The concept, stage C3 (C3b): after the shelf

This file supersedes concept.md whole (rule 18). concept.md stands as stage C2's version: the one-line enrolment, chosen provisionally at pass 1 and kept at pass 5, with its nearest referents recalled. Stage C3 section 4b tests that guess. Claims about the literature are marked verified (opened on the shelf this stage, with the page) or recalled (from memory, so a reader can check them).

The verdict: a relabelling, which adds a setting and little else

The one-line enrolment is a relabelling. What it names is the preferred acceptance of conversation analysis: the bare answer that takes up an invitation. The concept is renamed as borrowed, the preferred acceptance. What this material adds is a setting. Its claimed function, the replies as the room's head count, failed its test (F-015). The verdict sits close to the third outcome of section 4b, a relabelling that adds nothing. It stops short of it only by the setting. Stage C5's propositions should not lean on a named concept at the model's centre.

What it is, in a sentence a stranger could use

A preferred acceptance is the bare reply by which a reader takes up a call: one line, with no reason given ("I'm in."), because acceptance needs no reason and refusal does. Here it is written, public and given to a stranger's call to labour on a shared canvas.

Where the name comes from

• Conversation analysis (recalled). I believe Schegloff and Sacks (1973), "Opening up closings", set out the adjacency pair: a first part, such as an invitation or request, makes a fitting second part the next thing due. I believe Pomerantz (1984) and Levinson (1983, Pragmatics) set out preference organization: preferred seconds, such as acceptances, come at once and bare; dispreferred seconds, such as refusals, come delayed and marked, often with an account. I hold these from memory; they are not on the shelf.
• Tested here (F-014). The prediction was that refusals of a call carry a reason and acceptances do not. Of 80 seeded reply pairs, 57 had a first part that calls for or proposes an attack. Read for stance, refusals gave a reason in 23 of 38 and acceptances in 2 of 14 (one-sided Fisher p 0.003). The asymmetry holds. The other half did not: refusals were not longer (median 9.5 words against 11.5), since acceptances carry tactics and coordinates.
• Untested here. Calls to place were not tested, only calls to attack. One bare refusal of a call to build shows that the asymmetry is not a rule: "No." [formula1/c0015, h3.17], answering "lets make 'Bwoah' on r/place".

The nearest three, and how each falls short of a better name

1. Self-selection into tasks (Puranam, Alexy and Reitzig 2014, verified, p. 171): contributors choose subtasks instead of being assigned to them. It names the choice to join, not the reply that makes the choice public, and it assumes an architecture someone laid out.
2. Slacktivism, or token support (recalled, writing on online activism): low-cost support that stands in for action. The preferred acceptance comes before action, and in the forest it is answered by placements and repairs.
3. The conditional pledge or assurance contract (recalled; Schelling's commitments, and collective-action writing on pledges): "I will if enough others do". The acceptance here is unconditional and binds nothing.

The preferred acceptance is the closest of all, and it is not one of the three because it fits: it names the form exactly.

What the material adds, and what failed

• Added: a setting. The acceptance is written, not spoken; posted to a public thread, not said to one speaker; given by a stranger to a stranger's call; and followed by labour on a shared surface. I believe conversation analysis has been carried to written online talk, but I cannot verify that here, so I do not claim the setting is new to the literature.

• Added: what a refusal's reason holds. In a refusal of an attack call the reason states the room's norm or the attack's cost: "Nah, keep /r/place neutral." [nyjets/c0087, h47.87]; "our task is to create, not destroy" [placestart/c0117, h45.40]; "Why? That'll just cause them to want to attack us and they're not even getting in our way" [uoft/c0115, h60.07]. That is where a room's norm of restraint gets said out loud. It is now in the mechanism of the restraint arrow (A16).

• Failed: the head count. Stage C2 claimed that the replies under a call are how a room with no roster sees its numbers. Threshold models (recalled: Granovetter 1978) predict that people act once enough others have, and so must see how many have. The read prompted by them found the opposite (F-015, weak). Of 40 sampled first turns on the doubt-about-numbers theme, 11 judge the room's own hands, and none of them rests on who answered or is present:

  • 3 rest on the size of the sub, fan base or game ("The game itself doesn't have enough population to pull this off." [planetside/c0059, h51.05]);
  • 2 rest on the canvas;
  • 1 rests on both;
  • 5 give no ground ("Sadly I don't think we have enough people to make anything :(" [sabres/c0008, h28.35]).

  A thread ground appears outside the sample: "I mean I want to but nobody's here" [torontoraptors/c0060, h33.93]. The rooms judge their numbers by their readership and their canvas more than by their replies, as far as this read shows.

How many communities carry it, and how I counted

Unchanged from stage C2. The form pass found 590 one-line commitments, assents, refusals, thanks and salutes in 337 of 705 communities, under the gate written at C1 (finding FP-01 in form_pass-C1.md). That figure describes the search. It is never counted in the model's arithmetic, and it is a floor, since the coders dropped most items with no code.

Three quotes, through cite.py

• "I'm in." [sips/c0027, h44.92], answering a call to draw sips four minutes earlier.
• "On it." [fivenightsatfreddys/c0483, h56.65], answering a call to clean the room's spot.
• "Did my part." [TeamDignitas/c0017, h10.58].

What having it explains now

• Why a call is cheap to answer: acceptance needs no reason, so it can be one line. This is the mechanism of the one-line answer arrow (A12), rewritten from conversation analysis.
• Why refusals of attack calls carry the room's norms: refusal is the dispreferred answer, so it comes with a reason, and the reason is where restraint is said out loud.
• Not, as claimed at stage C2: how a room reads its critical mass. That claim did not survive F-015.

In the model

Element P15 (a one-line answer that asks nothing back, tied to FP-01) and arrow A12 (call to one-line answer, shown on transitions and never counted, theorised). The element's statement does not change. Its name in this file is the borrowed one.

The candidates rejected, kept here

1. Organizing without decided order (element C01). Ahrne and Brunsson's decided and emergent order (recalled) already names it. C3a bounded its finding: decided order gathers in the small canvas-born factions (F-006).
2. The return to spot choice (finding F-002). A dynamic, the model's material, not a concept.
3. Host framing (dimension D06, coined). Frame analysis and boundary-work (recalled) handle most of it.
4. The relay across time zones (T3-141, FP-03). "Follow-the-sun" work in software teams (recalled) names the practice.
5. A tie from before the canvas naming the rival in the attack call (claim C02, stage C2 pass 5). Rivalry and frame bridging (recalled: Kilduff, Elfenbein and Staw; Snow and colleagues) name it. It is a claim in the model, not a concept.

The candidate I came closest to choosing instead: organizing without decided order. After C3a it is a bounded claim, not a concept.

Part B's return, stage C3

• The concept in one sentence: the preferred acceptance, conversation analysis's bare taking-up of an invitation, here written, public and given to a stranger's call to labour.
• The nearest existing concept and the difference: the preferred acceptance itself, adopted. The difference is a setting only.
• How many communities: 337 of 705 under the form pass's gate, never counted, a floor.
• The candidate I came closest to choosing instead: organizing without decided order.
• The literature a reader would say already covers it: conversation analysis's preference organization (recalled). It does cover it. What stage C2 claimed beyond it, the head count, failed its test.