Mohammad Alotaibi Professor Marian Thomas English 102 28 July 2014 Mohammad—It appears you have done much reading on this topic; however, the paper itself is confusing. While your last paper was fairly easy to understand, here the phrasing is unclear. In the past I have had no problem reading your English which has been quite clear and direct, but here you use phrases which make no sense to me. An example would be calling a video game a “diversion” or a “feature amusement.” The phrasing throughout is awkward and difficult to follow. The other problem is that you seem to be a bit confused about what the one main claim is for the paper. You state in your e-mail that the claim is that “video games create violent children in real life.” However, the final paragraph, states quite directly that there is no definite link between violence in children and the games they play. This is more confusing because in the paper itself you offer some strong testimony from authorities that there might be a link between specific games and violent behavior. I read through the paper more than once hoping to understand exactly what you mean. I do see some valid sources in the paper, but the paper is just too out of focus and the wording too difficult. 9 out of 15 points The opening sentence of any paper is ultimately important, Mohammad, as it either invites the reader to consider the thoughts of the paper or turns them away. Your first sentence is difficult to understand. Read it out loud and consider whether or not the meaning is clear from a reader’s point of view. There are other phrases in this opening paragraph which are also confusing. For instance, what does “vicious feature amusements” mean exactly? What does “characters in the diversion” mean? For me, it sounds like you are starting the paper in praise of some sort of “amusement” because it takes the worry away from kids. Is that really what you want to argue? You need to be specific in what “diversions” you are referring to. If you mean video games, state this directly. This paper will endeavor to demonstrate, that announcements made with respect to the unseemliness of feature diversions are untrue. The preference of playing feature amusements could be demonstrated in their capacity to improve learning, deftness, and this thusly can empower kids and adolescents to improve in school. Vicious feature amusements can help overcome tension by giving amusement without going out, taking regular worries on the characters in the diversion rather than genuine living, takes the juvenile's personalities off stresses and anxiety of the outside world, and sways kids to stay out of inconvenience. Feature recreations can render these different explanations against feature diversions and their makers are false. Feature amusements help diminish push and outrage by giving an outlet to pressure, giving excitement, and giving inspiration to reliably accomplish higher score ...

1. Mohammad Alotaibi
Professor Marian Thomas
English 102
28 July 2014
Mohammad—It appears you have done much reading on this
topic; however, the paper itself is confusing. While your last
paper was fairly easy to understand, here the phrasing is
unclear. In the past I have had no problem reading your
English which has been quite clear and direct, but here you use
phrases which make no sense to me. An example would be
calling a video game a “diversion” or a “feature amusement.”
The phrasing throughout is awkward and difficult to follow.
The other problem is that you seem to be a bit confused
about what the one main claim is for the paper. You state in
your e-mail that the claim is that “video games create violent
children in real life.” However, the final paragraph, states
quite directly that there is no definite link between violence in
children and the games they play. This is more confusing
because in the paper itself you offer some strong testimony
from authorities that there might be a link between specific
games and violent behavior.
I read through the paper more than once hoping to
understand exactly what you mean. I do see some valid sources
in the paper, but the paper is just too out of focus and the
wording too difficult.
9 out of 15 points
The opening sentence of any paper is ultimately important,
Mohammad, as it either invites the reader to consider the
thoughts of the paper or turns them away. Your first sentence is
difficult to understand. Read it out loud and consider whether
or not the meaning is clear from a reader’s point of view.
There are other phrases in this opening paragraph which are
also confusing. For instance, what does “vicious feature

2. amusements” mean exactly? What does “characters in the
diversion” mean?
For me, it sounds like you are starting the paper in praise of
some sort of “amusement” because it takes the worry away from
kids. Is that really what you want to argue? You need to be
specific in what “diversions” you are referring to. If you mean
video games, state this directly.
This paper will endeavor to demonstrate, that announcements
made with respect to the unseemliness of feature diversions are
untrue. The preference of playing feature amusements could be
demonstrated in their capacity to improve learning, deftness,
and this thusly can empower kids and adolescents to improve in
school. Vicious feature amusements can help overcome tension
by giving amusement without going out, taking regular worries
on the characters in the diversion rather than genuine living,
takes the juvenile's personalities off stresses and anxiety of the
outside world, and sways kids to stay out of inconvenience.
Feature recreations can render these different explanations
against feature diversions and their makers are false. Feature
amusements help diminish push and outrage by giving an outlet
to pressure, giving excitement, and giving inspiration to reliably
accomplish higher scores or levels, in the feature diversions.
Numerous foes of fierce feature diversions have expressed that
these manifestations of media reason damage to kids, however
that is false as per the exploration that will be expressed in this
exposition.
This paragraph is also confusing. Who is Jack Thompson? Is
he a writer or someone who created a violent video game? You
write about a “quote” but I don’t see a quote. Savage feature
recreations have been in the media for a long time now and still
restriction of this intuitive media say that they are unsafe to
teenagers One rival of brutal feature diversions Jack Thompson,
expressed that the feature diversion industry provided for him a
cranial menu that appeared in a split second in that police

3. headquarters, and that menu offered him the part second choice
to kill the officers, shoot them in the head, escape in a squad
car, in the same way that the amusement itself prepared them to
do. This quote is identified with the conviction of a 18 year old
that was accused of shooting three cops after probably playing a
"Terrific Theft Auto" diversion. As anybody can see from this
quote a large portion of the adversaries of brutal feature
recreations have no noteworthy evidence to structure a keen
counter-point. Where does the quote end? "Some noticeable
U.S. government officials, for example, past Attorney General
John Ashcroft, have scrutinized fierce feature amusements by
and large. Others have denounced particular recreations like the
2007 discharge Manhunt 2, a disputable offering that has
attracted administrative endeavors the UnitedStates and abroad.
As anyone could see fierce feature amusements are even now
being tested even today.
Vicious feature amusement adversaries have constantly pled the
case that this manifestation of media has been bringing about an
expansive build in roughness, yet "government Crime facts
recommend that genuine fierce criminal acts among adolescents
have diminished since 1996, even as feature diversions deals
have taken off" (Harvard 1). As anybody can see from this
detail rough feature amusements, for example, "Honorable
obligation: Black Ops" and "Radiance: Reach" will likely be a
portion of the top of the line feature diversions in the not so
distant future and likely vicious youth wrongdoings won't
expand whatsoever.
Contending the civil argument with respect to feature
amusement savages mainstream research in a roundabout way. It
also impacts that verbal confrontation about feature diversion
savagery in the general population. The news cycle about
feature amusements has a tendency to concentrate on three
fundamental phenomena: The arrival of disputable diversions,
unsupported articulation by nonscientist, for example, Jack
Thompson, and deliberations to tie singular genuine vicious
wrongdoings to brutal recreations, notwithstanding confirmation

4. that savage unlawful acts, including youth law violations, for
the most part are diminishing. (Ferguson 3)
This citation is an incredible sample of the rehashing cycle of
lack of awareness over rough feature recreations. Actually, in
2010 there has been a considerable amount of vicious feature
diversions discharged, for example, "Radiance: Reach,"
"Decoration of Honor," "Honorable obligation: Black Ops," and
"Professional killers Creed: Brotherhood." All of these
amusements have the marvel of multiplayer outrage, a condition
which truth be told one of the few negatives of fierce feature
recreations. As indicated by Denis Trufin the store chief of
"Gamestop" multiplayer resentment is the point at which a
player gets truly irritated when playing multiplayer and may
wind up doing irate things or winding up with more push.
Despite the fact that the negatives, may appear to be more awful
than the positives, this is totally untrue. One such negative is
the impacts of amusement related disappointment brought about
by various savage feature recreations. As per Kirsh, in his
article, "Youngsters, Adolescents, and Media Violence: A
Critical Look at the Research:"
Despite the fact that there are negatives of brutal feature
diversions, fierce feature amusements have very much a lot of
positives to exceed the little measure of negatives. "Feature
amusements give the intent to channelize one's feelings in a
positive manner. Outrage, contempt and such other antagonistic
emotions in an individual's psyche get a stage to approach by
method for an amusement" (Oak). As expressed prior in this
article brutal feature amusements have been utilized for a long
time as an approach to channel the negatives feelings gamers
feel into something that can't be utilized to damage genuine
individuals. For instance, if a gamer was having a terrible day
and was irate at something that befell him, wouldn't it be more
secure for the gamer to get a controller and take all that outrage
out on a machine created character rather than a true individual?
"Feature recreations have dependably been scandalous for their
hostile to social perspective and the savagery that is indicated

5. in them. They have been seen as adversely influencing the
players as far as absence of social aptitudes, wastefulness,
corpulence and sluggishness" (Oak). One such sample of this is
the feature diversion known as "Universe of Warcraft" which is
popular for being a feature amusement that has created
exceptional fixation. As indicated by Oak, in his article,
"Positive Effects of Video Games:"
For as long as 40 years, since the first feature recreations were
made, the gaming business has created diversions that would
surpass different amusements before it. Since the late 1970's,
when the initial two amusements of "Pacman" and "Space
Invaders" were made, feature diversions have changed
massively about whether. The late 1970's through the 1980's
feature amusement creators utilized what was called a 8-bit
realistic framework, which constrained numerous gimmicks they
could put in feature diversions (Porter &ump; Starcevic, 2007).
Savagery was not practical, blood was not red, along these lines
viciousness in feature diversions was not fused into the new
amusements that showed up available. In the early 1990's,
feature amusement creators started utilizing a 16-bit realistic
framework which would empower them to join significantly
more detail of brutality and blood into feature recreations. This
brought on an expand in vicious feature diversion interest and a
build in sensible rough occasions consolidated into these
recreations (Porter &ump; Starcevic, 2007).
This paragraph is a written with a bit more clarity and unity in
its purpose. With engineering in feature diversions improved,
the gainfulness on savage features recreations climbed also. At
the point when a diversion called 'Mortal Kombat' was
discharged in the early 1990's with a grim demise seen in the
amusement, the US Congress needed to intercede. They advised
the gaming business they needed to concoct a precise reviewing
framework to rate the amusements on age-fittingness and
substance propriety. This brought on the "Stimulation Software
Rating Board. While rating every feature amusement and
posting that rate on them has enhanced get to by little

6. youngsters, high schoolers and junior grown-ups can at present
purchase and view exceptionally savage scenes.
In 2007, there was an unfortunate occasion at Virginia Tech
University. A young person by the name of SeungHui Cho went
out of control on the facilities and murdered a sum of "32
learners and workforce" (Ferguson, 2007). Cho confessed to
viewing features diversions before the wild murdering, and
much the same as the "Columbine slaughter," individuals
faulted the Virginia Tech shooting for brutal feature
amusements. There were additionally other mental wellbeing
elements that ascribed to this silly demonstration of roughness.
In the year 1999, an awful shooting at Columbine High School
happened. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold executed 12
understudies, alongside one instructor. Soon after the assault
and executing of their kindred understudies and instructor, they
both submitted suicide. After the slaughter, a police
examination uncovered a feature tape of both the young men. In
the feature, both young men made the remark saying it would be
"much the same as fate. Fate is a brutal feature amusement that
blast available in the 1990's soon after the new type of gaming
called "first individual shooter," a 3-dementional environment
sort of feature diversion, appeared on the scene. Since the
"Columbine slaughter" and the shooting at Virginia Tech,
researchers have all the more altogether mulled over whether
rough feature diversions creating forceful conduct could be
interfaced together (Porter &ump; Starcevic, 2007).
Since the origin of media, particularly after brutality was
acquainted with it, many studies have centered their exploration
on review these vicious demonstrations and animosity. At the
point when rough feature recreations developed, specialists
turned to breaking down these a great deal all the more nearly.
A considerable lot of the studies concentrated on the sex of the
individual and considering male versus female hostility in the
wake of survey and playing feature amusements. Some
examined review vicious feature amusements versus playing the
fierce diversions to discover if there was an association between

7. the two (Polman, de Castro, &ump; van Aken, 2008). Be that as
it may the inquiry remains: Can researchers, with conviction,
infer that an action that most kids and youngsters share in, lead
to savagery in such a little rate of those kids and teens? Could
forceful conduct be totally connected to viewing feature
diversions? On the other hand are there other special conditions
that impact this conduct? Studies recommend a connection in
feature viewing and hostility, yet specialists have not had the
capacity to discover an immediate causal relationship between
the two. As in many practices, there are numerous different
variables that may help the individual's conduct and their
activities to a particular occasion. To reason that viewing fierce
feature recreations causes hostility can't be said with assurance,
unless different variables might be controlled for. Those
variables would incorporate sex, family history, inclinations to
forceful conduct before viewing feature recreations, and
numerous different components that impact our conduct
(Persky&ump; Blascovich, 2008).
With the offer of feature amusements in the United States being
in the billions and the amount of individuals review these
demonstrations of savagery being so various, there must be
different elements that impact this forceful conduct. The sheer
amounts of individuals who view these savage feature
amusements versus the amount of forceful acts are off by a long
shot in numbers. After each one mass executing that has
happened, the occasions paving the way to it are analyzed and
examined. It is concurred upon that survey or having feature
diversions were influence of these killers' lives, however
different impacts additionally were included.
From studies evaluated and conclusions that were drawn from
information, there were no predictable connections between
survey brutal feature amusements that brought about an
expanded inclination to forceful conduct. On the off chance that
that association is to be drawn, then more studies will need to
be directed to bar variables that so far have not been tended to.
References

8. Ferguson, Christopher. (2007). Evidence for publication bias in
video games violence. Retrieved
from: http://www.sagepub.com
Persky, Susan. (2008). Immersive Virtual Video Game Play and
Presence: Influences on
Aggressive Feelings and Behavior. Retrieved from:
http://www.mitpressjournals.org
Porter G., &Starcevic, V. (2007). Are violent video games
harmful? Australian Psychiatry,
15(5), 422-426. Retrieved October 18, 2008, from
http://apps.isiknowledge.com/full_record.do?product=WOS&sea
rch_mode=GeneralSearch&qid=3&SID=1BPmM58oEoPB8kgIPa
L&page=1&doc=10