[OLPC-Games] Violent games on the OLPC Activities page

[Richard Vegh]

Although I sense that all sides seem to be relatively entrenched in
their views, my personal reasoning in support of including the
software in question hasn't been expressed.

I would support inclusion of the software on the principle that almost
any software or even content could be objectional for reasons that
make sense to a particular constituency -- reasons not shared by
others. For example, suppose that a particular constituency, perhaps a
country's education ministry participating in the OLPC project,
objected to a certain educational-intentioned piece of software that
presented a version of history that is contrary to a government's
official position. At that point, the issue is more clearly a case of
censorship, however not one that OLPC is in any position to overtly
oppose.

To offer a possible compromise which incorporates an idea already
suggested, each member country or constituency might have its own wiki
page that automatically includes updates from a main wiki page once
they have been accepted by a moderator or group of moderators. The
main resource need not be linked to by a the group concerned. I think
OLPC would be open to extending the wiki in this manner... Resources
offered should reflect local needs as a rule, as I believe I have read
elsewhere in OLPC principles.

This ought to meet the objectives of, for instance, constituencies
that favor non-violence in all content (a view I am highly sympathetic
toward!) offering sanctioned material while still allowing access to
the wider universe of all resources available to the wider OLPC
community without a great deal of effort, thereby meeting the
objectives of those opposed in principle to anything resembling
censorship.

I am also biased toward acceptance of the Doom program, specifically;
the Doom engine is by no means limited to violent games, represents an
innovation for its time, and the argument that alternatives may be
made (even utilizing the Doom engine itself) seems reasonable to me.

Respectfully,

Richard Vegh