Predicting, not just watching
A Study in ToxicityTwo potential analyses of toxicity in NationStates Gameplay and proposals on combating it.By Cassett Navasse
“Ultimately, in the end, if you play the game the way you want to play, and you aren't breaking rules doing it, then I think that's success, regardless of longevity. I think part of what leads to the ‘toxicity’ (*even if I think that word is widely overused as a catchall) is the fact that we try to project our own definition of success or our own determination of how to play the game onto others.” - Ultimate Sacrifice in “The Dojo” (March 2016)
“As you can see, everyone here agrees on the definition of OOC toxicity. If you disagree with someone, they’re clearly toxic. If you agree with someone, the people criticizing them are toxic. What we learned here today is that everyone has a point of view and the situation is exactly what they claim it is, no matter what the full situation actually was that led to any given controversial event.” - The Independent Post in “Always Dependable News: You Heard It Here First!” (Sept. 2018)IntroductionAs an active Gameplayer on the forums, I have been engaged in and been the subject of toxicity, with many avenues of origin. From the beginning of my Gameplay career, I have encountered it firsthand by natives opposing piles by DEN, then by raiders when DEN was dissolved, by nearly everyone during the Dank Memes fiasco, from many World Assembly authors during my Neoliberation spree, and now in my second incoming wave of World Assembly proposals along with the tragedy that was the Pacific Restoration Coalition. No seasoned Gameplayer can ever be said to be a stranger to this seemingly omnipresent force, and new Gameplayers may find themselves at the center of it if they are not lucky. Toxicity seems to permeate throughout Gameplay and all of its associated offshoots, and as a result, many have taken it as a necessary evil, a byproduct of Gameplay that cannot be eliminated.
However, toxicity is most definitely not adding to Gameplay, but rather is subtracting from it. Toxicity alone is perhaps the #1 cause of players leaving the Gameplay for Roleplay, or even leaving NationStates altogether; This just shows to demonstrate its immense power as a self-selecting force allowing only certain individuals to prevail. This toxicity is only compounded by certain individuals who tend to intertwine their IC and OOC personas, thus always interacting with other individuals as themselves, and taking every offense to them or their reputations personally. This only causes them to respond in kind, creating further toxicity. Additionally, online predators and manipulative characters also do not aid in reducing toxicity, especially on off-site venues. However, although many Gameplayers disapprove of toxicity and wish for its dispersal, the origin of this toxicity has never been able to be conclusively agreed on, and thus no solid solution been proposed either due to the lack of such a conclusion.
Although toxicity may occasionally have productive origins, it should be argued that in the majority of cases it originates more out of misinterpretation and subsequent misunderstanding. As a result of this devilish duo, a player may have a permanently warped view of another by any event that initially brought that other player to the player’s attention. Widespread warping of multiple players in one’s eyes only leads to a radicalization of one’s thoughts in regards to the NS Community, which only hampers any potential reduction of toxicity. Unfortunately, as Gameplay (and real life news cycles in general) tends to favor negative news, it is much more common to remember one for their faults rather than their successes. Add this to an unclear distinction between In-Character and Out-of-Character attitudes and you have the toxic cesspool of Gameplay today.
Two Potential Definitions of Toxicity 1What exactly is this much bemoaned monster, who seemingly tears us apart? Unfortunately, toxicity has never been conclusively defined before in a publication, although it has been approached by varying angles. Before we begin, it is of the utmost importance to know that there are two methods to define a word; A
positive definition of toxicity would define exactly what toxicity is and identify everything else as not toxic, while a
negative definition of toxicity would first define what toxicity is not and then identify toxicity as everything else that is not toxic (using “toxicity” as a catch-all phrase). These two different methods of definition also tend to favor either the individual or the community, respectively. Both Ultimate Sacrifice and The Independent Post, as illustrated in the opening quotes, leaned towards a catch-all (and thus a negative definition) of toxicity; Ultimate Sacrifice stated that the term was the result of “trying to project our own definition of success… onto others” while The Independent Post satrically described it as “If you disagree with someone, they’re clearly toxic.” Effectively, toxicity can be best generalized (but not defined) as
cognitive dissonance with one’s social environment.Toxicity can be positively defined in NationStates as
the extent that the social environment in which players interact and operate in is poisonous, in the sense that it contains serious threats to identity, moral reasoning, trust, and hope, especially for those who are still relatively young. 2 This definition thus excludes everything in NationStates that does not cause a poisonous social environment as not toxic, essentially allowing the remainder of content not caught by its definition to be “catch-all” under not toxic. However, this definition has serious problems as how one may define “serious threats to identity, moral reasoning, trust, and hope” can vary widely across different people, depending upon their different life experiences. Due to natural biological variance, some people have a higher threshold for manipulation that may be conducted by others, while others may be more sensitive to any sort of social deception occurring, and the same piece of content can be interpreted very differently. Although this definition is most accurate for a single individual, it rapidly diminishes in value when more people are added to the mix.
Toxicity can also be negatively defined in NationStates as
anything that does not positively contribute to the social environment, and if negatively contributing, does not encourage or advocate for the subject of toxicity to move towards a moral and/or commonly agreed community principle. This definition takes the opposite route of the positively defined one as a “catch-all” for everything that doesn’t apply to its definition of non-toxic behavior/content, but has the opposite problem; Instead of hinging on a factor that is usually individually decided, it defines toxicity relative to the social environment and commonly agreed community/moral principles. Although this is a much easier definition to moderate upon as it essentially averages out what is a “serious threat to identity, moral reasoning, trust, and hope” across the community, thus allowing for more (but not entirely) distinct line to be drawn between what is and what is not toxic, it results in the alienation of those who are already being affected by what they consider to be a “serious threat,” and an inadvertent isolationary effect from individuals who have a higher threshold to such activity. Being the most accurate definition for a community, it has the potential to essentially ignore a large plurality of individuals who are not close to the community average.
Associated Problems with Toxicity & Their SolutionsWhat is most fundamentally at odds with suppressing toxicity is the idea that playing NationStates is meant to let go of real life stress; Different people detoxify themselves from real life in different ways, and for some, this can mean having a detrimental impact to others around them online. Unfortunately, this unhealthy manner of destressing can manifest itself in various ways that are all too visible in our community, including rants, spamming, psychological manipulation, and even Munchausen by Internet (“where those affected offer false stories of personal illness or crisis for reasons such as garnering attention, mobilizing sympathy, acting out anger, or controlling others”)*.
3 However, it is likely that most cases of unhealthy destressing simply manifest themselves as unabated, unwavering irritable behavior. This does not mean that all toxicity definitely originates from unhealthy destressing, but it is likely one factor of toxicity on NationStates. A solution to this lies within the relationship between one’s In-Character and Out-of-Character personas in game.
Certain players tend to take NationStates exceedingly seriously, or in essence blend their In-Character and Out-of-Character personas together, which can pose an immense problem in which any negativity the player receives could potentially be interpreted as a personal attack, and thus an attack on their real selves. This is only somewhat abated by only attacking their argument rather than the individual, but it’s all too easy to insert snide remarks towards such an individual that may only hurt and insult him/her even more. The likeliest reason why this has occurred to such an extent on NationStates is its unusual immersivity as an online text-based political simulator, where groups of individuals build entire communities from the sandbox that only consists of nations and regions, and with there being no real graphic-based war function, animosity and personal attacks tend to be transferred through the medium that NationStates was built upon with the utmost precision and bite. This can best be combated by reducing one’s immersion in the NationStates sphere; in other words, taking periodic breaks from the highly engaging social framework that is NationStates. Allowing for other in-person social spheres to play a larger role in one’s social life can reduce the impact and longevity of anything thrown at you in forums or Discord.
A topic that is closely related to toxicity is the often mentioned phrase “constructive criticism,” which is supposed to aid an individual with a task in progress. Constructive criticism can most definitely degenerate into toxicity given that those who criticize often do not know when to stop, while those who invite it often anticipate less criticism then what they receive. However, the line between “constructive criticism” and toxicity can be exceedingly blurry, especially considering that different people perceive toxicity differently, and communities may have different standards on what exactly is helpful and what is toxic, especially in certain cases. Although there is likely no one clear-cut solution on how to avoid stepping over the fuzzy boundary that separates constructive criticism and toxicity, a good guideline is to criticize as much as you believe is necessary until you are certain that you have gotten your point across. Adding more criticism after doing so simply overwhelms the criticized individual and prevents them from actual constructive work.
A Potential Unified Solution“In regard to the overall topic of this thread, the way to stop toxicity in gameplay is to a) stop engaging in it, b) stop tolerating the worst offenders. No one is going to do that, as has been demonstrated again and again over the course of years, so this thread is pointless.” - WolfMac, aka Cormac Stark, in “On the Toxicity of Gameplay | Nice Players League” (June 2015)Toxicity is clearly a multifaceted problem that has many interconnected factors, a poisonous and convoluted web that appears near-impossible to unravel. However, it is pertinent in any concerted attempt to eliminate toxicity that one does not succumb to a nihilist or pessimistic worldview, and lose motivation to do so. Although toxicity may never completely go away, continually attempting to do away with toxicity would create an overall more inclusive community that would be able to sustain more members and invite more cerebral dialogue, allowing an enlightening of knowledge and wisdom along with political skill that would be lacking in a toxic environment where personal & emotional attacks rule supreme over slow but sure logical progression, which is what we need.
A step in the right direction that would help reduce toxicity in the community could be directly labeling every social venue where we interact as In-Character or Out-of-Character, and highly reinforce this division, so that intermixing between everyone’s two personas rarely occurs, and immersion is reduced. Regarding every player as two people would be the ultimate goal of such an effort, which would aid in locking away any potentially damaging or negative political arguments in the In-Character social sphere. Nevertheless, it is inevitable that some Out-of-Character views will result in In-Character actions, but these instances must be treated with caution, for Gameplay is not sustainable if this is freely applied everywhere by everyone. A true solution to toxicity on NationStates could likely be found by the reconciliation of its positive and negative definitions, and thus a fully unified solution that would both be flexible for the individual while convenient for the community to enforce. However, such a solution would likely not have any solid background, in the sense that both individual and community would have to constantly implore themselves to balance between the two solid definitions in the medium between them. Although such a possibility appears unlikely now, it is my hope that we are able to grow ever closer to that potentially perfect medium.
About the AuthorNavasse often spends too much time on NationStates engaging in political discussions and the creation of law in the World Assembly while procrastinating on real life schoolwork. He has undergone a turbulent history on NationStates, drawing the ire of many individuals while gaining the appreciation of very few. When not on NationStates, Navasse can likely be found sitting at a wooden log or bench with his mountain bike next to a dirt trail, watching either a sunrise or a sunset, and contemplating topics inevitably drawing him into an existential crisis.
Notes1. This section’s framework is partially drawn from Unibot’s “Two Fundamental Conceptions of Nativeness,” Essay: The Polysemes of Nativeness
2. Directly inspired by Dr. Jim Garbarino’s definition of social toxicity in regards to families: Garbarino takes on social toxicity
3. Quoted from Dr. Marc D. Feldman’s article Munchausen by Internet: Detecting Factitious Illness and Crisis on the Internet
*Psychological manipulation can occur with or without the presence of Munchausen by Internet. Please remember that the information provided in this paper is intended for your general knowledge only and is not a substitute for professional medical advice or treatment for specific medical conditions. You should not use this information to diagnose or treat a health problem or disease without consulting with a qualified healthcare provider.
Thank you to Imperium of Josh for your OOC proof-reading efforts; they are greatly appreciated.