Once games moved online behaviors like tea-bagging and racist rants really ruined it for me. With cheating and grieving I've just given up on all PvP games, unless I know the other players.
that view is more than reaction, or backlash, I think we're in a period after one of suppressed volatility, and sublimated desire. my pet theory is that generationally it was much easier for millennials to not be racist because almost none of them drive. in intimate, physically dangerous, or unmediated relationships, these words have no lasting meaning, but in neurotic, artificial, and affected relationships, the words are all they have. the shared intensity of gaming is intimacy. what are slurs to an outsider are terms of affection to someone who is a participant- and not merely a critic.
This relies on an antiquated model of bilateral communication that requires both context and intent. Recent [0] developments [1] have demonstrated that neither context nor intent are necessary for establishing the meaning or value judgment of language; "intent and impact are not equivalent" [0], and certain words inherently have (negative) impact, independent of the way in which they are used.
This viewpoint also has the advantage of letting an outsider unilaterally read whatever meaning they want into any words whatsoever, since context and intent are no longer necessary determinants of meaning - only the impact on the audience.
Hence those foreign to gaming culture seeing these words and imposing their own outsider value judgments onto a culture that they are not participants in.
> I'd challenge it a step further and say the people who try to police the language are trying to police and supervise relationships.
Those who speak the policed and controlled tongue will become indistinguishable from LLMs and AI, and will be the first to be competed out of the cognitive marketplace. Forget Worldcoin; so-called "problematic speech" and "perceived-negative behavior" will soon become the only reliable markers of humanity in a dead internet of sanitized LLMs. You cannot build relationships based on sterile language bereft of emotional impact or value.
I am reminded of "the Savage's" climactic conversation with Mustapha Mond in Huxley's Brave New World:
"[...] We flood the whole system with adrenin. It's the complete physiological equivalent of fear and rage. All the tonic effects of murdering Desdemona and being murdered by Othello, without any of the inconveniences."
"But I like the inconveniences."
"We don't," said the Controller. "We prefer to do things comfortably."
"But I don't want comfort. I want God, I want poetry, I want real danger, I want freedom, I want goodness. I want sin."
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20221219160303/https://itcommuni...
Necessary, and for establishing to whom, other than the strawmen of your model? I'd recommend a cognitive defrag. rethink it and make it brief and pointful.
This is a strawman. All conversation will become indistinguishable by design, regardless.
Online spaces have always sort of transcended the filters that exist in person. The insulation from individuals' physical identities and body language enables or maybe even causes interesting behaviors that to occur that wouldn't otherwise. We saw this originally in "Deviance in the Dark" from the 70s, but anyone who's had experience with extremely online realms knows this to be the case as well. We even have pop TV shows exploring this phenomenon.
I think what probably would be more interesting is an exploration to what clusters of personalities tend to develop or emerge in virtual worlds, across platforms, etc than attempting to make a research paper out of comments that escaped profanity filters. Come to think of it, a taxonomy of unfiltered speech and its source demographic might be interesting.
https://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19/green-blackboa...
This is why you have free will and a choice. You don't like the place you're at and the toxic people yelling at you. Leave. If people stay and take the abuse, does that say something about humans in general or games in particular? Not really, happens everywhere, that is why you have Stockholm Syndrome explained back in the 70s.
Taking one example: were I a healer in a raid, especially one showing top healing numbers, and anyone started off on a slur-filled tantrum against me in voice chat, I'd immediately leave voice chat and the raid. If the response from guild mates was anything but disapproval of the tantrum, or it was allowed to happen more than once, I'd leave the guild.
There are plenty of people/guilds who don't behave like complete assholes to choose from in any online game.
Which is probably why they go on to do it again and again.
I'm sure I remember an addon that allowed you to give feedback on players, but it was quickly used to grief decent players.
You put aside your evening to raid with friends, to progress your character or to experience something new that you have maybe worked weeks or months for. Leaving means you get none of that and the other person gets to continue the raid as they like, feeling like they have 'won'.
Even then, you might not know for sure which one of you the group will side with. It's easy to say that there are plenty more fish in the sea but it's not easy to find fish that you actually want to spend time with regularly, even if one or two of them are bad apples.
These people think we live in a new age, or you can do and say whatever you want, and nothing will happen to you. Things can happen to you.
For kids I’d disable it for them or put them in front of a Nintendo with no voice communication.
politician•3d ago
Raid leaders are symptomatic of broken game design.
pvg•3d ago
That's 50 dkp minus.
9x39•3d ago
schlipity•3d ago
In just about every sport, the teams have coaches. So no, having leaders do not indicate broken game design.
squigz•3d ago
How so?