I’d guess three things are true of a stable community:
First, 95% of everything that can loosely be referred to as “drama” comes from a semi-consistent 5% of a given group.
Second, all major conflict involves at least one of this 5%, and the majority is composed entirely of members of this 5%.
Third, eliminating a substantial portion of this 5% results in rapid evaporation of the group, and destabilization.
Some number of the 5% are transgressors; they’re part of the dramatic group because they cross boundaries and bother people to an excessive degree.
Some number of the 5% are warriors; they’re part of the dramatic group because they react to those who cross boundaries and bother people (sometimes on behalf of others, sometimes on behalf of themselves). (These people are important to the community, but very bad moderators.)
Some number of the 5% are diplomats; they get involved to try to reach a compromise to end the drama as rapidly as possible, getting entangled in the drama; because of their neutrality, attacking them just isn’t done, and anybody insane enough to do so gets banned. (Good moderators, very rare.)
People can be different parts of these three classifications to different groups. One internal group’s transgressor is another group’s police. Diplomats tend to be defines across one-or-more groups, and I’d guess tend to be close to universally acknowledged as such. Within a given group perspective, however:
Eliminating transgressors wholesale (or never having them) causes the warriors adjust their Overton window on what is acceptable behavior, and start targeting lesser transgressions, until the community eventually destabilizes into constant fights about what constitutes a transgression, provoking evaporative cooling.
Eliminating police wholesale (or never having them) causes non-transgressors to leave, as nobody is around to oppose the worst transgressions and provide a sense of healthy community, provoking evaporative cooling.
Eliminating diplomats (or never having them) eliminates a necessary cap on escalation, and conflicts escalate until everybody not involved in it gets fed up and leaves.
The Pareto Principle is probably the proportion of lurkers to participants; the number should really be 96-4, but 95-5 is a nice, round number, and has a certain… statistical flavor.
I am trying to think of a way to study stable communities that would allow us to make predictions and define these archetypes in explicit, quantifiable terms.
I’d guess three things are true of a stable community:
First, 95% of everything that can loosely be referred to as “drama” comes from a semi-consistent 5% of a given group. Second, all major conflict involves at least one of this 5%, and the majority is composed entirely of members of this 5%. Third, eliminating a substantial portion of this 5% results in rapid evaporation of the group, and destabilization.
Some number of the 5% are transgressors; they’re part of the dramatic group because they cross boundaries and bother people to an excessive degree. Some number of the 5% are warriors; they’re part of the dramatic group because they react to those who cross boundaries and bother people (sometimes on behalf of others, sometimes on behalf of themselves). (These people are important to the community, but very bad moderators.) Some number of the 5% are diplomats; they get involved to try to reach a compromise to end the drama as rapidly as possible, getting entangled in the drama; because of their neutrality, attacking them just isn’t done, and anybody insane enough to do so gets banned. (Good moderators, very rare.)
People can be different parts of these three classifications to different groups. One internal group’s transgressor is another group’s police. Diplomats tend to be defines across one-or-more groups, and I’d guess tend to be close to universally acknowledged as such. Within a given group perspective, however:
Eliminating transgressors wholesale (or never having them) causes the warriors adjust their Overton window on what is acceptable behavior, and start targeting lesser transgressions, until the community eventually destabilizes into constant fights about what constitutes a transgression, provoking evaporative cooling. Eliminating police wholesale (or never having them) causes non-transgressors to leave, as nobody is around to oppose the worst transgressions and provide a sense of healthy community, provoking evaporative cooling. Eliminating diplomats (or never having them) eliminates a necessary cap on escalation, and conflicts escalate until everybody not involved in it gets fed up and leaves.
I would add also that one entity (human) can be different roles on different days; at different times; on different topics; or over time.
Also suggestion adjust the numbers (as they were made up) to the pareto principle
The Pareto Principle is probably the proportion of lurkers to participants; the number should really be 96-4, but 95-5 is a nice, round number, and has a certain… statistical flavor.
Oh man, I really really like this idea.
I am trying to think of a way to study stable communities that would allow us to make predictions and define these archetypes in explicit, quantifiable terms.