", Be the change that you wish to see in the world." (Ghandi)
Dead by Daylight houses an incredibly toxic community and honestly, it's time we solve this issue. The easiest way to clean up toxicity is to demonstrate the community's disapproval of toxic behavior with mass banning. However, in order for this to work, we need to need to use the report tool, and we need to use it properly. So let's review the rules:
"LIST OF BANNABLE OFFENSES - PERMANENT BAN
Achievement hacks
Using 3rd party software to tamper with Dead by Daylight achievements in any way. Unlocking, locking, clearing them off – all of this is prohibited.
Hacking in-game exclusives/Legacy skins
Acquiring any kind of in-game skin a player isn’t supposed to have.
Legacy cutoff happened on November 24th, 2016. If a player has received Legacy skins anytime after that, it is considered hacking (3rd party software/expanding Legacy cutoff time/loading up a save file, etc.)
Video of this person in a hacked skin (and you opening the profile to ensure it’s theirs) is mandatory.
Botting
Killer spawns and stays in one place, hitting air the whole time. He doesn’t move or change the hit pattern even if gates are opened and some of the Survivors are already gone. Video of the match (showing the tally screen is crucial) is mandatory.
Hacked progress
Using 3rd party software or any other way to hack amount of BP in the game. Or loading up any savefile except your own backup (any savefile – from a previously banned account, from a friend, your save file from BETA, etc.)
Threats
Excessive threats (DOX threats, life threats, disclosing private information, etc.)
Other Hacks
Using 3rd party software or other tools to gain any kind of unfair advantage wasn’t intended by the game, except if they have been whitelisted by us. Heavy proof and a video recording are mandatory.
LIST OF BANNABLE OFFENSES - TEMPORARY BAN
Harassment: Communication Abuse
Insults, intimidation, hateful speech, repeated harassment
Multiplatform harassment (Steam/Twitter/Facebook, Twitch etc.) – These are exceptional cases, if you go all the way to do this, you will be banned for 48 hours right away, skipping the 24 hours ban.
Griefing: Intentional gameplay abuse
Working with the opposite team to gain an advantage or grief teammates
Targeting specific users repeatedly in order to ruin their game experience
Holding the game hostage
Exploits: Abusing bugs or errors in design to gain a competitive advantage
Showing exploits on stream/advertising exploits in any form
Exploit bugs, errors in design or undocumented features to gain access to what would otherwise not be available or to obtain any competitive advantage
Unsportsmanlike conduct
Disconnects and/or Rage quitting – no report needed. We’re using our backend analytics to flag and ban players who are constantly disconnecting/leaving the game.
Lag switching
TEMPORARY BANS ESCALATION
24 hours for the first ban;
48 hours for the second ban;
1 week for the third ban;
After that, you will be banned permanently.
If you go way out of the line, you may receive a 48 hour or a 1-week ban straight away,
if the team decides that the offense was really harmful.
There will be no ban appeal option available for temporary bans."
Initial post cont.
If you're still here that's great! Now we need to move onto one of the more important matters, "bad reports". Reporting toxic behavior is grand and with enough proof, those buggers will go poof. However, we all need to remember what's actually okay in the game. This should be pretty obvious by now but "Camping", "Tunneling", "Patroling", etc aren't bannable actions don't report stuff like this as it will just clog up the report queue. The same expectation falls to killers. Survivors using "certain perks" is perfectly fine. I have played both killer and survivor and I know that both sides can be annoying with specific gameplay mechanics, however, this is not the focus. The goal here is to clean up our community some. I don't expect suddenly all toxic behaviour to disappear overnight, all I'm asking for is for some decency and unity. I figured if we all actively report toxic players with enough evidence we can hopefully start banning toxic players faster then they appear.
The current flaws
It has come to my attention that some (or was it all?) of our console brethren are unable to report players at the moment. While this fact is regrettable on the bright side it lets the PC players narrow their scope. It has also been speculated that the report queue is rather full right now, which in turn means that the evidence backed reports will be slow to arrive. Well if this is the case then as I stated previously if we focus on reporting players that break the game's written rules then before long the pointless "Camping, Tunneling, etc reports" will stop showing up while we take out the trash.
Conclusion
I don't know about the rest of you folks, but I actually like playing Dead by Daylight, both sides. If we want to keep this game alive and growing we're gonna have to excise the tumour that is the toxic part of the community. Join me in my quest to cleanse this game and usher in a Dead by Daylight experience unlike any before!
Evidence gathering notes:
- Screenshots can be taken with F12 in-game or ([Ctrl + PrtScr] + {Ctrl + V} into MS paint.)
- Videos can be recorded with screen recording software such as OBS (https://obsproject.com/)
- Before sending in a report make sure you re-read the rules to make sure that it is clear what the player did to deserve a report.
Comments
-
Who will stand with me?!5
-
You already got my answer.
6 -
You have my support, so long as I don't have to starve myself or do any sort of physical labor....honestly the less I have to do the better!
5 -
Since I got griefed twice in a week by the same player and he is still able to play, I have my doubts regarding the reporting system.
Forgive me, but I am not gonna bother pressing that button anymore
0 -
@MegaWaffle said:
You have my support, so long as I don't have to starve myself or do any sort of physical labor....honestly the less I have to do the better!All you have to do is report toxic players with evidence to back it up, that's it!
1 -
But i like being a toxic #########...
8 -
@jiminie said:
But I like being a toxic [BAD WORD]...Toxic behavior is bannable. Continued toxicity will not be tolerated.
(I understand if you have the odd bad day/game, but steady/continued malicious intent towards undeserving players will result in your ability to enjoy a BHVR service being voided.)3 -
My young self needs guidance, show me my wrongs and lead me to a better life, please
@Peasant said:
@jiminie said:
But I like being a toxic [BAD WORD]...Toxic behavior is bannable. Continued toxicity will not be tolerated.
(I understand if you have the odd bad day/game, but steady/continued malicious intent towards undeserving players will result in your ability to enjoy a BHVR service being voided.)I don't want to be like this, but that's how it is, i have to be the toxic one so others are forgiven, so they can escape the trial and live their life
9 -
@jiminie said:
My young self needs guidance, show me my wrongs and lead me to a better life, please
@Peasant said:
@jiminie said:
But I like being a toxic [BAD WORD]...Toxic behavior is bannable. Continued toxicity will not be tolerated.
(I understand if you have the odd bad day/game, but steady/continued malicious intent towards undeserving players will result in your ability to enjoy a BHVR service being voided.)I don't want to be like this, but that's how it is, I have to be the toxic one so others are forgiven, so they can escape the trial and live their life
There's nothing wrong with you looping. But if you T-Bag after every pallet stun and leave hate speech in the post-game chat I cannot save you from the hammer.
3 -
^ Especially this, should be reminded once per week.The same expectation falls to killers. Survivors using "certain perks" is perfectly fine.4 -
@Vietfox said:
The same expectation falls to killers. Survivors using "certain perks" is perfectly fine.^ Especially this, should be reminded once per week.
I must confess, in the past, I have slugged and camped a handful of Decisive Strike users out of personal distaste for the perk. I stopped doing this shortly after I started doing this because I realized that it's an unlockable perk for a reason, if the developers have accepted it then I will accept it as well (grudgingly).
3 -
Teabagging is ok though. It pisses me off, but that's the point. And honestly, even a few "F*** you" after game is manageable. Just move on to your next game.
I think the best advice above is don't report everything you dislike. Camping, tunneling, looping, teabagging, flashlights, sabotage... these are all parts of the game. Deal with it. Cheating, lagswitching, and I guess at least the most extreme trash talk, yeah these are the things we have to get rid off, but they are actually not that common.
DC-s (and hook suicides): this is the big one I think. Really, if you can't bear defeat, just go play some single player game.4 -
This content has been removed.
-
@George_Soros said:
Teabagging is ok though. It pisses me off, but that's the point. And honestly, even a few "F*** you" after the game is manageable. Just move on to your next game.
I think the best advice above is don't report everything you dislike. Camping, tunneling, looping, teabagging, flashlights, sabotage... these are all parts of the game. Deal with it. Cheating, lagswitching, and I guess at least the most extreme trash talk, yeah these are the things we have to get rid off, but they are actually not that common.
DC-s (and hook suicides): this is the big one I think. Really, if you can't bear defeat, just go play some single player game.I can tolerate T-Bagging and understand it's purpose, but one survivor constantly t-bagging everyone and openly and directly insulting one or more players after a trial is intolerable if it becomes a habit. Key point: Malicious acts becoming a habit.
1 -
@Peasant said:
@George_Soros said:
Teabagging is ok though. It pisses me off, but that's the point. And honestly, even a few "F*** you" after the game is manageable. Just move on to your next game.
I think the best advice above is don't report everything you dislike. Camping, tunneling, looping, teabagging, flashlights, sabotage... these are all parts of the game. Deal with it. Cheating, lagswitching, and I guess at least the most extreme trash talk, yeah these are the things we have to get rid off, but they are actually not that common.
DC-s (and hook suicides): this is the big one I think. Really, if you can't bear defeat, just go play some single player game.I can tolerate T-Bagging and understand it's purpose, but one survivor constantly t-bagging everyone and openly and directly insulting one or more players after a trial is intolerable if it becomes a habit. Key point: Malicious acts becoming a habit.
As long as they play the game more or less seriously, I'd say they can teabag all they want. When it's ALL they do, then they don't really participate in the game, potetially ruining FOUR other people's game. Now that's a real problem in my opinion.
As for insults: please keep in mind that verbal abuse is not real abuse. But if we want to maintain a healthy number of players, I completely agree we have to root out the most obnoxious ones. Old veterans don't mind much, but for new players it can be tough when insulted after a defeat.I gotta say though, more depends on us than on the devs (I mean us decent folks
): say gg and give a few friendly and useful tips to the newbie who you've just slaughtered. They will appreciate it.0 -
Actually, the game has lately been growing, regardless of how toxic any of us view the playerbase at the moment.
The highest amount of players playing at the same time is from very recent.I'm not promoting toxicity.
But i don't see that it prevents people from playing and also not preventing them to keep playing.0 -
TL;DR In personality type theory, the greatest conflicts are found primarily in one of four dimensions of personality; those that want good experiences, and those that want to explore what's possible. People who want good experiences tend to want games to be easier, whereas people who want to explore things like more challenging environments, there's more possibility there. According to statistics, there are more people on earth with the personality dimension that favors good experiences, and unfortunately, industry caters to them, it's where the money is. Guess which personality type favors the survivors? It ends up working out though, as the game is made easier for the people who want good experiences, the explorative types are given greater challenges. So the game ends up not losing any of it's population due to this imbalance.
I've always found this topic really interesting, so I'm going to elaborate on this more below.
So, if we look at Jung's archetypes for answers to the cause for all this toxicity, we can find them there. A lot of people are more familiar with the archetypes than they realize, especially if they've ever taken a personality test. Some people might know them as, the myers-briggs MBTI, socionics type theory, or the big 5 which is given more credence in the science community than the MBTI is. Anyways, digging into these theories, reveals that most conflict is generated by poor communication along one dimension of personality, the dimension of perception.
This dimension is affected by whether the person is motivated by internal forces or external forces, but to keep it simple, this dimension of perception can be generalized and divided into two types:
one type is referred to as the "sensing types" they care about 'what is', and they're motivated to give, as well as have, good/enjoyable experiences; they look for what reality is currently telling them; they listen to people with credentials, and trust factual information.
the other being the 'intuitive types," they care about 'what is possible', and are motivated towards influencing change; what people want isn't as important as what works; they trust their understanding of something over facts and authorities on subjects, they like what's abstract.
To be fair, intuitive types are often times the instigators of arguments as sensing types are inherently driven toward making the majority happy, whereas intuitive types believe in weighted averages, i.e. small populations deserve to be happy too.
The conflicts between these two types tend to go like this:
- Sensing type: "My friends and I arent enjoy the experience that we're having, something isn't right, someone please change this?"
- Intuitive type: "But if that's changed, things will just be easier, not more enjoyable. Maybe if you looked at the situation differently, maybe as a learning experience, you might enjoy it then."
- Sensing type: "But that's not enjoyable to me or anyone I know, what's the point if im not having a good time?"
- Intuitive type: "Well it's not about you enjoying yourself all of the time, and maybe you need to try hanging out with some new people, you know, broaden your horizons!"
- Sensing type: "You're not even listening to me, how can you expect me to change what I enjoy? That's like torture, it's evil! you're so toxic!"
- Intuitive type: "Whatever, you're just not trying hard enough, you're the toxic one!"
Really they both have good points, however, resolving them becomes more difficult when we also have to consider what each person sees as important objective or subjective information; feeling types wanna talk about emotions, thinking types wanna talk about logic and rationale. So, there's a lot to understand to truly empathize with one another, but it's possible
What's interesting, too, is that each personality type has access to all of the same cognitive functions, i.e. all intuitive types have a sensing side, and all sensing types have an intuitive side, but, because neither type uses those other perspectives as often as their primary perspectives, they tend to see the other side as contradictory and negative. Hence the disagreements and fighting.
What makes resolving the issues even harder, too, is that about 70% of the population is comprised of sensing types, creating a bias toward their ways of thinking, which might even convince sensors that their ways of thinking are right - majority rules! No? An example of this can be seen in the video game industry; World of Warcraft was one of the first video games geared toward sensing types, that and almost every cell phone game. The success of these games convinced the video game industry that there's a ######### ton of money to be made by simply creating 'good experiences,' hence the entire industry shifting towards easy game play and loot crates/boxes. Finally, because the survivor archetype really fits a sensing personality type the best, we will continue to see the game developed in the favor of survivors - that's where the money is. And the intuitive types? They will continue taking on the challenge of these changes.
0 -
@apropos said:
TL;DR In personality type theory, the greatest conflicts are found primarily in one of four dimensions of personality; those that want good experiences, and those that want to explore what's possible. People who want good experiences tend to want games to be easier, whereas people who want to explore things like more challenging environments, there's more possibility there. According to statistics, there are more people on earth with the personality dimension that favors good experiences, and unfortunately, industry caters to them, it's where the money is. Guess which personality type favors the survivors? It ends up working out though, as the game is made easier for the people who want good experiences, the explorative types are given greater challenges. So the game ends up not losing any of it's population due to this imbalance.I've always found this topic really interesting, so I'm going to elaborate on this more below.
So, if we look at Jung's archetypes for answers to the cause for all this toxicity, we can find them there. A lot of people are more familiar with the archetypes than they realize, especially if they've ever taken a personality test. Some people might know them as, the myers-briggs MBTI, socionics type theory, or the big 5 which is given more credence in the science community than the MBTI is. Anyways, digging into these theories, reveals that most conflict is generated by poor communication along one dimension of personality, the dimension of perception.
This dimension is affected by whether the person is motivated by internal forces or external forces, but to keep it simple, this dimension of perception can be generalized and divided into two types:
one type is referred to as the "sensing types" they care about 'what is', and they're motivated to give, as well as have, good/enjoyable experiences; they look for what reality is currently telling them; they listen to people with credentials, and trust factual information.
the other being the 'intuitive types," they care about 'what is possible', and are motivated towards influencing change; what people want isn't as important as what works; they trust their understanding of something over facts and authorities on subjects, they like what's abstract.
To be fair, intuitive types are often times the instigators of arguments as sensing types are inherently driven toward making the majority happy, whereas intuitive types believe in weighted averages, i.e. small populations deserve to be happy too.
The conflicts between these two types tend to go like this:
- Sensing type: "My friends and I arent enjoy the experience that we're having, something isn't right, someone please change this?"
- Intuitive type: "But if that's changed, things will just be easier, not more enjoyable. Maybe if you looked at the situation differently, maybe as a learning experience, you might enjoy it then."
- Sensing type: "But that's not enjoyable to me or anyone I know, what's the point if im not having a good time?"
- Intuitive type: "Well it's not about you enjoying yourself all of the time, and maybe you need to try hanging out with some new people, you know, broaden your horizons!"
- Sensing type: "You're not even listening to me, how can you expect me to change what I enjoy? That's like torture, it's evil! you're so toxic!"
- Intuitive type: "Whatever, you're just not trying hard enough, you're the toxic one!"
Really they both have good points, however, resolving them becomes more difficult when we also have to consider what each person sees as important objective or subjective information; feeling types wanna talk about emotions, thinking types wanna talk about logic and rationale. So, there's a lot to understand to truly empathize with one another, but it's possible
What's interesting, too, is that each personality type has access to all of the same cognitive functions, i.e. all intuitive types have a sensing side, and all sensing types have an intuitive side, but, because neither type uses those other perspectives as often as their primary perspectives, they tend to see the other side as contradictory and negative. Hence the disagreements and fighting.
What makes resolving the issues even harder, too, is that about 70% of the population is comprised of sensing types, creating a bias toward their ways of thinking, which might even convince sensors that their ways of thinking are right - majority rules! No? An example of this can be seen in the video game industry; World of Warcraft was one of the first video games geared toward sensing types, that and almost every cell phone game. The success of these games convinced the video game industry that there's a ######### ton of money to be made by simply creating 'good experiences,' hence the entire industry shifting towards easy gameplay and loot crates/boxes. Finally, because the survivor archetype really fits a sensing personality type the best, we will continue to see the game developed in the favor of survivors - that's where the money is. And the intuitive types? They will continue taking on the challenge of these changes.
I have nothing wrong with all survivors wanting a good experience. I only have a problem when their good experience is derived from an immense bad experience for another player.
For example, say all 4 survivors escape, even when the killer tried very hard to kill them. As long as everyone is cordial and kind I am perfectly fine with this. However, if a killer works their hardest and is met with taunting all game only to lose spectacularly at the very end I fail to see the need for hate speech and excessive vulgarity after the match. The killer already lost and is probably not feeling too hot, there's no need to kick a man when he's down, eh? Now if the killer instigates the survivors with aggression post-game that's a whole different story. However, more often then not we're seeing someone work hard, only to fail and be verbally abused for doing their job. Such behavior disheartens me and therefore I aim to rise above it and crush it underfoot with the decent members of the community walking alongside me. You want to have fun by winning? That's all good. You want to have fun from bullying? We have a problem.
Post edited by Peasant on0 -
This content has been removed.
-
@Peasant said:
@apropos said:
...I have nothing wrong with all survivors wanting a good experience. I only have a problem when their good experience is derived from an immense bad experience for another player.
For example, say all 4 survivors escape, even when the killer tried very hard to kill them. As long as everyone is cordial and kind I am perfectly fine with this. However, if a killer works their hardest and is met with taunting all game only to lose spectacularly at the very end I fail to see the need for hate speech and excessive vulgarity after the match. The killer already lost and is probably not feeling too hot, there's no need to kick a man when he's down, eh? Now if the killer instigates the survivors with aggression post-game that's a whole different story. However, more often then not we're seeing someone work hard, only to fail and be verbally abused for doing their job. Such behavior disheartens me and therefore I am to rise above it and crush it underfoot with the decent members of the community walking alongside me. You want to have fun by winning? That's all good. You want to have fun from bullying? We have a problem.
Oh, i get that you want everyone to have a good time. What sucks about types of people that seek out good experiences, is that as time goes on, if they're having a good experience already, they will take it to the next level; i.e. survivors who've completely obliterated a trial, yet they still are abusive towards the killer. It's not cool, but they only see making their teammates experiences better by giving the killer a bad experience. If they start losing, they will get mad at the killer for 'preventing them from gaining points'. The people who approach the trials this way aren't really thinking about the situation rationally, so any killers who experience that kind of treatment shouldn't take it personally.
I'm not gonna sit here and say that I haven't wanted to quit the game after an experience like what you're describing, I get it a lot. There are two scenarios that happen to me a lot that make me lose my #########:
- In the first 3 minutes of the trial, 2 generators pop simultaneously, while I'm chasing one person that I found almost immediately, hoooked, then went back for after they were saved. Then a few minutes after hooking the person again, or the rescruer, I see 3 generators finish at the same time. By the time I get to the gate, the doors are open and everyone walks out backwards while tbagging.
- Or when I've killed 2 of 4 survivors, and I have the third in the dying state, while i try to find the 4th, the third disconnects so that the hatch opens for the fourth. Then, chase the 4th around until we encounter the hatch and the survivor stands over the hatch, squatting and whatnot, trying to trick me into hitting them. He realizes I won't, I want the interrupt, so he wanders off to fix remaining generators. He get's them fixed, so I am forced to pursue. Once I catch up to him, I hit him once, and the delay from that single hit gives them more than enough of a lead to make it to the hatch and escape before I can interrupt. If they know where the hatch is, and they're all that's left, they win basically.
Following these situations is usually some mean messages about being trash. Granted I do get some messages from people saying gg, but I don't know if they're sincere so I ignore them, heh.
0 -
You can't ban half of the players and you can't order to people not be salty, angry or toxic. Where's your democracy spirit? LUL
Just ask for "mute all chat" or just "mute" specific ppl. It will help IF you can't just ignore that. Seem you have to be Superman to ignore chat and just push "leave" button... and hide ur profile, right?
Trying to make pony-island is just silly.0 -
“Don’t believe in yourself, believe in me; because I believe in you!” -Jack. Super handsome by the way~
1 -
This content has been removed.
-
Democracy? I think you're referring to Freedom of Speech as voting has nothing to do with toxicity. Even then, your Freedom of Speech is limited. For example, you are not permitted to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. So the community banning people after they tell others that they are worthless ("trash") or to end their lives ("#########") is perfectly acceptable. Also, I understand that people swear, heck I do it sometimes. I have stated above that I only aim to ban malicious/toxic individuals that have a habit/reputation of being disrespectful. I understand that even the best players will rage after a rough game and that's okay. However, if a player is repeatedly seen swearing and insulting players at every turn while griefing their allies, they will be reported.Acroyear said:You can't ban half of the players and you can't order to people not be salty, angry or toxic. Where's your democracy spirit? LUL
Just ask for "mute all chat" or just "mute" specific ppl. It will help IF you can't just ignore that. Seem you have to be Superman to ignore chat and just push "leave" button... and hide ur profile, right?
Trying to make pony-island is just silly.1 -
@WalterWh1te said:
@Peasanti red the rules very attentively. However i do not see how repeatedly pressing the crouch button or saying "ez game" "trash killer" is a violation of those rules and a banworthy action. shittalking is part of games. bans for griefing if it is detectable and proofen? Sure. Banning for hate speech or straight up insults. No Doubt. But banning for "Toxic Behaviour" is just illusional.
"I don't see how being an ######### is a violation of the rules about not being an #########."
^That's what you sound like.1 -
@WalterWh1te said:
Or maybe, I am just a realist"Enabler" works too.
1 -
My goal will be to forever ruin the DS users game experience by slugging them and repeatedly knocking them down to continue to slug until death and whatever else needs to happen to make them wish they didnt use that perk....Peasant said:@Vietfox said:
The same expectation falls to killers. Survivors using "certain perks" is perfectly fine.^ Especially this, should be reminded once per week.
I must confess, in the past, I have slugged and camped a handful of Decisive Strike users out of personal distaste for the perk. I stopped doing this shortly after I started doing this because I realized that it's an unlockable perk for a reason, if the developers have accepted it then I will accept it as well (grudgingly).
0 -
@WalterWh1te said:
@PeasantI read the rules very attentively. However, I do not see how repeatedly pressing the crouch button or saying "ez game" "trash killer" is a violation of those rules and a banworthy action. #########-talking is part of games. bans for griefing if it is detectable and proven? Sure. Banning for hate speech or straight up insults. No Doubt. But banning for "Toxic Behaviour" is just illusional.
Your comment contains a paradox. You support banning proven griefing, and direct insults of players and yet dislike the banning of toxic behavior. In my eyes, those actions are toxic behavior. In my original post while I did suggest banning t-baggers it was never for this action alone. I stated that they had to do something else, such as smack talk the killer or others in the post-game. I have nothing wrong with t-bagging honestly as I can have so many different connotations. If you t-bag the killer after dropping a pallet then it's a taunt. If you t-bag after running over to an ally then it's a greeting. If you t-bag after trapping an ally then it's toxic. Due to the variety of emotions and expressions that t-bagging is used in, I believe that it is impractical to ban players on t-bagging alone. That is why I listed the rules above and what's bannable. T-bagging has so much varied meanings that it is essentially an add-on to an offense. Essentially, if t-bagging is the worst you've done then that's fine. However, once you pair it with insults or hacks then you officially cross the line into ban land.
0
