Dbd is unique in that it enables and promotes toxicity

Exactly, because it is subjective... You could do either to me and I wouldn't see a difference, because I do not care. What doesn't make any logical sense is to attribute more "toxicity" to one action over the other when the person offended is the one who needs to determine that for themselves.

Okay, then for the sake of consistency, I will argue someone getting upset that a stranger told them to kill themselves is also crazy. You can't just cherry pick situations to fit your narrative. Toxicity is based on some objective and understood criteria, or it is subjective and depends on the person taking offense. One of these makes sense, my perspective. The other does not, one where you arbitrarily decide what is or isn't offensive on other people's behalf.

I still disagree. Again, telling someone to kill themselves isn't the same as clicking a flashlight.

But why? I mean, seriously? What is the difference? If you just want to belittle someone's response to toxicity, why is this such an abstract difference that merits distinction? Do you actually have a reason, or is it the fee fees?

None of those things are toxic. Of course, some people are going to get defensive when you say things like flashlight clicking and tunneling are toxic when it isn't. Some of those things aren't fun, but it's part of the game. But apparently if I click my flashlight at the killer, it's the same thing as telling them to kill themselves. 🙄

Edit- I think I read your post correctly. It's very late here. Had to finish some stuff for work 😆

DBD is also unique in the way that I have never come across another game fanbase that whinges so much at t bagging lol

Video games dont inherently promote toxic environments... a lot of gamers are simply toxic and have zero desire to change their attitude for anything

All of that is fair. It seems like the only major difference in opinion here is a desire to see something done about it, or the sense that when enough people are negatively affected by something, it should merit action and pass the 'learn to deal' stage. To use the irritant analogy, few people would be irritated by background conversation, so if you're bothered by people talking in a restaurant, you're expected to bring earplugs or some other self-solution because the world isn't going to stop for you. But most people won't tolerate someone screaming next to them, so you will be told to stop if you have a heated argument in the middle of that restaurant, and you'll most likely be made to leave if you continue to disturb the peace. It's part of the social contract.

I never thought these people were pure evil or anything so hyperbolic, but I do think they need to shape up and learn how to behave themselves, and that letting them make a mess of the game is sending the wrong message by giving them a green light to carry on. And consequences are the quickest way to dissuade people from actions, whether that's social pressure or laying down the law. I am pretty willing to call them out on their lack of empathy, but to be fair, there's a quite literal link between empathy and maturity (at least, in the literal sense; no accounting for the adults in the picture.) I see no problem judging people by how they treat total strangers in a vacuum, and if they don't like that judgement, they could try not antagonizing the people around them for a change. Are they evil, no, are they the kind of people I would consider good, also no.

While there's plenty of rude or obnoxious people out there in the world, you get less of this kind of overt behavior when you go about your business IRL (barring when you work in customer service, anyway... but the reason for that is actually quite similar.) The internet takes things a step beyond 'strangers that I'll never interact with again'; anything you do is completely consequence-free when there's no managers to signal or no risk of a fist in your face. Which lends to the internet being an outlet for people sublimating their frustration or unsatisfied need for attention. This is a universal phenomenon, but it's mitigated in small communities (which isn't possible here) and in moderated communities (which is.)

T-bagging is whatever you make it to be... I've seen it used so many ways. Whether they use it to know you're there, or because they want you to chase them, or because they didn't know you were there, or just as a show because they were able to escape... it doesn't mean anything more than that. The rest is up to interpretation. If people start trash talking you after the game then of course they are a toxic player... but you'll never truly know unless they open their mouths to speak.

Don't immediately assume the worst of everyone because it's not healthy for you.

Always remember to put only one little circle in the "Did you have Fun this match?".... 🙃

"gg ez" "baby devs"

"learn to create rules" "noobs"

the thing is that even the head man himself encourages people to do things that others find toxic, like in the announcement video of the new movement animations he mentions you will look good while crouching or something along those lines literally encouraging people to tbag. tbag is BM you can debate toxicity or not but when i played sports if i was to pin my opponent and tbag them because i won i would have been doing laps for days. this community is by far the worst ive seen since OG xbox cod days. except 1 big difference that wasn't a 4 on 1 pile on. you do your very best as killer and you get macro spammed by survivors because MMR has magically matched a newer killer with vets its not the same as oh i killed you in halo now i tbag you, this is " there is literally nothing you could have done this game but lose and now we are going to rub your nose in it. like a dog that crapped on the floor" I try to correct any survivor I'm on a team with that's like that but this is a game where not being toxic is the exception. add on to this that killers have so much pressure and have been unhappy for a while on top of things matt says like "play another game" this does nothing but enforce that the balance team and community cares very little about fun and more about making survivors feel good.

Camping and tunnelling aren’t exclusively “toxic,” and there can be a number of reasons for them, even at 5 gens.

The game chat censors most things, and I mean most things in general like the word “killer,” or sentences like “that was a really fun match your billy is cracked.”

I’m pretty sure you can also disable the chat?

I don’t see how the game actively encourages “toxicity.” As far as I’m aware there are no incentives to being “toxic.” You don’t get bonus bloodpoints for teabagging or flashlight clicking for example.

People do throw around the “toxic” stuff far too often.

I'm pretty sure that like thumbs-upping a user, that option is merely a placebo.

I still do it, but without match replays saved, that information can't actually mean anything. I'm not sure it even saves that feedback, and if it does, the only data points potentially collected are score and killer/perks/items/addons. Maybe there's more one-stars when it's a tombstone Myers or 4 BNP/full meta/CoH, but 'this person didn't like dying with 3000 points' is a bit of a no brainer. It definitely doesn't tell BHVR what the killer or the survivors were doing. If I give the match one star because I got facecamped (sweeping aside the question of toxicity for a second, getting facecamped early on is definitely a 1-star experience) or because the survivors were trolling me, then the important part of my feedback isn't conveyed in the feedback itself.

I don't really agree, but I'm honestly just tired of commenting on this thread. Not really... I don't try to annoy the killer with my flashlight when I'm trying to get his attention. I just want him to notice me. Sometimes this works, sometimes it doesn't. I'm not constantly running after him, lol.

Edit: Would be nice if the devs did something for those people.

Or people could not be toxic. There is a real person on the other end which makes it more than just a video game.

Depending on the context, it's bullying. It doesn't matter if bullying happens on-line or off-line; it's still bullying.

No it is not. Your definition of bullying is extremely flimsy. It’s a computer game, and it’s an imaginary flashlight being clicked. An imaginary hook being hit. Etc. That’s not bulling, no matter how desperately you want to pretend it is.

"Chat is in the game so typing in it cant be toxic" thats your logic, it makes no sense.

Bullying definition from the national centre against bullying:

"Bullying is an ongoing and deliberate misuse of power in relationships through repeated verbal, physical and/or social behaviour that intends to cause physical, social and/or psychological harm. It can involve an individual or a group misusing their power, or perceived power, over one or more persons who feel unable to stop it from happening."

All these apply to the situation, especially the social and psychological aspect. How does it being online change things at all? There's plenty of cases of bullying online.

This sounds exactly like what everyone is describing minus the physical aspect. So yes, it is bullying.

"It’s not bullying though, that’s the point." Your point is wrong and detrimental to addressing the issue.