[quote]Nope. The entitlement is what’s toxic. People “not helping” are really people just trying to have fun. Why should they sacrifice that just to placate someone else’s entitlement?[/quote] Someone asking for help doesn’t mean they are entitled if that’s the case everyone is. You can’t claim that everyone who refuses to help is just trying to have fun. Selfishness is a thing in this world. My previous math also proves my point.

First, you did no math. Second, I didn’t say asking for help was entitled. Learn to read. [i]Demanding[/i] help, where those who choose not to help are subject to harassment—as here—is entitled. And, as I said, the actual toxicity. Face it: if these people didn’t feel entitled, they would be here saying how unfair it is no one helped them, and what a bunch of elitist jerks people are for not helping.

That could simply be them voicing their frustrations. Doesn’t mean they are entitled. Your telling me that you never said something purely out of frustration before? You say demanding for help is rude and yea it is. But so is refusing to help in a rude way, by say insulting someone for their lack of knowledge and experience.

*yeah You seem awfully quick to excuse the true haters while vilifying those who have every right to play how and with whom they choose. And, no, I don’t whine and cry and lash out in public just because I’m frustrated. I’m not 10.

You seem quick to vilify those who just want to vent their frustrations. They’re only human l, but I guess that makes them toxic too

Public tantrums & labeling others elitist for not carrying others are the literal definition of toxic behavior.

[quote]Public tantrums & labeling others elitist for not carrying others are the literal definition of toxic behavior.[/quote] What about those who call out the experienced calling then trash and telling them to just “git gud or don’t play”? Are they acceptable, because I see plenty of those posts too .

In response to some snowflake whining about how it’s impossible to do X, because those mean elitists won’t carry him, right? But that’s not the subject; you’re trying to dodge off topic. Your thesis was that people are obligated to carry others, and that it’s somehow toxic not to. Simply not true, and the real toxicity is the entitled whining.

[quote]In response to some snowflake whining about how it’s impossible to do X, because those mean elitists won’t carry him, right? But that’s not the subject; you’re trying to dodge off topic. Your thesis was that people are obligated to carry others, and that it’s somehow toxic not to. Simply not true, and the real toxicity is the entitled whining.[/quote] You are erroneous on both my viewpoint and in regards to the OP. The OP stated that the pve community is equally as toxic. The examples he used were “must gave specific RNG weapon” or “must have multiple clears by day 1. Example when leviathan first came out one of the many post required you to have Coldheart. Coldheart could only be obtained by preordering the game. That requirement locked a lot of people out because they didn’t preorder. That’s crappy no way around it. When whisper came out most people required you to have it. Despite the fact that there were multiple weapons that did equally as well against bosses. The worst is when clears are required on day 1 prior to anyone officially beating the raid. Or even on day 2 when at most you could have 3 but likely you barely have 1. Or another when the one with specific requirements to join them don’t even meet their own requirements. But if course you will say it’s ok. Because the only people who are toxic are those less capable of less fortunate. Those more fortunate are perfect people incapable of any error. I’m perfectly on topic. You essentially say anyone who asks, not demands, but simply asks for help is toxic. And if they get frustrated and simply say “It’s irritating I can’t get help” is toxic. However if someone asks, again not demand but ask for help and the person tells them to “screw off” or “git gud scrub” that person is perfectly nontoxic. There’s a bias there. Clearly the fortunate are superior to the unfortunate and the unfortunate must be purged without care or regard. That’s is your ideal. Edit: Grammatical fail

Dude, don’t try using big words to sound more educated than you are. Phrases like “erroneously incorrect” just make you look stupid. Also, if you’d been paying attention, you’d know I’m well aware what OP contends, since that was who I replied to. But, once again, you make my point: it’s not toxic to set requirements for a fireteam, but it [i]is[/i] to say that others’ requirements are toxic because they won’t carry you. See the difference? And it was you who stayed quite directly that anyone who was better than someone else has a responsibility to carry others. And that an “environment” where that didn’t happen enough was toxic. I’m merely pointing out that it’s the rampant entitlement that’s the real toxicity.

[quote]Dude, don’t try using big words to sound more educated than you are. Phrases like “erroneously incorrect” just make you look stupid. Also, if you’d been paying attention, you’d know I’m well aware what OP contends, since that was who I replied to. But, once again, you make my point: it’s not toxic to set requirements for a fireteam, but it [i]is[/i] to say that others’ requirements are toxic because they won’t carry you. See the difference? And it was you who stayed quite directly that anyone who was better than someone else has a responsibility to carry others. And that an “environment” where that didn’t happen enough was toxic. I’m merely pointing out that it’s the rampant entitlement that’s the real toxicity.[/quote] Wasn’t supposed to say erroneously incorrect (they mean the same bloody thing), just erroneous but thanks for pointing out my grammar mistake. However, certain requirements could be considered toxic. Specifically requirements that require favorable RNG, preordering, or something that is feasibly impossible (set clears on day 1 when no one has cleared it yet) etc. Entitlement works both ways. If you respond in an overall toxic manner to a rejection that’s wrong, however if you reject a kind request with insults that too is equally toxic.

Still not getting it. There are no—zero, none—requirements that are toxic. Why not? [i]Because it’s their -blam!-ing group, and they can play any way they want.[/i] If you don’t like it, make you own fireteam and play the way [i]you[/i] want. The only way to characterize someone else’s requirements as somehow toxic is to think you’re somehow entitled to be part of that group, and are thus insulted and hurt that the requirements exclude you. Which is the real toxic attitude.

[quote]Still not getting it. There are no—zero, none—requirements that are toxic. Why not? [i]Because it’s their -blam!-ing group, and they can play any way they want.[/i] If you don’t like it, make you own fireteam and play the way [i]you[/i] want. The only way to characterize someone else’s requirements as somehow toxic is to think you’re somehow entitled to be part of that group, and are thus insulted and hurt that the requirements exclude you. Which is the real toxic attitude.[/quote] So even if those requirements are feasibly impossible to obtain, the person doesn’t meet their own requirements, or lord forbid you come across the post requiring certain gender ethnic, or religious specifications. And yes they do happen. Those are terrible. Also if someone asks and you reject them by insulting them for not meeting your requirements because “You deserve what you ask for” that is also toxic