First of all, substitute the 'server-crossing' with a population in the 1000's, you'll create the very same perceived environment.
Secondly, the issues with the complete automation of LFG tools persist - without the initial social interaction that was required prior to the implementation, the scene for proper interaction cannot be set.
The categories of social interaction established in the first paper aren't unique to just that paper or games, but refer to principles established in the fields of psychology that apply to all aspects of life - the requirements for social interaction to flourish do not change, regardless of the environement at hand.
You could even go so far as to assess this topic from an even more general point of view: system theory.
If you consider a group to be a system in and of itself, it will - as does every system - strive to achieve homeostasis, if the initial set of conditions is universally abided by (directly or indirectly) - regardless of its nature or its implications for the individual elements of the system (e.g.: mute, toxic or pleasent first encounters) - and allows for homeostasis to be achieved, the system will ultimately maintain it. If the initial set of conditions doesn't satisfy the system, it will be rejected (as it comes to anything that involves humans: most of the time in the most meanest of ways).
If the starting up of a group requires actual social interaction, the conditions are set; have been universially 'agreed to' (before, not after the fact), and will be maintained up until to a certain point (= perturbation; e.g.: wipes, loot issues, yada yada) that requires the system to adjust itself.
If in the process of adjusting itself the system (= group; note: groups will most certainly always mutually agree to a certain approach, even if no one raises his opinion or makes an effort to address the issues at hand) deems it necessary, it'll either remove the elements that cause the perturbation, snap into - and maintain - a certain Modus Operandi or dissolve.
We all have been there at one point or another... the group wipes, people go mute, the group wipes again, people get riled up, the group wipes again, people single out each other for mistakes, the group wipes again, people are getting kicked or leave.
If the starting up of a group does not require actual social interaction the respective precedent is set and will be abided by - {Abbd.:} in this very case, a perturbation will be ever more likely to have the system dissolve, rather than simply adjust and recover.
Here, all of us have been there, too. The most cheerful person can join a group of mutists, drag on with his attempts for some time, but will in 9/10 of cases adjust accordingly - {Abbd.:} or an alternative scenario: Mute group wipes, mute group disbands either instantly or after a chain of emotional outbursts, that more often than not resemble the genesis of the most creative of insults.
Undoubtly, it is the extremes that stand out the most, as is with all things - and yes, there are many encounters in automated LFG systems that can turn out hilarious and pleasent, but these fully automated systems allow for these extremes to become the norm. There is hardly anyone that does NOT expect to just plow through a dungeon without being prompted to utter a single word, more importantly there is hardly anyone that still holds the expectation that he'll be greeted; that greeting each other, or other basic interactions will be performed ~ the tiniest of things are what make or break communities.
({Abbd.:} Apply the latter very bit to, for example, an apartment complex: If people greet each other, the atmosphere is generally more enjoyable on a very certain, primal level than it'd be without; the sense of communal and societal reliance [and respect] has a tremendous impact on mental health. One isn't required to completly bond with others - like one would expect in and from an actual relationship or friendship - to make a difference).
In other words, placing all players into a common pool and pushing said potentially 'socially incompatible' players into one group, which they'll cling to due to the established (read: carefully - tbh, masterfully - crafted) stance that every bit of time has to be "effectively" spent (and that anything that does not constitute "effective" play [i.e.: that doesn't help one to participate in the reckless and senseless competition that most games revolve around nowadays] <cannot> be deemed fun) - which will ultimately increase the emotional investment and the chances of outbursts and alike - will have the extremes, that have - prior to the implementation of an automated LFG system - been prevented or reduced in scale by natural means, become the rule.
Whereas, before they were the exception (even if just perceived, the struggle of finding a group at times - more often than not - alleviated the impact of longlasting impressions in regards to the entirety of the community, i.e.: these encounters created a 'common enemy' [e.g.: naturally Developers/Publishers were shout at for bugs, or the players that displayed bad manners], one that does NOT potentially lurk behind every corner [= every encounter]; the etiquette has been continuously upheld, social skills have been continuously maintained - if not only out of 'fear' of repercussions/consequences [e.g.: having yet again to invest time into finding a group on your own]; it kept people in check).
Even if abstract assessment is more often than not considered to be overkill or 'no more than fancy words', it yields answers for all questions - especially those masked by perception or neglected for whatever other reason. I.e.: There is a reason shrinks and their kin exist, for better or worse. {Abbd.:} I really hope I find the bloody paper >_<!
It might help to defuse the impression you might or might not have gotten after reading these and prior ramblings:
I am working in mental healthcare, hence I am kinda passionate about these kind of topics.
