Ridiculous Unwritten Rules of DBD

Oh but I bet you're against survivors using DS and unbreakable, right?

I agree with the patrol camping I find it stupid how people complain and call toxic when that killer is patrolling the gens near the hook like we want to make sure no one is doing gens around there while also being close enough to spot other survivors that may or not be going for the save some of us don't run bbq and chili

I agree to an extent, but you have to also understand that it's unreasonable for survivors to expect a killer to get 12 hooks a game. Would that be considered "deserving"?

The game goes by way too fast, especially in red ranks you will not and cannot play killer thinking "I have to 3 hook every survivor". You will lose.

@Crunc2h

Regarding your definition and assumptions:

I share your definitions of camping, but not of tunneling. As can be distinguished between proxy and face camping, different types of tunneling can also be distinguished. Personally, I distinguish between two forms, which I define as follows:

Tunneling: The killer player follows one or more survivor players immediately after they have been rescued.

Hard-core tunneling: The killer player chases a single survivor regardless of whether others are injured or down.

Strictly speaking, there are also mixed types of tunnelling and of camping.

If camping or tunneling begins in the end game (all or almost all generators are finished), I personally rate it as less objectionable.

If any of this behaviour is shown in the beginning of the game without an objective (tbagging, pointing constantly) provocation, then I rate it as a deliberate and deviant violation of morals and values.

@Crunc2h

In relation to your comments and complaints (which are often found here): In your text I only read "I, I, I". Not in the literal sense, but figuratively. Your "criticism" sounds like a hurt, angry child who rebels against social norms because they limit their personal freedom, goals and needs. Apparently you see norms only as moral behavior determined by others and you lack the understanding of the need to adhere to them. In our society and in social groups, values ​​are a prerequisite for living together harmoniously. Therefore, following norms is closely linked to reward and punishment. Obviously you have behaved or acted in a (norm-) deviating or provocatively deviant manner and have been punished for it. Social sanctions, such as contempt, reprimand, disapproval, social ostracism / exclusion or antipathy, have a social integration function and are intended to regulate socially undesirable and norm-violating behavior. Although an unpopular norm (like here: fair play) in differing interest groups (like here: killer vs. survivor) can, according to general understanding, only be achieved through a system of sanctions, I still hope that it is also possible through education. Even if I have to admit that the number of people who, from a selfish perspective, consider it advantageous not to adhere to this norm is quite high at DBD. It may help you (and others) realize that, despite the fact that you consider your individual freedom to be very important, it does not take precedence over other values ​​in society. As I said, compliance with social norms is subject to social control. Therefore, if your behavior or actions are criticized (after your anger and being injured have disappeared) you should deal critically with the situation. Then you can ask yourself which norms were important from both perspectives (killer side and survivor side) and then try to objectively identify the one that stands higher in the value hierarchy.

It works more simply for one's own behavior (which we can only judge objectively with difficulty) with the golden rule: “What you don't want someone to do to you, don't do it to anyone else”. Caution, some act (depending on their current role) in such a way that it can be described as double standards.

Since I have the impression that some terms are possibly not familiar, I explain them:

Morality: totality of all current (social) norms, values ​​and virtues.

Values ​​/ moral concepts: ethical and moral objectives of properties, actions etc. that are considered worth striving for/desirable or morally good, etc. Social norms can be derived from values.

Social norms: Are concrete rules for social action. Instructions for social action that relate to social behavior and define/prescribe possible forms of action in certain social situations.

Moral evaluation: subjective expression of approval (morally good, e.g. applause) or rejection (morally bad, e.g. boos) when assessing actions.

So what does that mean specifically in your case? What did you (apparently) do wrong?

The value is fairness

The moral / value concept is "Morally good people behave in the game according to the rules of fair play"

Social norm: "Treat others fairly" "Follow the rules of fair play"

Moral evaluation of unfair actions / behavior leads to messages or statements about your behavior or generalized statements about your person (characterization based on the behavior shown): "You behave unfairly" "You are selfish" "You behave immorally / not like a (morally) good person "

The moral evaluation aims to point out your moral error, your provocatively deviant action and to bring about a change from undesired / intolerable to desirable behavior.

Small addition for those interested: There is a document (The Universal Declaration of Human Duties) from the 50th anniversary of the United Nations (1997), which describes 19 articles on the duties of all people. Include among others: To behave in a peaceful, friendly, understanding and helpful manner (there is also the golden rule!). Each individual is subject to their conscience and is responsible for their own actions. It prohibits violence, but does not preclude self-defense in the event of an attack. Demand for just and fair behavior!

And depending on the discipline (criminology, sociology, psychology, neurobiology, etc.) there are different explanations for deviant behavior. It is also interesting that the antisocial personality disorder manifests itself through constant disregard for social norms, violation of the rights of others and the ruthless pursuit of one's own goals.

Tunneling is totally fine honestly.

Proxy camping is also totally fine and makes sense to do.

Face camping im more conflicted about. I do think there should be an in-game penalty that impacts the hooked survivor. Sure the killer could likely not perform as well because 9f facecamping but the hooked survivor doesn't remotely care. I've personally been facecamped on first hook as first survivor down multiple times without being toxic. Its super frustrating having that happen after waiting 20 minutes for a game to have it essentially end in the first couple minutes. Im in the camp that the survivor on hook should somehow benefit sticking around longer on hook because they don't have any real reason to struggle if they know no one is going to save them (besides earning negligible points). I think that really ought to change especially early game but I don't know how exactly. Now, for facecamping after 5 gens done that I can totally understand and even though its frustrating, it does make sense.

@Crunc2h

That may be your wish, which is naturally explained by the denial of responsibility, cognitive dissonance theory and party through a self-serving bias. Still, you're wrong. In the game DBD itself there are two groups (killer players and survivor players) who are in conflict with each other regarding their goals. Both groups belong to the superordinate group of online multiplayer. Those who interact online in social groups with other individuals within a game. In social interactions and groups there are always norms and values ​​(I have already explained both) that are based on morality. Morality usually refers to the factual patterns, conventions, rules or principles of specific individuals, groups or cultures and thus the totality of currently applicable values, norms and virtues. The group distinguishes its members from non-members who are attributed to the environment through togetherness. Membership becomes perceptible through recurring interrelationships, but it persists beyond pure interaction. Norms are formed through participation in group interaction (here: DBD playing together). However, these norms are often only "visible" or expressed for everyone in the event of a conflict. For example, those who do not explicitly contradict the behavior of the other group members during an interaction commit themselves to a self-presentation that they will accept the behavior - also for the future - without being able to legitimately protest against it. That is why we find ourselves in the forum in a discussion about the norms and values ​​of our group. If your reasoning were correct, we would have no discussion, no conflicts and you would not have had any experience of social sanction due to your misconduct in the game. You assert, without any evidence or argument, that morality is situational. This is wrong. In virtual space, the same rules apply to groups if it doesn't suit you and some of the others. Incidentally, the correctness of all my statements and arguments can be confirmed by the simplest research (specialist literature) (e.g. Wikipedia, dictionaries). People with damage in areas of the brain that control emotional assessments also usually have great problems with moralizing actions. Researchers like the Bielefeld neuropsychologist Hans Joachim Markowitsch suspect such defects also in psychopaths (see GuG 7-8 / 2009, p. 28).

Paul Rozin of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia has been researching the power of disgust since the 1980s. As he and his colleagues have shown, immorality literally arouses physical disgust in us. Disgust, explains Rozin, not only has a biological protective function and already saved our ancestors from ingesting potentially toxic food. The "useful aversion" has been carried over to the rules of the community in the course of evolution. Injustice, fraud and murder have disgusted us ever since - and due to the common neural equipment, it probably feels the same for everyone. Prof. Paul Bloom received the Klaus J. Jacobs Research Prize 2017 for his research on the origins and development of moral thinking and behavior in children. He (like others) was able to prove that we are born with an elementary sense of justice and fairness. Paul Bloom concludes from a whole series of experiments: Babies as early as three months old can distinguish between good and bad behavior. They have a sense of morality and they show compassion; they cry when others cry. Even toddlers distribute sweets fairly and they expect wrongdoers to be punished. You assert, without any evidence or argument, that morality is situational. This is wrong. In virtual space, the same rules apply to groups if it doesn't suit you and some of the others. Moral ideas are not always and completely reflected in behavior (apparently applicable to you). All too often it can even be observed that people consciously or unconsciously deny or reject their moral responsibility. People have a fundamental need to maintain a stable, positive self-image and to be socially accepted. For example, acting immorally or making wrong decisions can lead to discomfort that goes against our typically positive self-perception (cognitive dissonance). Following the theory of cognitive dissonance, people strive for consistency between what they think and how they act (Festinger, 1957). Dissonances that arise due to the discrepancy between what we believe and our actual behavior are perceived as a threat to our self-image. In response to this threat, people try to reduce it through various strategies. This can either be done by changing behavior to align with dissonant cognition, changing dissonant cognition to justify our behavior, or adding more cognitions to justify our behavior. The processes of dissonant reduction run essentially unconsciously and are therefore not only rational, but rather rationalizing. People who are largely concerned with dissonant reduction, i.e. who want to convince themselves that they have acted correctly, often tend to behave irrationally and inappropriately. Wills (1997) and Kanning (2000) described cognitive and behavioral self-enhancement strategies, and Tajfel and Turner (1986) individual and collective self-enhancement strategies. In the course of cognitive strategies, people can tend to change their "view of things", for example to see themselves more positively or to question the critics' ability to judge. (https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-06175-3_45-1 )

Is any of what the author posted official or is he/she just posting things they would desire?

Now this is a very good discussion, however I have to disagree with some statements you made.

"And toxicty levels are MUCH higher on the survivor side " - Now this is just wrong, killers are equally as toxic, but since you have 4 survivors, it is statistically more likely to meet a toxic player than a killer.

Now with the made up rules, I agree some take them to the next level and you shouldn't expect player to follow those so called "unwritten rules", i'll get to this point later, i'll react to your next statement first.

"In situation 2 and 4 you left the default gameplay route of a killer and just want to satisfy your own emotional needs" - DBD is unfortunately the type of game, where one side has the power to ruin experience and fun of the other side. Now that doesn't mean it should be abused, because toxic behavior is more likely to attract even more toxicity in the end, but also keep in mind you're playing with other humans, without them there's no game. Playing for the sake of ruining someone's fun is just ill will and shouldn't be tolerated, regardless whether it's video game, sport or pretty much anything.

Unwritten rules are some kind of middle ground for both sides that was made back when the game came out. it was made by group of like minded players that used to play together on specific regions. The whole purpose of these rules was to create respect and fun for both sides. For instance: Survivors wouldn't abuse infinites and in return killers wouldn't camp. As the time passed people outside the "groups" would notice and try to apply it to their matches, but other teammates or opponents weren't either aware or just wouldn't care. This where the cycle of "I expect you to follow the unwritten rules" began and it still lasts to this day. However people decided to abuse this and try to insult or mock you when the match doesn't go their way. What most of the DBD players lack nowadays is empathy and fail to see the main point of those unwritten rules. In the end don't be a dick and treat others the way you want to be treated.

If you’re a killer and you don’t let all 4 survivors escape unfettered, you’re an absolute monster.

The core point is that most survivors want an NPC to beat and if not they want a human to bully as they please. It's a bit sociopathic in a way and I get disturbed by my fellow survivors all too often in their behaviour and desire to bully. Does the game sometimes go sideways? Yes, I just got killed fast as a survivor earlier. Now, it ain't fun, but sometimes the dice just rolls that way and I lose out. That is in no way an excuse to bully killers.

I think the best solution to avoid this sort of toxicity is to turn the game into a 4v4 where both players have the capacity to kill each other. I mean, we usually just call those games PvP games and shooters, but asymmetrical games will always engender more toxicity due to the asymmetrical nature of it.

Actually, now that I think of it, it might be better to introduce two killers to a match against 5 survivors to see if it changes behaviour somewhat. Because ultimately the 4v1 format is a failed format when it comes to toxicity.