It may just be a game to you, but it means the world to us • Hacker News Board

Re: It may just be a game to you, but it means the world to us

#151

Post by sandworm101 » Fri, Jul 09, 2021, 7:44 PM UTC

jldugger wrote: post #127

yellow_lead wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the spirit of the rule is to protect things like hopsital ships, medics, etc. Saying its use in video games "distorts its meaning and its protective value..." is a bit much, especially for a creative work.

> but the spirit of the rule is to protect things like hopsital ships, medics, etc. Specifically medical organizations that commit to treating _all sides of a conflict_.

And, importantly, those platforms with the symbol are not allowed to be armed, or even armored. A vehicle with that symbol must have absolutely no other use than medical. Even something like bulletproof glass on an ambulance might make it useful as a troop carrier. A non-armored ambulance can only ever be an ambulance.

Re: It may just be a game to you, but it means the world to us

#152

Post by xboxnolifes » Fri, Jul 09, 2021, 7:46 PM UTC

xvedejas wrote: post #18

bingidingi wrote: post #14

The green cross is generally the recommended alternative. Note that this isn't normal copyright, the red cross is protected under the Geneva Conventions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emblems_of_the_International_R...

A green cross definitely means marijuana dispensary to my eyes. Is it actually used elsewhere?

I've seen green crosses used to signify healing in video games enough times that I wouldn't question it.

Re: It may just be a game to you, but it means the world to us

#153

Post by throw0101a » Fri, Jul 09, 2021, 7:50 PM UTC

scarby2 wrote: post #108

Justsignedup wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IF you are in combat and you see a red cross vehicle, it is important for your first reaction being "that is not where the enemy is" vs firing at it. This saves lives, and protects those who run into danger zones to save people. If we slap red cross symbols on people with medical equipment that you see in video games, it'll just dilute the meaning and maybe next time someone sees a vehicle with the red cross symbol t…

> If we slap red cross symbols on people with medical equipment that you see in video games, it'll just dilute the meaning and maybe next time someone sees a vehicle with the red cross symbol they'll think "oh, that's just the enemy's medics" and throw a grenade that way. The red cross is used by the enemies medics. It's one of main allowed uses. The issue comes with a distinction not commonly used in video games, tr…

> Also the Taliban have no qualms about destroying an ambulance or shooting a medic.

They've gone back and forth depending on their perception of how well the ICRC is doing its job:

* Withdrawal: https://www.rferl.org/a/afghanistan-taliban-withdraws-icrc-s...

* Restoration: http://cms.trust.org/item/20181012103241-lymfx

* https://www.npr.org/2019/09/16/761152686/taliban-lifts-ban-o...

Re: It may just be a game to you, but it means the world to us

#154

Post by sandworm101 » Fri, Jul 09, 2021, 7:50 PM UTC

throwaway894345 wrote: post #13

> In an increasingly uncertain world, this protective use of the red cross emblem has become more and more important. In the past ten years, there have been 162 fatalities among Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement personnel including two Canadians. I don't understand how these two sentences are related and the article doesn't explain it as far as I can tell. They seem to be vaguely insinuating that video games approp…

>> They seem to be vaguely insinuating ...

What we say doesn't matter. What the Red Cross says doesn't matter. The Geneva Convention protects certain symbols. That's the end of the debate. The red cross/crescent is owned by the Red Cross and any use by anyone else is completely subject to their permission.

This system was setup for a good reason. Those of us whose lives may one day be protected by that symbol (wounded soldiers) need it to remain above reproach. Every soldier may one day be bleeding on a cot in a field hospital, that symbol on the tent his only protection from instant death. The use of the red cross/crescent/crystal/star is not something that should be up for constitutional debate.

Re: It may just be a game to you, but it means the world to us

#155

Post by tyingq » Fri, Jul 09, 2021, 7:52 PM UTC

crooked-v wrote: post #134

tyingq wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's where I'm confused. I see the issue with products appropriating it as a sort of brand hijacking...like the example of a first aid kit with a red cross. But tv, movies, games, etc, just showing an accurate representation of real life, within the media itself seems...normal. I think if they have to, the least confusing thing would be a red square with a white cross inside it. That's what a lot of first aid kits…

> an accurate representation of real life In real life, the symbol is pretty strictly limited to a specific international organization well-known for their neutrality in armed conflict. Portraying it as just meaning 'healing' takes away from the power of that neutrality.

>the symbol is pretty strictly limited to a specific international

It's not though. Lots of military ambulances, from many countries, not associated with the Red Cross, have a red cross on them.

One example, there are many more: https://www.google.com/search?q=british+military+ambulance&t...

Re: It may just be a game to you, but it means the world to us

#156

Post by acheron » Fri, Jul 09, 2021, 7:53 PM UTC

dang wrote: post #114

tines wrote: post #2

Not to detract from the message here, but > It may just be a game to you but, it means the world to us The placement of that comma really irks me. Isn't "It may just be a game to you, but it means the world to us" the grammatically correct form? I'm somewhat surprised to see this in official communication from the Canadian Red Cross group. I feel like I've seen this "post-but" comma more and more recently. I guess pe…

Oh my goodness. I didn't even see that, probably because my brain regards it as impossible - it's the punctuation equivalent of the gorilla walking across the basketball court. Extreme comma tension now relieved above.

Ha, the same thing happened to me until I saw the comment. The gorilla analogy is just right.

Re: It may just be a game to you, but it means the world to us

#157

Post by smoldesu » Fri, Jul 09, 2021, 7:54 PM UTC

johncolanduoni wrote: post #84

smoldesu wrote: post #20

Up next: Apple issues wide-spread takedown notice for all video games using their classic and instantly identifiable "apple" icon to signify food.

I would be pretty impressed if Apple got their trademark enshrined in the Geneva convention like the Red Cross did.

I intended this as more of a jab at how asinine the Red Cross's claims are rather than Apple's, I'm a little surprised this post got dogpiled as hard as it did

Re: It may just be a game to you, but it means the world to us

#158

Post by throwaway894345 » Fri, Jul 09, 2021, 7:55 PM UTC

MattRix wrote: post #144

throwaway894345 wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not seeing where videogames caused these...

Are they supposed to wait until videogames cause an issue, and not be proactive? And how would you ever prove such a thing?

> Are they supposed to wait until videogames cause an issue

I'm asking "are they insinuating that appropriation of their trademark contributed to the deaths that they cited".

> And how would you ever prove such a thing?

Presumably *if* they are alleging a causal relationship between trademark appropriation and violence against personnel they have some reason to suspect that the causal relationship exists.

Re: It may just be a game to you, but it means the world to us

#159

Post by bingidingi » Fri, Jul 09, 2021, 7:58 PM UTC

throwaway894345 wrote: post #150

bingidingi wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The argument is that diluting the mark can cause confusion, and that confusion can cause death. "Videogames cause death" feels like a bad-faith oversimplification of the point they're trying to make. It's understandable, as video games are often wrongly attributed as creating violence... but that's not what they're saying. They don't want video games to stop representing medics, for example... they just don't want th…

> The argument is that diluting the mark can cause confusion, and that confusion can cause death. "Videogames cause death" feels like a bad-faith oversimplification. I was being terse, not bad faith. In particular, "videogames cause death" is not a less robust argument than "trademark appropriation can cause confusion which can cause death". Moreover, I'm specifically being charitable and saying "I don't think this i…

If I start putting the toilet symbol on doors without toilets behind them, eventually you're going to stop expecting toilets behind the door. You don't need an example to know that.

This also isn't about trademark, the red cross is outlined in the Geneva Conventions as a symbol with a specific meaning. That meaning is specific because it's meant to protect aid workers as neutral parties in conflict.

Re: It may just be a game to you, but it means the world to us

#160

Post by shadowgovt » Fri, Jul 09, 2021, 7:59 PM UTC

jldugger wrote: post #121

krtkush wrote: post #19

What does misuse particularly mean here? I couldn't gather that. Does a child's toy, which is supposed to represent a first aid kit, with the red cross on it constitute a misuse? Can a random private hospital not use the red cross?

>Does a child's toy, which is supposed to represent a first aid kit, with the red cross on it constitute a misuse? The important thing about the Red Cross and its brand is that they are neutral. The Genova convention declared they get a special marker, and a rule against harming them in wartime. A US army doctor presumably does not seek out to treat both sides of the conflict, and does not get the special protection…

The Halo series quietly switched from a red cross to a red H to come into compliance (as the international Red Cross didn't gel their position on the symbol's use in videogames clearly until after the first game was released).