Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

redcross.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 253 posts

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

#171

Post by throwaway894345 »

bingidingi wrote: post #159
throwaway894345 wrote: post #150

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. 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.

> 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.

Good grief. Can you think of a reason why your analogy about changing how a symbol is used in real life might not apply to a debate about how symbols are used in fiction?

Let me offer up an analogy that isn't completely and obviously broken:

If you watch enough Doctor Who, does it make you believe that real life police boxes are actually camouflaged time machines?

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

#172

Post by throwaway894345 »

blooalien wrote: post #169
throwaway894345 wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, but they could make that point without invoking the deaths, so presumably they're engaging in some kind of persuasion about why it's important to respect their trademark.

Presumably because persuasion is apparently necessary, as evidenced by some folk arguing against some of their reasoning or statements regarding the issue.

> Presumably because persuasion is apparently necessary, as evidenced by some folk arguing against some of their reasoning or statements regarding the issue.

Fine, so what's the persuasion in this case? Is it really "misuse of trademark in fiction media contributed to these killings of Red Cross personnel"? Because that's a pretty fantastic claim that requires evidence if you are to persuade someone.

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

#173

Post by alkonaut »

chomp wrote: post #34
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…

I don't think they are insinuating that. I think they are claiming that pulling the Red Cross into public domain dilutes its symbolism from the neutral humanitarian organization they intend it to stand for, to "generic medical symbol potentially used by anyone", which could potentially open personnel up to violence.

> generic medical symbol potentially used by anyone

But didn’t that ship sail a century ago?

Since exactly everything related to medical services/material/staff uses a red cross in the physical world, isn’t it natural that it does in movies (or games)? Is the argument here that it can be used when depicting proper use (e.g war movie or war game) but shouldn’t be used more than that since that’s the rule in the real world? That at least makes some sense.

I have been an army medic myself with a red cross armband and while I knew that this was somehow related to the Geneva convention I wasn’t actually aware that it was the exclusive right of military medical staff. Every single gadget/vehicle/facility is plastered with the symbol so it sure feels like the generic “medical whatever” symbol.

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

#174

Post by junar »

dwaltrip wrote: post #149
dang wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably the most excited I've ever personally made PG was when he saw me make an em dash on my MBP and immediately wanted to know how.

I would also like to know how!

Well, parent comment mentioned Mac, so the correct answer is Option, Shift, and - (hyphen). There are many other characters that Macs can type with the Option key.

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

#175

Post by tyingq »

kipchak wrote: post #145
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…

To complicate things one further layer down, what about games (Escape From Tarkov's AFAK for example) having products in them that do hijack the red cross, which is somewhat common in real life.

As you say, some actual US military first aid kits have a red cross on them...here's one I've seen in real life: https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0106/5435/1460/products/1a...

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

#177

Post by bingidingi »

throwaway894345 wrote: post #171
bingidingi wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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. Good grief. Can you think of a reason why your analogy about changing how a symbol is used in real life might not apply to a debate about how symbols are used in fiction ? Let me offer up an analogy that isn't completely and obviously b…

It's about the ubiquity in fiction. If every police box in fiction was a time machine, it stands to reason someone may be confused when encountering a real police box for the first time.

The misuse of the red cross, especially in video games, is rampant to the point that the Red Cross is worried about confusion.

There's additional issue with the fact that video games are very common, but warzones and disaster areas less so. So it's quite possible the fictional association, if overused, could redefine the real-life usage for many people. We already see some of this in the comment section... many people don't understand the difference between "health" as a concept and the red cross as an element protected by international law.

It seems reasonable to try and claw that meaning back.

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

#178

Post by kleene_op »

afiori wrote: post #136
arthurcolle wrote: post #9

What does this accomplish?

increasing awareness of the problem

This seems like a very petty problem to focus on in "an increasingly uncertain world". I think establishing a link between people making/playing video games and people who actually abuse the red cross symbol causing actual casualties is just plain counterproductive. Until they back that connection with actual data, I stand unmoved by their statement.

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

#179

Post by xtracto »

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?

In Mexico there are a group of public state owned hospitals with the "green cross". It is the place where they take you when you get in an accident and don't have anywhere else to go. There's also the red cross, but that's the same as the one in the article.

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

#180

Post by bingidingi »

tyingq wrote: post #175
kipchak wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To complicate things one further layer down, what about games (Escape From Tarkov's AFAK for example) having products in them that do hijack the red cross, which is somewhat common in real life.

As you say, some actual US military first aid kits have a red cross on them...here's one I've seen in real life: https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0106/5435/1460/products/1a...

This falls under the appropriate case as defined under the Geneva Conventions, because these would be used by people administering aid in armed conflict.
Post reply on HN