What if we stopped looking at each instance of a previously-engaged Hubski member inactivating off the face of the spokewheel-web as a stand-alone incident unrelated to any others - what if instead we started to look at departed users, the dataset, for commonalities, trends, and interesting conclusions - because right now someone leaves and we talk about it, if we notice, and go, "oh how sad, wonder why that happened," and gossip a little I guess, and move on. Then someone leaves again next month or the month after. Wash, rinse, and repeat. We really going with the assumption that all these previously-engaged users are disengaging, visibly and repeatedly, and none of them have any major factors in common? Or is that other people's problems because they're singular points which stand alone, and Hubski's already perfect? Hubski's already perfect never seemed like mk's approach to me.
I'm pretty sure I've said this before and I'm pretty sure I'll say this again - hubski is an insular community. Any small community is insular because you get to know people. You notice when a new, active person comes in and you notice when an old, active person goes out because at this scale screen names do not provide anonymity - they provide a fresh start. As time goes on, who you are becomes associated with your new name and you lose your sense of anonymity and gain a sense of vulnerability. It seems like the people who publicly leave hubski do so as a result of some crushing vulnerability. I think that's the nature of the site at this size. As long as it remains a small community where you know every active contributor, it won't feel like a place you can escape to and the social obligation will become overwhelming to a few - as it does in all small communities.
I don't agree with your analysis but I think it's an interesting one. Maybe there are elements here which I would accept or adopt. Don't forget - over time, hubski will. I don't feel hubski at large knows me very well at all. There have been times hubski at large knew me better. But there's a lot about me, and most of it more impactful than not, that hubski will never know because I know I don't want to share it. Is it reasonable to assume the average user is more likely to share their deep and secret twisty inner weaknesses, vs not? I do agree anonymity inspires the sort of confessional behavior you describe but I guess I don't believe I really see that a lot here or partake in it. Maybe it's this word vulnerability you're using. Is it a user who falls to their vulnerability, or do other actors possibly aim at it?
You say there are things about you that are kept off hubski. It's true for me, too. To your question, maybe it's both. Users share their vulnerabilities, and other users comment on them, not even knowing it's a vulnerability.Is it a user who falls to their vulnerability, or do other actors possibly aim at it?
I think this is spot on. I'm not sure anyone in the main community is intentionally attacking, that would be trolling and to troll for so long and in such a subtle way would be true commitment. I think it's more that two personalities bang against each other and there's a reaction to the impact. kleinbl00 can be an aggressive personality, that's the reason he's well known here, that's the reason community members give a lot of weight to his approval, and that's the reason he's used as an example in a lot of these conversations. But he's just a human on a keyboard with his own human flaws. I think the problem comes when his human personality (or replace his name with any other personality on hubski) is confused with the personality of the site as a whole. And I'm not trying to single out kleinbl00, this exact thing happens over and over in communities online and off.
The gestalt behavior of Hubski's QQers is no different from the gestalt behavior of any social networks' QQers - every criticism is worth six compliments and without robust individual signifiers we have difficulty psychologically regarding "hubski" as a single entity that is either nice or mean to us. When we're frustrated, it's a source of frustration. When we're pleased, it's a source of pleasure. 90% of what we get out of it we get from ourselves because text-based conversation is utterly bereft of the higher-order communications signals that we depend on for context and nuance. Until we all start hanging out in a room with each other every friday, we're going to experience the slings and arrows that every online community experiences.