http://dbd.game/killswitch
PSA: Check Your Sources Before Repeating Misinformation
Please note that what I have to say isn't exclusive to quoting developers, but that is one of the biggest instances in which I've observed this problem, so I'm going to focus on that for the time being.
I've been seeing a lot - and I mean a lot - of misinformation floating around about what was and was not said in the most recent livestream. This is a cordial reminder to everyone who feels inclined to make a comment along the lines of "The devs said XYZ" to make sure that you're repeating what was actually said, not your own inferences or misrememberings.
It's human nature, when you have an emotional reaction to something someone said, to remember what was said less vividly than you remember how it made you feel. This can cause you to be unintentionally unjust in the retelling, by repeating what you inferred from what they said, or what you think they "really meant", as if that was actually what was said. I'm sure most people who do this don't set out to be misleading, but I urge you, for your own sake as much as everyone else's, to double-check your facts before you presume to speak on someone else's behalf.
Not only is it harmful to the community and the future of the game, since this kind of thing has the power to dramatically affect the developers' relationship with their players, it's also harmful to your credibility. When you recount something someone else allegedly said without checking your facts, most of the time it just makes you look unreliable at best, and willfully biased and ignorant at worst.
If you're looking for a way to educate yourself in this particular case, the devs have helpfully provided a summary of the information from the most recent livestream here: https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/123658/live-q-a-recap-january-23rd-2020
And I myself created a more in-depth, though obviously unofficial, summary which you can find here: https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/123532/i-watched-the-dev-stream-so-you-dont-have-to-once-again
Both summaries contain links to the stream, if you would prefer to watch it for yourself.
This doesn't just apply to DBD either, it's a life lesson for debating in general. It makes it really hard for anyone to take your argument seriously if you can't make it without grossly misrepresenting the point(s) you're trying to rebut, because if you have to resort to pretending someone else said something they didn't in order to justify your perspective, all that really says is that you don't actually have an argument.
So please, do yourself a favour. Be more compelling, allow yourself to be taken seriously, by grounding your argument in facts. Public forums are meant to be a place for discussing ideas, and obviously everyone wants to be listened to and agreed with. So do a bit of research, and don't be so quick to shoot yourself in the foot.
Comments
-
What do you mean the devs don't hate me and every action they do is not made with the intention of ruining MY gameplay experience?! can't you see they are sooooooo survivor sided in their stream? They said they will nerf toolboxes, when in reality they need to be completely removed, as well as the crutch perks DS, BT, DH, MoM, inner strenght, kindred, no mither, buckle up and deja vu
14 -
What misquotes are we even talking about exactly?
0 -
inner strenght, kindred, no mither, buckle up and deja vu
4 -
Kindred is a crutch with no counterplay that needs a serious nerf. Change my mind.
0 -
Kindred nerf is that no one uses it. And others don't realize you have it either.
Also, doesn't need a nerf. Why would it?
1 -
Too many to name. Examples of some I've seen include "the devs said that they aren't going to address/don't care about game speed", "the devs told killers to git gud", "the devs said we shouldn't bother defending generators", "the devs said they can't fix the sound bugs" and "the devs said they aren't going to change survivor perks". There are others, those are just ones I can think of off the top of my head.
6 -
It gives survivors free info, no skill needed.
0 -
Misinformation is so hard to pinpoint at the source, so it’s important to always ask “Is this credible?” “Can I rely on this?” and or “How is this relevant to what I am talking about?”
Fake information can steer the game in the wrong direction, so it’s important to stick to the clear provided data. If you cannot provide a reliable source of information, this not ultimately weakens one’s argument, but can also be just flat out embarrassing.
Thanks Jean for addressing this issue, it’s so frequent but I don’t think anyone had the courage to say it.
Edit: I also wanted to add that sometimes it’s also misinterpretation on the forum users end; so don’t be like “Hey! That’s wrong!” But more like “I don’t see [x]”, or “Where did you get that idea?” Because sometimes it can’t be the users fault when data can be “up to interpretation”— and it’s not their fault sometimes, but you just need to be constructive about it. You’re not getting anywhere by flat out ignoring what someone else thinks, so it’s best to listen and address; because sometimes, you can be wrong. And that’s okay.
3 -
I totally agree, and thank you for the encouragement 😊 Self-analysis and reflection is always a positive thing, and I really think these forums would be a happier place if more people chose to employ it.
2 -
Thank you for your Thread. Indeed sources should be checked before. Quite a common thing I have read here was "The Devs want games to be done fast", when indeed they said "You should not expect to have all Gens up after 4 minutes", which is completely different.
To add to your points:
I also think it is highly disrespectful to make up things that were not said in the Livestream. The Devs are really active with their community (I dont know why, when we consider the reactions they get when they change things and inform about things), so the least that can be done is to give correct information and not some interpretations or simply misunderstandings.
3 -
It's obviously sarcasm.
2 -
I completely agree. Thank you for your input! As I mentioned, I think in most cases people don't necessarily realise that they're making things up - they just don't care that much about accuracy or fairness because they'd rather be outraged.
I've also learned to become suspicious whenever anyone says "this is basically what they said", because the fact that they even feel the need to use the word "basically" already indicates that the report they're giving is not entirely accurate.
0 -
It gives your teammates info, at the cost of your fourth perk slot. But okay.
1 -
Shhh I'm hunting wabbits
1 -
I'm trying to encourage the people around me to stop damaging themselves and others. Not just on the forum, but in general - as I said, this is the kind of skill that's useful to practice in any context where someone finds themselves wanting to defend their point of view or challenge someone else's, not just within this community.
2 -
Wascally ones?
0 -
Well said, OP. It's all too common for people to spread things the devs supposedly said and they are wildly out of context.
1 -
Well put. After being on the forums for the few weeks after the Ruin rework it seems like quite a few people take the things the devs do as a personal attack to them. So when something they like gets change they blame the devs and say that they're "biased" against the side that they main, while ignoring all the changes that have helped them or will help them in the near future.
1 -
😥
0 -
Not according to his response 🤷♂️
So...just like bitter murmur? Gotta nerf that too right?
0 -
No killer perks need to be very much stronger than survivor perks.
0 -
In general I agree, but kindred is fine.
It only activates if someone is hooked, meaning the killer is advancing his objective, and it doesn't change the killers plan in general.
"Hooked someone, let's find someone else."
Hell, if you go into into a locker to dodge bbq you won't even see where the killer went. Which is already kinda hard because if the bubble that appears during a hook showing where the survivor is.
0 -
Nah man kindred should either not show killer aura or not show survivor aura. Both is real broken.
0 -
They literally said "Let the survivors do 40% of their objective, it makes the game easier for you"
They also LITERALLY said "We aren't looking at gen speed right now" something something "M1 simulator" something something "we are looking at toolboxes"
2 -
If it's so broken then why is it so rarely used?
0 -
It's a hidden gem like no mither and deja vu
0 -
I really don't see how unless the killer hangs around the hooked guy
0 -
Killers deserve privacy from nosy survivors.
0 -
Ok you got me 😅
0 -
Well put OP. This is the kind of methodical thinking that should be applied in all things, not just discussing this game.
I think it worth mentioning too that what is read on here has no real emotional context, since there is no body language or vocal tones, so don't assume a deeper meaning to the words written without asking probative questions. Example being a post where someone asked how to counter whispers and some members assumed they were asking for a nerf
2 -
Yes asking how to counter a perk isn't asking for nerfs
0 -
Yes, they did say both of those things, although that's a somewhat uncharitable rephrasing.
Letting your opponent gain some ground in the short term can help you secure your objective in the long term, a concept which is an absolute basic of strategic gameplay. Anyone who thinks it's not appropriate for a killer to sometimes let undefendable generators get completed for the sake of defending the others more thoroughly has probably never played a strategy game in their life - or if they have, they weren't very good at it.
"We aren't looking at gen speed right now but we are looking at toolboxes" is also a far cry from "we aren't going to address game speed" - in fact, it's almost the opposite - which is exactly my point. Too many people pretend that increasing generator speed is the only way to decrease game speed (which is why they assume that the devs don't care about the latter), when actually it's only one solution, and the most boring and obvious one at that.
0 -
Quite true. Another example is the popularity of accusing people of only caring about a certain role just because they're advocating a change that benefits that role. Although I've noticed that this increasingly gets called out for the nonsense that it is whenever it does come up, which can only be a good thing.
0
