CAA: Christian Anime Alliance

Okay, I just wanted to get everyone's opinions on this matter. When I first heard about it, it IMMEDIATELY caught my attention--

http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/dws/wfaa/localnews/news8/stories/wfaa070912_lj_brady.c9704de6.html

For those who don't feel like reading it, here's the long and short of it. A manager of "GameStop" is (or was, more below) is refusing to sell school-aged kids video games if their grades aren't good or unless they bring an adult into the store to vouch for their grades. This was done WITHOUT approval from the higher-ups at GameStop--they didn't even know about it until the manager went to the media. He was SUSPENDED from GameStop on the 14th but information was not given on what grounds.

I have formed my opinion on the matter, but I just wanna see what you guys have to say on the matter before I post what I think.

Let the parents decide whether the kids should buy the games, not the cashiers. That's my two-cents. I would've fired this guy too.

The manager doesn't have a lot of power if he can't make simple decisions like this. On the other hand, he's not really keeping in the spirit of the main company. Since the store isn't a franchise, he's bound by the rule of the parent company not to act in ways that will reflect poorly on the parent company.

I like the idea, but it's probably better suited to a different environment (store).

People should stop trying to take a parent's role. Yeah, the intentions are good, but instead of proclaiming himself the administrator of academic justice, he should have looked into informing parents or something less -- hands off.

So yeah, I can understand entirely why they fired him. If you're going to do something like that that affects a store's sales without informing the people above you? Yeah, you might have that coming. It's the way corporate America works. *shrugs*

I would side with the manager on this.After all it is his store and he is the one who has to deal with the customers on a day to day basis.
Yes it would be nice if parents took responsibility for their children more often,however the sad fact is too often these days adults don't act the way they really ought to.That and the fact that too many kids spend more time on internet and playing games then on homework and chores
and you can understand why he did what he did.
If even one child got a better grade from this then it would be worth it.

I kinda agree with Mitsuki Lover on this, so often parents have advocated their responsibility, and kids are aloud to do as they please

I work for Gamestop and the from what I've heard, it's not good. Even though I thought it was a pretty good concept, the DM, RM, and Corporate Holders are up in the air on this one. My section lead was saying that "he was SOOOO fired!" yesterday, which kinda ticked me off a bit. The guy has good intentions. But, you can't go making your own store policies without getting proper approval. My brother in law said that if this manage gets fired he's sending letters and making calls to the CEO of GS giving him, his "personal" opinion on the matter.

mitsuki lover wrote:I would side with the manager on this.After all it is his store and he is the one who has to deal with the customers on a day to day basis.
Yes it would be nice if parents took responsibility for their children more often,however the sad fact is too often these days adults don't act the way they really ought to.That and the fact that too many kids spend more time on internet and playing games then on homework and chores
and you can understand why he did what he did.
If even one child got a better grade from this then it would be worth it.

Uhm...no it's not "his" store. Heck, I was going through my policies manual again after news of this came out, seems that if a game with an ESRB rating of M gets sold to a minor under the age of 17, will lead to the associate along with the manager being out-right terminated. Now, the manager does have some discretion on how to handle some customer issues. But he/she cannot, make a new store policy that affects potential customers. No matter how good his intentions are, policies are in place in regards to managerial issues.

SolidÅ wrote:Uhm...no it's not "his" store. Heck, I was going through my policies manual again after news of this came out, seems that if a game with an ESRB rating of M gets sold to a minor under the age of 17, will lead to the associate along with the manager being out-right terminated. Now, the manager does have some discretion on how to handle some customer issues. But he/she cannot, make a new store policy that affects potential customers. No matter how good his intentions are, policies are in place in regards to managerial issues.

This is true. I used to work at Gamestop. I believe that the DM gets written up as well (One write up is worth one strike in a "Three strikes, you're out" policy).

Also, I can understand how this could occur. When I was working at Gamestop, about 50% of our M rated games sales were to minors, with parental approval. Out of those minors, most of them hadn't even left grade school yet. In my store, I would be sure to read off the list of reasons that the game was rated M to the parent, and made sure they understood the rating system. The typical response was something along the lines of "I don't care, he sees worse than that on TV everyday. Hahaha." It was a very rare occurrence that the parent would decide against letting their child have the game.

At the same time, games are being blamed for some horrific tragedies. The parents aren't taking responsibility. They want someone or something to blame, and companies are taking steps to ensure that it isn't them.

It's hard to not take the helm of parenting from people when they are throwing it at you.

Like most of the other posts have said, it's not the managers place. =P

Cognitive Gear wrote:This is true. I used to work at Gamestop. I believe that the DM gets written up as well (One write up is worth one strike in a "Three strikes, you're out" policy).

Also, I can understand how this could occur. When I was working at Gamestop, about 50% of our M rated games sales were to minors, with parental approval. Out of those minors, most of them hadn't even left grade school yet. In my store, I would be sure to read off the list of reasons that the game was rated M to the parent, and made sure they understood the rating system. The typical response was something along the lines of "I don't care, he sees worse than that on TV everyday. Hahaha." It was a very rare occurrence that the parent would decide against letting their child have the game.

At the same time, games are being blamed for some horrific tragedies. The parents aren't taking responsibility. They want someone or something to blame, and companies are taking steps to ensure that it isn't them.

It's hard to not take the helm of parenting from people when they are throwing it at you.

Oh yeah, kids are getting sneakier and sneakier. I had a call come through from a 70 yr old mee-maw wanting to pre-order Grand Theft Auto 4 for her 14 year old grandson.

I asked her: "What exactly has your grandson told you about the game?"

Her response: "Oh, he said that it was an AWESOME racing game, where you take cars and race through cities and get money for it."

My reply: "Did he also mention the drug running, cop killing, gang fighting, massively bloody violence and prostitution that goes on along with the racing"? "Company policy instructs me to fill you in on ALL mature content of video games we sell, in regards to minors, ma'am. GTA 4 is graphically mature game for those 18 and older with an M rating, and not recommended for teens under 17, without a parents verbal consent (in person)."

Her response: "OH MY!! He didn't say anything about that!! My goodness, what is wrong with him wanting a game like that!?! Prostitution?? Killing, thank you so much for letting me know. I am definitely not getting it for him now...and I'm telling his mother about this, trying to trick me into getting him a game about drugs!!"

I laugh at her response a little, realizing she was being duped by her grandson. However, it's sad that parents aren't caring enough to know what their kids are buying, or playing, or don't care what's in the game. And when someone takes up the role of actually caring, it goes down like this. I'll be praying for the guy, hoping that he doesn't get fired. Actually he's put GameStop in a "no win" situation.

I don't know, that kids are bold enough to deceive their parents and grandparents indicates that the problem is much deeper than needing to pay more attention to what their kids are playing.

Of course, I don't agree with what the manager did or support him. He had good intentions, but parenting needs to be left to parents. For one thing, the rule is absurd when applied to other media, like movies, music, or anime.

mitsuki lover wrote:I would side with the manager on this.After all it is his store and he is the one who has to deal with the customers on a day to day basis.

It's not his store. He's the manager, NOT the franchise owner. If it were a "mom and pop" store then he could get away with it, but he has his superiors, and he most certaintly broke some store policies.

That and other people could potentially lose their jobs. I read somewhere that if somebody working at GameStop sells a game to a minor, he as well as his manager could face a lot of trouble. (Or was it in-store theft? I can't remember)

As much as his intentions were good, he had no right to do what he did.

blkmage wrote:I don't know, that kids are bold enough to deceive their parents and grandparents indicates that the problem is much deeper than needing to pay more attention to what their kids are playing.

Of course, I don't agree with what the manager did or support him. He had good intentions, but parenting needs to be left to parents.

The problem is that most of the time the parents don't care about the content. I would always explain what kind of content was in Grand Theft Auto or God of War, but it rarely made any difference.

Just to be clear on my position: I think that the manager was stepping outside the boundaries of his power. He should be reprimanded, not fired. Unless he has a history of being a poor employee, this isn't something that he should get fired over.

Hmmm, I personally have had little to no problems in my life in getting higher rated age games than what my original age would suggest. I did not really take much influense from it tho, problem is that some people will.

Okay. I've read through all your opinions on the matter, now it's time to give mine.


Please note, this is just my own personal opinion; my two cents as it were. For those who disagree, you may cash in the aforementioned cents for two free games of "Dance Dance Revolution Extreme".


That being said, I would like to start things off with a quote (Modified, of course, for CAA):

"The Road to heck is paved with good intentions".

This store manager, who seems like a good, upstanding guy, decides to institute a policy to refuse to sell games to anyone who doesn't make good grades. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that the definition of the word "parent"? Unless this guy sired every single kid that walks into the store, he has NO right whatsoever to deny sales to anyone based on their grades.

The only way you can technically deny a sale is if the buying party is underage (In which case the ESRB rating goes into effect) or if the person is known to cause disruptions in the operation of a store (harassing buyers or employees, theft of merchandise, etc...). Making an "F" in Algebra is NOT an excuse to refuse a sale to a customer. What goes on with that customer outside the store is between the parents and the kid, NOT the video game store manager. I know that sounds harsh, but in the retail business, it's the rule.

Now, don't get me wrong, I applaud his attempt to try and encourage the youth in his community, but to institute this policy in a store that, technically ISN'T HIS, is nothing short of ridiculious. A store manager can easily be transfered to another location, but the damage left behind from his "methods" are done--according to the article, he turned away about 24-25 potential customers. That store's loss is Wal-Mart's gain. All that Wal-Mart asks is that you provide photo ID. To my knowledge, a Wal-Mart CSR has never asked a person "Before I accept your money, how's your Social Studies grades looking?"

You know, it's a crying shame when we have to look to a store manager of a video game store to raise children.

Hey, what about this?

Fast Food restaurant - "How's your health doing? I'm sorry sir, we have a new policy. I cannot sell you french fries or that big whopper until you can show me that you are in good health. Your doctor must show me your medical report first. If your cholesterol and blood pressure levels are good, you can buy this value meal. Now, be good healthy ppl. I'm doing this for your good because ppl don't want to take responsibility for their health and food choices nowadays."

I have a lot more to say but this was the most fun to write out. XD

Mave wrote:Hey, what about this?

Fast Food restaurant - "How's your health doing? I'm sorry sir, we have a new policy. I cannot sell you french fries or that big whopper until you can show me that you are in good health. Your doctor must show me your medical report first. If your cholesterol and blood pressure levels are good, you can buy this value meal. Now, be good healthy ppl. I'm doing this for your good because ppl don't want to take responsibility for their health and food choices nowadays."

I have a lot more to say but this was the most fun to write out. XD

I think that analogy works perfectly.

As others have said, I agree completely with the actions taken against the manager. Whether parents do their jobs or not, is no excuse for other entities to act as surrogate parents.

Also, Mave's analogy is perfect.

I will simply say that I agree with Mave as well. Her analogy is perfect.

A problem most people are ignoring is that any store has the right to DENY service for any reason whatsoever to any customer.It doesn't have to make sense.Also how did the corporate ownership hear about it?
I don't suppose they really care what goes on in all of their stores as long as they get the bottom line meaning $.
I really think the manager was suspended,note Khakibluesocks said he was suspended and not fired,as a precautionary measure.
Corporate bosses in the end don't care what goes on,as I said,as long as
they get their $.

When I first went into this thread, I considered posting a rant of sorts, but Mave's got it pretty nailed down.

mitsuki lover wrote:A problem most people are ignoring is that any store has the right to DENY service for any reason whatsoever to any customer.It doesn't have to make sense.

Okay, open a store and tell a customer, "We won't serve you because you're black."

See how fast you end up in court.

Your belief that "stores have the right to deny service for any reason" is bull.

mitsuki lover wrote:Corporate bosses in the end don't care what goes on,as I said,as long as
they get their $.

To be brutally honest, it's not their JOB to worry about what goes on in the personal lives of their customers, so long as there ARE customers.

I've been reading about this particular topic on a lot of blogs and message boards, and I have to say that, for the most part, people are pretty negative about the whole thing. The positive reactions I'm seeing read along the lines of:
"Good for him! He's on the right track! He did the right thing! He's taking an active interest in the children!"

My method of thinking is, and correct me if I'm wrong, isn't that's what PARENTS are for?

• Who listens to the kids frequent (and often annoying) pleads for the latest game system?
• Who caves in and buys it?
• Where is the system primarly used?
• Who gives the kids the money for buying the games?
• Who signs the report cards every six weeks with the "D's" and "F's" on them?

If he really wants to get involved, do the reverse (as he's done before). Offer discounts on games or, even better, FREE games to kids who get good grades. As I said before: Gamestop's loss is Wal-Mart's gain. Besides--what's stopping little Timmy who got an "F" in Geometry from giving his money to Joe Cool and saying "Hey, can you go buy "Halo 2" for me?" If anything, he's putting kids in danger for theft or worse. Imagine this scene outside GameStop (and forgive if it reads like an afterschool special):

Student: "Aww, man. I really wanted to buy that new Madden, but the manager wouldn't let me because i got two "F's" and a "D".

Guy on the Street: "Hey, lil' man. The guy won't let you buy a game? I just bought the same game and got it in my car. I'll sell it to ya for $20."

[color=#339966]Student (Not too bright to begin with): "Umm, sure. Okay."[/color]

Next thing you know, he's on the "Amber Alert" message board on the freeway.

Okay, I know it's a bit of a stretch, but still, we're talking about a society when anything and everything can happen in the blink of an eye. And all becuase some guy who's wife is a teacher (according to the news article) wanted to make a change.

I fully support Khaki's idea. Discounts for good grades would be awesome. Refusing service for bad grades? While an interesting idea, it has way too many problems to be a good idea. For one, it discourages people from coming to your store. Discounts? Now that's a different question. Everybody loves to get the same stuff for less money.

I have no problem with the manager trying his program out [I mean hey, that's capitalism, right?], but trying it in a chain store was pretty stupid.

.rai//

mitsuki lover wrote:A problem most people are ignoring is that any store has the right to DENY service for any reason whatsoever to any customer.It doesn't have to make sense.Also how did the corporate ownership hear about it?
I don't suppose they really care what goes on in all of their stores as long as they get the bottom line meaning $.
I really think the manager was suspended,note Khakibluesocks said he was suspended and not fired,as a precautionary measure.
Corporate bosses in the end don't care what goes on,as I said,as long as
they get their $.

Corporate heard about it when it hit the news media. He decided to tell the media BEFORE he told his bosses. Like I said earlier...and no one seems to read my posts anyway...what do I know? I only work for the company.

And there are no "Franchise" GameStops or EBGames. They are all owned by one entity. And yes they do care what goes on in their stores. In fact they care so much that the Owner and CEOalong with the President of Gamestop stopped at a random store and mingled with the customers...they were treated like crap as well as customers from the store manager and sales associate (they didn't even know those 2 guys owned them)...5 mins later both manager and associate were fired. The Owner and Pres. ran the store themselves until the assistant manager could get to the store.

So they do care.

See, now that I think about it, I don't think that the manager has a right to ask for your grades. In my mind, it's quite invasive. It seems sort of like unreasonable search.

Wow I'm a bit late getting here. Let me have a swing at this.


- I don't actually know anything about retail, but I do know that pet stores have the right to refuse service to anyone they see fit and I think that is completely justified. If a person walks into the store, and starts throwing turtles against the wall, then asks to purchase a goldfish, the cashier has every right to tell them to (wait that acronym probably isn't allowed on this forum) get out.

[SIZE="5"]BUT[/SIZE]

Pet stores =/= game shops


- The manager's intentions were for the best, but his approach wasn't so great. Perhaps he should implement a new system. The office I work at has these tokens. If you arrive at your appointment early, you get a token. If you do an immaculate job brushing your teeth, you get a token. If you've been wearing your retainer (they know if you're lying) you get a token, etc. Then you can use the tokens to buy things, like digital cameras or plush animals. But we don't say, "You no brush your teeth, no braces for you!!!" I'm thinking this manager should try a similar approach-- if a customer comes in to buy a game and has straight A's, they get a certain percentage off their purchase. Compromise, anyone?


- I think not allowing a kid to buy a game due to a failing grade may actually be counter-productive. I mean, when I was in school and I had bad grades, there was usually a reason behind it. And it was usually depression. And playing a video game would help me overcome my depression. This probably isn't true for everyone, but I know I can't be the only one who responds to depression that way. Sometimes people just need to treat themselves when they're in a slump.


TL;DR:

- Pet store =/= game shop

- Manager should opt for positive reinforcement

- Bad grades sometimes = depression. Video games sometimes = feeling better, which in turn sometimes = better grades.

*waves at Mave*

As for me, I have to side with what I've said: Parents are the ones who say yes or no to what their children can do. Yes, it is very sad when a child has parents who could care little if they play GTA at six, but that's not my place. Or anyone's place.

Nor any store. I will agree that stores do have the right to set up personal policies by either the law or just for common sense, but no store or law should take away what is a parents job.

So, the manager of the store was in the wrong. And I don't feel his tactics were very open to customers. I would have run away and never come back if he had asked me. But I do agree that the discount idea would work very well, but that still doesn't solve the ultimate problem: Controlling what children see and play.

I know there are a lot of parents who don't care, probably because their parents didn't care before them. But you know what? Even if we're out numbered, there are parents who do care. Mine did. I've never played an M rated game in my life as my parents were very watchful over me in not only gaming but reading, music, and films. Although today I'm allowed to buy a lot of what I want without having to explain to them, it helped give me a lot more moral value to anything I bought.

So, even if there are parents who might not care, it isn't the end of the world. There always will be a family who does.

blkmage wrote:See, now that I think about it, I don't think that the manager has a right to ask for your grades. In my mind, it's quite invasive. It seems sort of like unreasonable search.

You know, that's a very good point. It's rather obvious, in fact, TOO obvious (Too obvious that I didn't even think about it, lol). No way does anybody other than your school or family have the right to know your grades. To deny service to someone who refuses to share his/her grades is just too extreme and the wrong thing to do.

You cannot deny service to somebody that doesn't want you to know they have AIDS because it is none of your business. Same applies with grades, job, salary, ethnic background, etc.