Hostile takeover -- bad for kids?

OK, several of us have posted in feedback, also grapevine, etc on this. Those were not really the correct forum to get into depth, so I am posting here. Even though the event is over, I feel this issue is an important one that needs to be discussed, both for future events and just plain RL.

I am on record as not liking this event, for various reasons, laid out in the feedback thread.
Despite, that, I don't think this event harms kids.

To an extent, this is part of a general argument among child educators, but many of the comments go beyond that.
There are really 2 issues here.

#1 misuse of the word "subliminal". "Subliminal messages" are those messages that are NOT outward, but hidden. A subliminal message would be when all the female characters are wearing sexy clothes and .. er.. enhanced body parts, when good characters regularly do things that are wrong, etc, etc. This event was the exact opposite of that.

#2 Is seeing a bad person, "evil-doer", etc bad?

The first is just plain a misuse of the word. The mere presence of a bad character does not make a message subliminal. In fact, its just the opposite. Here the bad guy is there for all to see and someone who obviously needs to be defeated. That is classic "good versus evil" , where the good guys win. There USED to be thinking that exposing kids to any of that makes them turn more violent. As I stated in the feedback thread, though, that is just plain wrong. The truth is that all kids have feelings of bad and good, both. When they play games -- be it attacking monsters, cops and robbers, etc -- they work out these feelings in a safe way. There can be issues if the same kid is always made to be the victim, if they are playing stereotypes (cowboys and indians, for example .. but even that can be overstated, has to be taken into context) etc, but that is apart from the basic theme. In kids, these themes are exaggerated -- in ways that can seem disturbing to adults (put the thief away for life! chop off their heads!), but that exaggeration, too, is part of kids learning to deal with these dangerous emotions.

Ironically, not allowing kids to play these games DOES lead to problems. It gives them the idea that these feelings themselves are not natural, that expressing any kind of anger, for example, is bad.

Now, if you yourself are not comfortable having your kids play this game, or any other... that is your prerogative. I am not suggesting otherwise. Cultures vary. The way we deal with all kinds of issues, including violence, does vary. Some cultures are naturally more pacifistic than others. MY point is that your having that feeling, having that culture, does not mean you are somehow more "enlightened" about kids. It is an opinion, but not a universal one, nor is it, as someone stated or implied, "scientific fact". In fact, the research is very, very nuanced and actually does NOT point to games like this one as harming kids.

The distinction, is when you have kids who ARE dealing with real violence. In that case, there can be some special issues. That is a different topic and not one I am prepared to discuss here. I will say that even then, playing out scenes helps them deal with these issues, but the timbre/tone may differ.

If anything, Farmerama has shown a consistant GOOD display of both subtle and overt messages. Although I have had issues with various farmerama policies, I have to say that the way they treat female characters, in particular is excellent. In the viking, event, for example, the characters were attractive, but stout in stature and not terribly "sexy" in a negative way. Further, roles seem pretty spread out. Its not "men are always heroes". And, the good guys ALWAYS win, which is pretty important.

 

I agree. Even though it seemed that the weasel cheated us in every game, finally he was the one who went to prison. In real life too that is what is happening. No result is immediate. Wrong doers put up a show as if they are wining and that's how one should live. But they don't last long. Also the struggle for justice and truth is a long one and they always wins in the end. We have to have patience while we are putting continuous efforts for the Truth/justice to triumph. Rome was not built in a day and nothing great is achieved in a short period. Our histories tell us these.

 

That is how I understand all that I've read on the subject, Woody. I do truly value and respect differing perspectives, and would love to learn if there's more to understand. So, if there is research that points to (seemingly) benign games, like the one we played in Hostile Takeover, as being somehow harmful, I'd love to read it, to at least try to understand the rationale behind it.
I have also read research on overtly violent/criminal games like first person shooter games, or those involving crimes like stealing cars, where the player assumes the role of the aggressor, and is rewarded for it. I can understand how being immersed in such games for hours on end could have a certain desensitizing effect, especially on developing young minds. But, those games are a far cry from the games we play on the farm.
As far as exposing children to "bad guys" and any negative effects it may cause, I just don't believe there are any, as long as the subject matter is at an appropriate level to their age. (For example, a movie rated for adults that depicts graphic violence, would be a poor choice, even if the good guys win.) Very young children can recognize the bad characters in stories. The antagonist is a key instrument in many children's tales, used to highlight the differences between good and bad, and right and wrong choices. It's instrumental in illustrating what is considered bad behavior, and sometimes, also, how to deal with it.
Of course, there's also the nature vs. nurture question. There are those who believe some people are inherently prone to misdoing from birth, and that no amount of positive nurturing can change them. But, that's an entirely different argument...

 

That was Lombroso's school of thought in Criminology. We learnt that in our college. I took Criminology as special subject during my final year of B.L., in Law College. Actually forgot that. Thanks sunny for refreshing my mind. But in my M.L., I took Labour and Administrative Law instead of Criminology. Even the Professor who asked me questions during my interview cited. He asked me, you have given criminology as last option. Does that mean you have not prepared it for the interview. I said yes. Then he asked me whether he can skip questions in criminology and ask questions from other branch, I said No, No Sir, You can ask questions from Criminology, if I know the answer I will tell you so or I will say I do not know the answer. Then he asked me question about Lombroso's School of thought. I said that particular school of thought says criminals are not made but born. He thought I was intelligent person. But what he really did not know was that, when I went inside the room for interview, I asked the candidate coming out what questions he was asked inside, he said 'about Lombroso's School of thought'. I asked him what the answer was and he gave me that one line answer and I went in and by coincidence I was asked the same question and I gave the correct answer. And I got selected for M.L., Degree Course. After nearly 7 to 8 years of my practice as advocate that professor got retirement and he came to practice as advocate and came as junior to a Senior Counsel in my opposite chamber. We are now great friends but he doesn't remember the interview at all. You bring back my college memories.

Good Night Everyone !