Mordhau

Kicking/Banning Toxic ppl has nothing to do with SJW or Political Correctness.

214 179
  • 16 Jul '19
 Dialectic

@SWSeriousMike said:

@Dialectic said:
Saying someone lacks the spine to support tolerance is presumptive and inflammatory. Why should I take your position if you treat me with such toxicity?

I also called you anti-intellectual and dishonest. And you seem fine with proving me right instead of denying it.

Do you find it ironic that the ones arguing for chat regulations are often "toxic" to people they disagree with?

957 311
  • 16 Jul '19
 Antoniokontos

@Dialectic said:

@SWSeriousMike said:

@Dialectic said:
Saying someone lacks the spine to support tolerance is presumptive and inflammatory. Why should I take your position if you treat me with such toxicity?

I also called you anti-intellectual and dishonest. And you seem fine with proving me right instead of denying it.

Do you find it ironic that the ones arguing for chat regulations are often "toxic" to people they disagree with?

220px-Bo_Burnham_in_Pittsburgh_(cropped).jpg

1908 1995
  • 16 Jul '19
 SWSeriousMike

@Dialectic said:

@SWSeriousMike said:

@Dialectic said:
Saying someone lacks the spine to support tolerance is presumptive and inflammatory. Why should I take your position if you treat me with such toxicity?

I also called you anti-intellectual and dishonest. And you seem fine with proving me right instead of denying it.

Do you find it ironic that the ones arguing for chat regulations are often "toxic" to people they disagree with?

And again...

1595 1170
  • 16 Jul '19
 esturias

@Dialectic said:
Do you find it ironic that the ones arguing for chat regulations are often "toxic" to people they disagree with?

Context? Example?

129 181
  • 16 Jul '19
 CatR

When I don't have an argument I just accuse everyone who disagrees with me to secretly be the kind of person they disagree with. That'll throw them off the scent! No I am not acting threatening in a fast food place at 2am, it is in fact surprising to learn for you perhaps, that it is everyone in this restaurant complaining about me waving a tray around menacingly who are acting threateningly!

181 165
  • 17 Jul '19
 Unlikely

@ShapiroLibtardsDieTwice said:

@SWSeriousMike said:
I don't understand your example. When they spout toxic shit in chat and are getting banned for it how is that not reducing toxicity? Looks more like they are actually not banned for it.
If the community wants more content updates, it should enforce the rules on the official servers better. Vote kick people that start racist arguments. But the community is complacent with racism and nationalism. Moderators are necessary and we (the game's community) don't really make it easy and cheap for them.
Someone drops "nigga" without context? Kick him. Is that hard to do or is anything positive missing because of it?
Of course you can always just watch the fire spread and complain later on how expensive would be to extinguish it.

You can witness ban waves in R6 itself. Steady stream of a live list of people getting banned for cheating and toxicity on the top right. People get banned all the time for toxicity so that's a deterrent right? Nope, it was more toxic than BEFORE the system Ubisoft implemented. BTW Ubisoft did kick people from games for saying shitty things. It was so bad that Ubisoft had to revert it to where they'll review you for toxicity if you say something bad. What you suggested will not work at all. I'd argue what your advocating will only encourage more people to become toxic or racist.

First, if you really want people to be less toxic on these forums, perhaps your profile picture should not depict a guy (you?) flipping the bird to everyone. Leading by example and all that.

Second, I reject your evidence-free claim that if moderators ban people for violating the rules, people will somehow be encouraged to violate the rules more. Maybe Ubisoft was unhappy with their implementation, but it doesn't follow that people who run forums should throw up their hands and not try to enforce civilized behavior.

The admins of this forum have in fact banned some of the worst offenders, for which I am grateful, and I encourage them to continue.

Count 352 355

@esturias said:

@✵ Legate Lanius ✵ said:
Oh yes, because you are always right and so clever.

Oh, please. Grow up.
All I did was telling you that your statement was factually wrong. Nothing more, nothing less.

Man how low these forums went these days, it's sad.

Yeah, I know... it's always the others, right? They dared to disagree with you... that's so mean!

I have no issues debating with people on matters we can disagree on.

Acting like a jerk and trying to pass your so called "facts" as universal truth however, while trying to belittle people who actually don't share your views and talking shit about them without knowing them, yikes. Pretty hypocritical.

I'll just leave you to it.

64 35

@Unlikely said:
@ShapiroLibtardsDieTwice said:

@SWSeriousMike said:
I don't understand your example. When they spout toxic shit in chat and are getting banned for it how is that not reducing toxicity? Looks more like they are actually not banned for it.
If the community wants more content updates, it should enforce the rules on the official servers better. Vote kick people that start racist arguments. But the community is complacent with racism and nationalism. Moderators are necessary and we (the game's community) don't really make it easy and cheap for them.
Someone drops "nigga" without context? Kick him. Is that hard to do or is anything positive missing because of it?
Of course you can always just watch the fire spread and complain later on how expensive would be to extinguish it.

You can witness ban waves in R6 itself. Steady stream of a live list of people getting banned for cheating and toxicity on the top right. People get banned all the time for toxicity so that's a deterrent right? Nope, it was more toxic than BEFORE the system Ubisoft implemented. BTW Ubisoft did kick people from games for saying shitty things. It was so bad that Ubisoft had to revert it to where they'll review you for toxicity if you say something bad. What you suggested will not work at all. I'd argue what your advocating will only encourage more people to become toxic or racist.

First, if you really want people to be less toxic on these forums, perhaps your profile picture should not depict a guy (you?) flipping the bird to everyone. Leading by example and all that.

Second, I reject your evidence-free claim that if moderators ban people for violating the rules, people will somehow be encouraged to violate the rules more. Maybe Ubisoft was unhappy with their implementation, but it doesn't follow that people who run forums should throw up their hands and not try to enforce civilized behavior.

The admins of this forum have in fact banned some of the worst offenders, for which I am grateful, and I encourage them to continue.

First off, we're not talking about the forums but the actual game itself. Thank you for bringing up my profile picture, it has nothing to do with the discussion. Second, I could care less if the game is toxic or not. Do I prefer the game to not be toxic. Sure. I just have basic understanding that banning people because they said a word you didn't like will not magically improve the game to become less toxic. Maybe you should provide evidence to this claim. Give an example of a game that has magically become better by banning people for saying naughty things. Third, did I say that we shouldn't have moderators or admins in the forums or the game chat? No. As we speak, the developers do not have the time or resources to set up a system that will ban everyone who said something naughty. They are too busy making content for an already stale and boring game that severely lacks content or character. Nice straw man argument.

1908 1995
  • 18 Jul '19
 SWSeriousMike

@ShapiroLibtardsDieTwice said:
Give an example of a game that has magically become better by banning people for saying naughty things.

That's also not how science works. You claims are per definition unfalsifiable and therefore worthless. There is no way to get a control group.

1595 1170
  • 18 Jul '19
 esturias

@✵ Legate Lanius ✵ said:
I have no issues debating with people on matters we can disagree on.

Acting like a jerk and trying to pass your so called "facts" as universal truth however, while trying to belittle people who actually don't share your views and talking shit about them without knowing them, yikes. Pretty hypocritical.

I'll just leave you to it.

Phew... good that I don't do any of that!

181 165
  • 18 Jul '19
 Unlikely

@ShapiroLibtardsDieTwice said:

Thank you for bringing up my profile picture, it has nothing to do with the discussion.

It's an example of rude behavior that our hosts have chosen to tolerate. And an example of something that would get me thrown out of other public accomodations, like a restaurant.

Second, I could care less if the game is toxic or not. Do I prefer the game to not be toxic. Sure. I just have basic understanding that banning people because they said a word you didn't like will not magically improve the game to become less toxic.

You continue to frame the problem as "people saying a word I don't like," to which I've never objected, rather than hate speech, which our hosts have made against the rules, in the game and in the forums.

It's clear that enforcing the rules would be time consuming, it's clear that they have chosen to do so only in the very worst cases. That said, it has been quite some time since we've heard from some of the worst offenders. Haven't heard @Clyde banging on about white supremacy for a couple weeks now, for one example, and that's a good thing.

64 35

@Unlikely said:
@ShapiroLibtardsDieTwice said:

Thank you for bringing up my profile picture, it has nothing to do with the discussion.

It's an example of rude behavior that our hosts have chosen to tolerate. And an example of something that would get me thrown out of other public accomodations, like a restaurant.

Second, I could care less if the game is toxic or not. Do I prefer the game to not be toxic. Sure. I just have basic understanding that banning people because they said a word you didn't like will not magically improve the game to become less toxic.

You continue to frame the problem as "people saying a word I don't like," to which I've never objected, rather than hate speech, which our hosts have made against the rules, in the game and in the forums.

It's clear that enforcing the rules would be time consuming, it's clear that they have chosen to do so only in the very worst cases. That said, it has been quite some time since we've heard from some of the worst offenders. Haven't heard @Clyde banging on about white supremacy for a couple weeks now, for one example, and that's a good thing.

Even if we were to start banning people for so called hate speech, you have already explained why it wouldn't work. The only examples given to me so far has been the forums and the worst offenders. The developers have already been at work banning people for exploiting and cheating, do you think they're going to have time dealing with toxic players that I only encounter in Frontline? It's not feasible, we already have a bunch of people complaining about lack of content, dropping player numbers, and a bunch of other issues.

181 165
  • 18 Jul '19
 Unlikely

@ShapiroLibtardsDieTwice said:

Even if we were to start banning people for so called hate speech, you have already explained why it wouldn't work. The only examples given to me so far has been the forums and the worst offenders. The developers have already been at work banning people for exploiting and cheating, do you think they're going to have time dealing with toxic players that I only encounter in Frontline? It's not feasible, we already have a bunch of people complaining about lack of content, dropping player numbers, and a bunch of other issues.

I never said it would be easy, or inexpensive. I think I've consistently said that it would require a lot of effort. We can agree that the admins haven't put in that effort. You go further and insist that (a) they can't, and (b) even if they could, it wouldn't work. It's those last two assumptions about the future that I don't agree with, until I see evidence.

64 35

@Unlikely said:
@ShapiroLibtardsDieTwice said:

Even if we were to start banning people for so called hate speech, you have already explained why it wouldn't work. The only examples given to me so far has been the forums and the worst offenders. The developers have already been at work banning people for exploiting and cheating, do you think they're going to have time dealing with toxic players that I only encounter in Frontline? It's not feasible, we already have a bunch of people complaining about lack of content, dropping player numbers, and a bunch of other issues.

I never said it would be easy, or inexpensive. I think I've consistently said that it would require a lot of effort. We can agree that the admins haven't put in that effort. You go further and insist that (a) they can't, and (b) even if they could, it wouldn't work. It's those last two assumptions about the future that I don't agree with, until I see evidence.

I've already provided evidence with Rainbow Six, mind you, that game has a bigger dev team and budget. Toxic communities will always be toxic.

129 181
  • 19 Jul '19
 CatR

@ShapiroLibtardsDieTwice said:

@Unlikely said:
@ShapiroLibtardsDieTwice said:

Even if we were to start banning people for so called hate speech, you have already explained why it wouldn't work. The only examples given to me so far has been the forums and the worst offenders. The developers have already been at work banning people for exploiting and cheating, do you think they're going to have time dealing with toxic players that I only encounter in Frontline? It's not feasible, we already have a bunch of people complaining about lack of content, dropping player numbers, and a bunch of other issues.

I never said it would be easy, or inexpensive. I think I've consistently said that it would require a lot of effort. We can agree that the admins haven't put in that effort. You go further and insist that (a) they can't, and (b) even if they could, it wouldn't work. It's those last two assumptions about the future that I don't agree with, until I see evidence.

I've already provided evidence with Rainbow Six, mind you, that game has a bigger dev team and budget. Toxic communities will always be toxic.

Well you convinced me, time to uninstall the game and go convince every single person I see who has the game to not play it again until the player count reaches 0. That way we can kill the community and hope if it rebuilds that this time it wont be toxic. Oh well nothing we can do, some guy called "ShapiroExpletiveDieTwice" said so and he seemed to know what he was talking about. Come on everyone let's lock up shop and go home. Really sad it had to go this way but in the face of total inevitability what can we do?

1908 1995
  • 19 Jul '19
 SWSeriousMike

@ShapiroLibtardsDieTwice said:
I've already provided evidence with Rainbow Six, mind you, that game has a bigger dev team and budget. Toxic communities will always be toxic.

Then I provide opposing evidence with Warframe. A game that has grown since all chat was moderated.

64 35

@SWSeriousMike said:

@ShapiroLibtardsDieTwice said:
I've already provided evidence with Rainbow Six, mind you, that game has a bigger dev team and budget. Toxic communities will always be toxic.

Then I provide opposing evidence with Warframe. A game that has grown since all chat was moderated.

I played Warframe for 400 hours. I never have encountered an instance of toxicity, maybe some frustrations from fellow players here and there. Let me tell you, the game always had a good community from the start. It had developers that were active, fair, and always communicated with the community. Yes, THERE IS moderation, but toxicity in a farming game is so low that there are only a few instances in global chat, which gets shut down immediately. Even then, moderators and the Guides of the Lotus Program were met with such criticism and controversy that the program was removed and the moderator system was reformed (If I remember by heart). Why does this game not have toxicity? Because it isn't a PVP high skill ceiling game that triggers people. Now, I haven't played that game in a while, but what I can say is that the game grew not because of moderation, because of a good community and good developers as well as being free to play.

129 181
  • 19 Jul '19
 CatR

@ShapiroLibtardsDieTwice said:

@SWSeriousMike said:

@ShapiroLibtardsDieTwice said:
I've already provided evidence with Rainbow Six, mind you, that game has a bigger dev team and budget. Toxic communities will always be toxic.

Then I provide opposing evidence with Warframe. A game that has grown since all chat was moderated.

I played Warframe for 400 hours. I never have encountered an instance of toxicity, It had developers that were active, fair, and always communicated with the community. Yes, THERE IS moderation, but toxicity in a farming game is so low that there are only a few instances in global chat, which gets shut down immediately. the moderator system was reformed. Why does this game not have toxicity? because of moderation, because of a good community and good developers

Why did they even bother when moderation is useless?

181 165
  • 20 Jul '19
 Unlikely

@ShapiroLibtardsDieTwice said:

Why does this game [Warframe] not have toxicity? Because it isn't a PVP high skill ceiling game that triggers people. Now, I haven't played that game in a while, but what I can say is that the game grew not because of moderation, because of a good community and good developers as well as being free to play.

Sounds like a made-up explanation, particularly when you didn't bring up any of this earlier.

  • "Moderation cannot reduce toxicity, moderation produces toxicity."
  • "Here is an example of a game with moderation and without toxicity."
  • "That is a not a game that could suffer from toxic gamer behavior because bla bla and bla."

I do believe this is the No True Scotsman fallacy.

64 35

@Unlikely said:
@ShapiroLibtardsDieTwice said:

Why does this game [Warframe] not have toxicity? Because it isn't a PVP high skill ceiling game that triggers people. Now, I haven't played that game in a while, but what I can say is that the game grew not because of moderation, because of a good community and good developers as well as being free to play.

Sounds like a made-up explanation, particularly when you didn't bring up any of this earlier.

  • "Moderation cannot reduce toxicity, moderation produces toxicity."
  • "Here is an example of a game with moderation and without toxicity."
  • "That is a not a game that could suffer from toxic gamer behavior because bla bla and bla."

I do believe this is the No True Scotsman fallacy.

I have given and there are countless examples of high skill ceiling games that are toxic. Competitive games produce toxic players. Your first and second points don't make sense to me. Warframe would still be a non-toxic community with or without moderation.