ironia lipsește câmd e vorba de politica din România

Chiar dacă e o zi cu puține știri e absurd cât de multă lume reproduce o replică de pe Facebook a fostului premier Tudose pe care o și evaluează ca ironică, așa cum face News.ro dar nu numai.

Problema e că politicianul nu face decât să încerce ironia, care oricum pare mai degrabă sarcasm, fără să livreze ceva cât de cât capabil sau inteligent, o problemă generală în România chiar și când e vorba de insulte. De fapt aici se întâmplă doar o referință forțată, o încercare de creare de interes prin atașsarea unui gest lipsit de sens clar de o situație care a atras mai multă atenție acum ceva vreme.

Dacă Tudose chiar vrea să fie interesant, indiferent de mediul prin care comunică cu potențialii alegători, trebuie să caute un subiect care are o clară conexiune cu cititorii/alegătorii și să îl abordeze folosind atributele pe care vrea să le promoveze ca politician. Mai mult, poate e o idee bună să tacă mai mult și să nu comunice decât în spațiul pe care partidul/organizația îl definește pentru el.

Ironia și/sau sarcasmul pot să fie puternice dacă sunt mânuite de politiciani foarte inteligenți sau care au echipe de comunicare foarte bune. Pentru cei mai mulți e mai bine să livreze comunicare simplă, directă, care nu ajunge să fie raportate de site-uri de știri.

Comisia Naţională de fundamentare a planului naţional de adoptare a monedei euro

Un nume scurt, clar, bine definit, cum sunt probabil și planurile României de aderare la euro. “Comisia pentru adoptarea euro” e, probabil, prea simplu pentru guvernul condus de Partidul Social Democrat, care are nevoie de complexitate generatoare de confuzie în toate.

Mai interesant e că prim-ministrul Dăncilă, citată de news.ro, vrea ca liderii comisiei să fie cel sau cea care ocupă postul de lider al guvernului și președintele Academiei Române, în timp ce șeful Băncii Naționale e doar vice-președinte, alături de vice-premierul pe probleme economice. E destul de clar că cineva nu înțelege foarte clar despre ce e vorba în procesul de adoptare a euro.

Academia Română este acum condusă de Cristian Hera, specializat pe științe agricole, iar în prezidiu nu e nici un specialist în economie. E drept că o comisie și liderii ei nu reprezintă întreg efortul relevant pentru aderarea la zona euro dar modul în care un efort este structurat la început are un efect asupra modului în care evoluează.

“Comisia Naţională de fundamentare a planului naţional de adoptare a monedei euro” e dominată de executiv și nu oferă o poziție relevantă pentru BNR. E un alt exemplu de dominație a politicului și a simbolicului asupra competenței. Și un exemplu de apreciere a numelor lungi și care nu spun foarte multe lucruri.

Videogames Can Educate About Violence, Public Needs to Be Educated About Them

Violence is an inescapable element of human existence. Violent crimes, especially those involving firearms, are an inescapable fact of modern life. Videogames are becoming one of the most popular forms of entertainment of those who life this modern life. And there are plenty of people who see a direct link between titles like Call of Duty or The Evil Within and people who pick up a gun and decide to kill.

We can and we should work to reduce their impact and the incidence of violent acts in our societies but we cannot do that by finding scapegoats or by working against entire industries because of links that have not been conclusively proven by science.

The so called Videogame Summit that president Donald J. Trump conducted last week was, as reported by the Washington Post, a solid if limited attempt to see how video games developers and the people who represent their interests can interact with the political establishment in order to maybe reduce the propensity towards violence that exists in society. The meeting might have kicked off with a montage of context free shocking moments from modern titles but it’s a good sign that there was no tone of incrimination that emerged from the main participants.

There are no solid studies that show causation between violence videogames and violence in the real world but there are some, disputed but used by certain groups, showing some correlation between the two. Banning sales of titles and limiting access has already been tried and seems like a non-starter on legal grounds but the ESA, the ESRB and governments can work in order to find a way to make it easier to educate individuals about what they play, how they approach their experiences and monitor how their understanding of the world and even behavior is affected.

Panic and recrimination are not the responses that can solve a crisis but they can help stakeholders find ways to reconcile positions and find new ways to work together. In the case of violent videogames and violent acts the best idea is to educate those who create them, those who market them and those who consume them.

On its own Call of Duty (to use a name that means something even to non-gamers) will not drive someone to acquire a weapon and do something criminal. But the game coupled with conspiracy theories, limited support networks, ideologies that degrade fellow humans, unrestricted access to firepower and other factors can lead to very different and violent outcomes.

The videogame industry cannot on its own work to make sure that every player is grounded and understands that virtual violence should not be translated to the real world. But it can share information and data with the government and other groups to try and make sure that information and education is available to players and that they can make a clear distinction between what they do in Call of Duty and how they go about their lives once their exit their favorite shooter or horror title.

The Loot Box Issue Needs More Information, Not Regulation

I hate the concept of loot boxes, even if they have so far failed to make their way to the kinds of video games that I enjoy (grand strategy, role-playing and sports simulations) but I still believe that they are a valid concept to use for the industry. This is why the ESRB and other regulatory bodies should move as quickly as possible to make sure that gamers are better informed about them, so that the video games universe is not targeted for further regulation by various governments.

Maggie Hassan, a Democratic Senator, is the most recent elected official to question the way loot boxes are presented to players, in a letter to the ESRB that Forbes quotes in full, and it comes after a number of other governments have expressed their interest in introducing regulation, including banning sale of video games powered by loot boxes to those under 21.

The argument, a solid if not perfect one, is that the mechanic is almost impossible to distinguish from gambling and should be treated as such. There are bans on the mechanic in China, which companies like Blizzard have worked around (the regulatory landscape might change and developers might be required to once again tweak the way “loot boxes” are delivered to players).

The easy response from the video game industry is to simply push back against the idea that politicians or bureaucracies have the power to regulate mechanics in their titles (some gamers might also join in, saying that how they use their money inside various titles is their own choice and should not be restricted).

But the more coherent long term position would be to accept that players (and parents, when it comes to users who are under the age of 18) should have information about loot boxes (and other microtransactions associated with video games) to inform their choice. Self-regulation, driven by the ESRB and other associated bodies, is the best way to make sure that the government stays away and that there’s a solid collaboration between developers, publishers and players for the good of the video game ecosystem.