Gonna try to stay in the TOS here....

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

15 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

While I don't have statistics to support it, my impression is that the overall incidents are lower nowadays than when I first started playing in 2018.

My impression is that things have substantially improved since 2019/2020.

[Wolfswetpaws]

11 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

My impression is that things have substantially improved since 2019/2020.

🙂👍

[Admiral_Karasu]

24 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

My impression is that things have substantially improved since 2019/2020.

Well... a lot of what people bring up here is apparently for NA. On the EU, I think it carries over from WoT, the most annoying habit some people engage is popping over into my port with their 'post-battle compliments' as it were. I think only in one or two cases that I can remember they actually had something positive to say.

Other than that, I don't mind banter in battle even if it's a bit on the unpolished side of verbal delivery. Banter may be sarcastic, but if it's banter it's never ill-natured or intended to really insult anyone.

[Jakob Knight]

34 minutes ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

 

Other than that, I don't mind banter in battle even if it's a bit on the unpolished side of verbal delivery. Banter may be sarcastic, but if it's banter it's never ill-natured or intended to really insult anyone.

 

I'm afraid I disagree with this statement.  Banter is most often a low level form of insult towards the target, which is always ill-natured and intended to harm.  Too many people want to excuse other people's 'banter' because they know they themselves want to hurt others and desire the freedom to get away with it, or to have a communal sense of superiority of toughness.

 

Ultimately, you either accept that you are a person who wants to hurt others, or you don't.  If the later, then why tread any part of that path?  

 

 

 

Edited May 9 by Jakob Knight

[Admiral_Karasu]

23 minutes ago, Jakob Knight said:

 

I'm afraid I disagree with this statement.  Banter is most often a low level form of insult towards the target, which is always ill-natured and intended to harm.  Too many people want to excuse other people's 'banter' because they know they themselves want to hurt others and desire the freedom to get away with it, or to have a communal sense of superiority of toughness.

 

Ultimately, you either accept that you are a person who wants to hurt others, or you don't.  If the later, then why tread any part of that path?  

 

 

 

Well, have to disagree in part. First of, let's look at what banter is:

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/banter

Let's assume someone pops up smoke or hydro about 5 seconds into the match.

A) If you open your response with a swear and go onto giving them a direct insult...

It's almost certainly something that wouldn't qualify as banter except between very very close friends, maybe, who are in the habit of talking like that but even then there'd be certain limits, I think.

B) If you respond to that by saying to them that 'So you thought it was a good idea to use smoke now, did you?' or, 'Nice going.' or 'We're off to a good start I see'. (I either don't say anything or use the quick command 'Thank you.' myself.)

That is banter.

Maybe not the best examples but hopefully that clarifies my position.

[Jakob Knight]

15 minutes ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

Well, have to disagree in part. First of, let's look at what banter is:

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/banter

Let's assume someone pops up smoke or hydro about 5 seconds into the match.

A) If you open your response with a swear and go onto giving them a direct insult...

It's almost certainly something that wouldn't qualify as banter except between very very close friends, maybe, who are in the habit of talking like that but even then there'd be certain limits, I think.

B) If you respond to that by saying to them that 'So you thought it was a good idea to use smoke now, did you?' or, 'Nice going.' or 'We're off to a good start I see'. (I either don't say anything or use the quick command 'Thank you.' myself.)

That is banter.

Maybe not the best examples but hopefully that clarifies my position.

 

It does, but I think you are blinded to your own intentions here by your accepted norms.  In both cases, your intent is to harm the target, though to different degrees.  In the first, you would be striking out of malice and intend to do the maximum amount of harm the mechanics of the game allow.  In the second, you are aiming for a light amount of harm in the same mode of someone bumping their nose on a closed door or getting their hand slapped...as a wake-up call to actions that are not acceptable and need to be corrected.

 

This is what the Military teaches it's personnel.  Controlled harm appropriate to the situation and no more than that.  They limit that harm to prevent more than needed because most don't like the idea of harming things, but they don't pretend that they don't intend to do so if it is needed.

 

Banter and malicious insults are intended for harm.  The difference is in the purpose and limits imposed on that harm.  And, if one is sending off that message not to instruct the target in improving themselves but because the sender wants to feel better about themselves, is that really banter?  True banter, I have always found, is intended to help the target and let them know the others with them understand their mistake and don't want to strip the flesh from their bones because of it.  In a way, it's a kindness intended to reassure them that they are still accepted despite their error.

 

 

 

 

Edited May 9 by Jakob Knight

[Andrewbassg]

38 minutes ago, Jakob Knight said:

 

I'm afraid I disagree with this statement.  Banter is most often a low level form of insult towards the target, which is always ill-natured and intended to harm.  Too many people want to excuse other people's 'banter' because they know they themselves want to hurt others and desire the freedom to get away with it, or to have a communal sense of superiority of toughness.

 

Ultimately, you either accept that you are a person who wants to hurt others, or you don't.  If the later, then why tread any part of that path? 

And I have to disagree with you. Coz If we go with that metric, even irony, heck  even criticism is a "low level insult". That's .... just not feasible and the  world would become rapidly a very, very dry, humourless place. Not liking rave or preferring jazz is "discriminatory"? So yeah....While I'm all for open mindedness there has to be a limit. People tend to simply like or dislike things, that's just the way how we are.

Truth is how one perceives and receives banter is a personal, subjective matter, there is no universal metric, so knowing the person is a crucial factor.

As for "intent to harm"....you know that we all play a FPS shooter aka a tactical combat simulator, right? 

Juuust sayin ....

[Andrewbassg]

16 minutes ago, Jakob Knight said:

The difference is in the purpose and limits imposed on that harm.  And, if one is sending off that message not to instruct the target in improving themselves but because the sender wants to feel better about themselves, is that really banter?  True banter, I have always found, is intended to help the target and let them know the others with them understand their mistake and don't want to strip the flesh from their bones because of it.  In a way, it's a kindness intended to reassure them that they are still accepted despite their error.

Hmmmm...... that means that I'm not guilty

Set aside the emoji that's actually pretty interesting stuff...

 

 

[GandalfTehGray]

3 hours ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

When one or more players use their hydro-acoustic-search or radar consumables too soon and while we're all still near our spawning points (usually by an accidental keystroke), I've been known to type "I am using my binoculars" in chat.

My usual go to is "you gotta watch for those spawn torpedoes" 

So question to Jakob and Daniel would that be  toxic too? 

Edited May 9 by GandalfTehGray

[ArIskandir]

23 minutes ago, GandalfTehGray said:

My usual go to is "you gotta watch for those spawn torpedoes" 

So question to Jakob and Daniel would be is that toxic too? 

My usual was "fat finger alert!"

[Asym]

2 hours ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

Thanks.

In reply to your "But, consider ..."
 et al..

I don't quite know what you mean by reciprocation of ethics.

The back and forth of what we want versus what we get....  Negativity vis-a'-vis civility and positive values.

Take a Huge game:  LoL as an example....  That corporation spends an immense amount of revenue physically working on Reciprocation - in that, "a mutual giving and returning."  Giving and taking heed to what the players value most and returning even better and more thought out content as a reward.  As in, as a player:  "I take the game seriously and play as best I can, within the rules; volunteer suggestions for growth;  and,  always strive to be civil and honest. (the ethics of positive play) and the host reciprocates by striving to 1) listen to suggestions and take them seriously (with a serious project management process !); and, gives back to the game community, first world game content and incentives...!

It's a win-win for both the players and the corporation...  We did the same thing in OEM business aircraft... 

 

[Jakob Knight]

57 minutes ago, GandalfTehGray said:

My usual go to is "you gotta watch for those spawn torpedoes" 

So question to Jakob and Daniel would be is that toxic too? 

 

Is your intent to include the target of your comment in your humor (laughing with them), or to exclude them (laughing at them)?

 

Toxicity is meant to degrade the game, for another person or for everyone.  The corrosive nature of such conduct is why the term was coined, after all.  So it comes down to a simple conclusion.

 

If you are saying it to put down another person, the match, the game, or any other entity for your own feelings or enjoyment, it would be toxic.  If it were something you -should- know could result in the same effect, then you -should- know it is a potentially toxic comment and accept responsibility for the consequences in the same way someone who is careless with toxic chemicals is responsible if there is an accidental or intentional harm from their actions.

 

If you are saying it to build up the target of your comment and improve the game, match, or other entity for them as well as yourself, and take reasonable steps to ensure it is taken as such, then no it would not be considered toxic by myself.

 

 

Edited May 9 by Jakob Knight

[Admiral_Karasu]

Nothing in this game comes even close to the kind of toxicity that exists in real life environments.

[Wolfswetpaws]

24 minutes ago, Asym said:

The back and forth of what we want versus what we get....  Negativity vis-a'-vis civility and positive values.

Take a Huge game:  LoL as an example....  That corporation spends an immense amount of revenue physically working on Reciprocation - in that, "a mutual giving and returning."  Giving and taking heed to what the players value most and returning even better and more thought out content as a reward.  As in, as a player:  "I take the game seriously and play as best I can, within the rules; volunteer suggestions for growth;  and,  always strive to be civil and honest. (the ethics of positive play) and the host reciprocates by striving to 1) listen to suggestions and take them seriously (with a serious project management process !); and, gives back to the game community, first world game content and incentives...!

It's a win-win for both the players and the corporation...  We did the same thing in OEM business aircraft... 

 

"LoL"?
Laughing Out Loud?
Land Of (the) Lost television series & movie?
Land O' Lakes butter & margarine production company?
Mis-spelled acronym for League of Extraordinary Gentlemen?
Or, has my research finally reached the correct interpretation of "League of Legends"?

The remainder of your paragraph is mostly understandable, by me.
But, a couple of thoughts came to my mind after reading it.

~I don't want to play the World of Warships equivalent of what "Tee-Ball" is to Baseball (a variation of baseball intended for children to learn the basics of baseball while being in a supportive and nurturing environment).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tee-ball
~ There's no crying in Baseball.
https://www.cracked.com/article_39419_how-the-writers-of-a-league-of-their-own-came-up-with-its-most-famous-line.html
~While I can see the appeal of the "win/win" you describe, and feel you're making some good points, I'm also wary that the game will become so changed by feedback that it will no longer provide enough adherence to realism & physics to emulate the "flavor" and historical characteristics of the built-in-steel ships and the properly modeled ships derived from blueprints and "what if" proposals that didn't get built in real-life but were made as pixel-boats.
Examples include:  1) how the AA damage-per-minute is adjusted upwards as the tier of the ship in question becomes higher, despite using the same make & model of AA mount,  2)  Popular complaints/sentiments about submarine's underwater and above water speeds being far in excess of historic capabilities (which, to be fair, is shared to some extent in various pixel-boat non-submarine ships in-game),  3)  recent nerfs to submarine torpedo arming distances and warhead potency,  4)  <insert whatever appropriate example anyone can think of, here> "for balanz" reason(s) which detract from player immersion.  (I'm confident people can add to my list, I'm merely not in the mood to make a long and perhaps controversial list that side-tracks this topic).

Anyway, I think our discussion and exchange of perspectives & comparisons is useful to shed light on the situation.




 

[Wolfswetpaws]

2 hours ago, Jakob Knight said:

 

It does, but I think you are blinded to your own intentions here by your accepted norms.  In both cases, your intent is to harm the target, though to different degrees.  In the first, you would be striking out of malice and intend to do the maximum amount of harm the mechanics of the game allow.  In the second, you are aiming for a light amount of harm in the same mode of someone bumping their nose on a closed door or getting their hand slapped...as a wake-up call to actions that are not acceptable and need to be corrected.

 

This is what the Military teaches it's personnel.  Controlled harm appropriate to the situation and no more than that.  They limit that harm to prevent more than needed because most don't like the idea of harming things, but they don't pretend that they don't intend to do so if it is needed.

 

Banter and malicious insults are intended for harm.  The difference is in the purpose and limits imposed on that harm.  And, if one is sending off that message not to instruct the target in improving themselves but because the sender wants to feel better about themselves, is that really banter?  True banter, I have always found, is intended to help the target and let them know the others with them understand their mistake and don't want to strip the flesh from their bones because of it.  In a way, it's a kindness intended to reassure them that they are still accepted despite their error.

Such as this excerpt from Star Trek The Next Generation?  😉 
"Encounter at Farpoint"

Quote

• Captain Jean-Luc Picard: Lieutenant! Do you intend to blast a hole in the viewer?
• [when Worf points a phaser at Q who has appeared on the main view screen]

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0094030/quotes/?ref_=tt_trv_qu

[Type_93]

You can tell from this thread that many of you grew up not playing sports or were never in the military. You wanna see toxic? Spend a day with an infantry platoon.  The way we used to talk to each other would have some of you in therapy.  Bottom line is, play how you want.  If you want to just play shooty pew pew pixels boats and play poorly, be ready to get flamed for it. If you don’t like that, then turn chat off.  It’s best to grow a thick skin.  

[Jakob Knight]

6 hours ago, Type_93 said:

You can tell from this thread that many of you grew up not playing sports or were never in the military. You wanna see toxic? Spend a day with an infantry platoon.  The way we used to talk to each other would have some of you in therapy.  Bottom line is, play how you want.  If you want to just play shooty pew pew pixels boats and play poorly, be ready to get flamed for it. If you don’t like that, then turn chat off.  It’s best to grow a thick skin.  

 

I really hope you weren't talking about me.  Sailors do have a reputation to uphold in regards to getting in curses that would curl the mustache of a third world dictator.

 

However, there is a place and a time for it, and a need to know what one is doing with one's weapons.  Using them when inappropriate has it own consequences, after all.  Is a video game played among people you don't know anything about really the place and time to lay choice words reserved for when someone you know is qualified to know better has actually screwed up in the real world?

 

 

Edited May 9 by Jakob Knight

[Frostbow]

People are so easily affected these days. 

A simple triple "Well Done!" would be enough to rile them. 🤭

Then they will furiously look up my stats. 😂

And when they find out the stats my private, they would become even more agitated. 🤣

 

 

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

1 hour ago, Type_93 said:

You can tell from this thread that many of you grew up not playing sports or were never in the military. You wanna see toxic? Spend a day with an infantry platoon.  The way we used to talk to each other would have some of you in therapy.  Bottom line is, play how you want.  If you want to just play shooty pew pew pixels boats and play poorly, be ready to get flamed for it. If you don’t like that, then turn chat off.  It’s best to grow a thick skin.  

You can tell nothing of the sort.

World of Warships being less toxic than an infantry platoon is an extremely low bar...and a pointless comparison.  An infantry platoon is not an online game.

Flaming folks is against the rules of the game. If you are doing so, the fault is YOU for failing to follow the rules...not the other player.

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

3 hours ago, GandalfTehGray said:

My usual go to is "you gotta watch for those spawn torpedoes" 

So question to Jakob and Daniel would that be  toxic too? 

Probably not.

I've had to get on all chat on a few occasions and point out to certain battleship players (usually at tiers 5 and 6) to tell them that their AA is off when I am attacking them with my CV planes.

I always do so respectfully...i.e., 'Bayern, did you know your AA is off? Press 'p' to turn it back on.'

Always remember that text only humor is VERY hard to communicate clearly. I find it best to avoid sarcasm and the like in chat because there is no way to share verbal inflection or facial cues to help the reader understand the actual meaning intended.

[thornzero]

1 hour ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

I've had to get on all chat on a few occasions and point out to certain battleship players (usually at tiers 5 and 6) to tell them that their AA is off when I am attacking them with my CV planes.

I always do so respectfully...i.e., 'Bayern, did you know your AA is off? Press 'p' to turn it back on.'

You are such a nice CV player. That is really a nice thing to do for your enemy. You will never see such niceties on EU server.

Exploits are meant to take advantage. I would have to admit I would rather exploit than warn mine enemy.

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

7 minutes ago, thornzero said:

You are such a nice CV player. That is really a nice thing to do for your enemy. You will never see such niceties on EU server.

Exploits are meant to take advantage. I would have to admit I would rather exploit than warn mine enemy.

It's tier 5 and 6...

At those tiers, my CV is brutally OP. I can easily dominate an enemy battleship with his AA on or off.

I at least want to win based on some skill, not just because he fat fingered his AA off.

[Unlooky]

18 hours ago, Jakob Knight said:

 

But isn't it true that the person somehow feeling the need to use 'Well Done' three times is in even more need to grow a thicker skin?  If they truly can't play the game without insulting other players, isn't that a sign that they simply can't handle what others are doing quite well without the need they seem to feel?  And, why wouldn't you feel attacked/insulted by an action that -is- intended as an attack/insult?  That would seem to be just good perception as opposed to being dim-witted.

All online games have some degree of banter/trashtalking. Nobody takes it seriously, which is presumably where the line is drawn regarding the EULA. If I triple Well Done someone or get triple Well Done'ed, I've already forgotten about it 4 minutes later. If someone truly wants to insult you, it won't be in the form of a triple Well Done. If someone says to you in real llife "Well done" sarcastically, are you actually insulted/attacked? Are you really going to find the nearest authority to report such harassment to? 

[Unlooky]

4 hours ago, Type_93 said:

You can tell from this thread that many of you grew up not playing sports or were never in the military. You wanna see toxic? Spend a day with an infantry platoon.  The way we used to talk to each other would have some of you in therapy.  Bottom line is, play how you want.  If you want to just play shooty pew pew pixels boats and play poorly, be ready to get flamed for it. If you don’t like that, then turn chat off.  It’s best to grow a thick skin.  

Not even any of that. It's clear who actually plays more than one online game. I'm not even a MW2 kid and this is making me laugh. 

[Asym]

2 hours ago, Type_93 said:

You can tell from this thread that many of you grew up not playing sports or were never in the military. You wanna see toxic? Spend a day with an infantry platoon.  The way we used to talk to each other would have some of you in therapy.  Bottom line is, play how you want.  If you want to just play shooty pew pew pixels boats and play poorly, be ready to get flamed for it. If you don’t like that, then turn chat off.  It’s best to grow a thick skin.  

Well, I am from the SWC and Armor sides of the Army;  and, I can say that "language" and all forms of communications can be and are "colorful" in the finest traditions of the military.  It is amazing how few words can convey such utter contempt for someones inabilities, excuses or lack of Esprit de Corps...  Foreign students........oh my.....

Heck, it's why Green Zone training was conducted on Campus:  veterans are not "normal" people it seems.  Oh gosh, there wasn't a day where we, the Veterans Center on campus, was not called on to litigate, mitigate or deescalate some conflict somewhere on campus.  I had a Marine NCO wander in to talk to me one day because he simply felt like he was pulling the wings off of helpless flies....  "Sir, are they all this pocking stupid....."  Sigh.........

Language.......sigh.  Especially, if a Veteran was in charge of a "team effort" for a lab or class....  Oh my.......  It seems that communicating Army or Marine simply causes tears.....  It's First Person; Active Voice; Bottom Line Up Front; Directive in nature; and, clear and concise....Hooah !    O-U-C-H....    Tear making material too funny for someone to make up...