As much as I hate CoD and wish the issues you highlighted were limited to the CoD community, they are not.

The behavior you described fits many if not most online, semi-anonymous, young, male majority communities. CoD is just one community in that bucket.

Edit:

> I don't know how to fix it, I don't know how you get an entire community to start treating each other like human beings -- but that's what needs to happen.

Hang out around a group of young guys and you'll realize that the groups you described are just an amplified reflection of IRL groups of similar makeup.

If you want to fix this type of behavior you have to change it at a much deeper level than online gaming communities because its a mindset.

People do it mostly for the laughs - even the extreme idiotic shit like SWAT calls... just like they do extreme idiotic shit IRL like fraternity initiations that get people killed. IMO the stuff you're describing is systemic.

I haven't seen the same level of vitriol in most other games. I also play World of Warcraft (off an on, hop in every other year or so), Dota 2, Company of Heroes 2, and a few other games. I'm also active in a couple different gaming communities online. Yes, there are toxic players in each of those other games but nothing as extreme or as densely-packed as in Call of Duty. (Dota 2 is probably the worst, but most of the toxicity is just complaining about game-related issues. I've never seen physical threats or racism/genocidal chat.)

I will say that BF1 in-game text chat on PC can get pretty bad (reminds me of the old IRC days), however I don't see physical threats much (only one threat in the last 4 years) -- however when I played halo 2 online it was constant trash. Are your experiences with console or PC players?

PC, I don't play console games.

And like to be clear, I think you're right that it's a bigger problem than CoD. Absolutely. The toxicity in the other games I play isn't okay either. It hasn't been as extreme or concentrated as CoD, but it's definitely a problem too.

CoD is really the worst, most other communities aren't like this.

I've been in plenty of online, semi-anonymous, young, male majority communities that were overly friendly, welcoming and inclusive to see that CoD is just a pisshole. A bad place. End of Story.

The stuff describes might be systemic but only systemic to a subset of communities, not all of the gaming community.

There's an age factor here.

From personal experiences games with older gamers tend to have less... idiots.

They are still there, it's just they are banished from well admined servers quickly.

Games from Tripwire Interactive are a good example (Red Orchestra, Killing Floor).

---

COD is bad, simply because it is too big and "young". But again if you play on well-admined servers it is not a problem.

I took OPs point to be more about the intensity of the behavior rather than that it exists at all. We shouldn't limit the goal to the eradication of it, when the mere reduction of it would still help a lot. If the CoD community is "amplified" in some sense, then it by definition means that it is possible for them to improve it.

> As much as I hate CoD and wish the issues you highlighted were limited to the CoD community, they are not.

While I agree with the gist of your post, I can't help but feel that pointing out that it's not "special" is the opposite of helpful.

People are mostly equipped to notice problems in their ballpark, and are right to call out problems as they see them. Whether or not similar problems exist in another ballpark is beside the point. Even if other ballparks are worse it's beside the point!

I frequently play Dota 2 and it has similar problems and I don't want to see them there, either.

> I can't help but feel that pointing out that it's not "special" is the opposite of helpful.

I disagree -- I'm pointing out that the issue is not CoD or even online gaming, its a larger issue. You can't really address it on a small scale without understanding the bigger picture.

Can't you? There are lots of higher quality communities out there and if gaming ones were such it'd create pressure for people to improve or stay out. Right now, most gaming communities accept it because of the all-around "well all gaming communities are like this", which contains an implicit "and therefore it's OK and should not alarm you".

Pretty much all issues in life are systemic, this does not at all mean addressing them in a smaller area is ineffective. I'd say most people have a much better chance of addressing it in a smaller area than addressing the systemic problem. I don't see how I, as a gamer, can go modify how "young men" (assuming this generalization is correct) behave, but I can definitely discourage it in any gaming communities I'm a part of.

I don't think some other nice communities I'm in, if they followed the notion of "well, other communities are bad already and it's a systemic problem..." would have been successful.

The bigger picture is unmoderated communities, and nobody said it was limited to CoD except you in saying you wished it was.

A small (or maybe large) army of well-paid moderators who will boot people for abuse would be a good first step. Sure, it's not cheap, but it's got to be worth a shot.

> When Kasich’s adviser asked how this would be the case, Donald Jr. explained that his father’s vice president would be in charge of domestic and foreign policy. > Then what, the adviser asked, would Trump be in charge of? > “Making America great again” was the casual reply.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/20/magazine/how-donald-trump-...

Edit:

I don't know if this is just a gaffe by Trump Jr but it seems to be Trump Sr's style -- hire someone to do the job for you.

> He said on Morning Joe that Trump Sr was not part of this conversation and his head would be rolling for suggesting such a deal

Probably true, I didn't see the follow up.

> What makes you think this is Trump Sr's style?

Nearly every solution he offers up is "I can hire the best people for the job". What is he personally going to do? What position or opinion has he personally offered up that wasn't batshit insane? He called for a "total ban on muslims", for months on end talked about deporting 11 million people, tapped an anti-gay VP. I really don't see how this man is qualified to lead a superpower.

I really don't have a clue how Thiel can endorse a Trump / Pence ticket. Pence advocates "conversion therapy".

Edit: I realize Thiel does not "agree with every plank in [his] party’s platform" -- I'm guessing he loves the tax cuts he will gain of course (so I suppose I do have a clue how he can support the ticket after all). Unfortunately that's also going to throw our country deeper into debt.

Maybe he understands that neither the President nor the Vice President has any authority over "conversion therapy", and finds their positions (or their competencies, or whatever) on the things that they will have authority over as being preferable to Hillary Clinton?

Just a thought.

Thus far trump has paraded Mexicans on stage (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lm6LGITkiz4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJVAaPPXdew) while talking about building a wall between our countries, pointed out black people in the audience ("look at my african american over here" http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/03/politics/donald-trump-african-...) but wouldn't condemn David Duke's endorsement (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/trump-declines-to-cond...) and now gets Thiel on stage after choosing a running mate who thinks conversion therapy is science.

Trumps positions seem to be pro-xenophobia, pro-racism, pro-homophobia. That is the ticket Thiel is supporting -- it is the platform Trump rode to the top. But hey.. muh tax breaks!

I doubt it's anything so pedestrian as tax cuts; Thiel has been quite vocal about his disdain for the democratic system and his desire to see the US run as a quasi-private fiefdom led by a strongman CEO. Since it's hard to find a national-level politician who would support an effort to effectively shred the Constitution, Trump might be his best bet to promulgate his thesis. Thiel is, if nothing else, the kind of guy who plays the long game with his obsessions.

You could argue that having a presence at the RNC as an openly gay, wealthy and successful person could make a strong counter against the prevailing GOP beliefs on sexuality

That strategy did not work well for Ernst Röhm. Given that the entirety of Trump's campaign seems to be one of political expediency, I don't see Thiel being anymore than "Trump's best friend is gay, so of course we're not against gay people!".

Here was a fun surprise: when he said "I'm proud to be gay," the crowd cheered. At the Republican National Convention.

> You could argue that having a presence at the RNC as an openly gay, wealthy and successful person could make a strong counter against the prevailing GOP beliefs on sexuality

You could also argue that he has a net worth of $2.8b and will gain massive tax cuts if trump is elected.

Thiel is endorsing the party which is well known for its racism, its xenophobic rhetoric, its hatred for gays (as evidenced by policies and actions). Trump built his platform on fear and hatred, and he chose a running mate that is known for advocating a dangerous, dehumanizing pseudo-science.

The only message I'm getting out of Thiel's endorsement is greed.

> investigator cross-referenced an IP-address used for an iTunes transaction with an IP-address that was used to login to KAT’s Facebook account

The article implies that the investigator had a FB and iTunes IP address and THEN Apple gave the rest of the user's details but that doesn't really make sense.

I'm guessing that they gag-ordered and subpoenaed FB for account info, but how did the investigator get the iTunes transaction IP address prior to getting user details from Apple?

Edit:

I think the more likely scenario is that FB was forced to give up user details and the only valid info was the IP Address, and then Apple (and probably google etc.) was forced to search through their databases and produce any records related to the IP address in question.

Or maybe the USG has a database filled with iTunes transaction information -- I really wouldn't doubt this at all. I'm sure music is a partial indicator of "dissident" level in whatever algorithm is used to assist investigators.

The FBI found out his bank account information from buying ads. He probably bought something on iTunes and that would be sufficient for Apple to be given a search warrant for any data related to x IP address, billing info, email address, or name. Any identifying details they collected at that point.

Not hard to connect the pieces once you have a money trail. That's an investigative gold mine.

> The FBI found out his bank account information from buying ads. He probably bought something on iTunes

This actually sounds the most believable to me, excellent point.

My guess would be they got the IP address from Facebook and looked that up in a database that shows all connections made by an IP address, then noticed one of the connections was to Apple and based on that got Apple to reveal the user behind it. I doubt Apple would cooperate willingly with dragnet-style inquiries.

what country do you live in? I'm your same height and I don't really have these issues.

US. I also have the difficulty of broad shoulders and something like a 50" chest, which makes airline seats even more fun - if I'm in an aisle seat, I constantly get one shoulder run over by the drink cart because it's sticking out beyond...

At least around here, anything household is designed for the height of a typical 5'5" woman. Counters and tables are low enough that I have to half bend over to use them.

US as well -- I'm going to start paying more attention to sinks. Maybe I do have to stoop and I've just grown accustomed to it.

> broad shoulders and something like a 50" chest

That explains the rest.. I'm a toothpick.

6'2" here. attractive females regularly select me for mating purposes and I make a large sum of money annually.

Where are your [citations]?

The quote is actually:

> provided information on more than 12 million riders and drivers to various U.S. regulators and on 469 users to state and federal law agencies

The article title is wrong I think -- or am I confused? This sentence sounds like they gave away regulatory information as pointed out here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11484270 -- 469 users were targeted, not 12+ million.

> Uber said it got 415 requests from law enforcement agencies, a majority of which came from state governments, and that it was able to provide data in nearly 85 percent of the cases. A large number of the law enforcement requests were related to fraud investigations or the use of stolen credit cards, according to the report.

My math might be off, but I'm pretty sure 415, 469, and 12m+ are three separate figures... and I'm also pretty sure there were not 12m+ requests for cases related to uber fraud.

> rather than terrified of our future as human batteries in The Matrix

Humans make terrible batteries, therefore its more likely we'll just be exterminated.

Especially given how we reproduce without bounds, consume all the resources available, and rather than dying we simply find other resources to consume to maintain our steadily growing population.

Agent Smith was right.

This one is listed as 1963 but should be 1863:

http://dbpedia.org/page/Morgan's_Raid

> 5) Chuck Norris sort

i thought it was more like:

  def sort(x):
    if x == gay || x == intelligent:
      return hate()
    elif x == president:
      return question_birth()
    return 1