In recent years (I should specify that it’s been that long, because I can remember these toxicity arguments were being made for years before the recent spat in the Osiris embassy thread), gameplay has become self-critical in a manner that never seems to go anywhere. In that sense, every attempt to “fix” toxicity in gameplay has failed. I will attempt to explain the roots of the arguments about toxicity, the manner in which those arguments have been defeated by practice or counter-arguments, and re-examine critically whether an end to “toxicity” is indeed a goal that is feasible and/or desirable.
What is toxicity, in a gameplay sense? There seems to be this air of “ought” about speech around it. People “ought” to separate out of character and in character dialogue, people “ought” to back off after a while, people “ought” to be nicer. All of these, of course, are relative value judgements, and are usually based on feelings. Those feelings, to be clear, are not invalid, but will not do for a definition. Instead, I propose this: What gameplayers say when they mean “toxicity” is the process in gameplay where there comes about a feedback loop of criticism of an action that is considered to be outside the realm of the normal state.
It is, of course, important to note that this feedback loop is in part fed by the nature of the game as it stands. The nature of that game is that relatively few large-scale events occur. When they do occur, ripples occur throughout the community. Those ripples reverberate, like a reflection in infinite mirrors, until the light focuses elsewhere.
It is then also important that we should define what we mean by a gameplayer. After all, many people who are affected by gameplay never once venture into the forums. Though many jokes about a “cabal” have been made, it is certainly true that very few people care about interregional gameplay. The number of frequent NSGP-goers is likely in the low hundreds, out of a site a thousand times that size. It is also true, then, that a gameplayer is already a uniquely invested individual. Invested in what? Influence. Every gameplayer must, to some extent, possess influence over other people, and that influence rarely can come about by force. It is then true that it must come about by persuasion or attack.
Attack is the act by which a gameplayer is able to convince other gameplayers of their good standing (and, presumably, of the other’s poor standing). I use such strong terminology as a result of the way attack often presents itself: as a million tiny arrows, looking to skewer every which way through an opponent. Why does an attack present itself as such? It is simple: by which other means would you suggest gameplayers perpetrate their ideas? Gameplayers are necessarily involved in a game, and collaboration does them no favors if they are in NSGP for the expressed purpose of playing that game. If collaboration will not work, agreement between historically opposed parties must by necessity be rare, or a result of auspicious circumstance. Long-term agreement would mean the game would end. Thus, division begins.
It may be useful to compare this to existential “othering”. Gameplay is a hyperinflated example of an existential circumstance. Everything is opposed to everything else as a result of necessity to the game, and nothing can be done to stop it. It may now be understood that this is the reason why “toxicity” plays such a role in gameplay.
Could it be that toxicity is, in fact, a result of people making a confusion between the normally obvious in-character/out-of-character line? I venture to say that it would be preposterous to propose such a line. For some sage individuals, it may be (and often is) possible to operate under IC/OOC dichotomy, but the element of emotional investment must be considered. Most players are not so good at seeing the dichotomy in others’ posts, and even if they are, may find themselves to be emotionally crossing that line more than they expect. Emotions cannot be ignored as an element, as much as some stoic would have you believe. Good or bad, they are here to stay in NSGP. The line, then, does not functionally exist if it’s non-existent in some peoples’ minds, ignored by others, and emotionally non-relevant in still others.
I venture to say there is not a single individual in NSGP who has not had this game take an emotional toll on them. The recent Cormac situation does not mean that he is not hypocritical for taking that stance, it means he is being open about a fact not many gameplayers like to admit--the emotional part of this game can get to people, and does. Certainly, others’ emotions is no means by which we judge morality, but it is something we should consider when discussing what “toxicity” means.
People who want an end to this want an end to a game. They want to hugbox their way through a war, but it’s clear that that’s not going to happen, because the root of toxicity is the game itself. So, speaking to those people, I would implore you to take a different approach.
Rejection hurts, losing hurts, and being wrong hurts. But this isn’t a game where we can end a round, take a look at each other, and congratulate each other for a job well done. This is a game in constant turmoil. It’s a game in constant division, constant war. Some may say, “If you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen,” but this game is notorious for not being one where you can do that.
As a result, I have two different prescriptions for NSGP, depending on how we, as players in this game, would like to exist:
Scenario One is a scenario where we decide that we want to keep gameplay the same. The only logical option here is to tell people to get out of the kitchen. This is a mean game. It just is, and there’s nothing that you can do to stop that. Ruthless people are going to play. So, then agitators about toxicity should just take their business elsewhere. That’s what some of you may go for, and I don’t blame you at all. I think it is perfectly acceptable to want to play a politics game where you can be ruthless and mean. However, then I would stop peddling the bullshit about the IC/OOC line. It doesn’t exist, and communities are going to need to address OOC issues with regards to their IC complications and vice versa.
Scenario Two is a scenario where we decide that we take a break from war for a while, and take a bit to think. It isn’t an end to conflict, or an end to shade being thrown, but if you want an out, it might be a good idea to take a break. I propose this, and it might be a bit of a stretch: vote with how you post. Do not post in your enemy’s embassy thread for a set period of time. Don’t engage in snark. Don’t engage in GP. You can’t keep walking a tightrope between engagement and hugboxing. There is no compassion in war. The only option is not to play. So, you want a conversation about ethics in NSGP? Good, have that discussion from a disinterested perspective. Just like there is no shame in losing a round of CoD, there is no shame in losing a round of a nation sim game. Who knows? Maybe you’ll finally be able to quit this time.
You can, of course, switch between scenarios. While they may be mutually exclusive at any given time, they’re not exclusive for all time. Choose how you want to play. Have fun. It is a game, and one with years of your work, if you’re one of the people reading at this point.
There are discussions to be had about how the community treats truly abhorrent behavior, but again, those have to be discussed with regards to both their IC and OOC repercussions. I don’t think I need to do more than bring up the scenario with Imki to demonstrate that they are inseparable. I have no answers on this one, admin teams probably have better ones.
I wrote this essay from a critical standpoint, but I’d like to acknowledge my biases: I’m not innocent in this game. I hurt the community of Lazarus with my actions, I’ve raided many native communities, and I’ve taken up action against the Pacific most recently. I hold no regrets about any of those things. They’re part of the game, and people who don’t understand that should consider permanently opting into Scenario Two. Despite that, I’m very conflict-averse. I like a lot of you people, and you worry me sometimes. I want to make sure you all feel loved and respected in all parts of your life, even if it is a stupid browser game.
Thank you for reading my essay, I hope it sparks dialogue beyond the typical stuff. I’m always open to criticism and further discussion.
