I just tied an experiment and there are two threads that illustrate the results. Backstory: A few weeks ago. I was in the chat roll. I got into a discussion with another backer about what I viewed as an underhanded suggestion about stun batons. This backer suggested that it was too harsh for NPC's to kill criminals with guns. He was trying to suggest that CIG make the NPC's use stun batons so that he wouldn't have to die when playing a wanted criminal. Total honesty it really got under my skin and I said somethings that I probably shouldn't have. I don't regret the sentiment, because I do stand by the fact that CIG needs to stop with this bias toward that is IMO destroying my enthusiasm for non-combat gameplay in this game. Though, I did feel bad that I lost my temper. Later in the chat the discussion about presenting arguments came up. The there was talk about how being nicer yields better results. How the result completely change and the result is an open unbiased discussion. I have been a part of this community for a long time. I have my doubts. I have seen how this community responds regardless of the message in the OP. IMO this place and Reddit have far too much in common these days. I think this has become a place of 'shoot the messenger.' I can say that there are those who do respond thoughtfully after reading the posts, they give me hope. However, it just seems they get drowned out by people who really don't even know the context of the conversation, who just want to display how much they don't like the presenter. I myself recently admonished a backer who was being mean spirited. In fairness that backer stated that their post was purposed to bash other backers. However, it made me think about the problems with this communities ability to communicate. I had put up another thread before that about my disagreement with my perception of a combat bias. Truly it is a topic that I am passionate about. Honestly, I wanted to see whether this community still had the ability to accept the presenters passion and still evaluate what they were highlighting. I can say that there are still people who are beacons of hope. I was really impressed, though I did see what I expected to see. 'Shoot the messenger'. The Experiment set-up: I felt that for this experiment to work I needed to stick with a topic that I was really passionate about and not cheat. Since I already had one post about combat bias. I used that passion. The first post had already been made: https://robertsspaceindustries.com/spectrum/community/SC/forum/3/thread/non-combat-prejudice In this post I was nice, at least I thought, when I presented the argument. Again the post is legitimate [I want to thank all those who contributed your input was very interesting to read and I found it great to read through. Even the passionate back and forth.] I needed to limit my influence and foster both sides as to limit the bias in the continuing discussion. The second post I found more telling: https://robertsspaceindustries.com/spectrum/community/SC/forum/3/thread/happy-hour-derail-for-me. I have to admit it was difficult to get through this post. I wanted to let my passion and frustration show, but I don't like letting my emotions get the better of me. [ I want to thank those who tried to read through the rantings and contribute in a somewhat constructive manner.] I still really stand by the sentiments. There is a saying 'You learn more about yourself in an experiment than, the subject you are studying.' I learned there is really not much difference in the amount of people who will troll a post. Look at the emoji at the bottom of the OP. [Full Disclosure- I interrupted this experiment. The second post has not had the same amount of time given to the first. My apologies it could not be helped. I am about to be away for a while and I wanted to point at these results because I think they are still descriptive of something useful to the community.] I used the emoji as a as a partial proxy. I felt the emoji tend to influence the future readers results. The scale goes N (negative emoji) P(positive emoji). There also seem to be a small coloration to the type of response you get. I limited my responses to 3 phases. Phase 1 10-15 maximum responses, Phase 2 5-10 responses, Phase 3 10 responses. *The experiment eliminates Phase 2&3 because of time constraints. results calculated from Phase 1 only. Result leanings: Taken from the second day of the posts existing (Post 1) had 22 N, 9 P out of 537 views and 97 responses. By day 2 (Post 2) had 60 N, 1 P out of 520 views and 78 responses. [All results are minus my own personal activity] By day 2 (Post 1) standard Gaussian X bar n= .25 negative, X bar p= .12 positive, root mean(N) .0265, root mean(P) .0138: Negative= 2.6%, Positive=1.4% (Post 2) standard Gaussian X bar n= .78 negative, X bar p= .056 positive, root mean(N) 6.79, root mean(P) = appx .1%: Negative= 99.99% This shows that despite the sampling size the results were negative leaning. Simply because the OP was not a positive shining praise. There are several factors that weigh on the results of this ADHoc experiment. Unidentifiable variables- Trending, outside influence, the reliability of emoji as a standard form of social expression, the reliability of the chosen form of expression,...etc *This is not intended to be an actual published study. Just to show the response to people who don't follow the norms. Interpretation of the result: The only real influence of changing the tone of the response has is to determine how negative the response will be. It has little to no bearing on the positive response. Both were presented on Friday. Both were similar in topic. Both were using members of CIG as descriptive reference. Both were minimally influenced by me. Both stated that this was not an attack on CIG personnel. Effectively the only interpretation is that the OP and it's content is mostly irrelevant the responses are judged based on whether you are praising CIG or voicing opposition. Voicing opposition is responded to harshly. 2: 1 Negative for (Post 1) 100: 1 for (Post 2) Post 2 being the intensely negative profanity laced description. I find it also notable. How many respondents seemed to feed only on the negative responses of other posters who's responses were shorter than the OP itself. You will see the same misinterpretation repeated several times reading through the responses. The point I am trying to make is that this community is becoming incapable of un-biased debate. Regardless of tone the negative nature of responses seems galvanized around simplistic breakdowns of Yay CIG or Not Yay CIG. That is just this forum. Though it is also a microcosm of the whole. Personal impact: I have come to the conclusion that I don't really value contributing much anymore. The years of contentious back and forth and this slanted result of negativity have led me to the conclusion that backing and voicing input is now a zero sum game. I think that is likely more telling about where the perceived state of the video game industry than blaming companies who use the data to run their business. Gamers are the real problem not the data companies collect. The reason projects like SC have never existed in the past is not because CR just thought it up. It is because gamers are problematic. SC to me is just a compilation of many already existing ideas. CR/CIG are introducing their personal flair to the concepts. They are investing in pushing some limitations in technology. However, even CR himself has said that these ideas have been in his head since the early 90's. For me SC will be a testament to trying some new combinations of existing ideas hindered by erratic gamer norms. It will be a great game just not a game of all possible dreams. I am committing to just saying positive things regardless of my actual opinion from here on out. I only want to see what CIG comes up with. I no longer really hang any expectations on the result. Sorry CIG you won't be able to get any actual data from my responses, but you will be able to get a pleasant positive feeling. Good luck to you all and I look forward to seeing you cross that finish line.