I think a better question is perhaps what causes someone to call a "community" toxic in the first place? I suspect most who do so are ascribing the actions of a few to an entire community, not unlike other stereotypes.
That being said I have no doubt some communities are more toxic than others. Although that kind of relative toxicity has to be incredibly hard to accurately judge. Where does SSB fall in that realm? I don't know, it never struck me as that different from some other FGC sub-communities, other maybe it might skew a little younger. And honestly I don't know of any gaming communities that have a reputation for being a positive bunch, hate to say it.
I wonder what the tipping point is that makes it seem like a whole community is toxic (which is something I doubt to be ever true). 5% of people who are incredibly toxic with 20% looking the other way which enables the behavior? 15/40? 35/65? I really don't know.
I've been keeping track lately of how many jerks I encounter in DOTA 2 and at least so far it's probably really only around 20% or so of players I encounter. And most of those only toss off a few crappy insults. The super toxic I encounter maybe 5% of the time or less. But since very few go out of their way to be fun and friendly and the vast majority are silent, it makes it feel like there is this incredible toxicity. Because if you are going to encounter a comment at all, there is a very high probability that's the kind of comment you'll see.
Does that mean DOTA 2 community is toxic if only 5-20% (if my admittedly very subjective and very inadequate sample size is correct) of the people playing it are?
I don't think anyone's saying that all of the SSB community are terrible. I wouldn't even say that of the League of Legends community. But the environment of a community can be "toxic". In other words, leaning toward being unpleasant over leaning toward being welcoming. Or, in the context of a discussion, toxic may mean that a subject leans toward inspiring troubled or bad conversation vs a subject that is more easily talked about.
For example, I wouldn't consider Giant Bomb to be a toxic community, but I can acknowledge areas of the environment which are toxic to discussion. That's based on observed trends over time and aspects of those who make the majority of comments. Even the moderators appear to have singled in on "toxic" topics which are weaknesses within the larger community. Obviously, a lot of people won't contribute to something being problematic, but a big part of it has to do with who engages in the conversation. Who sets the tone of the environment. Most Giant Bomb members are cool folks, but what sets the tone of Giant Bomb is within those who regularly make threads, comment in threads, and the over-arching influence of the staff. So, even if most people are fine, there can be trends in the kinds of discussions and outcomes we actually have with those who are most active and most cultivate the environment around here.
The same is true for the SSB community or practically any other. A lot of conduct is based on expectation and fitting in. So, if people observe that the norm is one way, there are more inclined to embrace that persona. It's like how you may act differently around different people. You may be more formal with a parent, more shy with a stranger, or more outgoing with a close friend. You may go to a club and be far more crude when hanging around more casual friends than if you were just having a nice dinner in a restaurant. People are people, but a large part of people is their environment and how they adapt to it.
If the SSB pro community appears relatively toxic to someone, that usually speaks to a larger, more pervasive issue of the environment they've cultivated than just a few folks. There are those who set tone and those who enable it, and they are all part of maintaining a community's strengths and weaknesses.
As for the SSB pro community's root cause for this, I imagine it's because they have had to put so much effort into getting anyone to take their preferred game seriously that they prickle a bit at newcomers who may not take it as seriously as they do. That's similar to a problem within the larger gamer community, where many gamers have had to try to defend and justify their favored hobby for years, and while that has helped protect and grow gaming, that same zeal is at times preventing some gamers from accepting any legitimate criticism of the hobby or community they have defended so passionately.
Log in to comment