> I'd really rather not have video game designers and video game journalists forcing their versions morality onto me.

You know what, I would.

Now don't get me wrong, I don't want these same people regulating speech or whatever. But I do want them regulating their own userbases. I do want moderators on HN enforcing the HN guidelines, just like I want Blizzard to enforce the "Blizzard guidelines" in their games, whatever they may be.

And honestly, the fact you think this "ultimately caters to a tiny fraction of gamers while worsening the experience for the majority" tells me you're part of the problem; you're probably often toxic to other players (even if you don't notice it), get your account muted/locked out/whatever, and then think that you did nothing wrong and everyone's in the same boat as you.

You wouldn't believe how many times I've seen this. People who think their behaviour is OK, who think they're not making the experience worse for other players. Then they wonder why they got banned. They go on the game's forums, subreddit, etc and complain "[studio] is banning people randomly!". And then some fed up dev from the studio pulls up chat logs and reveals some disgusting behaviour.

> If this were such a massive problem, millions of people wouldn't be spending billions of dollars and hundreds millions of man hours playing these games.

Thousands of companies are spending millions of dollars fighting that problem because it's affecting their players' experience, which ultimately affects players' willingness to buy and play the studio's games. Once again, that you think they'd willingly cater to a "tiny fraction" of their base, is absurd and gives a glimpse of your true nature.

You realize you're talking about a video game, right? Calm down.

>And honestly, the fact you think this "ultimately caters to a tiny fraction of gamers while worsening the experience for the majority" tells me you're part of the problem; you're probably often toxic to other players (even if you don't notice it), get your account muted/locked out/whatever, and then think that you did nothing wrong and everyone's in the same boat as you.

Sorry for having the wrong opinion, but personal attacks are uncalled for.

Ironic.

So, to illustrate my point, would you prefer that heavy handed mods step in to censor you according to their definition of toxicity, or would you rather have the freedom to continue this discussion to possibly reach some resolution?

I prefer to put faith in peoples' ability to resolve conflict without vague rules regarding inconsistent notions of toxicity, especially in the context of gaming, where I can leave and join another game more or less any time.

> would you prefer that heavy handed mods step in to censor you according to their definition of toxicity

Heavy handed modding has flagged me and even limited my ability to post in the past. I don't necessarily agree with it (although it was deserved a few times), but mods are the arbiters of the community, not me. They have the option of listening to user feedback in aggregate.

It works the same in games. The studio is the arbiter of the community, not the players. The players give feedback to the studio. The studio has the option of listening.

And players have been giving feedback in troves that toxicity sucks, that toxic players ruin other players' gaming experience, and that they want that gone. Studios are listening. If you're getting caught on the wrong end of this, try being nicer to people.

If you prefer to put faith in people's abilities (at this point in time) you're being intentionally headstrong in the face of overwhelming proof that that doesn't work. It's been a very long time since the games in question have launched and they're filled with toxicity.

>overwhelming proof that that doesn't work.

Like billions of dollars and probably billions of man hours worth of gaming in an industry that is only growing?

Have you considered further that some degree of so called toxicity is inherent to the fun of gaming?

Why stop there? Why not set standards for content as well? You're talking about games that simulate violence, killing, war in general, but you demand that the playerbase act in accordance to your personal sensibilities?

What proof do you have that the majority of gamers aren't fine with the status quo? Why are you so convinced that arbitrary rules against toxicity don't lessen the experience for the majority?

> Like billions of dollars and probably billions of man hours worth of gaming in an industry that is only growing?

Post hoc ergo propter hoc: just because the industry is growing doesn't mean that people don't mind toxicity. It's possible the industry would be growing even faster if there was less toxicity, for example.

> Have you considered further that some degree of so called toxicity is inherent to the fun of gaming?

Maybe some people enjoy being called a faggot by randoms on Xbox, but I don't. I'd go so far as to say the majority of people prefer not to be called slurs by random strangers. Can't we do something to stop that?

> Why stop there? Why not set standards for content as well? You're talking about games that simulate violence, killing, war in general, but you demand that the playerbase act in accordance to your personal sensibilities?

Why is any attempt to prevent any form of toxicity a slippery slope that can only lead to some sort of Orwellian nightmare of censorship?

And if you keep getting that toxicity thrown in your face game after game after game?

> I'd really rather not have video game designers and video game journalists forcing their versions morality onto me.

Unless you're using your own servers for the game and they're still doing this, they aren't really forcing you to do anything. They're their servers, so they go by their rules. If you don't like it, you can just, y'know, not play the game.

I was going to agree that forcing was a less than ideal word choice, hence my edit, but it occurs to me that we've invested time and money into these games, only to have rules potentially changed on the whim of developers. They're not exactly going to issue refunds to suddenly unhappy players.

Moreover, when these developers have access to the minds of hundreds of millions of people, including children, there is a degree of cultural forcing involved. These developers' ideas of right and wrong are potentially influencing society, and this is something that non gamers have little control over.

At the very least, journalists have a responsibility to recognize that toxicity is not universal. One could argue that there is potential for priming young people toward obscenity laws and nanny statism, when they are conditioned to look toward authority for resolution of all problems.

Farfetched, perhaps, but I personally believe that people need to learn to deal with such problems on their own, because external solutions are not always available or enforceable. This could easily have unforseen consequences.

Obviously unpopular opinion, but the reason I enjoy online games is the wild-west attitude. CS:GO, Dota, League, etc all are very exciting to me because the point of the game is engineering your team mates, learning who is going to be obnoxious, shit talking with them, etc. Every once in a while games will be 100% ruined by someone, but I find it's very rare. Cost of playing the game, and it happens equally as often on the other team no doubt (I'd argue more, because my entire focus is on team cohesion).

I really don't understand why people think it's okay to push a perfectly sanitary online gaming atmosphere. To me the whole point is that it's NOT sanitary.

Here's the thing. How much that toxic shit bothers you is a function of multiple things, but ultimately it's a bell curve. Some people are going to fall to the far left and think it's great, some people are going to fall to the far right and be unwilling or unable to engage with even the slightest amount of shit.

You're at the median of your own experience, but what if you're near the far left of the bell curve across all players?

> what if you're near the far left of the bell curve across all players?

I probably am - I honestly enjoy the trash-talking, even when it grossly violates cultural norms. I feel like it's a part of the "gamer culture" that I enjoy.

I also get that there are (probably a lot) of people that don't want it. I just hope that there will continue to be a place for people who don't want to be subject to the censorship.

To be honest, I really don't understand why it's acceptable to constantly spew racial or sexual slurs at other people. I also don't understand why it's acceptable to throw a ranked match because you believe someone else did something wrong.

I don't want either of those to happen. When they do, it ruins the fun for me. After a while, I will stop playing. Plenty of others agree with me, which is why these companies are taking this seriously. They don't want people to stop playing.

I used to think the same when I started a forum. But after 10 years, I can say with confidence that you're wrong and won't create the ecosystem that you want.

For example, by allowing toxicity to be rampant, you're really just catering to a tiny fraction of people, the toxic people. The opposite of what you think.

If you want to play with quality, respectful players, you'll need to put in the elbow grease to create that ecosystem. Compare the average HN comment (moderated) to the average /r/programming comment (unmoderated). I don't see a lot of "identity politics" going on around the moderation here as you seem to suggest must coexist with such moderation.

Every time someone says "this is about politics" or "they should leave politics out of it" what they mean is the politics they don't agree with. Same applies to the use of "identity politics".

I hope for everyones sake that this is about gaming experience, and not politics. But eh who knows, you're most likely right.

If people were able to keep their racial hatred and sexual slurs out of gaming, then it might be able to avoid politics.

People kill each other mercilessly in games all the time; that doesn't happen too much, at least overtly, in most countries' political systems.

The death is fake, the racism isn't.

In the instances which are the subject of this article, I am sure you're correct. My point is that in-game behavior can be decoupled from behavior in the real world. I've seen in-game bigotry between factions in MMO's, and while I'm sure many of these people are also prone to such behavior in real life, others are role-playing; and although the behavior may be considered toxic, it may seem "fake" to the participants (and some politicians have argued in the past that "fake" murders in video games are also toxic).

I've come around to the idea that role playing racism/sexism in gaming is just a dodge. It's the "just a prank bro"/"can't you take a joke?" of online shitlording. And the vast majority of the stuff that goes down in these games doesn't even fall under obvious role playing -- it's just abuse.

I agree with that. I am not trying to defend bigotry. I think there is room to point out that many people engaged in abusive behavior don't perceive their own actions as abusive. It could be valuable to understand how these people perceive such interactions, and how they might be presented with an alternative viewpoint that may help them to eschew behaviors involved in any harm they could unintentionally be causing others.

As for people who intentionally cause harm, that's a very real issue which I was not addressing with my above comments.

" I think there is room to point out that many people engaged in abusive behavior don't perceive their own actions as abusive."

It doesn't matter if they don't think it's abusive or not. It's still abusive, and they need to be informed of that. If, after that, they amend their behavior, then great. They've learned and grown as humans are supposed to do. But if they continue to insist on the behavior, then they're abusive, full stop.

I agree fully. My initial comment was simply a reaction to the idea that getting racism out of video games would be a first step on the road to getting it out of politics. I think it would be absolutely desirable, but I don't see the issue as one of serial progression. I am afraid it may not have such a causal link that cleaning up some games would lead to cleaning up our politics. Many of the people acting abusively in games may be unwittingly participating in behavior that is encouraged by a smaller set of malicious actors who also influence things outside the virtual world.

You're already accepting HN dictating their version of morality to you.

Heads up buddy. I just logged in because I wanted to thank you for your opinion. You're 100% spot on. Don't get discouraged by the downvotes.