The "Toxic" Debacle

[EeHee2000]

The 'allahu akbar you fucking twat' signature, on the other hand, I don't really understand. It doesn't really work as a joke, and it's obviously not meant to be taken seriously... so what's the point? The impression I get from it is that there can be no purpose other than to invite a negative reaction from people. Again, I'm not going to tell people they can't have a certain signature. That's not my place. But I am going to see something like that and draw conclusions about the maturity (or lack thereof) of the person who owns it. You can accuse me of not having a 'thick enough skin' to ignore the signature, but the missing link there is that the signature doesn't offend me. What it does do is to provide a useful yardstick by which to gauge the kind of maturity I can expect from the player.

 

I'm not saying you're wrong, but I wouldn't say it's to get a negative reaction from people. Some people find it funny whereas others go as far as to alert staff that it offends them. 

Realistically anyone who takes a signature like mine seriously and/or determines to any degree how mature people are from such a small thing probably wouldn't agree with me on many things, judging from past examples; just wanted to put that out there. 

 

[Narissis]

That's fair, but I'm not talking about people disagreeing with you. I'm talking about people respecting you.

 

There's been a lot of conflation between the two in these threads. But it's entirely possible to disrespect someone and agree with them, or to respect them and disagree.

[Magnyus]

 

Or putting a big "Fuck You" in your signature.

 

I've already mentioned in another thread that my signature is just an inside joke between kitty and myself. That is all. It's stupid to complain about it. As if I'm the only one that use the F word around here. If you don't want to see people's silly signatures after each of their comments then use the "turn off signatures" option when you want a serious thread.

 

For instance, Switch doesn't care for the 'fuck you' signature but I don't mind it - it's in a cursive font and obviously mean to be taken lightly. Others might consider it an attempt at provocation, though. No one's saying you can't have a 'fuck you' signature, but you have to expect that it may cause some people to take you less seriously.

 

You nailed it. If my signature is enough for someone to not take what I've said seriously, then they're not worth my time and I don't feel the need to explain myself to them. Everyone that knows me is aware that I'm fully capable of civilised discussion. There's a reason why I was moderator at one point.

 

We are planning on having a staff meeting and then a community meeting after the admin meeting that is occurring in the next week or so.  Closer to the meeting we will have an opportunity for people to bring things up in a SEPARATE thread as items they want to have addressed and an outline of how the meetings will be run.  I will even make sure to link the post in this thread after it is made.  Please do not start offering suggestions in this thread or derail it with things other than talking about the topic at hand, those posts will result in being hidden.  I am mentioning this solution because I want everyone to know that we are listening and we are working on coming to a solution so that the community can bridge the gap that is between certain circles.

 

Before we have a meeting I would like to have input from the other head admins (and even regular admins) on where they stand. Similar to what jchance did. As I said before it's unfair that he's the only one that's takes time to reply to threads like this. I also would expect them to be present at this meeting as well, otherwise it'll be difficult to take any of their decisions seriously when they couldn't even make time to listen to us. I feel that this is a serious topic that applies to the entire community, therefore the representatives of each aspect of the community should be present.

[LadyRavenOwl]

Before we have a meeting I would like to have input from the other head admins (and even regular admins) on where they stand. Similar to what jchance did. As I said before it's unfair that he's the only one that's takes time to reply to threads like this. I also would expect them to be present at this meeting as well, otherwise it'll be difficult to take any of their decisions seriously when they couldn't even make time to listen to us. I feel that this is a serious topic that applies to the entire community, therefore the representatives of each aspect of the community should be present.

 

Everyone will be having input or at least a chance to put in input.  I'm not organizing it by myself, I've already addressed it with the head admins.  I intend to plan it when a majority of the people can be there, both staff and players alike.  Like I said earlier, there will be a thread for people to offer input before the community meeting.  When I say community meeting I do mean community, not player, not staff, all of us.

[Pyr0mrcow]

The biggest problem I see as a cause of this 'toxic' thing is the way that people make their arguments, suggestions, rebuttals, or whatever the post of the time may be.
Rather than countering ideas and giving alternatives, or simply stating a difference of opinions and trying to back up why that difference exists, many discussions on subjects of actual substance quickly devolve into personal attacks, sometimes with the original post. A difference in ideas leads to insults on a person's level of intelligence and a lack of legitimacy. This isn't limited to 'toxic' players from what I've seen; more often than not, that seems like a lable used by both sides of an argument to delegitimize the other perticipant.

I try to point that sort of thing out if I see it while hoping for a tone change, and expect people to do the same to me if I become guilty of it in a discussion, because such patterns don't benefit anyone. I get the arguments for freedom of speech and having thicker skin and playing around and whatnot, but slinging insults makes it much less likely for the opinions and examples that the person persents to be taken seriously. It makes valid discussions ignorable. People should learn to take criticism and take a joke, yes, but I don't think personal insults or group-shaming are welcome in any way. We had this discussion with the shaming of towns getting too rampant in the past, albeit it was to a lesser extent than the issues discribed here.

 

If I'm available at the time, I'll get on the Mumble thing. You've been warned ;D

Edited March 7, 2015 by Pyr0mrcow

[SwitchViewz]

I've already mentioned in another thread that my signature is just an inside joke between kitty and myself. That is all. It's stupid to complain about it. As if I'm the only one that use the F word around here. If you don't want to see people's silly signatures after each of their comments then use the "turn off signatures" option when you want a serious thread.

That's not the point. I had no idea that it was an inside joke and I'm sure tons of others don't know that as well. If a new player comes and registers on the forums and see it they have no idea its a joke and could find it insulting. There's no point to have it in your signature even if its an inside joke.

[Magnyus]

That's not the point. I had no idea that it was an inside joke and I'm sure tons of others don't know that as well. If a new player comes and registers on the forums and see it they have no idea its a joke and could find it insulting. There's no point to have it in your signature even if its an inside joke.

 

If a new player joins these servers and is insulted by my signature, they have no idea what they're getting into. It's a word, get over it.

[SwitchViewz]

If a new player joins these servers and is insulted by my signature, they have no idea what they're getting into. It's a word, get over it.

So let me get this straight. You guys have a problem with being labeled "toxic" or "that group of players" but when we tell you why or tell you that certain things arn't helping your case, you just tell us "to bad" and to "deal with it and get over it". You want us to change our views but you refuse to change what influences those views.

 

(I don't share this "toxic" view or try to put people in "that player group").

[EeHee2000]

The biggest problem I see as a cause of this 'toxic' thing is the way that people make their arguments, suggestions, rebuttals, or whatever the post of the time may be.

Rather than countering ideas and giving alternatives, or simply stating a difference of opinions and trying to back up why that difference exists, many discussions on subjects of actual substance quickly devolve into personal attacks, sometimes with the original post. A difference in ideas leads to insults on a person's level of intelligence and a lack of legitimacy. This isn't limited to 'toxic' players from what I've seen; more often than not, that seems like a lable used by both sides of an argument to delegitimize the other perticipant.

Yeah, it's pretty fucking irritating to bring up a suggestion to a Head Admin and have them be on the defensive about it from the get-go and try to think of ways I could be incorrect rather than consider what I say without a bias. 

About four times in a row I've been ignored by Head Admins because of this and it's pretty fucking irritating to have someone in the highest position of power just completely refuse to listen to what you have to say. 

[EeHee2000]

So let me get this straight. You guys have a problem with being labeled "toxic" or "that group of players" but when we tell you why or tell you that certain things arn't helping your case, you just tell us "to bad" and to "deal with it and get over it". You want us to change our views but you refuse to change what influences those views.

Not so much the fact that we're being called toxic (most of us couldn't give a shit about being called names) but rather the fact that it means that our opinions are far less valid than the average user's, and that by some strange superstition we're always considered to be "trolling". I wouldn't say that we act that way at all either, me writing this exact post is evidence of that. 

Edited March 7, 2015 by EeHee2000

[SwitchViewz]

Not so much the fact that we're being called toxic (most of us couldn't give a shit about being called names) but rather the fact that it means that our opinions are far less valid than the average user's, and that by some strange superstition we're always considered to be "trolling". I wouldn't say that we act that way at all either, me writing this exact post is evidence of that. 

I don't like comparing video games to real life, but if I walk up to my boss in nothing but underwear to voice legitimate concerns should I be expected to be taken seriously? Or should I put some decent cloths on and approach him? If you have those things in your signature or your avatar as a didgeridoo why should you expect to be taken seriously when you look silly?

 

I will take anyone seriously regardless but I can't speak for everyone.

[Jauris]

Not so much the fact that we're being called toxic (most of us couldn't give a shit about being called names) but rather the fact that it means that our opinions are far less valid than the average user's, and that by some strange superstition we're always considered to be "trolling". I wouldn't say that we act that way at all either, me writing this exact post is evidence of that. 

 

 You're allowed to have a personality, nobody is disagreeing with that.But, here's the rub: If you act immature, people aren't going to take you seriously.Additionally, just because you're making a serious post now it doesn't mean you haven't acted like a real fucking retard in the past. 

Edited March 7, 2015 by Jauris

[tobylane]

Realistically anyone who takes a signature like mine seriously and/or determines to any degree how mature people are from such a small thing probably wouldn't agree with me on many things, judging from past examples; just wanted to put that out there. 

 

Is it worth having someone else already dislike something about you before you ever have a chance to make a direct first impression?

 

I've already mentioned in another thread that my signature is just an inside joke between kitty and myself. That is all. It's stupid to complain about it. As if I'm the only one that use the F word around here. If you don't want to see people's silly signatures after each of their comments then use the "turn off signatures" option when you want a serious thread.

It's very public for a private joke.

 

Yeah, it's pretty fucking irritating to bring up a suggestion to a Head Admin and have them be on the defensive about it from the get-go and try to think of ways I could be incorrect rather than consider what I say without a bias. 

Maybe it doesn't suit being in public, but I would like you to think about one of the times a head admin was defensive about your idea rather than your attitude in an objective way. If you still find something substantial then tell another admin.

[whatagreatdecision]

Is it worth having someone else already dislike something about you before you ever have a chance to make a direct first impression?

 

Maybe it doesn't suit being in public, but I would like you to think about one of the times a head admin was defensive about your idea rather than your attitude in an objective way. If you still find something substantial then tell another admin.

I'd say it is worth that, yes, as we're playing a video game, not writing formal essays on how to be polite. 

 

Were I to tell the admin I trust most about that sort of thing, there isn't a whole lot they'd be able to do; not to mention that there were three separate heads I sent the idea in question to, one not even bothering to reply. 

-Eehee

Edited March 7, 2015 by whatagreatdecision

[tobylane]

Is it possible that when you feel you'll get nowhere or that who you're talking to will say no you act up because you don't see any point in trying to be nice to help your cause?

[Darkelmo]

Is it possible that when you feel you'll get nowhere or that who you're talking to will say no you act up because you don't see any point in trying to be nice to help your cause?

This is why I had a go at you Toby. I saw my post was just about arguing the nooks and crannies of my wording and so I asked to have it closed and you felt it was a testament to the argument being invalid which from looking at it's support, was not the case. That's what happened there,

 

I don't ever see us getting somewhere with this issue, even if we all had discussions void of negativity, no one is going to move on their stance because people prefer to assume that they had everything right on their first go rather than allowing themselves to tailor their view based on evidence and valid points. When we try to have a civil discussion, the mere existence of a differing opinion motivates one rotten apple to spoil the bunch and make it personal, or tread over a no longer relevant/already resolved issue in the past.

 

I remember the old days where this shit didn't happen, and looking at the staff team now I feel like the staff could have easily just banned everyone who had an attitude worthy of allowing themselves to be labeled toxic as a quick fix to the drama. I think the reason they don't do this is because deep down inside they know this particular crusade while controversial is also noble. So instead they let it fester in public chat and allow our opinions to be ignored thanks to all the new players who didn't know how things used to be and are happy to argue with a historically limited view of the whole ordeal. 

Edited March 8, 2015 by Darkelmo

[tobylane]

I don't ever see us getting somewhere with this issue, even if we all had discussions void of negativity, no one is going to move on their stance because people prefer to assume that they had everything right on their first go rather than allowing themselves to tailor their view based on evidence and valid points.

 

I do what I can, and it's a lot easier face to face, to not have that assumption. I'm told my efforts work. In the same way that people in charge are usually in control of their biases, I believe they are at least more likely to be in control/aware of their assumptions. I ask Eehee that question because, per random chance if nothing else, I want to get him spotting his own assumptions. Assumptions like "a no longer relevant/already resolved issue".

[jchance]

I remember the old days where this shit didn't happen and I feel like the staff could have easily just banned everyone who had an attitude worthy of allowing themselves to be labeled toxic. I think the reason they don't do this is because deep down inside they know this particular crusade while controversial is also noble. So instead they let it fester in public chat and allow our opinions to be ignored thanks to all the new players who didn't know how things used to be and are happy to argue with a historically limited view of the whole ordeal. 

 

wat

[EeHee2000]

Is it possible that when you feel you'll get nowhere or that who you're talking to will say no you act up because you don't see any point in trying to be nice to help your cause?

If I felt that I'd get nowhere with what I was doing I wouldn't have bothered to talk to the Heads in the first place, don'tcha think? 

[Darkelmo]

If I felt that I'd get nowhere with what I was doing I wouldn't have bothered to talk to the Heads in the first place, don'tcha think? 

 

I feel like 2 years without gained ground would be enough to convince someone to give up but I don't know anything I guess

[Mrloud15]

I was planning to reply to this during the first part of the week but my internet was out for 2 or 3 days and I have been busy since.

 

Before we have a meeting I would like to have input from the other head admins (and even regular admins) on where they stand. Similar to what jchance did. As I said before it's unfair that he's the only one that's takes time to reply to threads like this. I also would expect them to be present at this meeting as well, otherwise it'll be difficult to take any of their decisions seriously when they couldn't even make time to listen to us. I feel that this is a serious topic that applies to the entire community, therefore the representatives of each aspect of the community should be present.

I already gave my opinion the whole "toxic" thing in another thread a few months ago. TLDR: We don't use "toxic" to describe players or group players together, so I'm not really sure why this is still something being brought up and why some players can't seem to stop using "toxic" to describe others and themselves.

 

There are a few things I would like to clear up. Contrary to popular belief, we don't ignore you guys. You (whoever is reading this) are not the only one who comes to us with ideas, suggestions, or issues regarding the servers, and just because you think something's a great idea does not mean it's what's best for the servers as a whole. 

 

I will admit that we could do a better job to communicate with you guys as to what was done about your suggestions, issues, etc., and I'm open to ideas on how we can improve communication if anyone has any.

 

I remember the old days where this shit didn't happen, and looking at the staff team now I feel like the staff could have easily just banned everyone who had an attitude worthy of allowing themselves to be labeled toxic as a quick fix to the drama. I think the reason they don't do this is because deep down inside they know this particular crusade while controversial is also noble. So instead they let it fester in public chat and allow our opinions to be ignored thanks to all the new players who didn't know how things used to be and are happy to argue with a historically limited view of the whole ordeal. 

I must agree with jchance and go with wat.

[roastnewt]

 

We don't use "toxic" to describe players or group players together, so I'm not really sure why this is still something being brought up and why some players can't seem to stop using "toxic" to describe others and themselves.

 

I don't think people care if you use the specific adjective "toxic," they have a problem with the underlying attitude.  Eliminating a specific word doesn't rectify the problem behind it, namely, assuming that all people that agree on certain subjects are a homogeneous group, are "in cahoots," don't have the server's best interest at heart, or are a bad (e.g. toxic) influence.

[tobylane]

I don't think people care if you use the specific adjective "toxic," they have a problem with the underlying attitude.  Eliminating a specific word doesn't rectify the problem behind it, namely, assuming that all people that agree on certain subjects are a homogeneous group, are "in cahoots," don't have the server's best interest at heart, or are a bad (e.g. toxic) influence.

 

There are a few obvious collusions, there's a ban appeal where several people posted the same sort of thing within two minutes. Other than that I don't think it's seen as a constant conspiracy. I don't see all the toxic people as clones of each other, even when they are being toxic they have variations. I also remember the majority of the times when they are reasonable, talking about something else. It's just for simplicity. Football fans only spend 1% of their time in a football stadium. Also I don't think it's assumed that everyone who agrees with any one toxic person is a bad influence in that agreement, until they they do something bad. Some of what you say is done by the toxic people who see me and the admins as the same identity (so said one).

[Narissis]

I don't think people care if you use the specific adjective "toxic," they have a problem with the underlying attitude.  Eliminating a specific word doesn't rectify the problem behind it, namely, assuming that all people that agree on certain subjects are a homogeneous group, are "in cahoots," don't have the server's best interest at heart, or are a bad (e.g. toxic) influence.

 

I don't understand why people are making the argument that it's an assumption. When players are thought of that way, it's due to their behaviour; it's not as though there's some kind of conspiracy to label anybody for no legitimate reason.

Edited March 15, 2015 by Narissis

[TornadoHorse]

I don't understand why people are making the argument that it's an assumption. When players are thought of that way, it's due to their behaviour; it's not as though there's some kind of conspiracy to label anybody for no legitimate reason.

 

1 instance of bad behaviour shouldn't invalidate that person's opinion, however it does seem to happen here.

 

It's all well and good having a discussion on these things but no amount of forum posts will actually change the way people feel about the subject. It's all down making sure staff don't carry this opinion as they are the only ones that really matter - a player's opinion won't change the server but a staff member's could. By this, I mean make sure you're choosing the right people for staff and set a good example to them and the rest of the players. It doesn't matter if a player groups people together, it's no big deal unless they're breaking the rules. If a staff member is doing this, however, then it becomes an issue as we don't want any bias held by those who run the servers as we do currently as it can and does ruin the game for some people.