Dibs I agree with you about altruism in the case of the definition pushed to the extreme (acts totally disinterested). I do not think that it exists, all our actions are logical, without exception, they all have an interest, even if it is not always clearly perceptible. On the other hand, a more flexible definition of altruism as a social mechanism favoring the construction of relations between individuals of the same community is indeed a reality. Then we give without immediate obvious interests, in order to build strong long-term relationships and form strong groups. Here is my point of view about altruism, a fairy tale in its extreme version but, a reality in its more nuanced version.
As for the ego, I think it's a resource like any other, like money, like food, with the difference that it's a mental resource, of course. It depends on how you use it, it is neither bad nor good by nature.
On the other hand, I do not agree on the relation intentions / actions. I maintain that it is strictly impossible to be certain of someone else's intentions. You can achieve a high degree of confidence, but never be 100% sure. What turns good intentions into good actions is skills, an incompetent person will never achieve the desired effects, if not by luck. Even the acts are not reliable to judge the intentions of others but, they are reliable to protect themselves from the toxic people (that they wish to be it or not).
I agree with your analysis of Walt, although it's a bit easy to say that after he confirmed it himself. I think his way is smart, some studios make the mistake of neglecting the construction of their community, focusing too much on the game itself. While the main activity of any business, including outside the video game industry, is precisely to look for new customers. Many entrepreneurs fail because of this kind of negligence, despite their skills and willingness to do well. A product of good quality that nobody knows is unlikely to sell well, conversely, a product of average quality or poor quality will often find a place on the market as consumers are aware of its existence and think they need it. To think that quality is enough is a naive vision of things that has flowed a lot of business. The ideal is to find the right balance between quality and advertising according to the constraints that are imposed on us.
Regarding the right attitude to face a person who causes problems, I really like what game theory teaches us about this, which is a field of research on the borderline between mathematics and psychology. Many algorithms have been tested to test different strategies and one of them stands out clearly: it never wins but it is she who garners the most points in the end (cooperate give 1 point for each player / betray give 2 points to the betrayer and 0 to the cooperative player, when both betray, no point for anyone). This is the so-called "giving-giving" strategy, even though I think it does not translate like that in English ... In any case, the principle of this strategy is to always cooperate with others as a first action. then to cooperate each time the other cooperates and betray each time the other betrayed. In other words, we can deceive this strategy only once, at the beginning, then, any betrayal will be punished immediately and immediately forgiven, likewise any cooperation will be rewarded immediately and forgotten immediately. Immediate reward, immediate sanction, immediate forgiveness, which gives the other the opportunity to change if he wants to avoid punishment. It is a strategy that is friendly without being naive, I personally like it a lot and that's why I try not to cultivate a grudge, which would prevent me from making intelligent decisions.
Afterwards, I think it's complicated to apply to a forum and that long-term banns are more realistic punishments to keep the toxic people away from the rest of the community. But, it is a principle that I try to apply irl and that works relatively well.
