It's fantastic news, but we can only hope for the sake of all gamers in Oz that the next guy is more reasonable on the issue. I'm just waiting for Atkinson to give an interview in which he blames gamers for his resignation, along with global warming and AIDS probably

Thank *bleep*! God this guy was an absoloute douche, I will finally be able to play things like Left 4 Dead 2 uncensored. So many games I couldn't play because this moron decided that somehow children would buy 18+ games (yeah, as if they'll just waltz into the store and the retailer will happily sell it to them). All I can say is, I hated that guy.

It's still 4 years away yet...I'm not that excited.

It need not be that far away, as all is requried is the ok for the companies and publishers to use the "current" ratiung system as-is, but inlcude the current R18+ rating into the games section. It's only a matter of 7 AG's agreeing for the implementation to begin.

There's no new legistation that needs to be drawn up, and in fact, NZ uses basically the same OFLC ratings, but the difference there is, they INCLUDE the R18+ ratings for some games, and place games in age-appropriate rankings.

And have done for some time using the same basic system.

The system caters for the use, at the descretion of the board, to us the R18+ rating on items "they feel warrant it" - so no changes per-se need to be made, simply the implementation of an existing ranking level.

I wouldn't say highly, more like a 50 50 chance.

But also unless the R18+ issue is brought up at the next Attorney Generals meeting (don't know what it's called) then I don't think anything will be done about an R18+ rating.

The whole idea of the Public Paper was to bring the issue forward, and into the light of both the public and the government.

Which is why it was made public, and once that finished having public lodge their support either way, Feb 28th, that then allowed companies such as GAME, EB Games, PALGN IGN, GameSPot, OXCGN etc to publically collect signatures in support that can then be used in support of a change. Atkinson had a Veto Vote that enabled him as SA Attorney General to turn that majority into a no-show in palament.

It’s a veto power ability dating back from the early 1900’s where they implemented a law (remembering at that time laws could be influenced easily with $$ etc) so that if there was a legitimate reason that a bill not be passed, through say unfair reasons or political gain, that one person could hold that veto vote.

Sadly that vote was given to SA AG, as SA was initially the home of politics and governments starting out in Australia. So you can see where it came from, and why.

Check up on the OFLC site for the history and you’ll learn a lot from there.

Plus, no matter how much you may ‘dislike’ a person, especially those in political positions, they have done many good things for their community, but there are times that their thoughts on some matters might well be skewed . . . We can bemoan them as much as we like, that’s our freedom of speach to do so, but we are not in their shoes, and really do not know the full responsibilities each one has.

Plus, something to remember, while I have not liked, and in fact really disliked what Mr Atkinson has been doing and saying around this issue, I’ve never called him anything.

As by doing so, we (you and I) simply give him (or those we oppose) the ammunition to prove their point to the greater public. Who, for the most part, are unfamiliar with what is exactly going on, and will see that when ppl come back with abuse and name calling, give the issue credit. That in fact these ppl are violent and abusive, so therefore the games ‘must’ cause this behavour – which would make sense to any logical person.

"YOu" (we as a body of ppl) have to step above it, acknowledge that they are entitled their opinions, but use facts, figures and public opinion against them, not abusive words and or actions that can be turned against the ppl actually looking for change – make sense?