Social Cohesion or Social Breakdown – An Independent Study on Europeian Citizen Behaviour


Little by little, one travels far.
Vice Chancellor
Discord Moderator

Scientific Research Outcome Report

1. Department: Communications -
The Diggers Dirt (Independent Media Outlet)

2. Researcher’s Name along with designation: Dr. Darkslayer, ED EEN SS ESH, and Professor Istillian, Ed EBS SS EC ESE SPA, University of Europeia

3. Research Title: Social Cohesion or Social Breakdown – An Independent Study on Europeian Citizen Behaviour

4. Major Goal of this Scientific Research Project: The aim of this study was to carry out an investigation on whether Europeian citizens react to random messages/events and ‘bunch’ together, or leave an uncomfortable social situation (take the quick exit out of a situation.)

5. Procedure
  • A total of seven subjects will be added to the experiment within a 24 hour period.
  • Subjects must be Europeian citizens, and already a “friend” contact in either of the researchers friend lists.
  • After the initial two subjects are added, each new subject must say something within the group chat before a new one is added.
  • All subjects must be online on Discord at the time of being added to the group chat.
  • After the addition of five subjects, the group chat will be titled “Test Group 1.”
  • Subjects will then be removed in the following order: Subject 1, Subject 7, Subject 2, Subject 6, Subject 3, Subject 5, Subject 4.
6. Specific Objectives & Research Hypothesis

To determine the social deviation in Europeian citizens added to a Discord messaging group chat with no explanation or information on the reasoning behind the study. Prof. Istillian hypothesised that the subjects would have “awkward confusion” and would be “scrambling to understand [the purpose of them being added to the group chat].” Prof. Istillian also believed that the group chat would see at least a ten percent rate of subjects leaving within the first twenty four hours. Dr. Darkslayer agreed with this hypothesis, that subjects would be “confused at first – with the conversation to deviate into something less awkward once two or more individuals are added.”

• Analysis

On November 24, 2021 Dr. Darkslayer and I discussed a behavioural study on conformity conducted by social psychologist, Solomon Asch. Asch experimented with students from Swarthmore College, and told them they were participating in a “vision test.” Individuals would have to determine which line on a card was longer. However, the individuals at the center of the experiment did not know that the other people taking the test were actors following scripts, and at times selected the wrong answer on purpose. Asch found that, on average over twelve trials, nearly one-third of the naive participants conformed with the incorrect majority, and only twenty five percent never conformed to the incorrect majority. In the control group that featured only the participants and no actors, less than one percent of participants ever chose the wrong answer. The concept of this experiment intrigued us, and Dr. Darkslayer and I proceeded to hypothesise how a sampling of Europeian citizens would react to being added randomly to a Discord group chat. The experiment would require that Dr. Darkslayer, and I to not involve ourselves in the conversation at all, and we developed a method for how we would add our subjects to the group chat - details listed in point 5, procedure.

• Research

Subject 1 and 2 were initially added to the group chat, with subject 2 immediately saying:
  • [08:52]
    is this the elite where we plan our coup of the europeian frontier
  • [08:52]
    for legal reasons that's a joke
  • [08:52]
    hi all
  • [08:52]
    What's up
Subject 1 then remarked, “what is this?”

Meeting our third condition early on meant that we were able to bring subject 3 into the picture too. With subject 1 now also giving us some early feeling on the situation they had been thrown into, responding with: “I am so confused.” Subject 3 and 4 responded simply with, “hi” and “hello” respectively. We noted that the group seemed somewhat subdued and mellow, but our fifth subject quickly changed many variables. Under our conditions on the addition of a fifth subject we changed the group chat name to “Test Group 1.”

Our fifth subject responded with: “:flushedemoji:”, and then quickly renamed the group to “The Power Rangers”. This was an unexpected development, and this level of antisocial behaviour was not what we had predicted. Subject four then asked, “what is the agend here”, and our deviant subject 5 tried to draw Dr. Darkslayers attention with a ping, and said: “speak demon”, then making our controlled groupchat even more peculiar by adding in a gif of the character Gaston from Disneys Beauty and the Beast departing to hunt down “the Beast.” We quickly introduced subject 6, and conversation began between subject 5 and 6. However, things took a sharp turn when subject 6 posed the question, “what is the meaning of this”, and an : ohnocat : emoji. Our rogue subject 5 gained awareness, stating, “I think this is a social experiment” and then changing the group chat profile picture to a picture of a cow. Subject 6 responded saying: “ooohhh myyy, there is a cow, i like it already.” Subject 5 appeared impressed with themselves, stating: “I put it there : smirk :”. Further discussion was then had between Subject 2, Subject 5, and Subject 6, and with the addition of what appears to be Subject 5, Subject 2 began to display aggressive tendencies, especially with the following exchange:

Subject 2:
well, us Scots are not typically known for compliance

Subject 6:

Subject 5:


To free you of the tyranny of the english!

We knew the groupchat was getting slightly out of hand. In our research lab both Dr. Darkslayer and I discussed Subject 5:
Prof. Istillian

  1. They have rebelled.
  2. [
  3. 20:57
  4. ]
  5. The German man.

  6. Dr. Darkslayer
  7. Today at 20:58
    This is interesting they seem to be trying to make the environment more friendly and/or comfortable?

  8. Prof. Istillian
  9. Today at 20:58
    [redacted] is noticing a pattern of onlineness.

  10. Dr. Darkslayer
  11. Today at 20:59
    This is some careful analysis being done I like it a lot
  12. [
  13. 20:59
  14. ]
  15. I wonder if they’ll crack the code more
We then added our final subject, subject 7, and on doing so we also changed the group chat name back to “Test Group 1.” The subjects then began hypothesising between themselves what the reason for them being in the group would be, their awareness became a major risk. Subject 5 was becoming out of control, then quickly changing the groupchat name to “Test Bloop 1”, and then three minutes later changing it again to “Test Bloop 1 - Scottish Independence Supporters.”

They began to query how many test groups there were, with subject 7 noting: “There are 36, each of them is kept in a jar in a mysterious lab.” “Like the other third of my brain,” responded subject 5, humorously.

Thankfully it was time to begin removing our subjects from the groupchat, and we began with our procedure requirements. However, some of our research notes may share our sudden concern as we removed the first subject:
  1. Dr. Darkslayer — Today at 21:10
    Our system is finally working

  2. Prof. Istillian — Today at 21:10
    If [redacted] doesn't meddle again

  3. Dr. Darkslayer
    — Today at 21:11
    Oh my

  4. [21:11]
    This act of rebellion is interesting

  5. Prof. Istillian— Today at 21:11
    Do we have a problem.
Subject 5 added Subject 1 back to the group. Our experiment had been tampered with, and Subject 5 reached out to Professor Istillian pleading, “How can you ignore us like this, do you not like us anymore.” Subject 6 added, “they must hate us.” We quickly removed our next subject in the original order that we had intended, only for Subject 2 to make an unexpected appearance and add subject 7 back into the groupchat. They had grown loyal to one another, and the silence from the researchers had pitted them against us. There was further nonsensical conversation from the subjects, however worst was when our next subject was removed and Subject 6 then added them back in, then appearing to offer a blackmail attempt, stating: Dark wy do you even have me in this group, am I not banned for not giving you dirt on [Professor Istillian].” It was clear to Dr. Darkslayer and I that this experiment had gone out of control, our subjects were defiant and unruly. Some subjects were notably asleep, but we couldn’t risk being unable to continue under our research conditions. The following notes were made as we quickly removed our subjects:

  1. Dr. Darkslayer — Today at 21:16
    Oh [redacted] is breaking the system

  2. [21:16]
    Interest that [redacted] are rebelling and we adding

  3. Prof. Istillian— Today at 21:16
    Very curious.

  4. Dr. Darkslayer — Today at 21:16
    I think we should change the order. Let’s remove those who readd someone back

  5. Prof. Istillian— Today at 21:16
    Okay so [redacted], [redacted] and [redacted] are our problem subjects.

  6. [21:16]

  7. [21:17]
    What dirt have you been asking [redacted] about eh?

  8. Dr. Darkslayer — Today at 21:17
    Drastic action has been taken

  9. [21:17]
    I have no idea!

  10. [21:17]
    [redacted] on about nothing I know lol

  11. Prof. Istillian — Today at 21:17

  12. [21:18]
    [redacted] trying to break us apart.

  13. Dr. Darkslayer — Today at 21:18
    [redacted] has been dealt with and now the group is calm once more

  14. Prof. Istillian— Today at 21:18
    I worry that [redacted] may intervene.

  15. Dr. Darkslayer — Today at 21:18
    Oh there has been a new group

  16. [21:18]
    Let’s respond

  17. Prof. Istillian— Today at 21:19
    We must remove [redacted] from test group 1.

  18. Dr. Darkslayer — Today at 21:19
  19. Prof. Istillian— Today at 21:20
    Interesting that [redacted] left. Good data.

  20. Dr. Darkslayer — Today at 21:20
    I think we are ready to suspend the experiment and make our findings soon on the forums

  21. Prof. Istillian— Today at 21:20
    Of course it was the [redacted].

  22. Dr. Darkslayer — Today at 21:20
    What are your thoughts?

  23. Prof. Istillian— Today at 21:20
    I agree. Time to end the experiment.

• Conclusion

It appeared that although our experiment needed to be prematurely shutdown due to the aggressive and aggravating behaviour of our subjects, our initial hypothesis was correct, to some degree. Subjects did appear confused, some even uncomfortable, at suddenly being brought into a group chat scenario with no explanation. Dr. Darkslayer also appeared correct in his assumption that the group would be less uncomfortable as further subjects were added. However, what we could not have predicted were how quickly the subjects became aware of the experiment conditions, and then began tampering with the group chat with the limited power that they had. Subject 5 in particular seemed to push the boundaries of the experiment to the utmost degree, and subtly attempted to guide a revolution against the experiment under the guise of scottish independence. It appears that Europeian citizens are retaliatory and outspoken, and willing to test the limits of their power, not uncomfortable or even awkward in social groups of more than three people, and will organise a revolution if they sense they are under controlled conditions.

• Subject Data



imperial senator
Forum Administrator
Jorts Connoisseur
Deputy Minister
Honoured Citizen
I was added to two different chats? Very odd behavior.


Drifting among the stars...
Our fifth subject responded with: “:flushedemoji:”, and then quickly renamed the group to “The Power Rangers”.
Subject 5 was becoming out of control, then quickly changing the groupchat name to “Test Bloop 1”, and then three minutes later changing it again to “Test Bloop 1 - Scottish Independence Supporters.”
I knew this was Pichto so quickly!!!! :LOL:


imperial senator
Forum Administrator
Jorts Connoisseur
Deputy Minister
Honoured Citizen
the police are on their way


Nissan: electric cars for electric drivers
Forum Administrator
Supreme Chancellor
Honoured Citizen
Is it good or bad that I was "no" across the board?


Trust me.
Forum Administrator
Deputy Minister
Honoured Citizen
XD I was like 'whoever 5 is, I love them' and it was Honorary Trickster @Pichtonia!

I love case studies, guys, and this harmless experiment shows how difficult experimentation on humans is. We simply cannot be easily predicted and our outliers are really OUT!

Thank you for this!


imperial senator
Forum Administrator
Jorts Connoisseur
Deputy Minister
Honoured Citizen
kuramia is also now on trial for aiding and abetting this crime