Michael Atkinson, contrasting collars, and gamers stuck in a rock v hard place situation

(Above: Michael Atkinson, SA attorney general, wearing a certain kind of shirt).

Did I ever mention how much I hate ganders who wear white collars with coloured shirts and discordant ties, and end up looking like big end of town gooses?

I believe the technical term is "contrast collar shirt", and the style originates from the times, way back when, before even the nineteen twenties, when collars were separate from shirts, and a slovenly man would wear a white collar with a striped shirt dragged at random from the wardrobe by the servant.

The trend became popular again during the eighties, in the greed is good decade, with the collar sewn on, when vulgarity became a hallmark of power and money and style. (here).

These days it's just as likely to represent a condition of prissy poncedom. It reminds me of the downward spiral in men's fashions which saw the clip on tie, and the bow tie, which instead of being knotted by hand has some kind of elastic or clasp to secure to the neck.

A man who doesn't know how to tie a bow tie properly by hand is, I'm assured by my Toorak friends, a man simply not worth knowing, and certainly not to be married. (here).

I formed a prejudice about contrasting collar wearers mainly through having to deal with a lawyer who affected the style, under the bizarre impression that it made him look like a sophisticated, savvy, snappy dresser. He started with the style in the eighties when they were called 'key pieces' by corporate moguls as a way of distinguishing themselves from great white sharks, and then kept on with it, and now lordy, he's a dinosaur and the fashion is back amongst us, with everything seemingly forgiven and forgotten.

My own prejudiced view? This lawyer looked like a power hungry parvenu vulgarian recently come into money by arranging for assorted files to be dropped to the bottom of the harbour, and still does. It goes without saying that he affected a relentless interest in yachts, and the Sydney to Hobart race.

Sigh. I can't help it. I'm a snob. James, pass me another glass of champagne, with finely threaded beads of joy, so that we can play the man, rather than the policy, with an ad hominem attack that hopefully will lead us to a better understanding of policy.

You see, last night on the 7.30 Report, they showed an interview with Michael Atkinson, currently the South Australian Attorney-General, and he was wearing - gasp - a 'key piece'.

Classically of course this morning the report elected to drop the item from its online coverage, making me wonder if I'd seen a phantom, or a ghost, or whether some gherkin simply had decided that Michael Atkinson was a dull provincial with a profoundly offensive visual impact (here for the stories that made the cut).

Never mind. There was nothing new to the story. It was just Atkinson being Atkinson on the matter of video games, and regurgitating his standard guff for refusing an 'R' classification for video games, with a feeble general reference, in a Susan Greenfield way, to how playing these games made gamers more violent.

As opposed to say bikies (unless all bikies are gamers, or vice versa), who require the full force of new laws, or people charged with assault as the result of people allegedly having affairs with other people. Talk about physical real violence, versus violence in a virtual world.

Say no more. Atkinson couldn't have behaved any more offensively if he'd tried.

Well there's no reason to dwell on the banalities he offered in favour of his relentless refusal to allow an "R" rating for video games. There's no compelling scientific evidence for them, and even a loon like Susan Greenfield has to offer up equivocal speculations and provocations, in the hope that the mud will stick.

What's more to the point is how this man with the contrasting collar affectation is the latest in a long line of wowsers in Australia, the fly in the ointment who believes in banning things, the man who prevents adults from playing adult games.

His specious arguments aside, there's absolutely no reason why adult gamers shouldn't have access to the latest game of Aliens vs Predator, the banning of which finally got a belated mention on the 7.30 Report and now belatedly gets a mention here.

Now the games age issue has already been well canvassed elsewhere - many gamers are adult, it's supposed to be a classification system rather than a device for banning games available in other countries, anyone who really wants to play the game will know how to get it anyway, and so on. The gamers carefully wheeled out a couple of suited aged players to put their case, and who can argue with them. Certainly not me.

Sensibly, the game's creator, Rebellion Developments, has refused to edit the game in the way some chicken little developers have previously done in response to pressure from the Classification Board.

"The content of AvP is based on some of the most innovative and iconic horror movies, and as such we wanted to create a title that was true to the source material. It is for adults, and it is bloody and frightening, that was our intent. We will not be releasing a sanitized or cut down version for territories where adults are not considered by their governments to be able to make their own entertainment choices." (here)

You can read background to the story here, and you will also find a copy of the Board's report refusing classification here in pdf format. Here's a clip of a bit of it (click on to enlarge):

Well it's not a game that I'll be playing, but perhaps that's because back in 1979 when the alien popped out of John Hurt's stomach, I took a view. A scared shitless view of the back of the seat in front of me.

Nonetheless, when I look at my collection of Alien movies, all of them are MA15+, though my region 1 copy of the first Alien is rated R.

Never mind. A little chest bursting never hurt anyone, and as the series progressed towards the absurdity of Alien v Predator, it was simply following the tradition of Frankenstein vs the Wolfman vs Dracula, vs who else have you got.

And things got gorier, in the mindless way of such shows, and naturally when ported to video games and the shooter format, things got gorier still. That's the way in virtual worlds where destruction and killing is an inexpensive form of fun. As opposed to say the Iraq and Afghanistan wars in which Australia participated, where real people died and are dying, in abundance.

As a result of Atkinson's position on an 'R' rating for games, the ACB now has extensive form. It recently banned the game CrimeCraft:

It wasn't the violent gang warfare which did for the game in the ACB's eyes, however - it was "drug use related to incentives or rewards". In the game, players use fictional drugs called Boosts to improve their performance.

"In the board's opinion, there is insufficient delineation between the 'fictional drugs' available in game and real-world proscribed drugs," said the ACB.

"Boost parallels the names, chemical elements, administration, treatment, and addictive elements of real-world proscribed drugs, and when used provide quantifiable benefits to a player's character. The game therefore contains drug use related to incentives or rewards and should be refused classification." (here)

This at a time when the government funded National Film and Sound Archive, after faithfully restoring the extreme low budget show Pure Shit, helped the film get a two disc DVD release. Okay, maybe it only sold a hundred copies, but Pure Shit is a celebration of junkie culture in a sub-William Burroughs way, from back in the days when the needle was seen as a way to counter-culture glory. It's got needles and a razor and powder splattered all over the cover and it was released as R18+. So kids are protected from it, even if there's no real way to warn adults about the amateurish film-making, which is way more risible than offensive.

There's a clear double standard in the way the classification system operates, with gaming seriously disadvantaged by not having an "R" category, and parents expected to supervise their children as to their game playing habits, and the fly in the ointment is Atkinson, who is just a small minded provincial censor hiding behind the 'won't someone think of the children' argument.

That he can dictate his provincial standards to the rest of Australia is disturbing. It seems every generation has to have its Brian Harradine (one time Senator for Tasmania) and Atkinson is the latest in an offensive breed of politicians who think they know better and who are in a position to impose their standards on others. And who can get away with it, because gaming is a minority interest, and isn't taken seriously enough, and the sector, whether producers or end users, doesn't have the clout to get things changed.

The Atkinson v gamers war has been going on for some time now - just google his name and ban, and you'll get the picture - but here's the problem. Mike Rann, that portentous pompous clown, won't do anything about him, and the Federal Labor party, headed by a Christian who loves to save the children, has constantly averted its eyes from the issue.

And there's no help to be had from commentariat columnists. They aren't true liberals or libertarians. They're died in the wool regressive conservatives, who love to ban things. They swallow whole the guff and nonsense spread by the likes of Susan Greenfield.

So the gamers are going to be stuck in a rock v hard place for some time to come.

I'm informed by those who know and care within the house that the description of the content provided by the ACB is quite tempting. There's nothing in the show which they feel they need to be shielded from, despite the best endeavours of the censors of Germany and Australia, aided and abetted by Atkinson.

Fair enough.

Now who will shield me from the sight of Michael Atkinson's contrasting collar?

(Below: a few snaps proving that when off duty aliens and predators know how to get along, and have a good time together. A pity the same can't be said about gamers and prize gherkin Michael Atkinson).