Controversial MODERATION : Why refusing to name, call or label troubles is problematic
- Thread starter Logiko
- Start date
Dude, I've been laughed at massively the first day I posted on this forum. There is nothing crazy about that, it's a simple result of the environement.
Now, the question is : Is the entire system too closed off and too gone for a change to happen OR would it be possible to create enough small change for a massive evolution to take place ?
I don't know the answer to that. And that why I love the challenge. It's like an experimentation on top of being a political battle for me, so it's really stimulating.
Yeah, you are right, I'll try to stop.
I don't think I have other reasons to tag them more for now anyway
It's funny how you picture me trying to convince people to be more positive as a way to "recruit people" to be "yes men" in order to "irritate" and "bully" the rest of the forum into changing their "array of opinions".
Really interesting. lol
"Oppression" for trying to .. convince people to stop insulting eachother and spreading hardcore negativity ?
Interesting
There is a reason, it's literally a page long. But damn.. you are proving my point here :
>>
Now, the question is : Is the entire system too closed off and too gone for a change to happen OR would it be possible to create enough small change for a massive evolution to take place ?
I don't know the answer to that. And that why I love the challenge. It's like an experimentation on top of being a political battle for me, so it's really stimulating.
Yeah, you are right, I'll try to stop.
I don't think I have other reasons to tag them more for now anyway
It's funny how you picture me trying to convince people to be more positive as a way to "recruit people" to be "yes men" in order to "irritate" and "bully" the rest of the forum into changing their "array of opinions".
Really interesting. lol
"Oppression" for trying to .. convince people to stop insulting eachother and spreading hardcore negativity ?
Interesting
There is a reason, it's literally a page long. But damn.. you are proving my point here :
>>
Last edited:
I do not share the point of view of anarchist or communist or even soft leftist and yet... I don't think they are negative.
You need to understand that political view implicate social actions. Said actions can have a positive or a negative impact. On this forum, there is a lot of far rightist and conservatist I don't necessarily see them as always negative, but sometimes, they express things, due to their political vision, that ARE negative and harmfull (as proven in the thread).
So I'm targetting those behavior. I do not seek to stop those people from posting, I only seek to make them understand not to post things that are harmfull or highly problematic.
This is the nuance most people don't understand.
I think you missed the point of the entire thread lol
You need to understand that political view implicate social actions. Said actions can have a positive or a negative impact. On this forum, there is a lot of far rightist and conservatist I don't necessarily see them as always negative, but sometimes, they express things, due to their political vision, that ARE negative and harmfull (as proven in the thread).
So I'm targetting those behavior. I do not seek to stop those people from posting, I only seek to make them understand not to post things that are harmfull or highly problematic.
This is the nuance most people don't understand.
I think you missed the point of the entire thread lol
That's because your focus is not on economic or political aspects, so you don't feel very opposed to anarchists or communists, you simply don't care that much. About being negative and harmful, that's from your point of view and is yet to be proven. But I suppose that you're right when you say that if the mods would just ban everyone you disagree with on social issues, there'd be a lot more harmony on the thread because everyone would share the same views.
The point of the thread is that you feel any namecalling done by you is for the greater good and should be justified. Too bad most people don't exactly see it thay way.
The point of the thread is that you feel any namecalling done by you is for the greater good and should be justified. Too bad most people don't exactly see it thay way.
It was proven.
I demonstrated how some post (coming from political vision) can be harmfull MANY TIMES. And I once again proved it on this thread with the Transphobia:
>>
And this proves to me that you actually didn't read what I said in the thread:
At the exception of very specific behaviors such as boting, Having the willingness to attack the forum or the people in it, sharing or saying that are against the clearest rules.
I'm against banning people in general !
And I demonstrated why it was problematic and illegitimate. No matter what people think.
I demonstrated how some post (coming from political vision) can be harmfull MANY TIMES. And I once again proved it on this thread with the Transphobia:
>>
And this proves to me that you actually didn't read what I said in the thread:
At the exception of very specific behaviors such as boting, Having the willingness to attack the forum or the people in it, sharing or saying that are against the clearest rules.
I'm against banning people in general !
And I demonstrated why it was problematic and illegitimate. No matter what people think.
That's just how you see it, someone else may think that another thing is harmful. Saying "the sky is red because I see it red" doesn't mean it's true.
Realistically speaking, banning people with opposite views is the only way you'll ever get closer to the threshold you were talking about. Calling random people a misogynist or a transphobe will only get you another ban, making it ever harder.
It seems there's an almost unanimous consensus that you are the one being problematic though.
Realistically speaking, banning people with opposite views is the only way you'll ever get closer to the threshold you were talking about. Calling random people a misogynist or a transphobe will only get you another ban, making it ever harder.
It seems there's an almost unanimous consensus that you are the one being problematic though.
honestly i have just skimmed this
toxicity reduction only really matters in mental health forums or sections dedicated to MH. that's the only dangerous thing that should be watched over as there's many susceptible young folk that struggle with MH. preventing tipping points matters.
does it matter here? i mean, you could argue that but it varies from individual to individual. it's just that most people don't operate on that basis. no one knows one's life stories unless they specifically go out of their way to share it. but this is not the right environment to do so, it never will be.
toxicity reduction only really matters in mental health forums or sections dedicated to MH. that's the only dangerous thing that should be watched over as there's many susceptible young folk that struggle with MH. preventing tipping points matters.
does it matter here? i mean, you could argue that but it varies from individual to individual. it's just that most people don't operate on that basis. no one knows one's life stories unless they specifically go out of their way to share it. but this is not the right environment to do so, it never will be.
No, that not "just how I see it", its an argumentation based on real life data, activism, testimonies, researches and simple basic human logic.
The fact that a lot people can't even understand that SIMPLE thing is such a toxic environment is normal.. BUT DAMN
It really a thing to bang our heads against a wall over..
No. You haven't read correctly what I said. I'm not mentionning views that are opposite to mine, I'm only talking about very harmfull or very problematic views. If people want to talk positively about Trump, I see no reason to sanction them. I will argue with them, but not advocate for any kind of censorship. Its their right.
What is not on the other hand, its to cross the boundary between political vision and harmfull behavior or very problematic behavior.
And this can be dealt in a LOT of various ways that I will not talk about here, simply because I'm talking about this (or expect to be talking about) with the staff.
All you need to know is that I have a LOT of ideas about a form of restructuration of the entire system of the forum. Said restructuration would creates an environment where I will NOT be needing to do anything.
That's a basic principle of leftism. We do not aim for individuals, we aim for the system. To create good people, you need to create a good system.
So..
Positivity would grow on its own. Simply because the system would allow it to shine.
Indeed. It seems to be the case right now.
Yes. Which is perfectly logical.
To understand why, here is a little geometrical metaphore :
People in the fanbase are (mostly) Triangles.
BUT
This forum was build by Triangle but structured and moderated like a Square. So it quickly transformed a lot Triangles people into Squares. It kept going at it attracted more and more Squares. Even if not all people in this forum are Squares, a few are Triangles. In fact some are even like me or even my opposite:
Me ? I'm a Pyramid.
I'm not a Square and not a Triangle. I'm a 3D pyramid. I'm not the only one I'm sure, but I'm the most visible. Others on the other hand are Cubes. And I'm mostly arguing with those ones.
What I want to do, is not force Cubes, Squares or Triangles to become Pyramids ! What I want to do is transform the shape of the forum into a CONE !
I don't want to force a transformation, I want to let the system do it by itself. If people want to transform, they will transform, if they don't want to transform, they won't transform or will leave. Everyone will be free to do what they want.
So Yes, in a world of Squares and Cubes or even Circles or Spheres... I'm will not make the consensus, it's impossible.
But its not about consensus, its about the will to respect others and the will to strive in an healthy environment. Those two things CAN make consensus and those are the only things that I need.
Now.. maybe I won't be able to do anything. And that's ok .. for me.
Time will tell.
Where is that coming from ?
Who declared that a One Piece forum could not be a safe and healthy space for all ?
Who declared that a One Piece forum was supposed to be exclusive ?
I know. If it wasn't the case, I wouldn't try to better it. Or I would just seek for its destruction.
This forum has a potential in a few domains.
Never underestimate political discussions.
The fact that a lot people can't even understand that SIMPLE thing is such a toxic environment is normal.. BUT DAMN
It really a thing to bang our heads against a wall over..
No. You haven't read correctly what I said. I'm not mentionning views that are opposite to mine, I'm only talking about very harmfull or very problematic views. If people want to talk positively about Trump, I see no reason to sanction them. I will argue with them, but not advocate for any kind of censorship. Its their right.
What is not on the other hand, its to cross the boundary between political vision and harmfull behavior or very problematic behavior.
And this can be dealt in a LOT of various ways that I will not talk about here, simply because I'm talking about this (or expect to be talking about) with the staff.
All you need to know is that I have a LOT of ideas about a form of restructuration of the entire system of the forum. Said restructuration would creates an environment where I will NOT be needing to do anything.
That's a basic principle of leftism. We do not aim for individuals, we aim for the system. To create good people, you need to create a good system.
So..
Positivity would grow on its own. Simply because the system would allow it to shine.
Indeed. It seems to be the case right now.
Yes. Which is perfectly logical.
To understand why, here is a little geometrical metaphore :
People in the fanbase are (mostly) Triangles.
BUT
This forum was build by Triangle but structured and moderated like a Square. So it quickly transformed a lot Triangles people into Squares. It kept going at it attracted more and more Squares. Even if not all people in this forum are Squares, a few are Triangles. In fact some are even like me or even my opposite:
Me ? I'm a Pyramid.
I'm not a Square and not a Triangle. I'm a 3D pyramid. I'm not the only one I'm sure, but I'm the most visible. Others on the other hand are Cubes. And I'm mostly arguing with those ones.
What I want to do, is not force Cubes, Squares or Triangles to become Pyramids ! What I want to do is transform the shape of the forum into a CONE !
I don't want to force a transformation, I want to let the system do it by itself. If people want to transform, they will transform, if they don't want to transform, they won't transform or will leave. Everyone will be free to do what they want.
So Yes, in a world of Squares and Cubes or even Circles or Spheres... I'm will not make the consensus, it's impossible.
But its not about consensus, its about the will to respect others and the will to strive in an healthy environment. Those two things CAN make consensus and those are the only things that I need.
Now.. maybe I won't be able to do anything. And that's ok .. for me.
Time will tell.
Where is that coming from ?
Who declared that a One Piece forum could not be a safe and healthy space for all ?
Who declared that a One Piece forum was supposed to be exclusive ?
I know. If it wasn't the case, I wouldn't try to better it. Or I would just seek for its destruction.
This forum has a potential in a few domains.
Never underestimate political discussions.
Last edited:
i meant elsewhere lmao
you're misinterpreting my point.
i'm saying that in the grand scheme of things toxicity reduction does not matter much for anime forums as much as it would for MH support forums or sections. not that WG or other places shouldn't be exclusive
very few here, possibly no one, would wind up slitting their wrists over political disagreements. if you go to a mental health support forum and are placed in a heated political labyrinth it's a different story. i just don't think it's as dangerous as you're making it out to be here
that isn't to say toxicity reduction does not matter for forums like these, but it's less a priority. the main goal of a forum like this is to ensure there's more traffic coming in. sites like these attract drama for a reason - it's an activity generator and an extremely effective one at that. that won't change anytime soon.
i'm saying something impacting a susceptible group of individuals should be a concern for forums that advertise and are directly linked to MH.
yes, shoot for a kinder world. but the idealism is unrealistic when a forum's culture is already set in stone. it largely comes down to WG's staff (likewise for other anime/hobby forums). if they were to theoretically implement your points, they risk losing and frustrating an already established userbase that's used to things as they are now.
basically i don't care about anime forums and reducing toxicity to this level. it's a nothingburger. sure, mod toxicity when it crops up, but it's not going to change the things you disagree with here. the issues will persist because the users cycling through do.
the changes that might be implemented matter very little to me. it's forums that make an effort to discuss MH and be a welcoming environment and safe harbor for those who need it that would personally concern me. that's how you build a kinder world.
Post automatically merged:
you're misinterpreting my point.
i'm saying that in the grand scheme of things toxicity reduction does not matter much for anime forums as much as it would for MH support forums or sections. not that WG or other places shouldn't be exclusive
very few here, possibly no one, would wind up slitting their wrists over political disagreements. if you go to a mental health support forum and are placed in a heated political labyrinth it's a different story. i just don't think it's as dangerous as you're making it out to be here
that isn't to say toxicity reduction does not matter for forums like these, but it's less a priority. the main goal of a forum like this is to ensure there's more traffic coming in. sites like these attract drama for a reason - it's an activity generator and an extremely effective one at that. that won't change anytime soon.
i'm saying something impacting a susceptible group of individuals should be a concern for forums that advertise and are directly linked to MH.
yes, shoot for a kinder world. but the idealism is unrealistic when a forum's culture is already set in stone. it largely comes down to WG's staff (likewise for other anime/hobby forums). if they were to theoretically implement your points, they risk losing and frustrating an already established userbase that's used to things as they are now.
basically i don't care about anime forums and reducing toxicity to this level. it's a nothingburger. sure, mod toxicity when it crops up, but it's not going to change the things you disagree with here. the issues will persist because the users cycling through do.
the changes that might be implemented matter very little to me. it's forums that make an effort to discuss MH and be a welcoming environment and safe harbor for those who need it that would personally concern me. that's how you build a kinder world.
Last edited:
Of course. This forum is not a MH support, but the reduction of toxicity here is not only meant to serve the forum but the Fanbase at large.
Like I said, this forum is a big stepstone in the fanbase. It's not the biggest, but it is large enough to create ripples in the fanbase. Now, what happens if said ripples are toxic ? Well, part of the fanbase will absorb this toxicity.. it might even transform it.. and it goes on and on.. and it can spread to other forum .. to influencers... and to the entire community.
We must not underestimate the power of nuisance (or positivity) that this community can have.
Same things. It's not because it not dangerous for the majority of the community, that it can't be harmfull or toxic. Toxicity in itself IS dangerous.
Negativity calls for negativity and only creates negativity. Nothing good can come from negativity.
So why choosing to keep it ? Because this forum is supposed to be edgy ? Are we not capable of being edgy without being negative, toxic or harmfull ?
Some say : "We only want to trashtalk"... Ok. Why not. Then why don't we create a space ONLY reserved for trashtalking ? A space where negativity is contain.
I'm sorry, but I thought that coming here, I would be able to talk about my favourite story without seeing EVERY.. GOSHDAM.. DAY how the story sucks.. I mean.. I can understand criticism.. I make a few and strong ones. But if the only thing that you can say consist in constantly killing the mood or the appreciation of other.. and you (not you) have 100 posters that will agree with you and spam the news feed...
What's the point of being in the forum in the first place ? Especially when you not only trashtalk the story, but trashtalk other user at the same time ?
---
Now.. on my side, I've come to understand that if One Piece lover do not reflect on the story in a political way, they won't be able to understand it correctly. This is why I demanded the creation of a political section that ended up being the sensitive section. Ok cool, but that's not the point.
The point was not to reduce political discussion to a small circles hidden outside of the discussion concerning the story. The point is to allow discussion INSIDE discussions of the story. Said discussion being fundamental to really understand the narration.
Again, the depolitization of stories will only create its misscomprehension. And more negativity toward it.
---
So no, worstgen is not Hell. It's just incomplete and disfunctional.
You are god damn right. Do you want to know the first thing I heard about this forum from multiple people ?
"It's toxic." / "It's bad" / "It's a place where Carrot fans can't talk" - Those remarks are the reasons I came here in the first place. Why ?
Because at the time I was facing the SAME behavior from people in the fanbase and I noticed over the years that said behavior (toxicity, insults toward other members, trashtalk of the story) was growing rapidely. NOT because the story was bad, but because One Piece's community was starting to grow more and more.
Back in the days, One Piece had NEVER been on a front twitter trend. The community was still invisible, but little by little with the end of the Whole cake Arc, the beginning of Wano and the rise of reaction channel on youtube .. The community grew, and it started really going wild around chapter 963 and started to attract people who were not really well intentionned.
And what I saw back then, I see here as well.
This forum is known for its toxicity and this is the reason why it is only a SMALL stepstone. It's NOT attractive. The One Piece fanbase are not trashtalker and they are not Oda suckers neither. They just love the story just like I do, but how do you want for them to stay in a place where:
- Everyone trashtalk the story
- Everyone is toxic with everyone else
- A large part of posters depict toxic and harmfull behaviors that are not moderated
- Any deep discussion about the internal politic of the story is prohibited from the main sections
Worstgen is only attracting the part of the fanbase that love to despise the story.
There is no future for such forum. Worstgen must evolve.
Don't be so sure. Read this post and you will understand that what I'm aiming for is not unrealistic at all.
>>
Trust me. I have ideas and those idea will NOT frustrate the userbase but will actually do the opposite.
But I can't really talk about that right now. Just now that what I'm aiming for is not just a change in the rules or in the moderation. It's a transformation of the forum toward something that promotes positivity.
I say "promotes" because I tried first to find solution to "stop negativity", but I realized that it was the wrong solution. At least for the restructuration part.
Again, you need to see this like a mold.
The goal is only to mold the system to shape it in a way that it will promote positivity instead of negativity.
Once the shape of the mold is done, you let people in... and everything will shape itself naturally.
If the work is done well, we could end up in a few years with a forum :
- With more attractivity
- With less toxicity
- With a wild range of interesting discussions
- With a great quality of threads
- With people happy
If I care, there is no reasons that other people couldn't be able to care at one point or another. It's just that my vision tends to be a bit dreamy at times and I see the potential of this place.
Or.. it can stays this way.. and it will end up either in the lambs or as the beacon of the negativity of the fanbase.
Like I said, this forum is a big stepstone in the fanbase. It's not the biggest, but it is large enough to create ripples in the fanbase. Now, what happens if said ripples are toxic ? Well, part of the fanbase will absorb this toxicity.. it might even transform it.. and it goes on and on.. and it can spread to other forum .. to influencers... and to the entire community.
We must not underestimate the power of nuisance (or positivity) that this community can have.
Same things. It's not because it not dangerous for the majority of the community, that it can't be harmfull or toxic. Toxicity in itself IS dangerous.
Negativity calls for negativity and only creates negativity. Nothing good can come from negativity.
So why choosing to keep it ? Because this forum is supposed to be edgy ? Are we not capable of being edgy without being negative, toxic or harmfull ?
Some say : "We only want to trashtalk"... Ok. Why not. Then why don't we create a space ONLY reserved for trashtalking ? A space where negativity is contain.
I'm sorry, but I thought that coming here, I would be able to talk about my favourite story without seeing EVERY.. GOSHDAM.. DAY how the story sucks.. I mean.. I can understand criticism.. I make a few and strong ones. But if the only thing that you can say consist in constantly killing the mood or the appreciation of other.. and you (not you) have 100 posters that will agree with you and spam the news feed...
What's the point of being in the forum in the first place ? Especially when you not only trashtalk the story, but trashtalk other user at the same time ?
---
Now.. on my side, I've come to understand that if One Piece lover do not reflect on the story in a political way, they won't be able to understand it correctly. This is why I demanded the creation of a political section that ended up being the sensitive section. Ok cool, but that's not the point.
The point was not to reduce political discussion to a small circles hidden outside of the discussion concerning the story. The point is to allow discussion INSIDE discussions of the story. Said discussion being fundamental to really understand the narration.
Again, the depolitization of stories will only create its misscomprehension. And more negativity toward it.
---
So no, worstgen is not Hell. It's just incomplete and disfunctional.
You are god damn right. Do you want to know the first thing I heard about this forum from multiple people ?
"It's toxic." / "It's bad" / "It's a place where Carrot fans can't talk" - Those remarks are the reasons I came here in the first place. Why ?
Because at the time I was facing the SAME behavior from people in the fanbase and I noticed over the years that said behavior (toxicity, insults toward other members, trashtalk of the story) was growing rapidely. NOT because the story was bad, but because One Piece's community was starting to grow more and more.
Back in the days, One Piece had NEVER been on a front twitter trend. The community was still invisible, but little by little with the end of the Whole cake Arc, the beginning of Wano and the rise of reaction channel on youtube .. The community grew, and it started really going wild around chapter 963 and started to attract people who were not really well intentionned.
And what I saw back then, I see here as well.
This forum is known for its toxicity and this is the reason why it is only a SMALL stepstone. It's NOT attractive. The One Piece fanbase are not trashtalker and they are not Oda suckers neither. They just love the story just like I do, but how do you want for them to stay in a place where:
- Everyone trashtalk the story
- Everyone is toxic with everyone else
- A large part of posters depict toxic and harmfull behaviors that are not moderated
- Any deep discussion about the internal politic of the story is prohibited from the main sections
Worstgen is only attracting the part of the fanbase that love to despise the story.
There is no future for such forum. Worstgen must evolve.
Don't be so sure. Read this post and you will understand that what I'm aiming for is not unrealistic at all.
>>
Change usually comes from the outside.
It's because the environment's evolution that we start to change, not because of something inside of us.
Let's take an example to understand why:
Take 100 persons and put them on a field in a stadium for 1 complete. You will give 4 people an earpiece and you will place a big speaker in the middle.
Now.. Before going further, I need to explain to you a few things about crowd and group psychology:
There are, in group behavior like in epidemiology, two types of contagion of elements:
- The Simple contagion : For example, diseases or informations. It's a type of contagion where only one contact is enough to propagate the element
- The Complex contagion : It can be non familiar behavior or risky behavior that are hard to adopt. This is a contagion that will need a social reinforcement, in other word a certain % of individual in a group will have to adopt those elements or behavior to propagate it to others.
Now... In 1978, a sociologist, Mark Granovetter, published a paper where he proposed a new concept to understand group behavior : The Threshold model for those complexe contagion. The threashold effect is the INDIVIDUAL threashold in % that people will have before they start to adopt a behavior or an element adopted by someone with a lower threashold.
For example, Militant, activist, or very motivated people (from the right or the left) will have a very low threashold % for certain things, they will directly adopt a belief or a behavior because they are completely convinced. On the other side, people who will be very conservative to adopt new belief systems or behavior will have a very high threashold % (the political side doesn't matter, it's just a question of our ability or refusal to adopt new elements.
What we need to understand is that this Threashold effect create chain reaction effects to a certain point that we call "the critical mass".
But first : With our example, we can sort the 100 persons from the lower to the highest threashold.
Here is a screenshot representing the lower part of the graph from THIS video about the subject in french. If you want you can watch it with subtitles.
As you can see, among those 100 people, there are 4 that have a threashold of 0%, they will adopt the behavior very easily. After that, you have one that has a threashold of acceptation of 4%. This means that to adopt the behavior, said person will need to see 4 people adopt the behavior first.
And by domino effect, the one with a threashold of 5% will adopt the behavior and so on.. until everyone else adopt the behavior. In our example here, it means that 4 people are needed to start the spreading. 4 is therefore the critical mass of the example.
But we also need to understand that critical masses and threashold are different from context to context. For ex, in a period of crisis, people are more sensible and therefore to spread information that could create conflict, the critical mass be be lower.
Another important thing to understand is that the more you have a group that is highly connected, the more the threashold for the members of said group will be lower. For example: You will be more encline to adopte a belief or a behavior if all your friend do it than if a group of stranger does it.
This is why revolution don't start because of influencal people, but because of the streets where people are highly organized and connected. Revolutions are a peripherical phenomenon. (The Arab spring is exemple a good ex of that). So it's very unlikely from a big personnality to spread beliefs if the audience doesn't have a very low threashold to adopt said belief in the first place.
Now, lets come back to our example : if you put music in the big speaker of the stadium and you ask to the four people to go dance... chances are that you will create a group phenomenon where people will start to dance one after the other. Like this in this example where the critical mass was very low due to the relax context and where the threashold was only 1 guy :
The world and Science are amazing
NOW... HOW DOES THIS APPLY TO THE CONTEXT OF WORSTGEN AND MY QUEST ?
Well, as I explained, we need to take into account the critical mass AND the threashold of the group (the users of Worstgen) to go further.
What is currently happening on worstgen right now : The environment, structure and moderation of the forum creates a situation where the threashold for negativity of new users for the acceptation of negativity will potentially fall very LOW.
What does it means for me ?
It means that it practically impossible for me to change toxicity by myself. The threashold for the acceptation of more positive behavior and the end of toxicity is so high (too much people are against it) that there would need a LOT of people (I don't know how many) with the same point of view to create a change. It also means that the critical mass for a positive change to happens is TOO HIGH.
So .. What do I want to do ?
Well, my goal is simple : I want to LOWER the critical mass for the acceptation of positive behavior.
In other words: I want to create a situation where the threashold for the acceptation of more positive behavior will be lowered and where less people will be needed to create a change !
But like I said : I CAN'T do that by myself. So I need to be more clever and use sociology and group behavior studies :
While I will keep imposing a strong moral defense against negativity (in the case where other people start to join my side) ... I will try to BYPASS the threashold problem by attacking DIRECTLY the critical mass.
To attack the critical mass, I need to have an impact on the ENTIRE SYSTEM. This is why I'm trying to convince directly the staff to evolve on different subjects.
By changing the entire system, it will be possible to influence the critical mass and the acceptation for positivity.
It doesn't mean that this forum will become a paradise, but it will be a lot safer, more attractive and less problematic.
And this forum is lucky.. I have a LOT of ideas.
It's because the environment's evolution that we start to change, not because of something inside of us.
Let's take an example to understand why:
Take 100 persons and put them on a field in a stadium for 1 complete. You will give 4 people an earpiece and you will place a big speaker in the middle.
Now.. Before going further, I need to explain to you a few things about crowd and group psychology:
There are, in group behavior like in epidemiology, two types of contagion of elements:
- The Simple contagion : For example, diseases or informations. It's a type of contagion where only one contact is enough to propagate the element
- The Complex contagion : It can be non familiar behavior or risky behavior that are hard to adopt. This is a contagion that will need a social reinforcement, in other word a certain % of individual in a group will have to adopt those elements or behavior to propagate it to others.
Now... In 1978, a sociologist, Mark Granovetter, published a paper where he proposed a new concept to understand group behavior : The Threshold model for those complexe contagion. The threashold effect is the INDIVIDUAL threashold in % that people will have before they start to adopt a behavior or an element adopted by someone with a lower threashold.
For example, Militant, activist, or very motivated people (from the right or the left) will have a very low threashold % for certain things, they will directly adopt a belief or a behavior because they are completely convinced. On the other side, people who will be very conservative to adopt new belief systems or behavior will have a very high threashold % (the political side doesn't matter, it's just a question of our ability or refusal to adopt new elements.
What we need to understand is that this Threashold effect create chain reaction effects to a certain point that we call "the critical mass".
But first : With our example, we can sort the 100 persons from the lower to the highest threashold.
Here is a screenshot representing the lower part of the graph from THIS video about the subject in french. If you want you can watch it with subtitles.
As you can see, among those 100 people, there are 4 that have a threashold of 0%, they will adopt the behavior very easily. After that, you have one that has a threashold of acceptation of 4%. This means that to adopt the behavior, said person will need to see 4 people adopt the behavior first.
And by domino effect, the one with a threashold of 5% will adopt the behavior and so on.. until everyone else adopt the behavior. In our example here, it means that 4 people are needed to start the spreading. 4 is therefore the critical mass of the example.
But we also need to understand that critical masses and threashold are different from context to context. For ex, in a period of crisis, people are more sensible and therefore to spread information that could create conflict, the critical mass be be lower.
Another important thing to understand is that the more you have a group that is highly connected, the more the threashold for the members of said group will be lower. For example: You will be more encline to adopte a belief or a behavior if all your friend do it than if a group of stranger does it.
This is why revolution don't start because of influencal people, but because of the streets where people are highly organized and connected. Revolutions are a peripherical phenomenon. (The Arab spring is exemple a good ex of that). So it's very unlikely from a big personnality to spread beliefs if the audience doesn't have a very low threashold to adopt said belief in the first place.
Now, lets come back to our example : if you put music in the big speaker of the stadium and you ask to the four people to go dance... chances are that you will create a group phenomenon where people will start to dance one after the other. Like this in this example where the critical mass was very low due to the relax context and where the threashold was only 1 guy :
The world and Science are amazing
NOW... HOW DOES THIS APPLY TO THE CONTEXT OF WORSTGEN AND MY QUEST ?
Well, as I explained, we need to take into account the critical mass AND the threashold of the group (the users of Worstgen) to go further.
What is currently happening on worstgen right now : The environment, structure and moderation of the forum creates a situation where the threashold for negativity of new users for the acceptation of negativity will potentially fall very LOW.
What does it means for me ?
It means that it practically impossible for me to change toxicity by myself. The threashold for the acceptation of more positive behavior and the end of toxicity is so high (too much people are against it) that there would need a LOT of people (I don't know how many) with the same point of view to create a change. It also means that the critical mass for a positive change to happens is TOO HIGH.
So .. What do I want to do ?
Well, my goal is simple : I want to LOWER the critical mass for the acceptation of positive behavior.
In other words: I want to create a situation where the threashold for the acceptation of more positive behavior will be lowered and where less people will be needed to create a change !
But like I said : I CAN'T do that by myself. So I need to be more clever and use sociology and group behavior studies :
While I will keep imposing a strong moral defense against negativity (in the case where other people start to join my side) ... I will try to BYPASS the threashold problem by attacking DIRECTLY the critical mass.
To attack the critical mass, I need to have an impact on the ENTIRE SYSTEM. This is why I'm trying to convince directly the staff to evolve on different subjects.
By changing the entire system, it will be possible to influence the critical mass and the acceptation for positivity.
It doesn't mean that this forum will become a paradise, but it will be a lot safer, more attractive and less problematic.
And this forum is lucky.. I have a LOT of ideas.
But I can't really talk about that right now. Just now that what I'm aiming for is not just a change in the rules or in the moderation. It's a transformation of the forum toward something that promotes positivity.
I say "promotes" because I tried first to find solution to "stop negativity", but I realized that it was the wrong solution. At least for the restructuration part.
Again, you need to see this like a mold.
The goal is only to mold the system to shape it in a way that it will promote positivity instead of negativity.
Once the shape of the mold is done, you let people in... and everything will shape itself naturally.
If the work is done well, we could end up in a few years with a forum :
- With more attractivity
- With less toxicity
- With a wild range of interesting discussions
- With a great quality of threads
- With people happy
If I care, there is no reasons that other people couldn't be able to care at one point or another. It's just that my vision tends to be a bit dreamy at times and I see the potential of this place.
Or.. it can stays this way.. and it will end up either in the lambs or as the beacon of the negativity of the fanbase.
To another person your opinions may seem detrimental and harmful, it's a matter of perspective. Your activism on an anime internet forum is inconsequential.
In this case, you define harmful whatever opinion that doesn't coincide with yours on social justice, so yeah you'd basically want mods to silence it for you.
But you did make a consensus, it's just against you. You can just try seeing things a little less black and white.
In this case, you define harmful whatever opinion that doesn't coincide with yours on social justice, so yeah you'd basically want mods to silence it for you.
But you did make a consensus, it's just against you. You can just try seeing things a little less black and white.