Between starting a libertarian group in my school, planning my graduation and transfer, finding a new job and establishing relationships (of many chances I have, but few follow-throughs), I have found myself devoting more and more time to one question. It boils in my head, and each time I believe I have ascertained the solution; it is dashed before my eyes. Like a game of Tetris, the question is rather simple, and at the same time quite difficult to resolve. Who is the Left 4 Dead 2 censorship for, exactly?

Now technically that loaded question can be broken into several similar questions. Who will now buy L4D2 because it has been censored? Who will put it aside because the artistic aspects of this game have been snuffed out? What does the Australian government gain from this restriction? Does a gory game really do such harm to public outlook? Will parents, still seeing that the game is intended for mature audiences, go out of their way to purchase the game now that it's been toned down? Why should a young American adult (or any Americans for that matter) be so concerned with the affairs of another nation? Perhaps I'd just like to examine the mindset of another people's way of thinking, I would really like this question answered.

The problem is, try as I might like, I don't see anyone particularly benefiting from this arrangement. Sure a few compromises might make a few people feel good, and the government can say 'we won't tolerate smut'; good for them, but is it their purpose to tell every man, woman and child what they are allowed to tolerate? I'm not going to lie, this is all speculation, not a persuasive argument as to why Aussies should be infuriated. I don't have the time, energy or resources to spare to another side project with all life is throwing at me right now, but I will spare the time to give my two cents. Please do not treat any of the following as a credible argument.

At first I would like to analyze the concept of censorship as a trickle-down effect. When an entity benefits from one such piece, say a business for example gains huge profits from an idea, the cash is known to trickle down to new employees, expansions and the purchasing of more ideas to make more money to trickle. To that effect if a government is trying to prevent inexcusable behavior from it's people (say an increase in belligerent behavior), it will restrict what is allowed to be shown with censorships. You can show the man die, but you're not allowed to show how he died. A government, who upholds standards in society, now gains (arguably) more of a sense of morality, at (arguably) the cost of more liberty.

The trickle down effect here is simple; the government, which is by all definitions a ruling body that represents the people, with the influence of a higher standard, inflects that standard upon the people, who now also gain a higher standard. Smut goes down, and the way humanity views itself goes up. Sounds like a mutually beneficial prospect. So when the government sees an entity that has the potential to disturb that process (L4D2), they will undoubtedly not bend on their strict policies. They flex their political muscles, and the game now becomes 'child friendly'. The foundation on which the institution is built upon can breath easy again.

Of course, at it's core value L4D2 remains largely unchanged. Sure nothing bleeds, but you still slaughter hordes of infected with exotic (and sometimes eccentric) weaponry. Just because you don't see them die, you still garner the sight of mowing down once-humans with military might. Now it's almost like doing it from afar as there's no certainty in their deaths besides their disappearance. So if the principle remains the same, "Kill all sons'a **** (Ellis, L4D2), then what was the point of sacrificing the cosmetics? We smirk at the deed, but abhor the rendition of it? Does not seeing the blood resensitize the audience to violence? Doesn't it merely just encourage violence by making actions have even fewer consequences in an anarchist's paradise? It seems by exploring the possibilities, I've created more questions then I resolved. The government either gains everything or nothing because it allows violence, but only when rolled in sugary doses of censorship.

So if it wasn't for the government's sake, then who just benefited from the premises' overhaul? Perhaps it was for the children's sake. It's practically common knowledge that the ESRB's rating system is little more than a waver for parents entertaining the idea of buying violent games. Those that do heed it's warning, but still make the decision to allow their children to play violent games should have no scapegoat to lean on since they were warned thoroughly beforehand (buy this game and your son will be exposed to violence); and those that are either apathetical to the system or old enough to purchase a mature game generally don't benefit from censorship (the fact is children are receptive and open to all influences, not so with adults).

So if the target consumer censorship is protecting is children, then what do they get out of the deal? I could argue that it is good for every child to experience some violence and mature situations in order to get an understanding (and tolerance) of the more grotesque aspects of society (like a rat would eat a bit of poison to build a tolerance to it later for food), but no, that's pure opinion. It is primarily the legal guardian's call on what a child garners from life, be it a political view, philosophical stance, or in this case, level of standards. Assuming all parents know about the ESRB (and to that extent it's ratings) would be ignorant on my part, but assuming that none are aware of the process is equally ignorant. So censorship would only benefit children on three grounds: that A. Parents didn't know the game was horribly violent, B. they made no effort to read the cover of the game or simply didn't care (if the rating isn't in a big letter print like it is in America then I apologize for the mistake) or C. the parent is completely inept/ignorant (and in this case, how is s/he legally taking care of the child?)

I'm not going to focus on B. Or C. , since these are no reasons to promote censorship. Let's assume the parents of a child didn't know that the giant M (and the mature under it) meant the game is intended only for adults and the older crowd. Without reading it, ignoring (if S/he or they are young adults) the 'carding process' (again I assume in Australia that when young people buy something made for adults, they have to show proof of age), ignoring the commendably loud effects of the gunfire and screams in the game from down the hall, ignoring the interest the child shows in it, and ignoring several other signs that the game might not be suited for the 3-16 crowd (online warnings, the child talking about the game, word spread by other concerned adults); should after so many red flags there be a censorship? Shouldn't only one red flag be enough to prevent censorship, since one red flag is enough to say 'this game is bad for children'? Now lets say a person does pay attention to the obvious. Some mother reads the game is for adults, and tells her child that he cannot have it. Then after, she discovers that the version in her country is without blood and gore. Then what? The game is still for adults, and it is still rated M. Is she now going the buy the game, even with the knowledge that it was originally intended for adults, for her son? Is the lack of blood smears going to entice her to purchase this game anymore?

So censorship arguably doesn't help the government, children, consenting adults, consenting parents, or any combination of humanity that falls into these categories. So I'm still left with the question, who benefits from this? It sure isn't Valve's stockholders, nor is it anyone outside of Australia. What group is limiting the capabilities of this game meant to protect? Is it meant to protect Valve from lawsuits that shouldn't happen as all consumers are forewarned? Is it meant to protect a group of children with blind parents or parents who have never heard of L4D2? As far as I can tell, maybe a few individuals benefit from this censorship, but not any group. Perhaps I just don't think Like Australians does, but somehow I don't think this censorship has accomplished much.

Things I need before I will allow myself to buy Left4Dead 2:

Practice Liscence

A date

A new Job

My classes registered

Scholarship

Some of these seem like common sense (or common courtesy), but it has become exponentially harder to enjoy an L4D match because of incompetence on part of other players. Now I don't fancy myself an expert, a sharpshooter, or even anything resembling a seasoned warrior in the field of zombie survival, but if I have to pay for another man's incompetence I am seriously going to acquire a case of dementia. Here are simple rules that I believe everyone should know about L4D.

1. If you are Hosting/leading a game, it is NOT ok to go AFK in the lobby:

I am sick to death of hosts that wander away from their computers for one reason or another and make forming a group of players exponentially difficult. For one reason or another they are AFK and players slide in and out of lobbies because they don't want to wait for one guy to flush and go back to the game. Please, for everyone's sake, take care of your bio needs before the game starts, and always exit after you're done (don't just walk away from your comp. Dammit). I am tired of being bogged down by such terrible lack of consideration.

2. If you're at point and there's a horde prompt, duck!

This shouldn't even take much thought. All the characters are elevated at the same height, so the people behind you cannot shoot over the people in the front unless they are crouching. Yes zombies can (and will) come from all directions to attack, but when marching forward like you will frequently do (especially in a closed corridor) please hold control.

3. FF cannot turn off, stay out of my line of fire

Why is it that every time I am shooting at zombies some guy has to run in front of me, thus causing me to be marked with an ff demerit? I understand that accident happen, and in the heat of the moment you can't keep tabs on everyone, but it's not hard to see gunfire blaring next to you. All I ask is that you watch where you're going, just as well as I watch where I'm shooting.

4. Gas cans can be a good substitute, but do not throw them and then shoot

In the past 48 hours I've been repeatedly burned by someone tossing a gas can too close to the group in an attempt to erect a firewall. They shoot it, and we have to retreat because they couldn't aim higher. If you can't handle the task of placing a gas can as a line of defense, then leave it to the adults.

5. Special infected have claws for a reason, and players see the red outlines for a reason

It is NOT ok to pounce as a hunter when the survivors all have their eyes on you. That giant red outline reads 'kill me, I'm on your friend'. Use your claws to soften the enemy, wait for an appropriate distraction (like a barf bag moment) and then pounce on the one survivor that couldn't follow the pack.

6. If you're a parent and you're reading this, do NOT give your 12-year-old son a mic for Christmas.

This requires no explanation. I'm sick of kids who haven't hit puberty badgering on about pointless crap and barking orders.

7. For everyone else get a mic

Unless you're deaf, it is not ok to type in the middle of a horde rush

8. if you must go AFK while playing, please use the take a break prompt (a lot can happen in the moments it takes for the comp to register you as afk)

9. Never stare at the witch while walking by her

10. GIVE, GIVE, GIVE!

It's not as well known as it should be, but the ai director rewards selflessness. The more health you share, the more health that spawns later down the road. Protect your partners, toss the hurt one's pills, and never use your kit on yourself (unless grey and no one has a kit). Even if this weren't true it would be a better experience for all (and a show that humanity isn't all going down the crapper) if you though about how you can help your teammates. Four guns is (almost) always better than 3.

11. Call out when you see goodies

Let's face it, after a while the in game characters voices can become white noise, so please call out if you see something that can help the group. If there's a spare Molotov call it out. If you can't hold more pills toss some to the next guy and pick em up. The same can be said about calling out for infected (if you know there's a rush, recommend getting into one room). Not everyone has as sophisticated speakers as you, and giving a witch warning before hand does give you more options on how to deal with it down the road.

I hope this gets to who needs to hear it. When I started playing L4d I knew it was destined to be a timeless wonder. Please keep the timeless wonder from being a failed game by considering these rules of thumb.