90% say: The tone is harsh – how long will the OMSI community keep looking away?

Exactly three days ago, we reported on the harsh tone within the OMSI community and posed the following question: Is it just us – or do you also see the tone of interaction as problematic?

So we launched a survey. Completely anonymous. Every question was optional, every answer could be skipped, which is why participant numbers vary slightly depending on the question. The sole goal was to get an honest snapshot of the current communication culture. Agreement and disagreement were equally welcome.

What happened next honestly impressed us: 225 participants within two and a half days. We closed the survey yesterday evening to evaluate it properly. And at this point, a huge thank you to everyone who took part. We are especially grateful for the many detailed responses in the open text fields. There were honest thoughts, frustration, constructive ideas – and yes, some genuinely thoughtful and reflective contributions.

Now let’s look at the results. And they are – it has to be said – striking.

The very first question: How would you currently rate the general tone within the OMSI community?

Over 90 percent describe it as “rather harsh” or “very harsh.” And nearly three quarters – specifically 74.66 percent, 166 out of 224 participants – clearly say: very harsh. That’s not mild concern. That’s a clear signal.

The next question digs deeper: Have you personally ever experienced an inappropriate comment?

Over 92 percent say yes. And more than 85 percent report having experienced this multiple times. Multiple times. That means we’re not talking about isolated slip-ups. We’re talking about recurring experiences.

Then it becomes particularly interesting: As a new or questioning user, do you feel welcome?

Over 84 percent feel rather not welcome or not welcome at all. Nearly two thirds – 63.84 percent – explicitly say not welcome at all. If a community doesn’t pick up new people but instead discourages them, that’s not a minor issue. That’s structural.

Of course, we also wanted to know: Where does this come from?

The most frequent answers in the multiple-choice section were clear:

Over 80 percent see the cause in the dominance of individual users.
Nearly 60 percent point to an established insider culture.
And 37.5 percent see a lack of moderation as a key factor.

The open text responses were particularly insightful. Every fourth participant wrote something there – which is far from self-evident. Additional points were raised: the publisher, questionable team selection, favoritism toward certain users – especially mod or add-on creators. This specific point was explicitly mentioned twelve times and seems important to many. The topic of trolls was also brought up repeatedly – not only their behavior, but the fact that they are sometimes given too much space and attention.

Then comes a powerful question: Do you think certain well-known members are treated differently than regular users?

Almost 90 percent say yes. Only around 3 percent disagree. That’s not a close split. That’s a clear perception.

The same clarity appears in the moderation question: Over 83 percent feel that moderation intervenes rarely or not sufficiently. More than half say clearly: not sufficiently. This is not a personal attack on individuals – but a collective perception that should be taken seriously.

Particularly striking is the question about resignation or conflict avoidance within the team: Over 91 percent believe this plays a role. That’s an enormous number. It shows that many don’t just see symptoms – they suspect structural causes.

Finally, we asked: Who bears the greatest responsibility for the current climate?

Over 85 percent see long-standing users as responsible. At the same time, over 43 percent say moderation also carries significant responsibility. Multiple answers were possible here – and that’s exactly the point: the community differentiates. It’s not a simple “those at the top are to blame.” It’s an interplay.

So what remains?

The numbers are now openly on the table. And they are clear. But numbers alone change nothing. What matters is what we do with them.

If over 90 percent perceive the tone as harsh, that’s no longer individual sensitivity – that’s a climate. If the majority of new or questioning users do not feel welcome, that’s a warning sign. If most believe well-known members are treated differently, that’s a trust issue. And if moderation is perceived as insufficient, that’s at least a starting point for conversation.

What can be derived from this?

First: Transparency – because over 83% perceive moderation as “insufficient.”

In the survey, more than 83% said moderation intervenes “rarely” or “not sufficiently.” Over half clearly say: not sufficient. At the same time, over 91% believe resignation or conflict avoidance plays a role within the team. These are not fringe numbers. They reflect a strong perception.

The key question here: Is moderation happening – but the community doesn’t see it? If processes run internally but decisions are not communicated transparently, an impression of inactivity quickly arises. And that impression erodes trust. Would more transparency relieve pressure? Would clear, understandable communication also ease the burden on moderators instead of leaving them under suspicion?

Second: Equal rules for everyone – because almost 90% perceive unequal treatment.

Nearly 90% believe well-known members are treated differently. Only about 3% disagree. That’s a massive signal. Even if no favoritism exists internally – the perception does. And perception is reality for the community.

Clear standards and visible consistency are necessary. If rules apply, they must apply to everyone – and that must be visible. Perceived special treatment damages the climate faster than any individual conflict.

Third: Take new voices seriously – because over 84% do not feel welcome.

More than 84% of new or questioning users feel rather not welcome or not welcome at all. Nearly two thirds explicitly say “not at all.” That’s alarming.

At the same time, over 80% cite the dominance of individual users as the main cause, and nearly 60% mention insider culture. These factors align. If a small, loud group shapes discussions and entrenched structures dominate, new users will naturally feel excluded. Space must be created deliberately for new voices – and moderation could actively encourage that instead of merely reacting.

Fourth: A clear stance against destructive behavior – because over 92% have experienced inappropriate comments.

Over 92% report inappropriate comments, most of them multiple times. That’s not an exception – that’s everyday experience. The open texts repeatedly mention trolls receiving too much attention or facing too few consequences.

If destructive behavior remains visible and seemingly consequence-free, many will withdraw. A clearer, visible, and consistent line would send a strong signal – not as punishment, but as protection for the majority.

Fifth: Acknowledge responsibility – because 85% see long-standing users as accountable.

Over 85% see long-term users as bearing the greatest responsibility. At the same time, over 43% also name moderation. This is not a simplistic blame assignment. It’s differentiated: responsibility exists on multiple levels.

Long-standing users shape culture. Moderation sets the framework. If these levels don’t align, friction emerges. Perhaps this is the key: fewer fronts, more dialogue. Less silent endurance, more visible communication.

Sixth: This is not “oversensitivity,” but structural experience.

If over 92% have experienced inappropriate comments – most of them repeatedly – we’re not talking about isolated misunderstandings or overly sensitive individuals. We’re talking about recurring patterns. That means the harsh tone is not the product of occasional heated days. For many, it has become normal. And normalization is the most dangerous state – because people eventually accept it.

Seventh: The gap between self-image and external perception is enormous.

OMSI is often seen as a passionate, knowledgeable community with strong projects. Yet if over 84% of new users do not feel welcome, that self-image does not match the lived reality for many participants.

Internally, the tone may be viewed as direct, honest, and competent. Externally, it is perceived as harsh, discouraging, or dismissive. This discrepancy must be acknowledged before it can be bridged.

Eighth: The dominance of individual users is not a side effect – it’s a core problem.

Over 80% cite this as the main cause. That’s extremely high.

This suggests many discussions are shaped by a small number of voices. When the same individuals dominate conversations, a power imbalance forms. Quieter or newer members withdraw. Moderation could intervene here structurally – not through bans, but by guiding discussions more actively.

Ninth: Criticism of team composition – “internal bubble instead of open body.”

A recurring theme in the open texts concerns team composition. Several participants describe it as “friends recruiting friends,” a network of long-standing, familiar individuals – an internal bubble.

The issue isn’t friendship. It’s perception. When a team mainly consists of long-time, closely connected members, it can appear closed. Many participants describe feeling that concerns from newcomers or lesser-known members are not fully understood because the team operates within a stable internal comfort zone.

This creates distance.

While over 84% say they don’t feel welcome as new users, there is also the impression that the team doesn’t fully grasp the depth of that frustration. If over 90% perceive the tone as harsh, yet no visible alarm seems triggered internally, it looks like a perception gap from the outside.

Which raises a central question:

Would it help to deliberately bring in external energy? New perspectives? People not embedded in long-standing structures?

External impulses could help identify blind spots. They could reconnect leadership to the current community mood. They could make structures more accessible. When a team largely consists of a long-standing circle of friends, there is a risk that criticism is seen as isolated cases rather than structural signals.

Tenth: Insider culture can unintentionally exclude.

Nearly 60% cite an established insider culture as a problem. That doesn’t mean insiders are inherently bad. But strong internal language, old conflicts, or recurring jokes can feel like a closed society to outsiders.

The key question becomes: How can existing community culture be preserved without excluding newcomers?

Moderation holds a special role here. It is not only a rule enforcer, but also a cultural steward. Perhaps this is the point of leverage – with greater openness, clearer guidelines, and more proactive communication. Because when over 90 percent perceive a problem, it’s no longer about isolated incidents. It’s structural.

One thing is important to us: This project was never meant as a reckoning. It’s not about exposing anyone. It’s about entering a constructive dialogue and looking forward.

In the end, it’s not about who is “right.”

It’s about whether we want a community where people treat each other with respect – even when they disagree.

The numbers are there. The perception is clear.

Now it’s up to all of us to act on it.