Shining
Shining
About
- Username
- Shining
- Joined
- Visits
- 65
- Last Active
Comments
-
@oxygen said:
Because there's no single definition of the word "toxic", and considering they're all perfectly legal claiming all forms of camping/tunneling or whatever is toxic is like a killer claiming looping or getting flashlight saves is inherently toxic. And that's certainly not something everyone agrees with. Meanwhile most would probably agree that pointlessly acting like a massive dickhead in post-game chat is bad, regardless of if they'd use the word toxic for it or not.
There are certainly people that seem to think "their side" can't do anything wrong unprovoked ever or something though. You see it both ways in threads where survivors or a killer did something trashy, there's often posts that boil down to "You probably deserved it 🙃" no matter if there's anything that implies the OP did anything or not.
I believe most people would identify toxic behavior performing actions for the sole intention of being malicious towards the opposition or just other people in general. Actions that have no real bearing on progressing through the gameplay.
For example using a flash light to save someone isn't necessarily toxic (that is one of it's uses), but flicking it off and on to taunt the killer is. I knew a survivor main who would set it to the scroll wheel for that sole intention. Slugging two survivors and allowing one to bleed out that you can't find isn't toxic as allows them to get hatch, but letting two survivors bleed out together is.
As in my previous post, I listed a few ways a killer can partake that can legitimately be toxic, but they are all circumstantial. Because they are circumstantial, survivors are less likely to see it in action.
Also I find it interesting what thottiepippen stated about "most things killers do I find scummy". Is it scummy because it was intentionally malicious or is it scummy because made the game more difficult for you?
-
@sulaiman said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1355434#Comment_1355434
You should note that while i play both sides, i play solo survivor about 70%+ of the time. And yet, survivors are much more toxic than killers can ever be. Because they cant just be toxic to the killer, they can be to the other survivors as well, and many are.
But it seems you aren´t really intrested in others opinions, based on your post i quote. It just has nothing to do with daring, it has to do with survivors calling thing they dont like toxic even if they aren´t. (this is someone killers do as well, while genrush is a think in my opinion, its not toxic).
Survivors are also mostly the ones who instigate toxic behavior in the post game chat, their stream, leaving steam comments, etc.. no matter how the killer plays.
-
Here is the thing about "gen-rushing". Some SWFs will intentionally coordinate to split the gens between the four of them. The killer obviously can't be in 4, 3 or even 2 places at once so even by pressuring survivors off gens it can still swing in their favor if the chases don't end quick. Experienced survivors will obviously know the routes to allow chases to go on as long as possible and even if you break chase to tag another survivor, you still have two other people working on generators.
The common response to this strat is, "Doing objectives" or "We are suppose to do gens".
What gets ignored with this response is that it they rely on a strategy that makes it difficult to score or even pip. The devs on more than one occasion have lowered the amount of points you can earn from completing a generator by yourself to sort of discourage this, but they do it anyway.
In my opinion it is kind of comparable to a killer camping/tunneling one survivor. Sacrifice some points to quickly help sway the odds in your favor even if nobody gets anything to show for it in the end. Coordinated survivor groups know this, but never want to admit it. I even killed an SWF attempting this strat with one of them lying about "I pip'd anyway", only to see on stream they did not. Being in a group will sprout over confidence and toxic behavior to go a long with it.
As far as killers being toxic, they don't have as many accessible options when it comes to being toxic compared to Survivors. Many survivors will be toxic right from the get go and freely do so with the large assortment of unused pallets. Killers don't have opportunities to be toxic until mid to end game.
Then we have killer strategies that can be perceived as toxic, but are often done as a sort of last resort. Camping/Tunneling a survivor from the get go can be toxic, but mid way or end game sometimes it is the killer's only chance. Then we have NOED which some end game builds revolve around. Survivors will call the killer crap or toxic just for having it equipped even if the killer wins before even getting a chance to use it.
Killers being toxic is usually circumstantial. Examples being..
Pretending to take the last survivor to hatch and then dart straight towards a hook.
Watching a survivor crawl towards a hatch and then closing it right in front of them at the last second
Downing all the survivors and forcing them to bleed out
Spinning a survivor while taking to them to the hook
Face Camping.. which of course requires the killer to catch and hook the survivor.
Nodding up and down at a slugged or hooked survivor.
-
@Punchklown said:
Leave the current policy as it is written. It is FINE. Stop being such thin skinned wimps. While it's not pleasant, almost every class and race do it when it suits them. EXAMPLE: The "N" word should never be banned or censored until black culture cleans up their own back yard. It is in their movies, their music and TV shows. It's at their BBQs, parties and colleges. NO ONE uses the "N" word with more hypocrisy than black culture. If they can't / won't clean up their own behavior then no one else has any sort of obligation to clean up theirs, especially on that topic.
You are overlooking a few things in your misguided example.
Deviation: "a" vs "er" and Intention.
If I beat somebody in a game and they call me the latter, their intention is malicious and to provoke thoughts of racism.
If somebody approaches me with the former under non hostile circumstances then it might not be as much of a problem.
Also the fact that this is your only post makes me wonder if you typically go by another name on here, but decided to make a new account to avoid bringing negative attention to yourself.
-
@Predated said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1344458#Comment_1344458
Yeah, except there is a problem with banning words. If there is reason to ban people for using a single word, where do you stop? Especially considering most words are done in the heat of the moment and arent exactly hate speech, but rather just used as a curse word. I mean, "#########" is often just valued the same as "#########" in terms of usage. Especially considering that the people who use those words dont even know how the person looks like. It's not exactly hate speech considering the context. Hate speech requires intent. Especially considering one black person can easily call another black person "#########", and suddenly there is no hate speech in most people's eyes.
So considering all the context, where would you draw the line?
I agree with you on the basis that everyone should still have at least one chance to correct themselves.
When people are given multiple chances is when it becomes a problem. In addition to the fact there is no telling if the report is looked at and even if action were to be taken, it could be a month or more before they are held accountable just to get that 1 Day ban.
In the grand scheme of things, I don't want to see anybody permanently banned. Instead the goal is to discourage people from wanting to do things that could lead to a ban and think more wisely before saying something they shouldn't
-
@MiniPisa said:
I think they should just censor certain words, especially that one.
Also having a censor for telling someone to off themselves would be great too.
The off yourself comment is definitely in the top 3 remarks that get thrown out there.
@Pigpen said:
The fact that it bothers you is letting them win. Report it, forget it, and move on with life. I get called a ######### (n word) and ######### (f word) all the time. I don't give a #########. I don't get my self worth from random strangers on the internet. Especially ones that are just mad because I stomped them in a video game.
One could argue that allowing behavior to continue that is only malicious and harmful in nature with minimal or no consequences is "letting them win". Yeah, maybe it doesn't bother you, but that isn't really going to stop them from coming after someone else and continue until they get whatever attention they are after.
You hear all these companies now saying they support BLM, diversity, etc.... well saying you support is one thing and actually taking action to stomp it out is another.
-
I think you are misreading.
The suggestion here isn't to implement a temp ban for doing it, because that is already in place.
This suggestion is that the use of racist remarks should go straight to Strike 3 / 1 Week. Thus only giving the Offender just one chance to straighten up post suspension rather than be given multiple opportunities to repeat.