Why are there so many trollers today?

[SWENinja]

In like every PvP game today there are more kids want too ruin and trolling in games ever before. They are not rage or even try to win, just there for sabotage.
Like 5 years and back that almost never existed or was pretty rare. If you did that you got quick reacted and no one wanted to play with that person anymore.
How come today it is "normal" and all game DEVS seem to support these behavor and let it pass?
I would love too see more of perma ban on those kids, so we who realy want play games and enjoy it, enjoy it.

[Large Tomatoes]

Simple answer.

Q) Why do we have more trolls?

A) Because there are more people with access to these games and the internet as a whole.

Q) Why do they troll?

A) Because they get a kick out of it. There is no logic here, I've had numerous cases of people debating a topic then when I present an argument they claim victory because I posted a "wall of text", this is them winning?!?!?

Q) Why do companies allow it?

A) Because no matter which company it is, they care about profit more than anything. They are NOT going to perma ban anybody unless those people pose a significant threat to profits.

[SWENinja]

Originally posted by A) Because no matter which company it is, they care about profit more than anything. They are NOT going to perma ban anybody unless those people pose a significant threat to profits. [/quote:

Not true, the first years under blizzard and overwatch 1. You got perma ban for ruin or even write wrong. That was so GOOD time and kept trollers and sabotage away strongly, realy helpt.
*As you know, OW1 are one of the biggest games out there. So it worked for them, then it should work for everyone.

[Large Tomatoes]

Originally posted by SWENinja:

Not true, the first years under blizzard and overwatch 1. You got perma ban for ruin or even write wrong. That was so GOOD time and kept trollers and sabotage away strongly, realy helpt.
*As you know, OW1 are one of the biggest games out there. So it worked for them, then it should work for everyone.

So as I stated in my initial post that you are quoting, those trolling groups posed a direct threat to profits so were banned. However, as soon as a new shiny thing comes along and the decent folk start moving away, those games will rapidly become riddled with the trolls because they make up a significant portion of the market, the decent folk who haven't fled have already demonstrated that they will put up with it.

I've never played Overwatch and would rather chop my own face off than do so, so I'm taking your word on it for this example.

[SWENinja]

Originally posted by Large Tomatoes:

Originally posted by SWENinja:

Not true, the first years under blizzard and overwatch 1. You got perma ban for ruin or even write wrong. That was so GOOD time and kept trollers and sabotage away strongly, realy helpt.
*As you know, OW1 are one of the biggest games out there. So it worked for them, then it should work for everyone.

So as I stated in my initial post that you are quoting, those trolling groups posed a direct threat to profits so were banned. However, as soon as a new shiny thing comes along and the decent folk start moving away, those games will rapidly become riddled with the trolls because they make up a significant portion of the market, the decent folk who haven't fled have already demonstrated that they will put up with it.

I've never played Overwatch and would rather chop my own face off than do so, so I'm taking your word on it for this example.

So how can you even argue in games you never play in or ever will? than you only here for trolling and sabotage also.

[GEB.Rosé]

a simple solution would be to play offline games instead :P

[Eagle_of_Fire]

Originally posted by SWENinja:

In like every PvP game today there are more kids want too ruin and trolling in games ever before. They are not rage or even try to win, just there for sabotage.
Like 5 years and back that almost never existed or was pretty rare. If you did that you got quick reacted and no one wanted to play with that person anymore.
How come today it is "normal" and all game DEVS seem to support these behavor and let it pass?
I would love too see more of perma ban on those kids, so we who realy want play games and enjoy it, enjoy it.

Late Gen Z/ Early Gen A sense of humour, which seem to become more and more prevalent. For some reason their only goal is to make people cringe as hard as it is possible. They seem to thrive on making people make faces by stating or doing the stupidest thing and the more ridiculous and brainless act they can do to achieve this, the better.

I can't really explain it better. I'm meeting and discovering this trend exponentially in the last few years and I can't understand from where it come from nor what is the actual goal. It is not to say that I've never seen or heard comics trying to make people laugh this way, but those were actual jokes and an actual attempt at humour. What I'm talking about is never funny except for the one person or the small group of persons who are doing the joke to begin with and invariably leave the "crowd" wondering if it would not be better to sterilise whomever they have in front of them. And yes, this is intentional, that's exactly the reaction they want to get..!

[Dimwit Donald (very high IQ)]

Because society is teaching kids to be empathyless, selfish little narcissists with no sense of justice, respect or decency, and nobody even cares anymore. The important thing is that they learn to get their will and push others around.

[Large Tomatoes]

Originally posted by 76561198083019420:

Originally posted by GEB.Rosé:

a simple solution would be to play offline games instead :P

this is the solution

Objectively correct. Single-player games or private multiplayer with your friends, playing on public servers is like going into any social platform and expecting to have a pleasant experience.

[Soren]

Originally posted by Large Tomatoes:

Objectively correct. Single-player games or private multiplayer with your friends, playing on public servers is like going into any social platform and expecting to have a pleasant experience.

Games that moderate pretty heavily don't have this problem though. Instead, their forums are usually full of people complaining they were banned for no reason or that the moderation team is too sensitive.

Battlebit remastered for instance constantly had forum topics about people being banned from voice chat on launch. Those gamers were used to consequence free social environments. They weren't used to getting banned for using "gamer language", and they also weren't used to getting banned for mic spamming.

Meanwhile streamers were talking about it being literally the only shooter they could play and not have to mute random voice chat in fear someone would be screaming the n word every 5 seconds and they'd get banned from twitch for it.

[Large Tomatoes]

Originally posted by Soren:

Games that moderate pretty heavily don't have this problem though. Instead, their forums are usually full of people complaining they were banned for no reason or that the moderation team is too sensitive.

Battlebit remastered for instance constantly had forum topics about people being banned from voice chat on launch. Those gamers were used to consequence free social environments. They weren't used to getting banned for using "gamer language", and they also weren't used to getting banned for mic spamming.

Meanwhile streamers were talking about it being literally the only shooter they could play and not have to mute random voice chat in fear someone would be screaming the n word every 5 seconds and they'd get banned from twitch for it.

OK, so tell me how you ensure that the moderators aren't pushing their own biased agenda? The people who got banned for spamming the "Neapolitan ice-cream word" would they have been banned for spamming "cracker" or some other socially acceptable, but equally despicable racial slur?

Secondly, you are using logical extremes here, which are fundamentally flawed. People taunting you or laughing at you in voice chat is one thing, people spamming the "Nectarine word" is entirely different.

[Soren]

Originally posted by Large Tomatoes:

OK, so tell me how you ensure that the moderators aren't pushing their own biased agenda?

Not sure what you mean by "agenda" with moderation. Everything has a goal or an ends it hopes to accomplish by doing said action. The goal of moderation is keep out players who you feel are disruptive to everyone else's experience. Music spammers for example stop other people from using proximity chat in Battlebits, which can be considered disruptive. Hackers stop other people from playing the game on even terms and can also be disruptive.

To say these things are a "biased agenda" is nonsensical. Because human judgement is subjective by definition and any action is going to be done expecting specific results.

Originally posted by Large Tomatoes:

The people who got banned for spamming the "Neapolitan ice-cream word" would they have been banned for spamming "cracker" or some other socially acceptable, but equally despicable racial slur?

Too quote a civil rights activist from the 1960s, Stokely Carmichael ~ “If a white man wants to lynch me, that's his problem. If he's got the power to lynch me, that's my problem. Racism is not a question of attitude; it's a question of power."

To reiterate on what he is saying. Racism is more harmful the more power that person, ideology, or phrase possesses. Clearly the "n word" possesses more power given neither you or I can say it without most likely getting banned by a Valve mod. Meanwhile we can both say the word "cracker" here in most contexts without it violating the rules.

[76561199488973502]

Steam doesn't have any Trolls , just a bunch of Hobbits that sit in the shire all day playing with magic screens and wishing the Hobbit Girls they know where real.

[Large Tomatoes]

Originally posted by Soren:

Not sure what you mean by "agenda" with moderation

I mean precisely as you said, people have their own personal bias, therefore there will inevitably be bias in the moderation. It is perfectly logical.

Originally posted by Soren:

To reiterate on what he is saying. Racism is more harmful the more power that person, ideology, or phrase possesses. Clearly the "n word" possesses more power given neither you or I can say it without most likely getting banned by a Valve mod. Meanwhile we can both say the word "cracker" here in most contexts without it violating the rules.

I'm going to put the response to this in a spoiler tag because it explores the content of your post rather than OPs initial question. I think this is just the natural evolution of conversation but others might deem it to be tangential, so to those people, feel free to skip over it.


Therefore, by following this logic, white people have less power in this regard because non-whites can be openly racist towards whites but not the other way. This is a clear demonstration of the bias I'm talking about. Somebody with your attitude will allow racism towards the white person but moderate even a hint in the opposite direction.

This argument is fundamentally flawed on many levels but the most crucial element is that stating white people posses power because a tiny percentage of them have seats of power is mindbogglingly ridiculous. It removes the person from the argument and replaces them with the whole, the whole is not judged based on the median either, it is judged based on the highest order. It is a logically unsound proposition, dreamt up by an unqualified individual, and perpetuated by the ignorant.

The mere suggestion that an individual white person cannot experience racism or experience it to a lesser extent, because another white person is wealthy and powerful is so far removed from reality that I struggle to comprehend how anybody can even arrive at this conclusion unless they do so as a means of justifying heinous acts of their own.

All in all, your post has proven my point about moderation, unless the moderators can be held to account, they will exercise their own personal bias, either consciously or subconsciously.

[MT. AKINA]

Originally posted by Large Tomatoes:

Originally posted by Soren:

Not sure what you mean by "agenda" with moderation

I mean precisely as you said, people have their own personal bias, therefore there will inevitably be bias in the moderation. It is perfectly logical.

Originally posted by Soren:

To reiterate on what he is saying. Racism is more harmful the more power that person, ideology, or phrase possesses. Clearly the "n word" possesses more power given neither you or I can say it without most likely getting banned by a Valve mod. Meanwhile we can both say the word "cracker" here in most contexts without it violating the rules.

I'm going to put the response to this in a spoiler tag because it explores the content of your post rather than OPs initial question. I think this is just the natural evolution of conversation but others might deem it to be tangential, so to those people, feel free to skip over it.


Therefore, by following this logic, white people have less power in this regard because non-whites can be openly racist towards whites but not the other way. This is a clear demonstration of the bias I'm talking about. Somebody with your attitude will allow racism towards the white person but moderate even a hint in the opposite direction.

This argument is fundamentally flawed on many levels but the most crucial element is that stating white people posses power because a tiny percentage of them have seats of power is mindbogglingly ridiculous. It removes the person from the argument and replaces them with the whole, the whole is not judged based on the median either, it is judged based on the highest order. It is a logically unsound proposition, dreamt up by an unqualified individual, and perpetuated by the ignorant.

The mere suggestion that an individual white person cannot experience racism or experience it to a lesser extent, because another white person is wealthy and powerful is so far removed from reality that I struggle to comprehend how anybody can even arrive at this conclusion unless they do so as a means of justifying heinous acts of their own.

All in all, your post has proven my point about moderation, unless the moderators can be held to account, they will exercise their own personal bias, either consciously or subconsciously.

yeah thats a great point, society acts as if everybody is in groups and the most important (or famous) is the majority its like we fought racism to just recreate it with a different label :/

[veracsthane]

Originally posted by Large Tomatoes:

Simple answer.

Q) Why do we have more trolls?

A) Because there are more people with access to these games and the internet as a whole.

Q) Why do they troll?

A) Because they get a kick out of it. There is no logic here, I've had numerous cases of people debating a topic then when I present an argument they claim victory because I posted a "wall of text", this is them winning?!?!?

Q) Why do companies allow it?

A) Because no matter which company it is, they care about profit more than anything. They are NOT going to perma ban anybody unless those people pose a significant threat to profits.

the first q and a is false.

you have more trolls because more companies lost their mind and virtually no pvp game is untouched. most of the people who try in the first place dont even play anymore in most cases because of the cancer you are seeing.

the second one is ya and when compounded with the first one its more common.

the final one is they allow it because they are too busy wasting time with chat. they can mathematically prove afk and non participation they simply dont care which is why people get cancer from the trolling trash and quit. agian all because they utterly waste time with chat that is only a thing because of the stuff they ignored which you are finally getting tired of op.