Thank you everyone for reading and contributing to my previous discussion post. I read your thoughts while I was at work so I couldn't respond in real time. After reading through everything I wanted to add some further thoughts, since a few things about the discussion got me thinking more.  
  
First of all I feel the need to clarify that my previous post does not condone any particular behavior or advocate for any particular change. Nor does it suggest that anyone should feel or think a certain way about the group in question. I made an observation and shared my own analysis. Though I suppose if one only read the first TLDR it was tongue-in-cheek and not actually the substance of my post haha.

I feel like some of the replies were reacting to my post rather than responding to it. You are entitled to your own thoughts and emotions and if you can't empathize with what's going on over yonder it's not for me to tell you otherwise. Just as it's not for me to tell the other side what does and doesn't warrant grief. I've seen the vitriol that the pro crowd exhibits and I understand why some may feel like there's no point in giving them grace. I'm also just another gal and I feel the urge to respond to hate with an equivalent amount of hate too.

I still think there's something worth examining further here.

The reality is people tend to become louder when they haven't felt heard. I'm not saying this is right or wrong, or ok. Yes they've created an echo chamber. Yes there's behavior that comes across as cultish. Yes there are bad actors, leaders and inciters.

But if we're going to make that comparison I think it's also worth considering the people who make up these groups. People who are lost, isolated or lacking a reliable source of support can become particularly dependent on a community that offers them belonging, validation and a shared sense of purpose. That doesn't make the community's behavior any less harmful but it does help explain why people might cling to it despite everything.

In the chat they would constantly remind the members to take breaks if things got too much then come back when they were ready to support the cott again. It's basically an abusive partner (which ironically they accuse Infold of being) that doesn't even offer a honeymoon phase after they're done running you through the wringer-- that tells you to go sort yourself out and after you can come back to them when you're all better.

The more you demonize a group the more its members retreat into it. The more you challenge a belief the more they cling to it. If the group is where they feel heard and understood then condemnation from the outside can end up reinforcing that dependence rather than challenging it.

How I see it this entire situation has been able to cultivate itself because a significant portion of this group came to the space looking for somewhere to process what they were feeling and had nowhere else to go. An unmoderated anything-goes "general" channel gradually became what it is now.

I also think V has become an easy symbol for all the other dissatisfaction people have with Infold. Some members have even mentioned that it's not just about V. And I believe them. He's just the most tangible thing to rally around.

It's a lot easier to get people to unite over a shared sense of loss than over a collection of grievances that don't necessarily affect everyone in the same way. Strip doggo away and the movement becomes a lot harder to sustain because now you have to get people to agree on what exactly they're fighting for in the first place. V gives all that dissatisfaction a common face and a focal point.

It's a grief support group playing at activism because of all the anger. That's why it doesn't do either function particularly well.

I'm not attempting to fix the situation nor am I thinking that hard about it. Just another girly wanting to enjoy a game after work. Just brief wonderings.

Imagine Maincord had provided a proper send-off for the doggo. Not a V channel but a V grief channel moderated accordingly. A place where you could talk about V being gone, express your disappointment and process the loss without allowing the conversation to continually feed the narrative that he's coming back. Anyone trying to perpetuate that narrative could be firmly dealt with.

Maybe that could have addressed the bulk of the group's need to be heard and given people more room to move on while also making it harder for bad actors to keep the cycle going.

But that is neither here nor there. At the end of the day Infold is a business. Whatever they may or may not feel about the player base their incentives ultimately revolve around the game and its revenue. Their silence says plenty. This situation is being left to fester and I can't help but see that from a business perspective publicity is publicity. Even better when it's free. Never mind that it's negative. The algorithm doesn't care about that.

In fact perhaps this division ends up being convenient for Infold. When the player base is busy fighting amongst itself over V some of that collective dissatisfaction gets redirected toward other players rather than the company. It's now 'us vs them' over the pettiest semantic and typos rather than all of us players against the company's practices we're dissatisfied with. Intentional or not it effectively keeps the player base divided and makes it harder for people to organize around the other issues that Infold would actually have to address.

And perhaps that's the most ironic part of the whole thing. A community that formed because people felt unheard ended up making itself harder to hear.

  
no tldr, read the post smh

Some Further Thoughts on the [] Grief Support Group