Let's speak clearly of toxicity: from definitions to remedies

ShrimpTwiggs said:

For me, toxicity is doing unnecessary things purely to spite somebody. Whether that be holding the game hostage, or going out of your way to make the other person's game as unfun as possible.

From the survivor perspective, getting whacked and facecamped on the hook because you did really well in a chase. Or getting bodyblocked in the basement for unreasonable amounts of time. Or one of your teammates working with the killer to farm the other survivors. Those are a few examples.

From the killer perspective, the survivors purposefully holding the game hostage when they could leave at any time, abusing sound triggers for no reason other than to annoy you (fast-vaulting or sliding over a pallet repetitively), and there's t-bagging and flashlight clicking, but that's pretty minor.

For both sides, there's toxicity in the chat or messages and DCing for no good reason during a game. Those are my views, anyway.

@Rebel_Raven said:
ShrimpTwiggs said:

For me, toxicity is doing unnecessary things purely to spite somebody. Whether that be holding the game hostage, or going out of your way to make the other person's game as unfun as possible.

From the survivor perspective, getting whacked and facecamped on the hook because you did really well in a chase. Or getting bodyblocked in the basement for unreasonable amounts of time. Or one of your teammates working with the killer to farm the other survivors. Those are a few examples.

From the killer perspective, the survivors purposefully holding the game hostage when they could leave at any time, abusing sound triggers for no reason other than to annoy you (fast-vaulting or sliding over a pallet repetitively), and there's t-bagging and flashlight clicking, but that's pretty minor.

For both sides, there's toxicity in the chat or messages and DCing for no good reason during a game. Those are my views, anyway.

Being camped because you did well as a decoy is basically the natural result, imo.
Why on earth would a killer want to give you another opportunity to annoy the hell out of them all over again? What costs the killer more time? Dealing with you on the run, or camping you to death?
Sure it ruins your fun, but how bad are you putting the screws to the killer and getting in the way of theirs?

But yeah, noise abuse is annoying. Forgot about that. 

True, but it's usually pretty obvious when it's done for strategic reasons or just to ruin your game. In certain instances, when the killer already has a couple hooks in and there are still two or three gens left and they throw the game away just to make sure you die, it's pretty clear that they weren't doing it to win.

@ShrimpTwiggs said:

@Rebel_Raven said:
ShrimpTwiggs said:

For me, toxicity is doing unnecessary things purely to spite somebody. Whether that be holding the game hostage, or going out of your way to make the other person's game as unfun as possible.

From the survivor perspective, getting whacked and facecamped on the hook because you did really well in a chase. Or getting bodyblocked in the basement for unreasonable amounts of time. Or one of your teammates working with the killer to farm the other survivors. Those are a few examples.

From the killer perspective, the survivors purposefully holding the game hostage when they could leave at any time, abusing sound triggers for no reason other than to annoy you (fast-vaulting or sliding over a pallet repetitively), and there's t-bagging and flashlight clicking, but that's pretty minor.

For both sides, there's toxicity in the chat or messages and DCing for no good reason during a game. Those are my views, anyway.

Being camped because you did well as a decoy is basically the natural result, imo.
Why on earth would a killer want to give you another opportunity to annoy the hell out of them all over again? What costs the killer more time? Dealing with you on the run, or camping you to death?
Sure it ruins your fun, but how bad are you putting the screws to the killer and getting in the way of theirs?

But yeah, noise abuse is annoying. Forgot about that. 

True, but it's usually pretty obvious when it's done for strategic reasons or just to ruin your game. In certain instances, when the killer already has a couple hooks in and there are still two or three gens left and they throw the game away just to make sure you die, it's pretty clear that they weren't doing it to win.

Okay, I have to ask again, what possible good strategy is it to let someone go who's really hard to catch?
What possible gain do they have?
If they let you go, what's your next goal?
Resume gens and help ensure the win? Sabotage hooks? Bust Hexes? Goad another chase that would probably have them lose the game anyhow because the chase is longer than you dying on the hook? I mean they can't really ignore you, can they?
They may see you doing more damage off the hook than on it.
Depending on how fast the gens are being done, they may be securing the kill. The last gens pop, the gates are powered, why would they risk having to chase you out the gate?

I'll grant you it can be excessive in some cases, but I still see it as the price paid for being a really good decoy. If you make the killer mad, it's pretty obvious they'll want to kill you. I end up on the receiving end, too.
In the end, though? You helped the others escape. You probably got a ton of points. That's a win in my book.

@Rebel_Raven said:

@ShrimpTwiggs said:

@Rebel_Raven said:
ShrimpTwiggs said:

For me, toxicity is doing unnecessary things purely to spite somebody. Whether that be holding the game hostage, or going out of your way to make the other person's game as unfun as possible.

From the survivor perspective, getting whacked and facecamped on the hook because you did really well in a chase. Or getting bodyblocked in the basement for unreasonable amounts of time. Or one of your teammates working with the killer to farm the other survivors. Those are a few examples.

From the killer perspective, the survivors purposefully holding the game hostage when they could leave at any time, abusing sound triggers for no reason other than to annoy you (fast-vaulting or sliding over a pallet repetitively), and there's t-bagging and flashlight clicking, but that's pretty minor.

For both sides, there's toxicity in the chat or messages and DCing for no good reason during a game. Those are my views, anyway.

Being camped because you did well as a decoy is basically the natural result, imo.
Why on earth would a killer want to give you another opportunity to annoy the hell out of them all over again? What costs the killer more time? Dealing with you on the run, or camping you to death?
Sure it ruins your fun, but how bad are you putting the screws to the killer and getting in the way of theirs?

But yeah, noise abuse is annoying. Forgot about that. 

True, but it's usually pretty obvious when it's done for strategic reasons or just to ruin your game. In certain instances, when the killer already has a couple hooks in and there are still two or three gens left and they throw the game away just to make sure you die, it's pretty clear that they weren't doing it to win.

Okay, I have to ask again, what possible good strategy is it to let someone go who's really hard to catch?
What possible gain do they have?
If they let you go, what's your next goal?
Resume gens and help ensure the win? Sabotage hooks? Bust Hexes? Goad another chase that would probably have them lose the game anyhow because the chase is longer than you dying on the hook? I mean they can't really ignore you, can they?
They may see you doing more damage off the hook than on it.
Depending on how fast the gens are being done, they may be securing the kill. The last gens pop, the gates are powered, why would they risk having to chase you out the gate?

I'll grant you it can be excessive in some cases, but I still see it as the price paid for being a really good decoy. If you make the killer mad, it's pretty obvious they'll want to kill you. I end up on the receiving end, too.
In the end, though? You helped the others escape. You probably got a ton of points. That's a win in my book.

It's not the camping alone that's toxic. When they're whacking you on the hook, it's pretty clear what they're main intention is. And I already stated the situation I'm using for a reference. I said that when there are still two or three gens left and they already have a few hooks in. That, paired with them nodding and whacking you as gens pop around them, makes things pretty clear.

If all the gens are done and the gates are powered, then I have no issue with securing a kill. And if you're using the survivor as bait or trying to take a good one out of the game, I don't have a problem with that. But, like I said, it's pretty easy to tell when the killer is doing it for strategic reasons or just to get back at you. I don't think it should be reportable or anything, but throwing the game away just to spite someone who was trying to survive I think is toxic. If you disagree, then that's fine. I can see how others would view this differently.

Entità said:

The first problem of any dialogue is language: if two people, using the same word, mean different meanings, good faith and constructive spirit will not be enough to understand each other's positions, and each will draw from the wrong premises even more wrong consequences, derailing the conversation.

So I ask you to strictly define, from your point of view, what you mean by "toxicity" and what you reasonably expect from your opponents in the dynamics of the game.

I tell you my opinion. I distinguish the toxicity from the annoyance:
1) I consider the lack of respect for the adversary's person to be toxic, that is to say, any attempt to humiliate them, to rage against them or to show superiority, and unsportsmanlike behavior, which prolongs a won game or prevents its regular performance;
2) I consider at most annoying, but absolutely legitimate, every move or tactic consistent with the role played by the opponent, even if it ruins my plans or even leads me to a burning defeat (I cannot expect help or understanding from those who want to kill me or survive to my slaughter, of course: it's a battle without quarter, this is the spirit of the game).

When we have reached a consensus on what the Community means by "toxicity", we can consciously analyze its causes and remedies.

Entità said:

@MuttonChops Read my answers to other users, please.

Entità said:

@Peasant Read all the thread, please: the issue is greater than specific, annoying users.

Considering that each side (survivors / killers) have a goal in this game (escaping / sacrificing 4 survivors), I would consider as "Toxic": any action that wasn't made in the pursuit of some those objectives.

To make this definition complete, we should also talk about secondary objectives. Any action made by a player, toward the achievement of a secondary objective (ex: cleansing totems), while he could instead complete his primary objective, shall fall into the toxic definition.

Let's test this definition: CASE 1 KILLER. A killer hook a survivor midgame and start camping him ; is he toxic ? Yes, because his goal is to sacrifice all 4 people and not just settle for 1 kill unless ... late game when he knows he can't reach his primary objective ; he secures 1 kill to fulfill his secondary objectives.

CASE 2 SURVIVOR. A survivor cleanses a dull totem after the gates are powered, or heal someone at that moment ; is he toxic ? YES he is because he should try to reach his main objective instead. But if those actions where taken before the gates are powered, he won't be toxic as long as he believes that his doing will give him a better chance to escape later.

@Entità said:
@BACKSTABBER @Bug_Reporter @EntityDispleased @Rebel_Raven @redsopine1 @ShrimpTwiggs @thrashed2pieces @Greater_Cultist @twistedmonkey @MuttonChops @Peasant @ProximityOfToxicity @Nick @Utna @DarkWo1f997

I have read with pleasure all your constructive answers regarding the definition of "toxicity", therefore I suggest to move on to the analysis of its possible causes and the appropriate remedies.

In my opinion, several factors are involved in "toxicity", from the mildest to the most serious:
1) poor knowledge of game mechanics;
2) immaturity due to age or character;
3) irritation for unfortunate events (for example: being the first survivor chased and hooked by the killer or losing precious minutes in a long and unsuccessful chase);
4) anger for the defeat suffered, with possible loss of valuable items, add-ons or offerings;
5) intolerance to game dynamics considered unbalanced or buggy;
6) rebellion against the opponent's unsportsmanlike behavior;
7) frustration for the continuous repetition of the facts indicated in the previous points, by pure chance or by personal or team demerits;
8) rudeness, incivility or personal problems poured into the game;
9) sabotage of the game or other hostile purposes against the community of players or developers;
10) criminal purposes.

The ideal would be for each player to commit himself to the correctness and respect of others, but it is purely utopian to imagine that all are good and honest by mere bond of conscience. The practical solution that I suggest is a global rethink of the system of reporting wrong conduct, imposing something more than just pressing a key: the player must attach a brief description of the fact complained, so that the managers of the game can:
A) understand if the report is founded or not (for example: the accusation of camping or blinding during the break of a pallet is unfounded, because they belong to the tactics of play and are consistent with the purpose of the role);
to compare similar reports and to understand if the accused player is habitually or only occasionally incorrect;
C) make the necessary checks;
D) to hear the reasons of the accused player;
E) adopt appropriate sanctions.

On the other hand, to those who suffer these disrespectful behaviors I ask to be reasonably patient, in order not to flood the managers of the game with a million reports.

The same goes for the "toxicity" in the forum, of course.

You know, it's not very often that I see someone take a fair and analytical view on this subject without resorting to 'well killers / survivors do this so....." Both sides have degree's of toxicity we all know this, even if we just want to root for our side and occasionally are biased, but both sides have generated so much animosity for each other that it's just become a s**t slinging circle that never ends. A huge problem is that both sides have both valid and utterly invalid points when it comes to what they believe toxicity actually is, and when it comes to the forums, a lot of the time both sides are way too invested in one upmanship over the other side to actually sit and talk like adults instead of the constant dragging down into cheap insults.

I've seen forum members i once respected suddenly turn to insults, trying to outlaw what they deem 'non experienced players' from giving their points of view and even employing well known troublemakers to stand as guard dog over their posts to viciously insult anyone who does not agree with their point of view, which makes me a little sad.

So for this thread and your handling of the subject matter, and being willing to listen to all points of view in a mature and calm way....i salute you.

I won't go over what i consider toxic as i think others have underlined that already and I like the idea of actually moving on to realistic solutions.

I have never liked the idea of one button press encompassing a whole host of things, it gives those angered over a simple loss way too much leeway to waste devs time. Allow people to be more specific so that the people looking at these reports can weed out the complete wastes of time thrown in by people who are simply sore that they have lost. I get it, we are never all going to be the bestest of friends, the game itself doesn't exactly breed harmony, but until we can start being adults about it, why should they listen to us?

I would fully support the OP's suggestions if the chance ever came up of it possibly being implemented, I can't see anything wrong with those ideas, it would weed out the time wasting and false reports as well as allowing us to give a more detailed account of actual legitimate complaints rather than simply trying to find a vague connection to one of the limited choices when unique situations arise.

@SoylentPixie said:

@Entità said:
@BACKSTABBER @Bug_Reporter @EntityDispleased @Rebel_Raven @redsopine1 @ShrimpTwiggs @thrashed2pieces @Greater_Cultist @twistedmonkey @MuttonChops @Peasant @ProximityOfToxicity @Nick @Utna @DarkWo1f997

I have read with pleasure all your constructive answers regarding the definition of "toxicity", therefore I suggest to move on to the analysis of its possible causes and the appropriate remedies.

In my opinion, several factors are involved in "toxicity", from the mildest to the most serious:
1) poor knowledge of game mechanics;
2) immaturity due to age or character;
3) irritation for unfortunate events (for example: being the first survivor chased and hooked by the killer or losing precious minutes in a long and unsuccessful chase);
4) anger for the defeat suffered, with possible loss of valuable items, add-ons or offerings;
5) intolerance to game dynamics considered unbalanced or buggy;
6) rebellion against the opponent's unsportsmanlike behavior;
7) frustration for the continuous repetition of the facts indicated in the previous points, by pure chance or by personal or team demerits;
8) rudeness, incivility or personal problems poured into the game;
9) sabotage of the game or other hostile purposes against the community of players or developers;
10) criminal purposes.

The ideal would be for each player to commit himself to the correctness and respect of others, but it is purely utopian to imagine that all are good and honest by mere bond of conscience. The practical solution that I suggest is a global rethink of the system of reporting wrong conduct, imposing something more than just pressing a key: the player must attach a brief description of the fact complained, so that the managers of the game can:
A) understand if the report is founded or not (for example: the accusation of camping or blinding during the break of a pallet is unfounded, because they belong to the tactics of play and are consistent with the purpose of the role);
to compare similar reports and to understand if the accused player is habitually or only occasionally incorrect;
C) make the necessary checks;
D) to hear the reasons of the accused player;
E) adopt appropriate sanctions.

On the other hand, to those who suffer these disrespectful behaviors I ask to be reasonably patient, in order not to flood the managers of the game with a million reports.

The same goes for the "toxicity" in the forum, of course.

You know, it's not very often that I see someone take a fair and analytical view on this subject without resorting to 'well killers / survivors do this so....." Both sides have degree's of toxicity we all know this, even if we just want to root for our side and occasionally are biased, but both sides have generated so much animosity for each other that it's just become a s**t slinging circle that never ends. A huge problem is that both sides have both valid and utterly invalid points when it comes to what they believe toxicity actually is, and when it comes to the forums, a lot of the time both sides are way too invested in one upmanship over the other side to actually sit and talk like adults instead of the constant dragging down into cheap insults.

I've seen forum members i once respected suddenly turn to insults, trying to outlaw what they deem 'non experienced players' from giving their points of view and even employing well known troublemakers to stand as guard dog over their posts to viciously insult anyone who does not agree with their point of view, which makes me a little sad.

So for this thread and your handling of the subject matter, and being willing to listen to all points of view in a mature and calm way....i salute you.

I won't go over what i consider toxic as i think others have underlined that already and I like the idea of actually moving on to realistic solutions.

I have never liked the idea of one button press encompassing a whole host of things, it gives those angered over a simple loss way too much leeway to waste devs time. Allow people to be more specific so that the people looking at these reports can weed out the complete wastes of time thrown in by people who are simply sore that they have lost. I get it, we are never all going to be the bestest of friends, the game itself doesn't exactly breed harmony, but until we can start being adults about it, why should they listen to us?

I would fully support the OP's suggestions if the chance ever came up of it possibly being implemented, I can't see anything wrong with those ideas, it would weed out the time wasting and false reports as well as allowing us to give a more detailed account of actual legitimate complaints rather than simply trying to find a vague connection to one of the limited choices when unique situations arise.

I liked the sound that, but I believe there is a reason why connected and IRL relationship doesn't work the same way.

In real life ... let's say in a cardboard club, you may look at the room as you enter it and choose not to sit at the table of someone you know as a cheater, or as a bitter person. This is only when there is nowhere esle to sit, that you must go to these people's table, even though you don't want to play with them. In this situation, you have to try your best to have a good time, and thus you might care more about patience and diplomacy. But over the time, "douchebags" will be fled by most players and will have fewer opportunities to play a game, thus leading them to find a different hobby.

In DBD, players are chosen randomly, not taking into account how many people they've pissed off. Being banned isn't a concern for them either, because as long as they don't cheat, or insult people in a very DIRTY way, they'll have nothing to fear about. This means that you can't ask them to be self conscious about their actions, because instead of trying to fit into a living community, like the cardboard club we've mentioned before ; all they are asked to, is to follow a set of very basic rules.

The point is people won't stop trolling just because we ask them to think about it ... It might help of course, but some people just uses the internet to feed their saddistic nature. I wish there where another way, but I believe that we will never have a "civilized" envirronment in a place where people can be ######### without worrying of being cast out.

To fix this problem, I hope the devs will add a "self bann" button. After a game, when you see the name of a player you didn't liked to play with, you should be able to say: "I will not play with you again." And from now on the algorythm taking care of the pairings will not make you pop in the same lobby as those players. Trolls will be quickly avoided by most people, and players who hit the "self bann" button for no reason might find it hard to find any more games as well.

@Entità said:
@Utna Being able to block an unwelcome opponent is a dangerous power, because it is arbitrary. Players are not referees, rarely judge according to objectivity, impartiality and detachment: there would instead be the highest risk of revenge against good opponents, who are afraid to face, or petty choices, dictated by selfishness, anger, frustration . No player can stand as a judge of the other players.

Judging people and being arbitrary is part of the human nature ; this is how we end up meeting people we love and others we hate sometimes. Being able to judge wether or not we want to play with some individual is not something we should leave to a judge ... would you let a judge decide your next sex partner ? OK the comparison is a bit streched but think about it: in real life we consider as a right the action to choose people we'd like to hang with and have fun with ... why would it be different in video games ?

As I said earlier, weather it is at a table in a poker club, or even in the kinder garden, there are people we like and other we don't ... That's how it is. In our proffessional life mostly, we need to deal with people we dislike ; of course, we get paid for the trouble. But could you explain why should we NEED to suffer the same treatment when we're playing a video game for our entertainement ?

Of course some petty losers might abuse the "block" system, but isn't it their right to not play against players they consider too strong for them ? Let's even consider all the complaints in this forum about the ranking system not being usefull ... and how players get bullied and humiliated ... all this frustration would be relieved if every one had the option to ignore the players they consider as "odd ranked", or "toxic", or "cheaters".

And let's not forget that anyone abusing that block system would in fact ban himself from potential games (not the other way around). This means that if I block people for no sensible reason, I'll be out of potential opponent very soon and my queue times might last forever ... About that, a "Reset all block" button might be needed in case of emergency.

@Entità said:
@Utna Of course you can! It is your full right to choose with whom to have sex, dine, go to the cinema, play poker or football or bridge, and you can do it because it's about personal matters, about your private life. It does not work like that, however, in official and public events, in a tournament or in classified matches, where the arbitrary decisions of individuals can cause unjust damage to other players and, regardless of this, where it is not conceivable that each choose their opponents. There is a system of scores and ranks that, even if imperfect, try to reflect the quality of each player according to objective parameters: the individual whim cannot have citizenship in the combinations based on this system, while your speech is fully valid in KYF mode. Ranked trials are under tournament's rules, friendly trials are under friends' rules.

While I fully agree about tournaments not being a place where we can choose to block some individuals, I believe you stoped talking specificly about DBD just to make a point. I've heard about DBD tournaments where almost all play play Nurse and Claudette ; of course everyone should be able to participate and nobody should have a saying in the pairings there, because ultimately there is a prize to win. However DBD's ranking system is not about who you can beat (as it is in a tournament), but how consistently you reach a specific set of objectives.

Let's be honest for a minute, DBD's ranking system while usefull to separate new players and seasoned ones, has certainly let people reach rank 1 without needing them to play against each possible opponents. Also, let's consider how depiping has been a trend, and how many SWF players shamlessly team up with rank 15 buddies, to mess up with the pairing system ... as many people said earlier in this forum, there isn't much left of a competitive environment in DBD's ranking system. Ranking in this game is more of a personal matter and I guess it is pointless (to say the least) to compare it to a tournament system.

Now, should I need it to play KYF to have casual games ? I SHOULD NOT of course, because there is a middle ground between tournaments and KYF. You're telling me to go play with my friends exclusively, but this is not what I want ! All I want is to not be obliged to play with people who has been rude to me before. Think of it like that: I may end up having lunch in the same restaurant room as people I don't like, but of course, I'm free to not sit at their table ... and if they're no table left for me to go, it's up to me to decide to change my mind, wait, or go look for a different restaurant.