In role playing games, video games and online forums there is a special sort of communication pattern available. It's a conflicting language which is escalated by individuals. The interesting point is, that conflicts in crisis communication are the gold standard for mastering the game. And preventing such a language style won't work in solving real problems.
Let us assume what will happen, if Stackoverflow prevents to downvote existing answers, if Wikipedia stops banning of newbies and if the participants of a video game are only allowed to send greetings to the team players but are not allowed to criticize each other. This is equal to an anti-crisis communication. That means, no problems are there, and no conflicts have to be solved. Such a situation is equal to not playing the game at all.
All the issues in Stackoverflow, all the edits in WIkipedia and all the existing multi-player games in the internet has to do with solving problems. That means, at first there is some sort of issue, and different users have to interact to solve this issue. They are doing so with a crisis communication which is equal to a panic mode. Players who have learned to use such a language are able to become successful in such a game. While players who are not able to cope the stress get excluded from the game or resign by itself.
The best example is perhaps the Wikipedia game. It's a website in which the users are creating an encyclopedia. Everybody who is familiar with wikipedia will describe the situation in the talk sections are stressful. Wikipedia internal conflicts are solved and created with a panic based natural language. In the easiest case, an admin comes to the conclusion that an edit of the newbie doesn't make sense. But longer term Wikipedia editors are criticizing each other in the same tone. Does this crisis communication shows, that the Wikipedia has failed and the projects become obsolete within 2 months? No, it's the opposite. Because at the same time, the Wikipedia articles which are presented as a frontend to the reader have a higher quality since ever.
That means, a stable communication system contains of crisis communication and relaxed appearance at the same time. Let us observe a conflicting computer game from the outside. The different players in the game are communicating against each other. They are tracking conflicts and are not motivated to slow down their voice. At the same time, the game is running great. That means, the experts are playing the game and the success is guaranteed. This sort of mixed impression is available for all complex group oriented games. For example, at Stackoverflow each day thousands of downvotes and negative comments are posted. At the same time, the answer quality of the website is high. That means, if somebody has a problem with programming in a certain language he will find the answer at this single website very sure.
The reason why conflicts and complex problem solving are belong together has to do with asymmetric information. The typical situation in Wikipedia is, that user1 is an expert for a domain, while user2 not. From a technical point of view, both users are not able to work together, because their knowledge doesn't fit together. The same is true for most multi-player online games in the internet. Player1 is a newbie, player2 is an expert and they have never played before in this game. The result is, that they don't understand each other. The interesting situation is that the game will start with this bad situation. The result is, that during the game the users are communicating wrong, and they will make mistake. After recognizing the mistakes, they will lame each other not playing well enough.
This situation isn't located in a certain player, but it's the general pattern for all online games, and for all online forums. The starting situation is, that from an objective point of view, the newly created group isn't prepared and shouldn't work together. But this is never a barrier. No matter which player are attending a game server, the game will start in every case.
The reason why so much conflicts are available is because the players are different. The conflicts will become greater if the background of the player doesn't fit to each other. The users are arguing from very different point of views about the same subject. And the conflict is a clearing mechanism for negotiating with each other, especially in a complex domain.
To fasten things up, it make sense to assume that in every multi-player video games are conflict will become visible and the only question is how the group will solve these conflicts. Solving the conflict means, that the individual needs are matched to the need of the group. For example, a successful interaction with Wikipedia means that an individual is allowed to post something and at the same time the Wikipedia project will profit from it. It's some sort of win-win situation.
If a group or an individual struggles in solving issues, it will become a loose-loose-situation. That means, the user edit get rejected and at the same time, Wikipedia loose an important character who won't contribute anymore.