Toxic chat - democracy, feedback, redemption

[Elysion]

  Simply muting them out is not the answer.

The best way to keep an idea alive is to loudly oppose it.

 

Intangible things can either be ignored or sustained, never controlled.

 

There are plenty of consequences. If you make everyone upset at you, who will play with you? If you only make some people upset at you, then you've obviously not done anything too bad.

 

Its the idea that only some people being upset translates into an undeniable universal travesty is the heart of the problem. This idea is self demonstrably wrong since how upsetting something is can be measured by how many people it upsets, not how upset it makes some people.

 

If you look for something, you're gonna find it. If you set out to be offended then somethings going to offend you. Rewarding people for taking offense by giving them positive attention for it doesn't help the situation any more than rewarding someone for managing to offend someone else does.

 

If it breaks some rule then ban/warn/suspend/whatever the person, otherwise ignore it. I fully support a companies right to enforce whatever policy it wants. What I dont support is endangering the future well being of people by conditioning them to be overly sensitive. Bad feelings can cause very real damage to people, but feelings are also in the control of the person who is feeling them. Many people are just, tragically, never informed of this and allow others to control their lives.

Edited March 15, 2015 by Elysion

[SYN_Bloody-Bandy]

Don't bury your head in the sand, understand what's behind the behaviour and do something for the community.

 

Read the thread, positive steps.  Surprised it wasn't linked here...

http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/4243-toxic-online-behaviour/

 

And the online article that started it...

http://www.wired.com/2014/05/fighting-online-harassment/

 

And another very relevant post someone found..

http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/trolling-why-nasty-commenters-take-delight-in-wrecking-your-day-1.2976073

In fact, bullies and trolls do have a lot in common according to Dr. John Suler. He is a psychologist and professor ar Rider University in New Jersey, and is best known as one of the first "cyber-psychologists" and the author of The Psychology of Cyberspace. Suler says the online world has become a playground for the sadistic, sociopathic personality. 

 

"They're there to inflict pain because they like that," he said. "Not all the time, but often you see people with a history of being abused. They were the victims. They were vulnerable. They were hurt and now, as a way to compensate for that, when they grow up and become adults or when they go online, they turn that feeling of passivity or vulnerability into aggression. 'I'm going to do to others what was done to me.'"

 

Edited March 15, 2015 by SYN_Bloody-Bandy

[Elysion]

Read the thread, positive steps.  Surprised it wasn't linked here...

http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/4243-toxic-online-behaviour/

 

And the online article that started it...

http://www.wired.com/2014/05/fighting-online-harassment/

 

I take issue with both of those on the grounds that the problem they describe is not actually happening.

Its an illusion, and it is only happening within the minds of people who have been conditioned to see it.

 

Context can be tricky online, if people are told everywhere everything is an attack they may well start reading everything they see in some sort of violent tone, assume every little jab is a series and dire insult, that common banter between people is in fact a horrible raging argument.

 

I grew up on the internet, sort of. I started hanging out on the internet around 20 years ago, though i was old enough at the time to experience the wonders of playing outdoors before all this technology infringed on a good old fashion hole digging.

As i see it the only issue with the internet is that the newer generation of users was thrust into it in an environment that did not encourage them to actually get a feel for it properly. What we need is not regulation, but instruction on how to let things roll off your back.

 

The problem with trying to 'stop' something is that its reactionary, you are teaching people they are weak, that when they could just as easily grin to themselves and throw an insult back they must instead allow their mental state to destabilize and hope that someone saves them from it.

 

I like a good argument, for no reason other than its fun. Its kind of a pastime here on the internet, you type words at each other, and there is a lot more different ways to disagree about something than there is to agree about it. The issue is when people who take things far too seriously wander into the cross fire.

 

Some people are just hateful, have a chip on their shoulder, or maybe having a bad day. Thats the thing about the internet, it doesn't really mater which of those it is, its likely the latter than the former in all honesty, but its all the same. Their words look exactly the same and you can take them how ever you want to! Others are just really rough around the edges. I myself always try to maintain a rather civilized demeanor because its become my way. Aesthetically speaking i dont like to present a front of crudeness or savagery. You could say I would be opposed to it, if not for being so easy going. Its the easy going bit thats important.

 

So indeed, some people suffer, greatly, from things that are said to them, or even simply said in their presence. And that is quite a problem. However the culprit, the real sinister party, is all the people who never told them they just dont have to feel that way if they dont want to. It is a cycle that is enabled every time someone insists there is a problem instead of just smiles and carrys on. You dont know the full story behind whatever you are witnessing, you really shouldn't be judging it. Humor is whats important in life, be perpetually amused at that old universe pulling another one and youll be ok.

 

I guess in the end the point im trying to make is, that to me the opposition of any of this is the source of the only problem, it teaches people something that shouldn't be able to hurt them, can. It teaches them to make judgements and assumptions about other peoples own mind, intentions, and very soul, essentially. To take everything in a way that is harmful to them, and that there is nothing they can do about it. I say you should assume the best, be friendly to someone unless they are trying to kill you, and simply return in kind.

 

I know full well the people opposed to these ideas are the loudest, and even though all the hateful accusations and responses that such statements sometimes evoke cant really bother me i still like to maintain a low profile for the simple sake of not having to type these horribly long posts. But alas, i feel duty bound to try and save all the people i can from the clutches of the politically correct hate machine. Maybe someone will read this and it will click

[ObiQuiet]

[...drivel deleted...]

 

There are certainly many cases where people take too much offense.

 

There are also cases where people make too much offense and drag down our civil society.

 

Not recognizing that human-to-human communication involves responsibility on both sides makes you a babbling idiot-child with a lollipop and an embarrassingly flawed, juvenile, and astonishingly pea-brained argument.

[ObiQuiet]

For the sake of spectators, my post above is just a test of your theory.  

 

Cheers, etc.

[Elysion]

There are certainly many cases where people take too much offense.

 

There are also cases where people make too much offense and drag down our civil society.

Oh i certainly agree, which is why in a previous post i have already supported this company in enforcing whatever policy is decides to.

Im not against having rules for this sort of thing, what im against is the reasoning for having them that some people have.

 

Its good to prevent chaos, definitely. Its good to have certain areas able to provide certain atmospheres. The issue is not so much the actions people take but again, the justifications for it.

 

The incorrect justifications simply create a cycle which helps perpetuate the alleged problem they are trying to solve.

 

I find that in the end its usually the people against the philosophy of encouraging the populace to simply toughen up who are the ones who are the most hateful. Ive, for example, never directly insulted anyone on this forum.

 

A person who sets out to offend another intentionally is a jerk, however in the end the offense only exists if the target is cooperative in feeling it. Because of this the bulk of the effort should be simply fostering this defense in people, rather than teaching them that they should feel offended by writing articles such as that very one above from wired.

[ObiQuiet]

Very good response!  I'm glad you didn't take the bait.

 

I find that in the end its usually the people against the philosophy of encouraging the populace to simply toughen up who are the ones who are the most hateful. 

 

It's a pity when that happens.  It scuttles their position as much as a willfully offensive person taking offense scuttles his.

 

 

A person who sets out to offend another intentionally is a jerk, however in the end the offense only exists if the target is cooperative in feeling it. Because of this the bulk of the effort should be simply fostering this defense in people, rather than teaching them that they should feel offended by writing articles such as that very one above from wired.

 

I agree with your premise and with the idea that we should not teach what I might call "false indignation" or a "victim attitude".   I don't agree that the bulk of the effort should be in making the hearer more immune.  I do think we (society as a whole) should remind people of individual responsibility and encourage understanding of sensitivities that we might not have ourselves.

 

Yours respectfully, etc.

Edited March 15, 2015 by Lt. Obiquiet

[Elysion]

Well, as i said in my earlier post, its best to give people the benefit of the doubt. There is no reason to assume malice.

 

The main issue is that in judging the intention of someone over the internet you are arriving at conclusions about them you really cant substantiate and just dont have the actual right to be thinking. People then are all too willing to get upset over it and start attacking in response, and thats when the real problems start to arise.

 

So this is why id say the primary rule is that you should not try to offend people and you should not become offended yourself. These are tied together. Both require an appreciation and an empathy towards other people, and both the genuine desire not to upset someone and not to be upset yourself come from the same source: the desire for amiability.

I would call being amiable a high virtue.

 

Its for these reasons that to me seeing anyone encouraging others to feel offended either by direct instruction or by rewarding the expression of those things, i see the exact same thing as if i were to look at a group of people intentionally set out to be offensive.

When i myself feel upset over something or start to get angry, which does happen occasionally, the most immediate reaction i have is disappointment that i let it get to me.

 

In the end people trying to stay on a leash and contain things will let some slip out. They will as i mentioned before just encounter bad days, or maybe be drunk, who knows. Most people dont take the same care I do when typing things on the internet, i would estimate half of everything ive ever typed ive deleted. Its far better to teach that the mitigation of such incidents is the responsibility of all involved, by simply not having such things start a huge upset than to have an environment where everyone is constantly at risk of causing one.

 

I guess then that we will partially agree on things.

 

I will like to however emphasize in closing, that i do view articles like that one from wired above as a direct threat the the future survival of our species, and i am in no way employing hyperbole here. If that path reaches its potential end we will destroy ourselves because people will simply not be able to stand any sort of disagreement at all. I have already seen many issues go from the realm of friendly debate to absolute polarized fanaticism. This happens, largely, because as an opinion grows fewer people are willing to interject and say its a bad idea. The cause is the numerous vectors with which one may twist the opposition into some form of grave insult or bigotry - the mere accusation of being enough to silence anyone. So the two sides just isolate each other, work each other up into a frenzy with out any reason to reign them in, and when they finally meet again its already too late to ever hope for any kind of reconciliation, they are alien to each other.

Edited March 15, 2015 by Elysion

[admin]

The current forum is a development forum. Not a game forum. 

We don't have time to filter noise and rely on volunteers to help us with that. We also don't want to spend much time on policing the behaviors and that is why rules might be stronger enforced that will be in the future. If you feel stifled by the rules or moderators and if you think that volunteers or developers were unjust - feel free to post the complaint in the forum improvement section.

 

We want to filter personal attacks, rude behavior - but don't want to filter opinions or criticism. Old members (including developers) should learn to accept and welcome new opinions even if they contradict our own.