Is It Possible To Fix Gaming Toxicity?

"

LennyLen wrote:

Nobody in their right mind trusts the British.

^_^

Alright, I'm noping out of this thread. Who knew a topic asking if gaming toxicity can be fixed created by someone who has repeatedly tried to prove that gaming toxicity isn't a problem by using the same example like three times would attract toxic response!?>!?!?!

I don't think there is a need for it.

Trying to turn down "toxicity" is trying to turn down the game itself. Exciting gameplay naturally also excites emotions. Gamers just sorta have to get over it. Little smacktalk wasn't a problem back in the days, now kids are triggered by literally everything ... This can't end well. The irony is the more you are offended, the more they'll try to offend.

"

Foreverhappychan wrote:

same example

That was data, big data, which is several orders of magnitude better than an example - which is itself something almost no one in this thread has provided to begin with. The thread as started was general - 'tis (some of) the people who responded who decided to make it about PoE.

As much as we would want to fix it there is no affordable way of stopping people from projecting their bad RL mood onto other players without actually having a law in each country against online play while feeling "off" and even then it would be difficult to enforce. On top of that there is on-the-spot anger management to in-game situations. Then again a healthy mind would not have those anger issues.

Teaching kids how to "hold back" while anonymous on the internet is the only long term thing that could tone it down, however that starts with the upbringing and should be a parent/school thing. Nothing GGG could do there.

There could be rewards for good behaviour, but that always leads to drama and disgruntled people that don't understand why they didn't get the reward because they are unaware of their own behaviour.

"

codetaku wrote:

Gotta agree with Foreveryhappychan. Until scammers start getting swift, guaranteed bans, there's absolutely no chance in hell for the game's community to cut back on the toxicity even a little, and even then, it seems unlikely to solve everything.

Scammers getting banned? Cause they pulled a fast one on you? Cause you clicked Accept Trade before looking at the item you wanted? Why should a scammer be banned?

Think you got the term mixed up.

"

dyneol wrote:

I don't think there is a need for it.

Trying to turn down "toxicity" is trying to turn down the game itself. Exciting gameplay naturally also excites emotions. Gamers just sorta have to get over it. Little smacktalk wasn't a problem back in the days, now kids are triggered by literally everything ... This can't end well. The irony is the more you are offended, the more they'll try to offend.

This.
The word "toxic" itself means "something I don't like" and is a degratory term without any actual objective meaning - because it's just easier to think that "they" = the "subject" are correct and right and everyone who makes them upset - "toxic" and therefore - "bad".
This is problem of humanity. Nothing has changed since humans blamed everything bad on "devil", just the name has been changed.

Because of that I don't take seriously any texts which use the term "toxic" unironically.

There are ways to define toxicity without it being partisan, it's just that since we never got a widely respected definition (as with most new words), people happily used it however it suited their agenda. But we can formulate a definition that isn't in service to one agenda or another, simply excluding more partisan uses as invalid. For instance -

Toxic = A pattern of behavior in which a person consistently expresses a high degree of negativity, particularly in an unconstructive manner, including if with malicious intents.

Let's break that down. First off, notice that is says nothing about what kind of opinions or beliefs are toxic. So we've already excluded partisanship.

Secondly, it's a "pattern of behaviour", meaning you can't infer it from a one-off experience of it - it has to be inferred from habitual responses.

Thirdly, it requires them to have been at it "consistently", so if they're just a free-wheeling sort who happen to curse a fair deal in their speech, they still might not be toxic as long as they're also known to be nice on other occasions. So you can be negative, so long as that's not all you are.

Fourthly, it focuses on "negativity", which reinforces that this isn't about what kind of politics or other beliefs you may support. It also requires said negativity to be "high", meaning you express yourself using quite strong language when doing so, when a milder tone could easily have sufficed.

Fifthly, the negativity is typically "unconstructive" i.e. it does not attempt to provide solutions and/or it isn't willing to entertain compromises i.e. 'my way or the highway'. Just to head off an easy weaseling out by such people using this facet of the definition, making simplistic demands doesn't count - you have to show a willingness to be thoughtful and to productively engage with your interlocutors. As an example, if you demand an auction house in PoE, either spell out a considered proposal for one, or at least engage positively with those who point out issues with the idea in order to hash a proposal out.

(Incidentally, this also helps explain why Twitter and similar such sites are often hotbeds of toxicity - it's hard not to with such short word counts. You can either be nice but empty, or nasty and empty)

Lastly, while you don't necessarily have to have had "malicious intents" when venting your toxicity i.e. you may not have meant to harm or upset people, it stands to reason that if you did have such intents and do it consistently, then you count as toxic. So basically, outright sadism is toxic by nature. This is particularly meant to cover those who skirt this definition via writing within 'the letter of the law' i.e. 'trolling', such as a couple of the more infamous users of this forum have been up to for a while now...

There, a working definition of 'toxic' that has nothing to do with -

"

the "subject" are correct and right and everyone who makes them upset - "toxic" and therefore - "bad"

Does that meet with your approval? If not, please point out how it's lacking, and how to improve it.

"

Exile009 wrote:

Does that meet with your approval? If not, please point out how it's lacking, and how to improve it.

Yes, this is good definition.

My personal opinion is that "ignore" button is enough to deal with such behaviour (which is, basically, trolling, if we include "with malicious intents"), and moderator action are required in following cases: 1) real threats, 2) politic discussions (it has no place in videogames), 3) witch hunt without proofs (GGG doesn't agrees with that, apparently, but I personally think you should be allowed to post videos etc. with someone's scamming).

My two cents also got a tldr for the adhd crowd.

TLDR. No fixing as a whole, but we can teach our individual selves how to deal with it and keep enjoying games. Haters always going to hate.

Some good discussion here. Some good philosophical stuff too. Some Stuff I agree with and stuff I don't. Someone touched on this here "Be the bigger person, it starts with thyself be the example"

There is nothing truer, a good portion of the video and thread is dedicated to a social engineering construct to fix a "problem" as a collective rather than what we can do on a individual level to fix ourselves.

At humanities core we only hold Providence over or own each individual emotions and thoughts nobody else's. But constantly in real life, video games social media, anything where people talk. Everybody and their mothers has this idea on how to fix someone. Without regard to that someone.

In the video about the journey game and his partner talking about learning how to communicate through jumping and singing was cool.

Communication is tough. Even on the phone I have one of the most extreme dull mono tone voices on the planet so if I make sarcasm it can be construed as rude. Unless you know me.

The internet is the most second monotone voice behind me.

One of the ways we really communicate is face to face. We can draw on a lot of facial, body emotions and eyes and I really draw into them. And use that to see how the conversation is going or how to respond. We cant get that primal interaction no matter what game that wants to "engineer" it. Humans aren't built for the internet.

Forget the haters and enjoy the game.

I was always a fan of LoL tribunal system (haven’t a clue if they still got it...haven’t played the game in years). Basically if there were enough reports against a particular player inside a game, the chat logs would be sent to the Tribunal. Players could log into the tribunal and vote yeah or nay to guiltiness of the offense. Staff would then come and make a final determination taking into account the communities overall acceptance. Right now GGG just has chat mods issue temporary mutes for most offenses.