Toxicity in gaming culture and the search for tangible solutions.

I'll only address one point.

Beyond other fandoms? No. I think the main difference is that there are more developers to target than there are people who work on some show, like Supernatural (which I know has some elements of toxicity regarding shipping, etc). Fandoms of a show will follow the actors, and perhaps the show runners or main writers. But there are so many more people to follow in game development.

Also, I think the main difference is the difference between active and passive entertainment -- active entertainment like games necessarily forces a player to be more engaged, physically and emotionally, than sitting and watching a show. There is also the possibility that players have of influencing a developer's decisions with regard to mechanics and whatnot. When it comes to online games that are in continual development, developers often solicit feedback themselves. There are only so many scenarios they can think of and play out in their own testing, but things change when you have hundreds of thousands of players.

I'd say that the difference isn't in gaming culture itself, it's with the fundamental nature of different forms of entertainment. Gaming encourages participation, but books, comics, film and TV do not.

I only come to the Internet because of gaming, but I have no doubts that everything else is just as toxic. Civility, patience, contentment, humility, restrain, respect or interest for others, empathy and serenity are not the virtues that are appreciated enough in the modern world, with focus being on extreme individualism, egotism and unbridled passions.

My suggestion is cultivating those virtues in thyself. After all, we have almost unlimited amount of control over ourselves, but next to none over others.

The best thing about the Internet is that walking away is simple. It's mustering your emotions in order to do so that takes a bit of work to learn.

I think it holds true to some extent that every fandom thinks theirs has the worse people in it. In actuality, those kinds of people can be found in many fandoms.

There are some people in this fandom who'll treat you with derision for no other reason than for having a different opinion on a character, an installment in the series or for having made different decisions in the game. I've had the misfortune of encountering the same kind of people in TWD portion of Telltale's fanbase. Rather unfortunately, it is the atmosphere these people created that led to me no longer enjoying participating in the TWD fandom or the MEA fandom. 

On the old BSN we called the ME2 complaint thread "the Free Speech Zone"  

Not really. The only thing I can suggest is somewhat cynical: the fandom needs designated lightning rods, where people who need to vent can go and vent with others, since misery loves company. I know that, jokingly, people say that 4chan, tumblr, and reddit are already considered such places, but each of those have legit fans just trying to do fan stuff without being disturbed by the rioting.

Ideally, some dev (maybe even a made up one that doesn't really exist) would do an AMA type thing in a sectioned off area of a popular social network, like Twitter or Facebook or even Reddit. That would serve as a lightning rod for shit-giving that might pull most of the attention away from places where it's just misbehavior and irksome.

Eh, to me if you don't speak up, nothing will ever change.  Even if they don't listen, at least you did your part in trying to start a dialogue.

The thing is, when dialogue does happen, is to be clear and to be courteous to who you're talking to.  It was actually quite pleasant when David Gaider and other people from DA2 came to the boards to talk with players about 'what went wrong" with DA2.  People were, generally speaking, pretty polite (even after all the grumbling that went on before) 

I know. 

I'm just going to ramble aimlessly on this topic for a bit so I can get it out of my system.

First of all, I do think there's a level of toxicity in gaming "culture" (meaning people who play games consistently and talk about it, online especially) that goes beyond what you'd find in the average book or movie fanbase. Though I have known some book fanbases and also series fanbases to get really toxic but w/e. I think that this is ultimately a side-effect of what games are. You don't get to engage with a book, you don't get to engage with a movie the way you do with a game. There's a reciprocity there that invites and requires deeper engagement and the ensuing increase in emotional investment in the medium. It enables the medium to exist as it does but it also comes with maybe people with disproportionate opinions and poor people skills. 

This isn't to say toxicness is unique to gaming cuz I still hold that if you have a large group of people some of them are gonna suck.

Another thing is that I've noticed that when devs actively and frequently engage with fans in a meaningful way (ie not Twitter, Facebook, the occasional reddit comment etc) they inevitably burn out. I've seen it happen a couple of times and a salient example from this forum (or its previous iteration) is Allan Schumacher. Now overall I wouldn't qualify the interactions they had with fans as openly hostile, generally that behavior never flies and people and mods will fly to their defense but there WAS this sense of almost erosion? I guess? To be constantly met with skepticism or questioned motives or sassy retorts, especially with your own hands tied, that was exhausting to even just watch. Is that toxic?

On how to address it the answers are generally kinda meh. You can get stricter moderation but then what exactly do you tell them to look for? Generally speaking outright harassment or attacks are already not allowed on forums so... too much passive aggression? You could make a rule where you have to be polite to the devs ie some kind of holy cow status. These are too narrow anyway when you consider they'd only work on forums and mass vitriol is probably generated in place like Twitter and Youtube. 

There are also a few things that are actively deleterious to this conversation: diagnosing an issue, saying it should be fixed, that it's not acknowledged but not actually doing or even attempting to engage with it yourself. This is nothing but self-congratulatory bullshit, clearly signalling you don't consider yourself part of the problem but you're sure as shit not a part of any solution with proselytizing the inadequacy of everybody else either. The other one is much more nefarious and concerning and that's the idea that a good fan should say something positive or not say anything at all. If there was a book titled "How to Make Your Consumers Work for You" you can bet your dick and/or uterus that there would be a chapter called "The Self-Policing Fanbase: Tips on teaching your base that the only good fan is a happy fan!" If you listen closely you can hear an EA executive's zipper strain at the idea. The idea of labeling criticism, skepticism, reservations etc as fundamentally negative and a good fan as someone who cheers the devs on rather than miring them in this 'negativity' should be an alarming prospect for anyone. 

As for the perspective that one apple ruins the bunch, it shouldn't, frankly. Being part of something that creates a thing an entire community, a little ecosystem can develop and thrive around shouldn't be chucked out or labelled as deeply problematic because a small part of it is monsters born from radioactive waste. 

This isn't anything new. Toxicity happens in every form of medium you are a fan in. That being said, there are things that gamers and developers need to fix about themselves so we can have a less toxic environment.

I'm not surprised. It takes great endurance and patience to have to deal with the same thing over and over even as the person tries to maintain a positive interaction with the fans / viewers.

I say this because I've been following a popular Twitch streamer. He has been doing this for nearly four years. Every day, he has to deal with repetitive questions regards the games he play from new comers or subs. He answers every time in a cheerful manner. I've to wonder he hasn't thrown up a banner on the Twitch page and tell the questioners to go read it, like some streamers do.

His attitude towards games is the same. If it is bad, he'll stay positive on it but says frankly there're bad aspects to it. He doesn't elucidate very deeply into it, unlike Angry Joe who will bare his passions, analyse the game and says aloud why the game is good / bad, why the devs should not be doing certain practices in developing a game. He gets hit for it, by fans and devs, but there is no denying what he said is true.  

Yeah, I remember people calling Jennifer Helper names like: Hamburger Helper.

I've been at the Gamergate subforum and it's pretty hilarious how they are interpreting as narrative building. The first comment I saw was this:

"You only get toxic if you make shit."

I think there are huge issues with aspects of the culture, especially around inclusiveness - at the moment it seems to be gender as one of the main points, but this also bleeds into this bollocks about 'real' gamers. Look at thediscussion in the ME:A forum about how many obscure rpgs you need to have played to be qualified to comment.
Saying 'well other media are bad' is no excuse to not try to change things for the better.