DC penalties

Depends, sometimes people just wanna farm a bit in a more fun way. Its not always fun as a killer to try and kill everyone. Sometimes its more fun to just fool around, discover things you werent aware off and generally just have a really goofy game. Killers win condition isnt really set in stone. A 4k can be an entity displeased. A 0K can be a merciless victory. So what is the killer win condition? It's whatever that killer wants to be their win condition. If its a bubba in the basement guarding his basement chest, then him keeping the chest closed is a win for him. If its an AFK myers who secretly is stalking you all the time you run in front of him, while killing you instantly, then it is him who won, you would have won if you ignored him. If its a killer who wants to farm bloodpoints, the killer wins by farming bloodpoints.

Same for survivors tho. I sometimes consider it a win if I am the only person who dies if the rest of the team escapes, and other times I consider it a win if I escape. And sometimes I consider it even a win if everyone ended up dead, but the killer won due to an endgame plottwist. DBD is a game where depending on what the players consider a win for themselves, everyone can win or lose in the same match.

Let alone that killers sometimes need to derank to practice a new killer without the match finishing within 4 minutes. The afk derank is purely the only way they can get some training done without matches being over too quickly. Before they simply could DC, without affecting survivors too much because all offerings and items get returned if the killer DC's. So they could derank quickly without punishment

Now, being AFK as a whole is already bannable if enough people care enough to send AFK reports, but most players are aware that if a killer is afk, its their only way to lose pips. While as a survivor, you can run around the killer or do all the gens without ever encountering the killer, and still depip. Or let yourself die on first hook ASAP. The only other way for killers to depip is to rush an ebony mori, and even then its pretty much not guaranteed because its incredibly easy as a killer to earn a black pip. I've had games where I played basement bubba for the memes, instadown 1 person and hook them because they entered my basement, have no one else enter and still magically get a black pip, because the survivors took too long to finish gens.

The thing is, no one would disconnect if there were no ubertoxic builds. I mean, im gonna dc once I notice an ebony mori iri huntress, and you cant give me any reason not to dc. Its a toxic build, its boring and a waste of time, because either you're gonna be out of the match within a minute, or you're going to be missing 2 team mates within 2 minutes. Either way, there is no real way to counter it and those people are toxic as #########=

So tell me, if the law stated you're not allowed to harm or disobey the president, but the president used that law to torture you and say you are not allowed to leave. Would you still remain in place, let your president torture you to near death even though the exit door is right behind you? Ofcourse not. The rules are void if people abuse a loophole in the rules.

Besides, I was right, again. The dc penalty is worse for the game than the lack of dc penalty. And there is a base penalty anyway: if you dc, you depip and gain 0 bloodpoints. So the devs removed it, again.(at least, my latest 3 dc's against ubertoxic killers havent given me a penalty)

And ofcourse, you have people who abuse the lack of dc time penalty to avoid matches vs killers they do not like. However, that percentage is far lower than the amount of people who abuse the dc time penalty to torture survivors as much as they can. As long as killers act more toxic with the dc penalty in place than survivors dodge matches by dc'ing early in the match, the dc penalty can never be implemented the way it is now.

Again, like I said, I believe people should be able to vote if a dc was done maliciously or not. That would hold way more accurate results. I would vote against someone who dc's against a doctor just cus, but I wouldnt vote against someone who dc'd against ebony mori iri huntress for example.

1. Well, generally thats a given anyway.
2. And DC'ing is people revolting against builds that shouldnt exist in the game most of the time. Its a lot easier for killers to be toxic than it is for survivors to be toxic in the first place. So having builds that skyrockets toxicity to levels that are unmatched are the same as a president using a loophole in the rules. That was the point. You ignored the point and brushed it aside.
3. It was more of both. Why do you think they removed the dc penalty in the first place? They added it because people dc'ing went out of control at one point. But they didnt work on reasons why people DC'd. Again, the percentage of people dc'ing maliciously is lower than the percentage of killers trying their hardest to make people dc when a penalty is in place. A survivor dc'ing might make the game harder for fellow survivors and make it less fun for a killer, but suiciding on first hook has the exact same effect. Adding in a dc penalty wont fix that issue. However, killers know that suiciding on first hook is a thing and there are plenty of killers who refuse to hook people. Killers have been claiming that suiciding on first hook should get a similar penalty to a dc as its essentially the same. Yet the same people endorse the acts of killers who constantly slug survivors and say "its their choice". Let alone that you have players who are like "I bought the game, I am free to do whatever the game allows me to do", which is even worse than any type of DC in the game, yet its not bannable. So all in all, as long as there is no suicide option for survivors that arent on the hook, the DC penalty is worse for the game. You can claim whatever you want and try to rectify that statement, but you would either be just one of many severely ignorant and oblivious killer mains who have no idea what is happening on the opposing side, or you're simply wrong.
4. You could always vote, I'd expect killer mains to always vote anyway. But there are many, many cases where I have seen someone dc and not blame them. Survivors can be punished by the mistakes of a killer, killers cannot be punished by the mistakes of a survivor. If anyone is constantly punished for the mistakes a killer makes, they are free to dc. As long as behaviour doesnt reward a solo survivor for the mistakes of a killer, DC's will be a thing. Because DC'ing is the only way we can revolt against it.

Essentially, in the game currently, you get punished as a survivor if the killer tunnels you. You get punished as a survivor if the killer camps you. You get punished as a survivor if the killer hooks you in a deadzone even though you werent close. You get punished as a survivor if you get slugged. Survivors are meant to buy their teammates as much time as possible, yet they get punished if they do buy time. That does not make sense. This is why people DC, because it punishes the killers who make mistakes harder than they already did. It punishes the killer while minimally punishing the survivor.

Lets give a very clear example: I had a game where a killer camped me into second hookstage near a potential 3-gen, the survivors rushed all the other gens ofcourse because they couldnt save me for the time being. Afterwards, someone with BT came in to save me. The killer downed that person and then started chasing me again, downed me after waiting out the BT timer and then deadhooked me. So, I bought the entire team about 2 minutes time to finish generators while on the hook, after buying the team about 1 minute of being chased into a self-setting trap(which the killer didnt set himself, so it was literally pure RNG). I got chased the longest that game, I bought the most time that game, I was the reason that gens got fixed and I was the reason 3 people ended up escaping. Yet I got depipped with only 9k bloodpoints. I got punished for doing exactly what the game was designed to do. If he had slugged me and camped me, I would also have depipped with only 9k bloodpoints.

However, if I wasnt hooked and constantly chased, essentially the exact same set-up as being hooked and camped, I would have gained the same amount of bloodpoints, but I would have pipped. This is a problem in the design of the game. This is the loophole that allows many, MANY players to be labeled toxic, and essentially the loophole that allows the president to torture people and ordering them to not leave next to an exit door. I could have suicided on hook then and there, but no one really expects to be tunnelled after someone else has been downed right next to a hook. The only reason I didnt end up DC'ing was because at that point, it wouldnt be a punishment for the killer anymore. However, if he had slugged me instead of hooking me, I would have dc'd. DC'ing is a solution to a problem that the devs have refused to fix.

Wrong, Ebony Mori is toxic by design:

1. it requires very little effort to pull off 1 hook, and the individual survivor gets severely punished without having any counter.
2. even in a 1v4, having a free instakill is more game affecting than instaheals(and they removed instaheals because they were "too punishing for killers"). Using them, by default, knowing their impact but ignoring that for personal pleasure, is toxic. So the use of any Ebony Mori by default is toxic.
3. Let alone that there is a perk that has the same effect as an Ebony Mori, and you have to get 1 extra hook to kill everyone and it can be removed from the game by any survivor at any moment of the game. Meaning there is a nerfed version of an offering, that requires a perk slot by its own and is a removable perk, that is balanced use. So in what universe is using an Ebony Mori not toxic? Non-toxic players do not use Ebony Mori, period. At best they use it to scare people when they are playing a weaker killer, but even then its just to keep survivors on edge.

I could continue on others, like iri head huntress. Any slug camp build is toxic. Those all exist. Yes, players are toxic, but its the toxic build that gives away toxic players. Non-toxic players do not, I repeat, DO NOT use toxic builds. I've never seen someone like Otz run Iri Head Ebony Mori Huntress when he plays Huntress, the only time I've seen him do things like that was to show people why he doesnt run it.

And ever heard of hyperbole? If you did read, then you would see that later on I state the following:

"And ofcourse, you have people who abuse the lack of dc time penalty to avoid matches vs killers they do not like. However, that percentage is far lower than the amount of people who abuse the dc time penalty to torture survivors as much as they can. As long as killers act more toxic with the dc penalty in place than survivors dodge matches by dc'ing early in the match, the dc penalty can never be implemented the way it is now."

Just like your "every other game since the penalty has been disabled, has someone disconnected on first down, regardless of the build? Last night, it happened 9 times, in 3 hours. 4 of which were with PIG, one of which was with Clown, and another with Wraith." Is hyperbole, because I play killer too, and I have only encountered 1 dc on the first down after playing 7 hours of killer, using a build that some people would find terrifying. In fact, the only reason I can think off that you could have that many in such a short time was being matched up against people of a much lower rank. Because guess what? That 1 dc I had was from a yellow rank while im a red rank killer.

Point being, the penalty being in place is worse for the game than the penalty not existing. Sure, the penalty being in place might be an improvement for killer only players, but as someone who enjoys both roles roughly equally, the punishment is much, MUCH worse for the game overall. I mean, what is 9 dc's over 3 hours vs 6 killers slug camping as many people as possible over the course of 2 hours?

Assuming the average matchtime being 10 minutes, meaning 18 matches, with 72 survivors and 9 survivors disconnecting is at most 12,5% of matches being from anywhere between ruined to okay(lets not forget the fact that 1 survivor alive can screw over an entire team, meaning they are better off dead early game anyway), while you have 12 matches, 6 of which ruining the game for at least 1/4th of the players. Thats at least 12,5% of matches being bad. And the 12,5% is assuming the killer only is able to slug camp 1 survivor over the entire game. All they need is an iri head huntress, billy or bubba to get a second slug quite quick. That leaves only 2 people left to do gens while the other 2 will be angry at the killer and the other 2 survivors for them being downed, even though the other 2 survivors cannot possibly pick them up. Now, thats 4 people in the game that are affected by 1 player, while a dc doesnt neccesarily impacts the other 4 people. So even with just 1 person slug camped with the killer trying to force a dc penalty on a survivor will have a bad impact on everyone no matter what and is common enough to be game breaking.

So yes, the dc penalty is worse than the lack of dc penalty. Even though the lack of dc penalty is bad, the current dc penalty is worse. That was the entire point. And if you refuse to read the rest before ignorantly responding to a comment of mine, just dont leave a comment at all, because that makes you part of the problem.

"go apply to become one of Behavior's dev's and show them HOW it should be by re-working the game as you wish and show them how much better it would be"

Dont need to be a dev to do that, thats why we have forums like these, and discussions like these. But hey, thanks for supporting my plans. /s

"You just don't understand and you keep trying to EXCUSE selfish acts and saying you should be able to have them."

Not excusing them as they arent selfish. Just explaining the thoughts behind them and why DC's are pretty much neccesary as a way of exiting because there is a lack of forfeiting. As long as slug camping is a thing without a VANILLA way out, dc's will be a thing. Perks are not the answer to the abuse of vanilla mechanics. As long as vanilla mechanics will be abused, but not bannable, dc's in response to those mechanics will not be bannable.

"You are laughable. the reason the dc penalities were removed again is because of poor implementation with a way for people to GIVE others a disconnect penalty when they did not disconnect. this is called hacking, or EXPLOITING, with this they removed the hack or exploit in order to try and stop it from happening again"

Sure, then why is it still removed? Because last time I checked, its been over half a week and there have been 2 hotfixes to the game. Considering the penalty would be so important to matches, it would have been reimplemented as soon as possible. So no, considering all the evidence, there isnt really a reason to not have a penalty right now if it really mattered. But I guess that should be ignored because of the initial reason of removal?

"1) the builds are using in match functionality. you may not like it but it's possible that with constant influx of new things that people won't like other things."

Already put this in consideration, there are things I dont like in the game and things that are absolutely toxic no matter how you flip it. There are many problems in this game, especially certain combo's. Back in the day you had a lack of exhaustion, so you had machine gun sprints like sprintburst+lithe or sprintburst+balanced landing+lithe that were possible. Those builds were simply toxic because there was no way for the killer to ever catch up. Let alone that the cooldown was passive and not reliant on whether the survivor was running or not. When there is a lack of counterplay, or counterplay requires extremely specific circumstances to be countered, and the user knows that fully when entering a match, then its toxic. You could consider it even exploiting. Yet the amount of people claiming those specific builds are actually counterable or claiming they need those builds to win matches are too high. Even though you could slap an effect on those builds to no longer work complementary and they would still outperform most working builds. Just because they can be used in a match, doesnt mean they actually are fine.

"2) Disconnection is using out of match functionality (either by going to a menu outside of the match or causing the pc to disconnect either by software or physical acts) this is against the game's policy."

Actually, I'd conclude this is actually in match functionality. You can only access that menu inside a match and you can only leave the match within the game. Disconnecting through other means would be against game policy, but considering overheating computers, internet failures and power outages exists, this effectively is unmeasurable. Which, again, gives another reason as to why cumulative time penalties are not fair to place on a disconnect. So again, voting if done maliciously matters. If someone leaves in the middle of a vault, then its simply not done maliciously. Let alone that bad connections, thanks to vpn's, do exist, that also causes some people to disconnect out of their control. So again, I do not understand why you would vote it to be maliciously each time. Again, my point isnt that disconnecting shouldnt have a punishment, just that the current punishment keeps the game in a worse state than the lack of punishment. The punishment shouldnt be the default. Because more often than not, I see people disconnect at the weirdest times to actually disconnect. Even league of legends, a game with a (relatively) toxic community that also has a dc punishment, doesnt apply that punishment as soon as someone disconnects. Nor do they increase that punishment if they disconnect more than once within 72 hours. Because sometimes matchmaking ######### you over. They still punish you by not giving you any rewards, and if you were playing ranked, which again, this game is not, you lose ranked progression. DBD already has a base punishment that removes all bloodpoints earned and removes a pip. That alone is enough discouragement to not disconnect everytime you dont like the game for the vast majority of people. Having a dc penalty carry over through anything longer than 48 hours is simply ridiculous. Which, again, you're free to disagree with. But you cannot argue the dc penalty is fine as long as slug camping killers who try their hardest to make people eat a dc penalty is not a punishable offense.

"3) your toxic builds that you are arguing should let you disconnect at will may not be fun to play against but not everyone has them every match. I personally have only run into one forever freddy in the last month. what happened? I died quickly, and then i went on to another match and that was a rank 1 huntress I've seen and he was good. I hated the match up because I know I'm not in his level of capability so I wonder why I was matched to him. doesn't matter though I died again and moved on to more matches."

I agree, they dont happen every match. However, they happen often enough to be worse than the lack of penalties. The toxic builds I encounter at least once a day, the time I like to call Russian Hour(because, 99% of the time, the steam profile is russian, from a location I can only assume they would be required to use a VPN to even connect to the same server that I am connected to), almost every single killer you encounter is using a toxic build, with toxic measures. And without the dc penalty, I only tend to end up dc'ing to 1 of them per week. However, with the dc penalty in action, I literally cannot play that time of day, because every single match would be iri head huntress with the killer slugcamping. And you might think that Soul Guard and Unbreakable would help there, well, you're wrong. They just wait out the timer and hit you again. That's almost 2 hours long, with 12 matches total, at least 9 of those being slugged for 4 minutes. That is the norm with the punishment. Without the punishment, they refrain from using those builds because they know they would lose a survivor instantly and that bores them, so they tunnel instead. And at least tunneling has vanilla counterplay. Even if Stridor Spirit is practically impossible to counter.

"I think you need to reconsider if you really want to play this game and suggest playing something else if you are so triggered by people playing with the in match tools they are given and then you use out of match functionality to leave when you feel you are wronged."

Ah, so, you claim that the old machine gun sprints were fine to use? You claim that people running 4 old brand new parts was fine? Because they were playing by the rules and using tools they were given? Just because tools are in a game, doesnt mean they belong and using them makes you non-toxic. You could have a chainsaw in an operating room, that doesnt mean the surgeon can use the chainsaw and not be called a maniac. We are currently in a state where things are in a heavily grey area. Its extremely easy to claim they are using the tools, yet, exploiting gamebreaking combinations is bannable too. The old "forever mending legion" build is a great example of that too. Those were also simply tools that were working as intended at the time. But I am going to assume you're gonna use a different reasoning for that one because people got banned for it. Just because the devs are slow to work on certain things(I know they are going to address huntress soon, we just dont know when), doesnt mean its any less of an exploit. But if things like ebony mori iri head infantry belt huntress is just a tool that can be used, then so is disconnecting. And again, if it only happened as little as you claim it is, which it obviously isnt, then people wouldnt be disconnecting as much. And just because I dont like the community, especially not people who claim to know better just because its in the rules even though the devs themselves have endorsed it many times themselves whenever there was something wrong but they wouldnt fix it(dc penalties were removed against legion, they were removed when slugcamping became a thing, they are currently still removed because slugcamping started becoming a thing again, even though they were removed due to a hack earlier on). So if the devs endorse it on things that exist in the game that are essentially removing all the fun that they intended the game to have and made the game sour, then you can see why disconnects during Russian Hour skyrocket and no one is getting banned for doing so.

Besides, I could easily claim the same whenever there isnt a penalty in place. This isnt a competitive game. If disconnecting having an impactful penalty really mattered to you, I suggest playing an actual competitive game. DBD is intended to be more of a party thriller than a competitive game. Party games dont really do cumulative dc penalties.

"but you are also impacting 4 other players negatively for your selfishness. Either PLAY the game or DON'T but stop saying you should be able to dc willy nilly for any reason what so ever."

When 1 player is already negatively impacting a game to a point of being unplayable, a dc wont affect the other players negatively. But there are plenty of times where a DC positively impacted a game and only negatively impacted the person who negatively impacted the game. An example would be, again, a slug camping killer. Once the killer has the slug camp, they negatively impact 1 player immensely and often impact any other random player. DC'ing removes the feeling for saving from other random players, giving them a free focus on what to do, while also removing all the negative leverage the initial killer has. Which, would make your argument void as it positively impacts the game for 3 players. So you see, the game isnt as black and white as you claim it is. You play the game, or you dc when you cannot play the game. I'd say being slugged is incapability of playing the game. I'd say having a single survivor screwing over the entire team over and over again to a point where you might aswell be dead, but the killer refusing to kill you, is incapability of playing the game and would in fact be keeping the game hostage. As long as there are vanilla ways to make people incapable of playing the game, disconnecting isnt a negative impact by default.

And I am sure, by all your comments, that you think I dc plentiful. But no, I've dc'd twice this week. Once because I had to go anyway and miscalculated the length of a match, and once where I was slugcamped while playing with a 3man swf, and when I encountered them later they said they would have done the same and actually ended up escaping because I dc'd because they didnt need to worry about me anymore. I know when I am outmatched, and I endure boring builds all the same. I play many more games each week to a point where its not even 0.1% of my games that I end up disconnecting. The problem is, you're far too authoritarian on a party game and trying to make it have super strict black and white applications of the rules as if the game were competitive. It is not. Its an asymmetrical party thriller game. Even tournaments of this game are extremely hard to set up and they ban perks and offerings from being used because they are far too unbalanced in a tournament settign. That alone shows the rules cannot be without grey area's. And that alone shows that the dc penalty cannot be as strict as you want it to be. The negative impact that some players leave is minor, and the same players would have suicided on hook if they didnt dc. The dc I have been talking about is the only way out in a situation where you cannot suicide on hook. And I have seen you agree with that. The builds I have been describing often are non-existant when there is no dc penalty applied, but they are 10% of all the matches you can get on 1 day once there is. I would consider those builds exploits because they exploit the dc penalty system, and therefor I suggest the DC system to be voted for if done maliciously. Because its not black and white. You could add in a suicide option for when you're slugged, but even that would be a problem and people might aswell just disconnect. Another great option would simply be doing what they did for DBD Mobile and replace the disconnected person with an AI, because then it would remove the negative impact of a dc to other players. Which actually leads me to your final question:

"your argument now is invalid because it does one thing and that is breaks the rules of the game you agreed to! should you not be punished for that?"

No, because the game allows the opponent to remove the option to tap out and rewards the opponent for doing so. As long as that is in action, they cannot consider a disconnect to be an out of match functionality because it is part of the match. Its the only way to get out of a situation you cannot suicide from, and 4 minutes is simply too long of a time to wait to finally die and join another match. In some cases you could be halfway through another match in that same time. Since the situation of the game cannot allow the rules to apply black and white, it allows for the grey area to where a disconnect is usable without being punished for it. And you agree to this, just not to the extend that I do. Because like I said, the situations where even you would DC do not occur when there isnt a penalty in place. With the penalty in place, I've had 6 matches in a row where people were slug camping. Now, would you consider 30 minutes of being slug camped and being in matchmaking to be equalivant to playing dead by daylight? I dont think so. Yet also according to you, "they are using in match functionality" and thus not exploiting, even though in my opinion they are exploiting the existance of the dc penalty. And like I said, considering suicides when downed can be exploited easily too, I think the only legit way out of such a situation would be to disconnect and have the community say whether it was done maliciously or not. Giving everyone the risk of a penalty, but not the guarantee of one.

Again, the design is toxic, that makes it toxic by design. A knife is sharp by design, that doesnt mean the people create it to be sharp.

And no, DS is an anti-removal perk. DS falls in the range of perks that can be used in a toxic manner, yet arent toxic by design. Even though I dont like DS to a point where I avoid using it. But I dont avoid it because I think if I used it I would be toxic to a killer. Pop goes the Weasel has the capability of being toxic too, but its not toxic to use it. Slugcamping builds and things like Ebony Mori however, the only reason to really use it is assuming the opponent is going to be toxic. Which in itself is toxic.

As a matter of fact, all you've brought to the table is simply "the devs created it the way it is" and "just because you dont like it doesnt mean its toxic". Nothing else. You havent created even any hypothetical where the use of such builds is not toxic, other than people using it just in case they might need it. But thats not using it, thats having something on the reserves just in case things go south.

So as long as you refuse to put in any counter argument, other than trying to push it aside, my logic remains solid. Basically it comes down to the analogy: The devs created guns, but didnt create gun regulations and people are shooting other people with the guns. You claim its fine, because the devs created the guns, and therefor the regulations arent needed and people killing each other is simply how the devs meant it to be.

Oh, the devs define toxic? Sure, so, using the small pp build and flashlighting a killer everytime he vaults isnt toxic? The entire community agrees that it's quite toxic, but its in the game, so it cant be toxic.

Oh, or remember back in the day when you could hide for an eternity in a locker and basically keep the killer hostage? That was toxic AF, but it was in the game and there wasnt anything that said you couldnt, guess it wasnt toxic after all. Sure, it got changed later, but I guess that was just the devs changing their mind on what they thought was toxic, as it was in the game for MONTHS before it got changed.

So yeah, I dont decide what is toxic, but neither do the devs. According to the community, its toxic. And toxicity is a community vote. So you're wrong, and ironically, I am right. Maybe not in the previous thing, but thats for the community to decide, not you.

"That's the literal purpose of flashlights. To blind the killer." There is a difference between blinding a killer, and constantly blinding the killer with 2 people where you know you can essentially keep the killer blind for the entire match or force him/her to never use a window, making infinites possible. Infinites are constantly removed because they literally are toxic. Flashlights being used in this way, creates infinites. Now, I like to see how you will twist this in not being toxic. Because its still in the game, it still allows infinites and there is even a new perk that allows it to be used nearly twice as long. Infinites and using them is toxic, even according to your definition. So, how are you gonna turn this one around? The existance of Lightborn?

"Holding the game hostage is literally against the rules; and bannable" This rule was implemented after they added crows, so again, you're wrong.

And no, the devs decide what is balanced or not. They add in things that can be used as an annoyance, however, they often dont cap the annoyance. Old Pig had a headpopper build that was incredibly toxic, yet barely anyone used it. It's removed now, so again, according to your definition, its toxic. However, this has been in the game for YEARS before it was removed. Now, are you going to claim that all that time, it wasnt toxic untill its removal? Please, I'd like to see your "rebuttal".

As for what is toxic, and this is pretty much the biggest reason why you are wrong: the usage of an in-game mechanic only to ruin the game for someone else. It has nothing to do with annoyance, it's literally someone trying to ruin the fun for someone else on purpose.

I mean, lets take it even further: at first, atoms were researched for finding a way for clean energy, does that mean the people who researched the atoms were trying to find a way to create a bomb? According to you, they must have been, because the bomb got created and atomic bombs are still active to this day. The devs simply try to balance items and things to not be gamebreaking, but that doesnt mean the players dont find a way to make it essentially gamebreaking. The players create the toxicity, the devs can choose to react on that or not. Often, they dont, but that doesnt make it less toxic.