<!doctype html>
<html lang="en">
<head>
  <meta charset="utf-8">
  <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1">
  <title>calm_college-people.txt</title>
  <script>
    (() => {
      let storedTheme = null;
      try {
        storedTheme = localStorage.getItem("theme");
      } catch (error) {}

      if (storedTheme === "dark") {
        document.documentElement.dataset.theme = "dark";
      }
    })();
  </script>
  <link rel="stylesheet" href="/%25latex/styles.css">
</head>
<body class="document-page">
  <button class="theme-toggle" type="button" aria-label="Switch to dark mode" title="Dark mode">
    <svg class="theme-icon theme-icon-moon" viewBox="0 0 24 24" aria-hidden="true">
      <path d="M20.4 14.5A8.2 8.2 0 0 1 9.5 3.6a8.7 8.7 0 1 0 10.9 10.9Z"></path>
    </svg>
    <svg class="theme-icon theme-icon-sun" viewBox="0 0 24 24" aria-hidden="true">
      <circle cx="12" cy="12" r="4"></circle>
      <path d="M12 2v2M12 20v2M4.9 4.9l1.4 1.4M17.7 17.7l1.4 1.4M2 12h2M20 12h2M4.9 19.1l1.4-1.4M17.7 6.3l1.4-1.4"></path>
    </svg>
  </button>
  <script>
    (() => {
      const button = document.querySelector(".theme-toggle");

      const setTheme = (theme) => {
        const isDark = theme === "dark";
        if (isDark) {
          document.documentElement.dataset.theme = "dark";
        } else {
          document.documentElement.removeAttribute("data-theme");
        }

        button.setAttribute("aria-label", isDark ? "Switch to light mode" : "Switch to dark mode");
        button.setAttribute("aria-pressed", String(isDark));
        button.title = isDark ? "Light mode" : "Dark mode";

        try {
          localStorage.setItem("theme", isDark ? "dark" : "light");
        } catch (error) {}
      };

      setTheme(document.documentElement.dataset.theme === "dark" ? "dark" : "light");
      button.addEventListener("click", () => {
        setTheme(document.documentElement.dataset.theme === "dark" ? "light" : "dark");
      });
    })();
  </script>
  <header class="site-header">
    <a class="back-link" href="/outline/calm_college/">Back to directory</a>
    <h1>calm_college-people.txt</h1>
    <p class="path-label">outline/calm_college/calm_college-people.txt</p>
  </header>
  <main class="document-shell">
    <pre class="document-text">## People


undergraduates are stressed
	balancing study, work, and cost of living
	crave relief that doesn’t add another obligation
	would like campus to have spots of calm, not just hustle

		they need
			clear signs that relaxation and low-stakes meetups are normal
			activities that give a break without guilt (painting, cooking, casual chat)
			where they are: lecture halls, food courts, group chats

calm.college is a simple layer for coordination
	people use it to see what is happening
	and to make something happen
		posts
		hangouts
		small signals
	it looks different everywhere
		because each campus already has its own texture
			its own pace
			its own places people pass through
			its own ways things become visible

the important thing is not anonymous interest
	it is visible campus action
		a person sitting in a real place
		a class chat where the link feels socially safe
		a small hangout that proves the vibe without explaining it
		a printable left where students already drift past

	the point is about being local
		not like a calm.college movement dropped onto universities
		because universities are their own little worlds
			each with their own culture
			awkwardness
			and a different rhythm


the first people are already near the signal
		Peaceful Passport people
		students who have come through other Peaceful Foundation projects
		people who see calm.college and immediately feel it is theirs

	people around campus can help in different ways
		students mention it in classes
		people in share houses bring it into daily life
		RAs notice where dorm life feels thin
		supportive staff remove small bits of friction
		lecturers can use or share creative material
	people who know university students pass it along

	ambassadors are not a programme pasted on top
		they are just people who already like the thing
		and now have an easy way to help
			printables
			photos
			art
			Peaceful Passport numbers
			small traces around campus


		campuses as test nets

			campuses are a good first environment for broader local impact
				high-trust
				dense
				semi-structured
				easier identity verification than a general local community

			they already have useful ingredients
				real credentials
				eduGAIN or AAF style verification
				shared spaces
				many people nearby
				cheap nearby events

			that makes them a good test net for local-community tools
				we can learn what actually helps people gather
				before trying the same patterns in neighbourhoods and towns


### Students

	the core demographic
		university students in general
		the natural adopters and primary sharers

	what they want
		spaces on campus that are light, calm, and not awkward
		tyred of polished events that feel transactional
		simple, low-pressure ways to meet others
		somewhere they can pause
		see proof of life
		join something small without awkwardness

	what they do
		open the mobile view to see what is happening in the next hour only
		log a quick mood check-in and see the campus aggregate later
		drop into a low-effort hangout (study chill, quiet art, shared meal) once in a busy week

	the vibe depends on local ownership
		real on-campus action works better than anonymous online interest
		it has to feel like your event, not a movement dropped onto the university
		each campus has its own culture, pace, and preferences
		there is no single calm.college university movement
			just as Peaceful Foundation is a tapestry of local communities
			so are universities

	participation is seamless
		people can encounter the material, participate, and share
		without signing in or verifying university identity
		different groups on campus have traits that make sharing natural

	the focus is on who will adopt and spread
		not only who needs help
		but who finds the thing and immediately feels it is theirs


#### New arrivals
		freshers, exchange students, new campus starters
		especially receptive to tools that make introductions easier
		would like early reassurance that they belong

##### What They Need
			simple, structured ways to meet peers without risk
			visible adoption that signals it’s safe and normal
			where they are: orientation fairs, dorms, WhatsApp class groups

##### How We Can Be Useful
			change open to:
				using Calm.College as one of the default ways to see what students are doing
				treating it as a normal part of settling in (like joining class chats)
			barriers:
				uncertainty about campus norms
				nervousness about walking into the wrong social setting
				information overload in the first weeks
			first actions:
				- scan a QR code early in semester and see a simple list of current hangouts
				- try the “meet people” matching for one small group or interest
				- check the wall during orientation week to see that others feel the same way


#### Isolated commuters
		travel in for classes then leave quickly → miss chances to connect
		see campus as somewhere to pass through, not belong
		would like to feel part of things without heavy commitments
		students are open if they see clear, low-stakes entry points

##### What They Need
			chances to pause on campus without pressure
			informal groups they can join quickly (study, meal, walk)
			visible proof that others are doing the same
			where they are: libraries, cafés, bus stops, Discord study servers

##### How We Can Be Useful
			change open to:
				seeing campus as somewhere they can stay for one extra small block of time
				trying a single low-stakes hangout instead of going straight home
			barriers:
				cannot see what is happening right now
				assume any event will be awkward, crowded, or a big time sink
				do not want to install or learn another heavy app
			first actions:
				- glance at today’s hangouts on Calm.College while waiting between classes
				- notice that some meetups are very small (2–4 people, short duration)
				- use “meet people” once for something simple (study, short walk, quick lunch)


### People who already have a peaceful passport

		signed up through other Peaceful Foundation projects
			learnstuff.today
			reasonable.diet
			and other campaigns that lead into calm.college
			intentionally not quiteasily

		they arrive as friends
			not as identical strangers
			already softened to the Foundation's way of working

		they can find each other more easily on campus
			because they already share a layer of context

		share links travel through existing student channels
			they spread naturally through classes and group chats


### People who know university students

		external to the university but connected to it
			family
			friends
			former students
			people in the surrounding community

		they share by showing it off as a hopeful thing
			something good happening in the world
			students coming together to solve local problems
			impressive enough to pass along


### Supportive staff members

		who they are
			university employees who care about student life
				wellbeing counsellors
				student services officers
				librarians who notice loneliness
				lecturers who see empty seats and quiet corridors
				security or facilities staff who watch the campus flow
			they are not decision-makers with budget power
			but they are the people who notice when something helps

		why they matter
			they have trusted, repeated contact with students
			they know where the gaps are
				which study spaces feel dead
				which cohorts are isolated
				when the official events calendar fails to reach people
			they can lower friction without issuing directives
				allowing a poster to stay up a little longer
				mentioning calm.college in a welfare briefing
				sharing third-space information that would otherwise sit in a spreadsheet

		what they do
			remove small obstacles
				quiet approval for a noticeboard spot
				warm referral when a student seems disconnected
				introducing ambassadors to the right room or contact
			lend credibility without taking over
				students trust staff who have helped them before
				a single genuine mention from a known face
				outweighs any amount of official marketing
			watch and feed back
				they see patterns the platform cannot:
					which hangouts actually reduce anxiety
					which spaces are underused and why
					when student energy dips across the semester
				this feedback improves the campus wiki
				and shapes ambassador guidance

		what they get
			better visibility into student life
				without surveys or formal reporting
				a clearer sense of where support is actually needed
			connection to a calmer campus
				their working environment improves
				when students feel less isolated
				small daily interactions become easier and warmer


### Residential assistants

		who they are
			students who live in a dorm or residence hall
			and help run the community there
			not formal staff
			but they represent the university in housing
			a mix between peer mentor, organiser, and light authority figure
			the go-to person on a floor or in a building

		why universities have them
			students feel disconnected or lonely in dorms
			campus life can get very transactional
			people pass through without really knowing each other
			RAs bring back human connection and structure

		what they get
			free or discounted housing
			sometimes a small stipend
			leadership experience
			but also real responsibility and time commitment

		the vibe that works
			approachable
			calm
			someone people actually want to talk to
			not authority-heavy
			if they are balanced, they quietly make the whole place feel more alive

		what they do day-to-day
			help new students settle in
			organise small events
				movie nights
				study groups
				casual hangouts
			keep an eye on wellbeing
				check in if someone seems off
			handle minor conflicts
				roommate issues
				noise complaints
			enforce basic rules
				quiet hours
				safety stuff

		why they spread calm.college
			they want their residents to engage more and be less lonely
			they have trusted access to the people who most need it
			they are already in the business of making dorm life feel alive


### Campuses

		campuses differ
			but the social texture often rhymes
			students know people without feeling connected
			many interactions are transactional
			people move quickly
			linger less
			and still want connection
				just not performance

		what changes from campus to campus
			how much lingering happens
			how much informal life still exists
			how visible student activity becomes
			how quickly a new habit looks normal
			how much proof people need before they try it

		some campuses are
			commuter-heavy
			residential
			arts-heavy
			professional-degree-heavy
			city-integrated
			residential-college based
			status-conscious
			administratively heavy
			or locally fragmented

		Calm.College fits by staying small
			not larger official events
			not more institutional programming
			a way to post something light
			join something sideways
			find other students without pressure
			and treat campus as somewhere you can stay for a while
				not somewhere to escape from

		the product shape follows from that
			shared noticeboard
			wall
			meet people
			small hangouts
			mobile as a today-view
			desktop as a fuller command centre
			quieter than ordinary social product design


#### Approaches for sharing calm.college

			regions differ in how quickly something feels normal
			how much visible proof students need
			and which channels do the work first

			what changes by region
				receptiveness
				campus culture
				campus type
				the amount of trust needed
				whether spread is physical-first or digital-first
				whether the campus is residential, city-integrated, or fragmented

			what adoption is really moving through
				residential campus cultures
				city-campus cultures
				digital-first coordination cultures
				strong guild or society cultures
				relatively fragmented educational systems


			what makes adoption easier
				cultural fit
				campus norms that already support small groups
				student life with visible hangouts
				low-friction, low-performance social behaviour
				tooling that feels calm rather than institutional

			what makes it harder
				long commutes
				split campuses
				fragmented student life
				weak trust
				too much friction before first use
				social settings where anything new looks like work


#### Regions

			roughly 250 million tertiary students
			unevenly spread across very different campus systems

			most national systems still have a familiar shape
				a few very large universities
				a broad middle
				a long tail of regional or specialised colleges

			the real difference is not abstract culture
				it is the surface adoption moves across
				residential density
				messaging groups
				exchange networks
				slower trust-based repetition


##### Americas

				the americas contain many of the world’s largest universities.

				campuses often function like small cities,
				with strong residential cultures and active student societies.

				this environment can produce rapid adoption
				once a small cluster of activity becomes visible.

				in some cases, very large campuses
				strong club culture
				high potential but fragmented


###### Sharing


					large universities
					strong residential and club cultures
					high visibility once something begins to move

					campuses often feel like small cities
						shared lawns
						dorms
						class buildings
						society noticeboards
						repeated casual encounters

					adoption can move fast once a small cluster is visible
						physical signals first
						then dorms
						then classes
						then word of mouth

						you see it a few times across campus
						then small groups make it feel normal
						physical visibility leads
						dorms, lawns, classes, and word of mouth carry it onward

					posters and physical visibility
							lawns
							dorms
							noticeboards
						small visible groups
							two to four people doing something in public
						memes and light social proof layered on top
						it works because campuses are dense and walkable
						people pass the same spaces repeatedly
						normalisation happens through exposure
							not explanation


##### Europe

				european universities are more densely interconnected.

				students frequently move between institutions
				through exchange programmes and cross-national degrees.

				adoption often spreads through regional networks
				rather than isolated campuses.

				strong student societies
				cross-campus collaboration


###### Sharing

					dense institutional networks
					exchange-heavy movement
					cross-campus and cross-country familiarity

					you hear about it in more than one place
						you see it again later
						then it settles into student life
						spread is slower and more networked

					adoption often travels through nearby universities rather than one isolated campus
						students hear about it in more than one place
						recognition builds across cities
						small groups matter more than scale at first

						cross-campus seeding
							multiple universities at once
						student societies and networks
						light institutional adjacency
							present
							but not owned
						it works because universities are interconnected
						students move between institutions
						one strong node matters less than many small signals


###### Atlantic Europe

					universities in atlantic europe often sit within compact, walkable cities.

					campus life blends into surrounding neighbourhoods,
					with students moving between lectures, housing, and social spaces on foot.

					social life forms around shared public spaces and small groups,
					with frequent casual encounters and overlapping circles.

					adoption spreads through repeated visibility and local networks,
					becoming normal once it is seen across multiple familiar places.

###### Sharing

						compact, walkable cities
						campus life blends into neighbourhood life
						students move between lectures, housing, cafes, and shared public space
					adoption grows through repeated visibility in familiar places


###### Continental Europe

					universities in continental europe are embedded within dense national systems.

					students move regularly between institutions,
					through exchanges, joint programmes, and regional proximity.

					campus life is structured but distributed,
					with strong institutional links between cities.

					adoption tends to appear in key universities,
					then spread through inter-campus networks and student mobility.


###### Sharing

						dense national systems
						joint programmes and exchange routes
						strong links between institutions
						adoption appears in key universities and then spreads through those links


###### Mediterranean Europe

					universities in mediterranean europe often sit within busy urban environments.

					campus life blends into city rhythms,
					with students moving between classes, cafés, and social spaces.

					social groups are stable and locally rooted,
					with activity visible but spread across different parts of the city.

					adoption depends on peer validation and repeated exposure,
					rather than rapid cross-campus spread.


###### Sharing

						busy urban settings
						student life is rooted in local places
						stable groups and visible social circles
						adoption depends on peer validation and repeated exposure


###### Nordic Europe

					universities in nordic europe often have clearly defined campus environments.

					students spend longer periods on campus,
					with access to shared facilities, study spaces, and organised groups.

					social interaction is more deliberate,
					with participation often structured around planned activities.

					adoption spreads steadily through trust and institutional stability,
					becoming embedded once it is seen as reliable and normal.

###### Sharing

						clearly defined campuses
						longer time spent on campus
						strong student societies
						adoption follows organised, trusted channels


###### Eurasian Plains

					universities across the eurasian plains are often large and regionally centralised.

					campus life is more self-contained,
					with students spending time within defined university environments.

					social groups tend to be stable and internally focussed,
					with less movement between institutions.

					adoption spreads within campuses or cities first,
					and expands outward more gradually through established networks.

###### Sharing

						more self-contained campuses
						stable internal groups
						less movement between institutions
						adoption often deepens locally before it spreads outward


##### Asia

				asia contains the largest and most varied university systems in the world.

				campuses range from enormous metropolitan institutions
				to tightly focussed regional and specialised universities.

				student life is often shaped by dense urban environments,
				long commutes, and highly structured academic schedules.

				adoption tends to move through social networks first,
				then become visible across campuses once it reaches sufficient scale.

				high mobile usage
				strong peer coordination
				fast but uneven adoption patterns
					adoption patterns depend heavily on local structure


###### Continental Asia

					asia contains the largest student populations in the world.

					systems range from enormous metropolitan universities
					to highly specialised institutes.

					adoption tends to appear first in a few visible institutions,
					then expand through social media and inter-campus communities.

###### Sharing

						anchor institutions or key universities
						early proof clusters
							respected groups using it first
						structured entry points
						slightly more formal and clear
						it works because adoption is more cautious
						people look for legitimacy
						visible proof reduces risk
						trust forms before participation

						massive national systems
						adoption starts in key universities and then diffuses
						students wait for proof before moving
						large campuses can hold activity in contained clusters

						you wait until others are already using it
							then try it once it feels safe and established
							contained clusters matter first


###### Monsoonic Asia

					universities in monsoonic asia are dense and closely interwoven with surrounding cities.

					campus life blends into everyday urban movement,
					with students moving continuously between lectures, transport, and shared public spaces.

					coordination happens through messaging groups,
					where plans and activities are shared in real time.

					adoption spreads first through these social networks,
					before appearing more visibly across campus.

###### Sharing

						dense, fast-moving urban campuses
						group chats and messaging do a lot of the work
						time is fragmented
						adoption is fast if it is immediately useful

						you see a link in a chat
							check it quickly
							and join only if it fits the moment
							messaging leads and time is tight

						shareable links
							fast-loading
							mobile-first
						group chat propagation
							WhatsApp
							Telegram
							LINE
						ultra-clear immediate value
							works instantly
							no setup
						it works because interaction is digital-first
						time is fragmented
						tolerance for confusion is low


###### Oceanic Asia

					oceanic asia has rapidly expanding university systems
					with very large student cohorts.

					campus life extends beyond formal university spaces,
					blending with surrounding neighbourhoods and shared study environments.

					adoption tends to emerge through peer groups and local networks,
					supported by strong digital usage across student communities.

###### Sharing

						campus and city blur together
						large cohorts
						digital-first coordination
						adoption grows through chat, repeated use, and visible peer activity


##### Oceania

				oceania is small but highly interoperable.

				universities share compatible federation systems
				and national student cultures overlap significantly.

				a tool adopted at one campus often becomes known
				across the whole national network.

				high trust environments
				tight campus communities
				fast early adoption

###### Sharing

					small, highly connected systems
					fast national spread once something works
					campuses are often easier to see across a country than within one city
					adoption can move quickly after the first visible foothold

						cross-campus signalling
							used at other universities
						national student networks
						soft standardisation
						feels like a normal default
						it works because universities are highly interconnected
						information flows easily
						once seen elsewhere
							it feels safe to try

					you hear it is used at another uni
					try it
					and it quickly feels standard
					national interconnection helps


##### Africa

				african university systems are expanding quickly.

				many institutions are regionally important hubs
				for education, public discussion, and social life.

				adoption usually spreads through strong peer networks
				and visible campus gatherings.

				rapid mobile adoption
				high demand for community infrastructure

					rapidly expanding systems
					adoption shaped strongly by infrastructure, trust, and local environment

					you hear about it through people
						try it once
						and share it if it works
						visible gatherings matter

						you see it through trusted peers
						and adopt once it feels familiar within your group


###### Mediterranean Africa

					universities in mediterranean africa often sit inside dense cities.

					campus life blends into surrounding urban movement,
					with students moving between lectures, streets, and shared public spaces.

					social life forms in small, familiar groups,
					and activity is visible but fragmented across different parts of the city.

					adoption depends on repeated visibility and peer validation,
					rather than a single shared campus rhythm.

###### Sharing

						dense urban movement
						activity visible across the city
						repeated local visibility matters


							peer-to-peer sharing
								word of mouth
								and messaging
							visible gatherings
								real-world activity people can see
							utility-first framing
								clear immediate benefit
							it works because social networks are strong
							people trust people more than systems
							real-world proof carries weig


###### Saharan Africa

					universities in saharan regions often feel self-contained.

					getting to campus requires effort,
					and time there is used deliberately around classes and small groups.

					social life is tight and trust-based,
					with fewer casual encounters and limited overlap between groups.

					adoption spreads slowly within known networks,
					often remaining localised to specific campuses.


###### Sharing

						more self-contained campuses
						time on campus used deliberately
						trust networks tighter
						adoption can stay local for longer


###### Monsoonic Africa

					universities in monsoonic africa are busy and closely tied to surrounding cities.

					campus life is fast and mobile,
					with students moving continuously between study, transport, and shared spaces.

					coordination happens through messaging and peer networks,
					with plans forming and shifting in real time.

					adoption spreads quickly through these social connections,
					but competes with many overlapping signals and activities.

###### Sharing

						fast mobile campus life
						messaging and word of mouth carry plans
						adoption can spread quickly
						but competes with many other signals


###### Highland Africa

					universities in highland regions often feel more contained and steady.

					campus life follows slower, repeated patterns,
					with students spending longer in familiar places and seeing the same people regularly.

					social groups form gradually through repetition and trust,
					rather than rapid or spontaneous interaction.

					adoption builds steadily over time,
					becoming stable once it feels familiar and established.

###### Sharing

						slower repeated rhythms
						familiar places
						familiar faces
						adoption builds through repetition

						trusted intermediaries
							community leaders
							or known groups
						small group adoption
							not broadcast widely at first
						consistent presence over time
							not one-off activity
						it works because trust is local and relational
						familiarity matters more than reach
						adoption builds through repeated exposure


###### Southern Africa

					universities in southern africa often have clearer campus structures.

					student life mixes residential and commuter patterns,
					with defined spaces for study, social activity, and events.

					social activity is visible across campus,
					even if participation varies between highly involved and more peripheral students.

					adoption grows through both peer networks and visible campus presence,
					reaching wider awareness once it feels normal to encounter.


###### Sharing

						clearer campus structure
						mix of residential and commuter life
						visible social activity helps things tip into normality


##### Arabia

				universities in arabia have expanded rapidly.

				many institutions are large national campuses
				developed through major public investment.

				in some countries, separate campuses or facilities
				shape how student communities organise.

				adoption usually spreads through
				messaging groups and word of mouth,
				before appearing visible on campus.

###### Sharing

					messaging-first seeding
						group chats
						and closed networks
					structured rollout
					aligned with existing norms
					visibility after legitimacy
						not before
					it works because private spaces establish acceptance first
					public visibility follows later
					alignment with norms shapes participation

				large national campuses
					messaging networks often carry uptake before public visibility
					adoption depends on structure, norms, and careful social proof

						you encounter it in group chats first
						then begin seeing it reflected on campus
						messaging precedes visibility


| Region                 | Estimated University Students |
| --------------------   | ----------------------------- |
| **Americas**           | **55,000,000**                |
| **Europe**             | **46,500,000**                |
| — Atlantic Europe      | 13,000,000                    |
| — Continental Europe   | 11,500,000                    |
| — Mediterranean Europe | 13,000,000                    |
| — Nordic Europe        | 4,000,000                     |
| — Eurasian Plains      | 5,000,000                     |
| **Asia**               | **136,000,000**               |
| — Continental Asia     | 47,000,000                    |
| — Monsoonic Asia       | 64,000,000                    |
| — Oceanic Asia         | 25,000,000                    |
| **Oceania (total)**    | **2,500,000**                 |
| **Africa**             | **19,000,000**                |
| — Mediterranean Africa | 7,000,000                     |
| — Saharan Africa       | 2,000,000                     |
| — Monsoonic Africa     | 5,500,000                     |
| — Highland Africa      | 2,500,000                     |
| — Southern Africa      | 2,000,000                     |
| **Arabia**             | **8,500,000**                 |
| **Global Total**       | **267,500,000**               |


#### Topology

			physical layout matters because visibility matters
			students usually need to encounter something more than once
			before it feels normal

			single walkable campuses
				repeated encounters
				shared spaces
				faster visibility

			multi-site campuses
				split communities
				multiple small clusters
				slower cross-campus spread

			urban-integrated campuses
				campus blends into the city
				adoption spreads through neighbourhoods as well as formal university spaces

			in dense environments
				posters recur
				familiar faces recur
				the same small activity is seen again
				visibility compounds quickly

			in fragmented environments
				signals are intermittent
				awareness builds unevenly
				several starting points may be needed

			the practical question
				how does something happening
				become something normal here


### Approaches

		Calm.College does not arrive alone
			it follows other Peaceful Foundation projects
			and makes the most sense when students already feel a little steadier

		there is a gentle sequence here
			QuitEasily
				less isolation
				less addiction
				more steadiness
				posters and anonymous participation already visible on campus

			LearnStuff.Today
				skills
				purpose
				better ways to use time
				more capacity to look outward

			Reasonable.Diet
				eating properly
				cooking
				shared meals
				better mood
				more reasons to stay on campus

			then calm.college
				looking outward again
				noticing others
				finding people on campus
				campus becoming more legible

		that makes calm.college partly downstream
			it benefits from students already feeling better
			and from visible proof already left behind by the earlier campaigns
				posters
				memes
				shared food
				small cues that something gentler is already happening

#### Peaceful Passport

			Peaceful Passport matters here
				not as background plumbing
				but as part of the trust logic

			it holds a few things at once
				private campus verification
				public proof without exposing identity
				a record of participation
				portable contribution history across projects

			in calm.college
				that means campus verification can stay private
				while visible participation can still feel real
				pseudonymous where it should be
				campus-verified where it needs to be

			it also helps with measurement later
				one more signal that adoption is real
				one more way visible campus use can become legible without becoming invasive

		calm.college does not spread through one funnel
			it spreads through parallel movement
			many small proofs accumulating at once

		the shape is simple
			students first
			universities later
			recognition follows use
				not the other way around

		it works when good people on campus can do the obvious good thing
			post something small
			scan a QR code
			try the wall
			mention it in a group chat
			show up to a visible little hangout

		adoption usually looks uneven at first
			hangouts irregular
			some campuses more digital than physical
			some relying on signage
			others on chats and word of mouth
			none of that means it has failed

#### Channels and movement

			how people hear about it
				chalk
				whiteboards
				printables
				QR codes
				group chats
				word of mouth
				campus noticeboards
				class mentions
				guild channels
				wellbeing channels

			how people move from hearing about it to trying it
				the wall
				meet people
				today’s hangouts
				mood logging
				small hosted events
				public dashboard
				Peaceful Passport proof

			the handoff matters more than any single channel
				hear about it
				see that it is real
				try one small thing
				know where to go next

#### Ambassadors

			many are already waiting
				through participation in other Peaceful Foundation campaigns
				they can self-identify as university students
				rough location data lets them see how many others are near their campus
					without doxing anyone to their specific university
				that makes it easier for someone to put their hand up first
					and for others to join without feeling intimidated

			ambassadors are regular students who have used Calm.College
				liked it
				and mention it when it makes sense

			they are not staff
			not formal organisers
			not campus bureaucracy
			just people who go first

			the usual pattern
				they try the wall
				or hangouts
				or meet people
				notice campus feels less isolating
				then start mentioning it to friends
				in classes
				in chats
				or by posting one small example hangout

			what they do in practice
				set early examples
				answer simple questions
				reassure peers that it is anonymous where it matters
				point people toward it when the conversation is already there
					loneliness
					stress
					nothing going on
				leave small traces around campus
					printables with their Peaceful Passport number
					chalk or erasable marker messages
					not posters
				create and share art
					photos of campus drawn over or incorporated into community pieces
					creative commons, so lecturers can use it in coursework
					a creative exercise that spreads a vision of a more local world

			they are important because trust is social first
				one visible person can change the feel of a space
				one hosted hangout can make the platform feel real
				a few repeated light actions often matter more than one big push

			they are the visible warm front
				the people who host
				seed
				show up
				post
				choose good spots
				and keep early use from feeling empty

			no formal onboarding
				the tools are built into the product
				sign up, do something small, send a photo
				that is enough

#### Volunteers


			volunteers are the friction-removers
				the people who help things work in practice
				often in the background

			they are not the same as ambassadors
				ambassadors make use visible
				volunteers make spread reusable

			who they tend to be
				people who have seen Calm.College work somewhere
				and want to help it work elsewhere
				students at other universities
				people from the wider Peaceful Foundation ecosystem

			how they help
				document what works
				make starter packs
				map spaces and resources
				keep tools and privacy patterns aligned
				improve copy
				improve code
				share examples across campuses

			the important point
				campus coordination should not be isolated
				someone who has done a task on one campus
				should be able to help someone doing it on another

			that is how local experiments become repeatable patterns
				knowledge compounds
				campuses learn from each other
				each new university does not have to invent the whole thing again

#### Registered volunteers

			registered volunteers are the higher-trust layer
				used when the work becomes more formal

			the distinction matters
				ordinary volunteers and ambassadors can help campus life grow
				but direct liaison with universities should usually sit here

			why
				they have given legal ID
				they are more accountable
				they can carry more formal relationships
				they provide reassurance where universities want it

			this keeps the overall shape right
				student-facing culture stays light
				institutional coordination gets just enough formality to stay credible

			Calm.College is not only software here
				it is also a bridge
				from grassroots campus life
				to systems universities can recognise
				measure
				pay for
				and act on


### Experience


		an ordinary feeling
		a quieter social layer
		campus life becomes visible again
			not through bigger official events
			but through easy small posts
		easy ways to join
			something small is enough
		ways to find other students without pressure
		campus as somewhere you can stay for a while

#### Free food on campus

			food is the simplest obvious good thing on a campus
				it gathers people without requiring an agenda
				it turns a transaction into a reason to stay
				and it solves a real problem while creating a social one

			the potato idea
				cheap, filling, easy to justify, easy to spread
				a practical wedge that can become a shared meal

			how it starts
				a student puts up a sign
					"social vibe — free potato"
					"bring your lunch, sit with us"
				or posts in a campus Facebook group or class chat
				or creates a small event on calm.college
				they do not need university permission to begin
					they can just cook a bunch of potatoes
					and offer them

				university support can come later
					and should be invited, not required
					the student experience team often responds well
						when the ask is small
						and the benefit is clear
					the cafeteria can absorb the cost easily
						especially if the recipe is simple
						mashed potato, a few variations
					the framing matters
						this is a student event the university supports
						not a university event students attend
					the goal is more student engagement
						and the university has an interest in that

				students on calm.college can make themselves known
					as people who would sit somewhere
					host something small
					or help make it happen
					this creates coverage across campus
					without needing a central plan

				over time it can become regular
					free food on campus as a normal feature
					not a special programme
					sometimes a bucket of potatoes people can just take
					sometimes a shared meal people gather around

			food links loneliness, wellbeing, events, and campus support
				into one ecology

			usefulness first
			branding second


#### Cultural rules and norms

			these are not rules you sign.
			they are just how things work here.

			voice feelings in the moment
				say what is actually happening
				not the story about why someone else is wrong
				behaviour can be named objectively
				stories about intent cannot
				use feeling-behaviour-impact
					when you did [behaviour]
					it made me feel [feeling]
					and the impact is [consequence]
				be willing to be wrong
					if something does not sit right, speak up

			social mishaps are normal
				everyone is a little out of practice
				acknowledge it lightly and move on
				we have all been lonely on campus
				that makes feedback easier to receive, not harder

			conversation is like passing a ball
				at first it moves back and forth simply
				over time it builds into something faster and more shared
				problems arise when someone holds it too long
				or forgets to include everyone in the circle
				or yells for it instead of letting it come round

			no clout, no persona-building
				colours do not carry across threads
				there are no follower counts
				no visible history
				the focus stays on what is happening
				not on who is doing it

			no gossip
				people have better things to talk about
				discuss tension and feelings openly instead

			no obligation, no guilt
				you can drop in and leave early
				you can look and not join
				no one keeps score
				attendance is about capacity, not interest

			small is enough
				a quiet hangout does not need to become an event
				a few repeated light actions matter more than one big push
				usefulness first, branding second

			local ownership
				what works here is what students here decide works
				this is not a movement dropped onto the university
				each campus finds its own rhythm

			student-led, not institutional
				ambassadors are not staff
				events are not university productions
				the institution supports, it does not own

			anonymous by default
				you do not need a polished backstory
				you do not need to justify your presence
				people are not content

			keep it human
				keep it light
				avoid admin language swallowing the room


#### What becomes visible

			what changes when calm.college is working

				the campus becomes more legible
					small groups form and re-form
					people see that others are trying things
					familiar places start to carry new meaning

				repeated use creates texture
					the same spot on a Tuesday
					the same kind of hangout
					the same low-stakes invitation
					activity becomes pattern

				other students trying things
					not organised from above
					just people doing the obvious good thing
					posting, hosting, showing up
					this is the core of the campaign
						local action, visible locally

				mood without spectacle
					people feel better
					but there is no performance
					no announcement
					no brand moment
					just a quieter campus
					where it is easier to pause
					and easier to find each other

				the overall campaign becomes visible
					through these small proofs
					not through a single message
					but through many local instances
					of the same gentle pattern


### Universities

	the university does not need to invent the culture
		it needs to notice, support, and extend what is already helping students

		adoption is shaped by
			internal speed
			internal friction
			approval pathways
			who can act quickly
			and who can make it legitimate

		the practical route is usually not sell to the university
			but find the purpose-driven person who can move something now
				department head
				wellbeing lead
				internal champion
				or another senior support role

		the university is
			the setting
			the support system
			the host environment
			and later the possible purchaser of the clarity layer

		adoption gets easier when
			student use is visible
			usefulness is obvious
			the dashboard is legible
			internal champions exist
			and the system feels lighter than traditional procurement or programme design

		the model is layered
			student utility creates use
			use creates legitimacy
			legitimacy supports institutional insight
			and institutional insight can fund the public layer

#### Institution Layer Inside the Product
			separate from the student social layer
			with its own notes board
			support notices
			room availability
			wellbeing notices
			food programmes
			and practical guidance

			this keeps the institution present
				without letting it take over the student interface

#### Wellbeing

			universities may value this because it makes campus life easier to see
				and allows lighter intervention before crisis

			what they gain
				clearer visibility into campus life
				better coordination of services
				more useful data
				a more alive campus
				better student life

			the practical bottom line
				reduced attrition
				higher enrollment

#### University staff

			pricing is enrollment-based
				not split by campus
				standardised across the institution
				a campus separate from the main institution can still adopt on its own
				payment into a bank account, immediate access
				procurement is simply a function of the university adopting it

			the key staff are not everyone
				but the people most able to notice need
				legitimise action
				remove friction
				and act quickly

			likely groups
				wellbeing officers
				mental health leads
				health workers
				nurses
				counsellors
				student life staff
				student representatives
				cybersecurity teams
				procurement teams
				and relevant heads of service

			the main question is
				who is the purpose-driven person who can move this through fastest

			the implementation should be easy to say yes to
				low-friction access
				semi-automated pathways
				no long sales theatre
				and minimal operational burden

			procurement matters
				but mainly as an adoption condition
				not as the centre of the story

			the finance argument
				universities are a business
				reducing dropouts preserves tuition revenue
				the compassionate argument works
				but the money argument is also compelling
				more value for every element of the university

			staff should not be excluded
				they can log in with university credentials
				and see what is happening on campus
				they get their own view of the clarity layer

##### Nurses and Health Professionals

				health and wellbeing are a clear entry route
					because these groups already sit close to student suffering

				they can help by
					spotting practical needs quickly
					connecting care-side support to student activity
					and raising something useful with a department head or wellbeing lead

				what they need
					fast interventions
					clear pilots
					something easy to explain upward
					and a route from care to action

##### Student Experience

				this is where the institution can help without taking over
					events
					practical support
					room access
					notices
					and quiet services

				the point is not to replace student life
					but to surface what students miss

##### Cybersecurity

				lead with this when approaching institutions
					cybersecurity teams matter because approval depends on trust

				they need to know
					what is stored
					what is not stored
					how pseudonymous verification works
					how eduGAIN / AAF fits in
					and how the student layer stays safe and zero-knowledge

				the approach is simple and in-house
					open source
					no personal data stored
					real names are neither held nor displayed
					pseudonymous identities only
					minimal dependencies
						runaway libraries represent a huge risk profile
						keeping code in-house reduces untrusted surface area
					standardised and secure by default

				this is an adoption friction issue
					not the centrepiece of the chapter

##### Vice Chancellor

				the highest operational authority
					the Vice Chancellor or Chancellor
					they work on operations for the university
					they can approve everything quickly

				the pitch should be easy to understand
					explain how the entire thing works
					regionally adjusted pricing
					the value is compelling
						drastically increased enrollment
						better mental health outcomes for every student
						price is less than the tuition from a single degree
						the trade is hard to believe

				they are likely to be keen once they see it
					but the question is how to get it in front of them

				a senior sponsor may matter
					but usually after the value is already visible on the ground

				the university should not depend on top-down enthusiasm alone
					the stronger path is visible student use first
					then institutional alignment

#### Student guilds and representatives

			guilds and reps can help with legitimacy
				channel access
				rooms
				signal boosts
				and neutral introduction

			they matter because they can step aside once it becomes normal student life
				they are a bridge
				not the owners of the platform

#### Dashboard data is public and useful

			the dashboard is not surveillance
				it is cohort-level clarity about campus life

			universities buy
				environmental insight
				not individual students

			this public-good framing helps because
				students can see what the university sees
				trust is easier to build
				and the model is easier to explain

			the data layer should be
				humane
				non-corporate
				and clearly separated between what is visible and what is private

			consent should remain flexible
				basic opt-out data
				opt-in richer data
				tiered consent
				and clear privacy controls

			the public layer can also help students

### Uptake

calm.college uptake is estimated campus by campus, then rolled up by region. These estimates can be revised as real campuses begin adopting and the variables become clearer. [1]

In practice, this means adoption is estimated by asking which campuses are most likely to seed first, how many students those campuses contain, and how quickly usage in those environments moves from visible to ordinary. The result is not a claim of certainty. It is a practical model that can be revised as real adoption data appears, while still giving us a broad sense of how many students Calm.College may reach over time.

For the purposes of the wider plan, the money section later assumes that over a long enough horizon calm.college becomes standard campus software. The job of this section is narrower: to estimate how student usage may accumulate on the way there.


Our base assumptions are mainly that the campus is already socially dense, but socially under-coordinated. So, the adoption shape is somewhat similar to early social media networks on university campuses

		not because calm.college is the same kind of product
		but because both depend on a bounded, real-world student network

That is the perfect environment for a product that does not need to create desire from scratch, only to make existing social possibility more legible.

		once enough of a campus can see that other students are there
			the product becomes socially legible
			then ordinary
			then difficult to ignore
		The advent of social media amplified an already-lively campus social graph.

	calm.college is designed for campuses that are more transactional and thinner and than that — so it has to do a little more social repair as it spreads.

it becomes valuable when it is tied to a real campus, and in this way you already have:
	the student body
	the campus
	classes, dorms, clubs, friends-of-friends

calm.college just makes that network easier to see and move through and applies that pattern to a calm and more useful, local social layer.

and once enough of the university can see that, it starts to feel normal rather than speculative. the real question is how quickly that visibility converts into ordinary use.


[1] my aim is really just creating a rough and semi-standalone estimate for calm.college, instead of estimating the full breadth of things like addiction cessation or reasonable.diet.


#### Waves of adoption


We describe that process in a three-wave model: wave one makes calm.college visible, wave two makes it feel real, and wave three makes it feel normal. Regional differences matter, but mainly because they change how quickly each of those waves can move. This is better understood as a campus-by-campus process in which visible proof passes through real student networks and gradually becomes ordinary.


		adoption moves in waves
			not because students are neatly divided into types


##### Wave One


Wave one is the initial seed population. This includes students who encounter calm.college directly when it is announced, along with students already softened or pre-positioned by adjacent Peaceful Foundation projects such as Reasonable.Diet, LearnStuff.Today, and addiction cessation work. Some of these people become visible early users. Others act more quietly, sharing it with friends, mentioning it in passing, or simply being willing to join the first hangouts. This means the first wave is shaped both by direct reach and by how many Peaceful Passport-aligned or project-adjacent students are already “waiting in the wings.”

			So for a campus, you might see:


| Seed type        | Wave 1 seed rate | Meaning                                                       |
| ---------------- | ---------------: | ------------------------------------------------------------- |
| Weak seed        |             0.2% | A small early layer exists, but needs careful support         |
| Normal seed      |             0.4% | Enough people to create a few visible traces                  |
| Strong seed      |             0.7% | A real early campus layer can form                            |
| Very strong seed |             1.0% | Enough early people to make the campus feel different quickly |


The first estimate, then, is not just how many students might like the idea in theory, but how many are likely to hear about it immediately and form the first active layer on a campus. This includes super-fans, early adopters, quietly aligned students, and those already connected to Peaceful Foundation through other projects. A campus or region with stronger prior PF presence begins with stronger seeding.

			peaceful passport people
			people already softened by learnstuff.today and reasonable.diet
			new arrivals
			socially open students
			residential students
			people already inclined to share useful things with friends

			what they do
				try it early
				share it
				post the first signals
				create the first visible proof
				make the platform exist socially rather than only technically

| Visibility level | What it means                                           |
| ---------------- | ------------------------------------------------------- |
| Seen once        | A student has heard of calm.college or seen a sign/link |
| Seen repeatedly  | They encounter it through more than one channel         |
| Feels real       | They believe other students are actually using it       |



		who starts it?

			start with the campus
				the region only sets the conditions
					safety
					visibility
					social permission
					how much proof students need before acting

				adoption begins in a real campus environment
					a class
					dorm
					group chat
					lunch table
					noticeboard
					some students already near the signal

			wave one is the first usable layer
				not everyone interested
				not everyone helped
				not everyone reached online

				only the students close enough to act before calm.college is already normal
					Peaceful Passport people
					students touched by LearnStuff.Today or Reasonable.Diet
					new arrivals
					residential students
					socially open students
					people already inclined to share useful things

				the estimate should stay small
					because early action is more expensive than agreement

					0.2% can already matter
						on a 20,000-student campus, that is 40 people

					0.5% is a meaningful seed
						100 people on the same campus

					1% is already a strong first wave
						200 people
						enough to make the campus feel different if even a few are visible

			before estimating, remove places where ordinary public student coordination is not realistic
				not as a judgement on students there
				just as a safety and feasibility filter

				some countries should be excluded or heavily discounted
					where public organising is punished
					where university-linked participation creates risk
					where even gentle coordination can be read the wrong way

				this keeps the model honest
					available students are not the same as reachable students

			then estimate the seed rate by region
				Americas
					higher early permission
					student-led activity is familiar
					physical campus signals can work
					assume a modest but stronger seed rate

				Oceania
					small interconnected systems
					faster trust transfer between campuses
					1% may be a top-end early assumption on strong campuses

				Europe
					receptive but steadier
					early use travels through societies, city-campus life, exchange networks, and repeated legitimacy
					less explosive, but durable

				Monsoonic Asia
					large absolute numbers
					fast digital movement
					fragmented physical visibility
					estimate conservatively unless the product is immediately useful in chat-based student life

				Continental Asia
					higher legitimacy threshold
					stronger need for trusted entry points
					smaller visible first wave until proof exists

				Africa
					trust-led adoption
					usefulness and known people matter more than broad awareness
					some campuses may seed strongly, but estimates should respect infrastructure and local variation

				Arabia
					very small visible first wave
					private interest may appear before public action
					group chats and trusted circles matter before campus visibility
					0.2% may already be a serious early layer


		| Region               | Working Wave 1 seed rate | Avg campus size | Early people per avg campus | Regional Wave 1 pool |
		| -------------------- | -----------------------: | --------------: | --------------------------: | -------------------: |
		| Americas             |                    0.65% |          12,500 |                          81 |              357,500 |
		| Atlantic Europe      |                    0.50% |          11,300 |                          56 |               65,000 |
		| Continental Europe   |                    0.42% |          10,950 |                          46 |               48,300 |
		| Mediterranean Europe |                    0.35% |          11,800 |                          41 |               45,500 |
		| Nordic Europe        |                    0.55% |          16,000 |                          88 |               22,000 |
		| Eurasian Plains      |                    0.28% |          11,100 |                          31 |               14,000 |
		| Continental Asia     |                    0.22% |          13,430 |                          30 |              103,400 |
		| Monsoonic Asia       |                    0.38% |          13,910 |                          53 |              243,200 |
		| Oceanic Asia         |                    0.45% |          15,625 |                          70 |              112,500 |
		| Oceania              |                    0.85% |          20,830 |                         177 |               21,250 |
		| Mediterranean Africa |                    0.30% |          10,770 |                          32 |               21,000 |
		| Saharan Africa       |                    0.18% |           6,670 |                          12 |                3,600 |
		| Monsoonic Africa     |                    0.35% |           7,860 |                          28 |               19,250 |
		| Highland Africa      |                    0.25% |           7,140 |                          18 |                6,250 |
		| Southern Africa      |                    0.40% |           8,000 |                          32 |                8,000 |
		| Arabia               |                    0.20% |          22,370 |                          45 |               17,000 |





###### How Visibile Is Wave One?

				after the seed estimate, estimate visibility
					the first layer only matters if some of it can be seen or felt

					visibility comes from repeated small encounters
						a link in a class chat
						a mention from a friend
						a printable in a normal place
						a small hangout
						a dorm conversation
						a student seeing that others are already there

					campus structure changes the multiplier
						residential and walkable campuses repeat the signal naturally
						commuter campuses leak attention quickly
						city-integrated campuses spread through mixed campus-city spaces
						fragmented campuses need several starting points

				for each seedable region, estimate:
					eligible students
					average campus size
					seed percentage
					early people per average campus
					visibility strength
					likely first channel
						public campus signals
						group chats
						dorms
						student societies
						private trusted circles

				the result is not a total adoption claim
					it is the number of early students likely to make calm.college real enough for wave two to respond


					Wave 1 visibility =
						early people
						× what they actually do
						× how naturally the campus carries that action
						× how the surrounding culture interprets it


						when the first group does something,
							does the campus receive it as:
								weird
								irrelevant
								nice but forgettable
								useful
								safe
								normal
								or something everyone starts quietly noticing


| Region               | Seed rate | Early people per avg campus | Visibility band | Visible Wave 1 % | Visible students per avg campus |
| -------------------- | --------: | --------------------------: | --------------- | ---------------: | ------------------------------: |
| Americas             |     0.65% |                          81 | Very high       |            8.45% |                           1,056 |
| Atlantic Europe      |     0.50% |                          57 | High            |            4.75% |                             537 |
| Continental Europe   |     0.42% |                          46 | Medium          |            2.73% |                             299 |
| Mediterranean Europe |     0.35% |                          41 | Medium-low      |            1.93% |                             227 |
| Nordic Europe        |     0.55% |                          88 | High            |            5.23% |                             836 |
| Eurasian Plains      |     0.28% |                          31 | Low-medium      |            1.26% |                             140 |
| Continental Asia     |     0.22% |                          30 | Low-medium      |            0.99% |                             133 |
| Monsoonic Asia       |     0.38% |                          53 | Medium-high     |            2.85% |                             396 |
| Oceanic Asia         |     0.45% |                          70 | Medium-high     |            3.38% |                             527 |
| Oceania              |     0.85% |                         177 | Very high       |           11.05% |                           2,302 |
| Mediterranean Africa |     0.30% |                          32 | Medium-low      |            1.65% |                             178 |
| Saharan Africa       |     0.18% |                          12 | Low             |            0.63% |                              42 |
| Monsoonic Africa     |     0.35% |                          28 | Medium          |            2.28% |                             179 |
| Highland Africa      |     0.25% |                          18 | Low-medium      |            1.13% |                              80 |
| Southern Africa      |     0.40% |                          32 | Medium-high     |            2.80% |                             224 |
| Arabia               |     0.20% |                          45 | Low             |            0.70% |                             157 |


Wave 1 seed pool:
	~1.1 million students

Visible Wave 1 surface:
	~8.7 million students

Weighted global visible Wave 1:
	~3.3% of the total student base


##### Wave Two


		how far does visible proof carry?
Wave two estimates how many additional people are reached through that first layer. This is where the initial users begin carrying calm.College outward through normal student channels: friends, classes, group chats, dorms, shared kitchens, visible hangouts, small events, and casual mention. In other words, wave two is the social spread generated by wave one. The size of this wave depends less on abstract interest and more on how easily the campus allows student activity to travel through everyday life.

			what they do
				confirm that the first activity was not a fluke
				widen the user base beyond enthusiasts
				make the platform feel trustworthy
				begin to turn a small cluster into a campus pattern


For each region, the Wave 2 multiplier combines three things:

	direct carrying
		how many nearby students one early user can plausibly reach

	cluster bridging
		whether activity jumps from one group into another

	repetition
		whether students encounter calm.college often enough for it




Wave two is the point where visible proof begins turning into wider campus use.

Each early student contributes to a small field of visibility. In dense campuses, that field overlaps with others and compounds. In fragmented campuses, it leaks away more easily.

The estimate is therefore built from a carrying multiplier. Each Wave 1 student is assumed to create some amount of further activity around them: friends they invite, classmates who notice, group chats that receive the link, people who see a small event, and students who try calm.college after seeing more than one signal.


| Region               | Rough Wave 2 multiplier |
| -------------------- | ----------------------: |
| Americas             | 3.1×                    |
| Atlantic Europe      | 2.1×                    |
| Continental Europe   | 1.2×                    |
| Mediterranean Europe | 0.9×                    |
| Nordic Europe        | 1.8×                    |
| Eurasian Plains      | 0.55×                   |
| Continental Asia     | 0.60×                   |
| Monsoonic Asia       | 1.8×                    |
| Oceanic Asia         | 1.65×                   |
| Oceania              | 3.6×                    |
| Mediterranean Africa | 0.9×                    |
| Saharan Africa       | 0.35×                   |
| Monsoonic Africa     | 1.3×                    |
| Highland Africa      | 0.65×                   |
| Southern Africa      | 1.4×                    |
| Arabia               | 0.35×                   |

*Source: TmB Benchmarks*

This does not mean every early student personally recruits several others. It means each early student contributes to a small field of visibility. In dense campuses, that field overlaps with others and compounds. In fragmented campuses, it leaks away more easily.

then this repeats
	first, friend/class/chat spread
	then cluster spreading through events, wall activity, repeated mentions
	then, bridging into adjacent groups
and stops when campus reaches the Wave 2 ceiling, usually somewhere below 10%


If combined Wave 2 active adoption is well below 10%:
	the average campus has not tipped yet

If visible Wave 1 is near or above 10%:
	the campus has enough awareness for strong campuses to tip

If combined Wave 2 active adoption approaches 10%:
	the region is likely to produce many threshold campuses quickly


##### Wave Three


Wave three is broader campus adoption: the point where Calm.College begins to feel ordinary rather than niche. By this stage, people are no longer joining only because they were directly reached by Peaceful Foundation or by an early ambassador. They are joining because Calm.College is now part of the campus atmosphere, with enough activity and familiarity that using it feels natural. This is where the campus moves toward the larger adoption milestones already described in the model.

			campus spillover

			student communities
			friend-of-friend spillover
			people not actively looking for community
				but open to what is already ambient

			what they do
				treat calm.college as part of campus life
				use it without seeing themselves as “early adopters”
				push the platform toward normality
				and toward institutional relevance


when does the campus stop treating this as a thing people are “joining” and start treating it as part of ordinary campus life?

			ordinary

				things moving together

				staff members and people sharing to staff members and up the chain

				demographics within places and scenarios


				wider adoption within different regions and countries


Wave three begins after a campus crosses roughly 10% public adoption.

At that point, calm.college is no longer being carried only by early organisers or visible first proof. Enough students have seen it, used it, or heard about it that the campus starts treating it as real. The estimate therefore changes from a carrying multiplier to a normalisation curve.

The normalisation curve asks how quickly a threshold campus moves from “this exists here” to “this is part of how campus works.”

wave three is basically the transition from effort to ambience. The platform stops feeling like a special new thing and starts feeling like part of campus life. That matches your wording about making Calm exist socially rather than only technically, then eventually making it ordinary rather than speculative.


Wave three is:

ordinary campus spillover

This is when people start using it without thinking of themselves as early adopters:

student communities
friend-of-friend spillover
ambient awareness
staff noticing
broader campus legitimacy


| Curve class | 3 months | 6 months | 12 months | 18 months |
| ----------- | -------: | -------: | --------: | --------: |
| Fast        |      25% |      50% |       75% |       85% |
| Mid-fast    |      20% |      40% |       65% |       80% |
| Middle      |      17% |      32% |       55% |       72% |
| Slow-middle |      14% |      25% |       45% |       65% |
| Slow        |      12% |      20% |       35% |       55% |


#### Per campus within different regions

| Region               | Avg threshold-campus size | Curve class |    3 months |     6 months |    12 months |    18 months |
| -------------------- | ------------------------: | ----------- | ----------: | -----------: | -----------: | -----------: |
| Americas             | 12,500                    | Fast        | 25% / 3,125 | 50% / 6,250  | 75% / 9,375  | 85% / 10,625 |
| Atlantic Europe      | 11,561                    | Mid-fast    | 20% / 2,312 | 40% / 4,624  | 65% / 7,514  | 80% / 9,249  |
| Continental Europe   | 10,811                    | Middle      | 17% / 1,838 | 32% / 3,459  | 55% / 5,946  | 72% / 7,784  |
| Mediterranean Europe | 12,121                    | Slow-middle | 14% / 1,697 | 25% / 3,030  | 45% / 5,455  | 65% / 7,879  |
| Nordic Europe        | 12,500                    | Middle      | 17% / 2,125 | 32% / 4,000  | 55% / 6,875  | 72% / 9,000  |
| Eurasian Plains      | 14,286                    | Slow        | 12% / 1,714 | 20% / 2,857  | 35% / 5,000  | 55% / 7,857  |
| Continental Asia     | 13,333                    | Slow-middle | 14% / 1,867 | 25% / 3,333  | 45% / 6,000  | 65% / 8,667  |
| Monsoonic Asia       | 13,913                    | Mid-fast    | 20% / 2,783 | 40% / 5,565  | 65% / 9,043  | 80% / 11,130 |
| Oceanic Asia         | 15,833                    | Mid-fast    | 20% / 3,167 | 40% / 6,333  | 65% / 10,292 | 80% / 12,667 |
| Oceania              | 20,833                    | Fast        | 25% / 5,208 | 50% / 10,417 | 75% / 15,625 | 85% / 17,708 |
| Mediterranean Africa | 10,000                    | Slow-middle | 14% / 1,400 | 25% / 2,500  | 45% / 4,500  | 65% / 6,500  |
| Saharan Africa       | 6,667                     | Slow        | 12% / 800   | 20% / 1,333  | 35% / 2,333  | 55% / 3,667  |
| Monsoonic Africa     | 8,163                     | Middle      | 17% / 1,388 | 32% / 2,612  | 55% / 4,490  | 72% / 5,878  |
| Highland Africa      | 7,273                     | Slow-middle | 14% / 1,018 | 25% / 1,818  | 45% / 3,273  | 65% / 4,727  |
| Southern Africa      | 7,778                     | Middle      | 17% / 1,322 | 32% / 2,489  | 55% / 4,278  | 72% / 5,600  |
| Arabia               | 22,727                    | Slow-middle | 14% / 3,182 | 25% / 5,682  | 45% / 10,227 | 65% / 14,773 |



		so the useful questions are not:
			what percentage will adopt in the abstract

		but:
			how large is wave one here
			how visible can wave one become
			how quickly does that unlock wave two
			and how easily does wave three begin to treat the platform as ordinary


##### Visibility

				can students actually see that calm.college is happening

				exposure patterns
					dense environments
						the same signals repeat
						posters
						groups
						familiar faces
						visibility compounds quickly
						activity becomes normal sooner

					fragmented environments
						signals arrive unevenly
						awareness builds in pieces
						normality takes longer

				some campuses need:
					several footholds
					repeated visible proof
					or multiple channels working together


				one tiny exposure is not the same as repeated or intense exposure

					seeing one poster once is not the same as:
					seeing a poster
					then hearing about it in class
					then seeing people actually sitting together on the lawn
					then seeing it in a WhatsApp group

				students accumulate exposure through:

					poster
					QR code
					class mention
					dorm mention
					friend invite
					chat links
					visible hangout
					wall activity
					cultural mention
					staff endorsement

visibility determines how quickly awareness compounds, and how much exposure dose students accumulate before deciding it is real.



##### Environment

Campus transmission is estimated by combining structural conditions (topology), existing social connectivity, cluster bridging, and student receptivity into a single multiplier representing how far each visible participant carries the signal.


Topology

How physically and socially “connected” the campus is

walkable, dense → high
fragmented, commuter → low


					campus topology
						do the spaces and rhythms of the campus help signals travel

						topology
							single, walkable campuses
								repeated encounters
								shared spaces
								faster visibility

							multi-site or dispersed campuses
								split communities
								multiple small clusters
								slower cross-campus spread

							urban-integrated campuses
								campus blends into the city
								adoption can spread through neighbourhoods as well as campus space


| Region               | Total students | Total campuses | Avg students per campus |
| -------------------- | -------------: | -------------: | ----------------------: |
| **Americas**         |     55,000,000 |          4,400 |              **12,500** |
| **Europe (total)**   |     46,500,000 |          4,000 |              **11,625** |
| Atlantic Europe      |     13,000,000 |          1,150 |                  11,300 |
| Continental Europe   |     11,500,000 |          1,050 |                  10,950 |
| Mediterranean Europe |     13,000,000 |          1,100 |                  11,800 |
| Nordic Europe        |      4,000,000 |            250 |              **16,000** |
| Eurasian Plains      |      5,000,000 |            450 |                  11,100 |
| **Asia (total)**     |    136,000,000 |          9,700 |              **14,020** |
| Continental Asia     |     47,000,000 |          3,500 |                  13,430 |
| Monsoonic Asia       |     64,000,000 |          4,600 |                  13,910 |
| Oceanic Asia         |     25,000,000 |          1,600 |                  15,625 |
| **Oceania**          |      2,500,000 |            120 |              **20,830** |
| **Africa (total)**   |     19,000,000 |          2,250 |               **8,445** |
| Mediterranean Africa |      7,000,000 |            650 |                  10,770 |
| Saharan Africa       |      2,000,000 |            300 |                   6,670 |
| Monsoonic Africa     |      5,500,000 |            700 |                   7,860 |
| Highland Africa      |      2,500,000 |            350 |                   7,140 |
| Southern Africa      |      2,000,000 |            250 |                   8,000 |
| **Arabia**           |      8,500,000 |            380 |              **22,370** |
| **Global average**   |    267,500,000 |         20,850 |              **12,830** |


| Region               | Total students | Walkable / residential | City-integrated / mixed | Fragmented / commuter-heavy |
| -------------------- | -------------: | ---------------------: | ----------------------: | --------------------------: |
| Americas             |          55.0M |                  16.5M |                   24.8M |                       13.8M |
| Atlantic Europe      |          13.0M |                   2.6M |                    7.2M |                        3.3M |
| Continental Europe   |          11.5M |                   1.7M |                    6.3M |                        3.5M |
| Mediterranean Europe |          13.0M |                   1.3M |                    7.8M |                        3.9M |
| Nordic Europe        |           4.0M |                   1.4M |                    1.8M |                        0.8M |
| Eurasian Plains      |           5.0M |                   1.0M |                    1.8M |                        2.3M |
| Continental Asia     |          47.0M |                  11.8M |                   18.8M |                       16.4M |
| Monsoonic Asia       |          64.0M |                   9.6M |                   35.2M |                       19.2M |
| Oceanic Asia         |          25.0M |                   6.2M |                   12.5M |                        6.2M |
| Oceania              |           2.5M |                   0.8M |                    1.0M |                        0.8M |
| Mediterranean Africa |           7.0M |                   1.1M |                    3.5M |                        2.5M |
| Saharan Africa       |           2.0M |                   0.4M |                    0.6M |                        1.0M |
| Monsoonic Africa     |           5.5M |                   0.8M |                    2.8M |                        1.9M |
| Highland Africa      |           2.5M |                   0.5M |                    0.9M |                        1.1M |
| Southern Africa      |           2.0M |                   0.5M |                    0.8M |                        0.7M |
| Arabia               |           8.5M |                   1.7M |                    3.4M |                        3.4M |
| **Global total**     |     **267.5M** |              **57.9M** |              **129.4M** |                   **80.3M** |


	Examples:

       			residential campuses
       			= high-contact indoor/outdoor repeated exposure environment
       			city-integrated campuses
       			= lower repeated contact, more diffuse transmission
       			messaging-heavy campuses
       			= strong digital aerosol equivalent, weaker physical persistence
       			fragmented campuses
       			= lower baseline transmission unless seeded in multiple nodes


					walkability
					residential density
					commuter leakage
					dorm presence
					repeated encounters
					chat density
					visibility affordances


| Campus structure            | Typical visibility | Typical transmission | Typical spread class |
| --------------------------- | ------------------ | -------------------- | -------------------- |
| Walkable / residential      | High               | High                 | Fast                 |
| City-integrated / mixed     | Medium             | Medium               | Mid                  |
| Fragmented / commuter-heavy | Low to uneven      | Lower                | Slow                 |



| Region               | Treatment                                | Why                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        |
| -------------------- | ---------------------------------------: | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
| **Continental Asia** | **Partially excluded**                   | This region likely contains the largest share of countries where ordinary student coordination could be treated as politically sensitive, even if calm.college itself is low-stakes and social. Your notes already flag places like China as probably needing to be removed from Wave One. |
| **Eurasian Plains**  | **Partially excluded**                   | More centralised, internally focussed systems with weaker outward spillover. Some campuses may work, but ordinary student-led coordination is less reliably realistic across the whole region.                                                                                              |
| **Arabia**           | **Not excluded, but heavily discounted** | The region is norm-sensitive and likely needs private group-chat legitimacy before public visibility. That makes it slower and more careful, but not impossible. Your own notes say adoption may begin through messaging and word of mouth before becoming visible on campus.              |
| **Saharan Africa**   | **Not excluded, but heavily discounted** | The issue is less political sensitivity and more infrastructure, trust, and campus fragmentation. It can work through tight local networks, but should not carry a large early estimate.                                                                                                   |

| Region            | Exclusion from student base before wave one                             |
| ----------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------: |
| Continental Asia  | **55–70% excluded**                                                     |
| Eurasian Plains   | **35–50% excluded**                                                     |
| Arabia            | **10–25% excluded**, plus heavy visibility discount                     |
| Saharan Africa    | **10–20% excluded**, mostly infrastructure / viability                  |
| All other regions | **0–10% excluded**, handled through slower adoption rather than removal |



##### Culture

culture here means how socially open a campus or region is to trying something new, how much proof is needed before it feels safe, and how quickly visible participation becomes ordinary.

two campuses may have similar layouts but different cultural thresholds.

one may treat peer-led coordination as natural.
another may require much more proof before students join without hesitation.

culture determines how much visibility is required before calm.college stops feeling speculative and starts feeling legitimate.


| Region               | Expected adoption rhythm              | Why this fits                                                                                                                                                                                                |
| -------------------- | ------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
| **Americas**         | fast once seeded                      | Large, walkable, club-heavy campuses give early users lots of repeated physical visibility. Once the first people post, gather, and share, broader uptake can move quickly through shared spaces and chats.  |
| **Europe**           | steady to fast                        | Many campuses are more commuter and city-integrated, so wave one is a little less explosive, but inter-campus and student-network spillover are strong, which helps Calm settle into legitimacy over time.   |
| Atlantic Europe      | steady-fast                           | Compact campuses and repeated local visibility help early proof travel well, especially where campus and city life still overlap in walkable ways.                                                           |
| Continental Europe   | steady                                | More distributed institutional systems make the first visible cluster slower, but once something is proven, it can spread across linked student and university networks quite well.                          |
| Mediterranean Europe | moderate                              | Social life can be visible and locally rooted, but uptake may depend more on peer validation and repeated proof before the platform feels natural rather than speculative.                                   |
| Nordic Europe        | moderate-steady                       | Participation is likely to be more deliberate and trust-led. The first wave may be smaller, but once legitimacy is established, normalisation can be fairly strong and stable.                               |
| Eurasian Plains      | moderate-slow                         | Larger, more internally focussed campuses can support local clusters, but slower outward spread and lower spillover make it harder for wave three to become ambient quickly.                                  |
| **Asia**             | uneven but strong                     | Asia is too varied for one tempo, but in general the first wave is less uniformly visible across physical campus space, while wave two can be strong once social proof enters the right channels.            |
| Continental Asia     | moderate-slow until legitimacy        | Large systems and higher legitimacy thresholds mean the first wave must be especially credible. Uptake can happen, but it tends to need stronger proof before becoming ordinary.                             |
| Monsoonic Asia       | fast if immediately useful            | Dense urban systems and messaging-heavy student life mean wave one can carry quickly if the product is useful right away. Wave two is especially strong once links, chats, and visible effort line up.       |
| Oceanic Asia         | fast-moderate                         | Large cohorts, strong peer grouping, and high digital use give early proof decent carrying power. Physical and digital visibility can reinforce one another well here.                                       |
| **Oceania**          | fast                                  | Smaller, interoperable systems make legitimacy travel well across campuses. Early clusters matter, but once something feels real in one place, it can echo across the region quickly.                        |
| **Africa**           | moderate, trust-led                   | Conditions vary a lot, but in general trust, visible gatherings, and person-to-person endorsement matter more than abstract platform awareness alone.                                                        |
| Mediterranean Africa | moderate                              | Dense urban movement helps visibility somewhat, but fragmentation means proof still needs to repeat before broader uptake becomes reliable.                                                                  |
| Saharan Africa       | slow-moderate                         | More self-contained and infrastructure-constrained settings make early visibility harder to sustain, and spillover is weaker unless multiple trusted footholds exist.                                        |
| Monsoonic Africa     | fast-moderate                         | Mobile and word-of-mouth spread can carry the signal quickly once seeded well. Wave two can be strong, though wave three may still depend on stable local trust.                                             |
| Highland Africa      | steady                                | Repetition and trust matter more than explosive visibility. Adoption may move more steadily through familiar faces and repeated local contact.                                                               |
| Southern Africa      | moderate-fast                         | Clearer campus structures and better visible activity channels make wave one more legible, which helps wave two respond once effort is actually seen.                                                        |
| **Arabia**           | slower early, faster after legitimacy | Early adoption depends heavily on trust and legitimacy. Private group-chat proof may matter more than public visibility at first, so the first wave must be unusually well-placed.                           |


					social culture
						does trying it feel low-stakes rather than awkward

						regional conditions shape the rhythm of all this

							not whether students want calm.college at all
							but:
								how much proof they need
								which channels matter first
								how quickly normality forms

					loneliness / desire for connection
					openness to low-stakes social formats
					prior exposure to other PF projects
					whether they live on campus
					whether they are already embedded in groups
					whether the tool solves an immediate problem for them

					So each student group or campus subgroup can have a susceptibility score.


					new arrivals: high
					isolated commuters: medium, but only with low-friction entry
					quiet seekers: medium-high once proof exists
					heavily overloaded students: low at first, higher if the action feels restorative rather than demanding

					receptivity determines how large wave one can be, and how much early signal is available to the system.



###### Superspreaders

				Adoption does not spread evenly.

				Some people or groups carry signals much further than others:

					one charismatic but calm organiser
					an RA
					a welfare officer
					a trusted social cluster
					a dorm kitchen regular
					one busy class group chat
					a student who sits between several social worlds


				Not because they are loud, but because they are:

					trusted
					central
					visible
					repeated in contact
					able to bridge subgraphs

					include a small number of high-transmission nodes per campus
					Without them, many campuses will never tip.
					With them, some campuses will tip unexpectedly fast.



###### Clusters

					A campus isn’t 20,000 independent people.

						It’s:
							classes
							dorms
							group chats
							friend-of-friend loops

						So adoption spreads through clusters, not evenly.

						How easily things move between groups
							lots of bridge people → high
							siloed groups → low


					Direct carrying
					how many nearby students each seed can reach through friends, classes, chats, dorms, and events

					Cluster bridging
					how well those small groups jump into other groups, societies, dorm floors, courses, campuses, or cities

##### Limits in Estimating

			this cannot be predicted precisely

				too many social conditions vary:
					campus layout
					friend groups
					local norms
					class schedules
					residential density
					digital habits
					how early users behave

			so the aim is not exact prediction

				it is to identify:
					where visible proof is easiest to create
					where waves are most likely to unlock one another
					and where calm.college is most likely to become normal quickly

			the estimate is therefore atmospheric as much as numerical

				it concerns:
					the feel of the campus
					the visibility of early use
					the trust carried by the first participants
					and the speed at which a new social layer becomes ordinary



calm.college doesn’t create demand, but moreso reveals something that’s already there:

people wanting:
	to sit somewhere
	to not feel alone
	something low-pressure

So adoption isn’t persuasion.

#### Estimated adoption per region

| Region               | Campuses crossing 10% | Avg threshold-campus size | Curve class | 3-month users | 6-month users | 12-month users | 18-month users |
| -------------------- | --------------------: | ------------------------: | ----------- | ------------: | ------------: | -------------: | -------------: |
| Americas             |                 1,320 |                    12,500 | Fast        |         4.13M |         8.25M |         12.38M |         14.03M |
| Atlantic Europe      |                   173 |                    11,561 | Mid-fast    |         0.40M |         0.80M |          1.30M |          1.60M |
| Continental Europe   |                    74 |                    10,811 | Middle      |         0.14M |         0.26M |          0.44M |          0.58M |
| Mediterranean Europe |                    33 |                    12,121 | Slow-middle |         0.06M |         0.10M |          0.18M |          0.26M |
| Nordic Europe        |                     8 |                    12,500 | Middle      |         0.02M |         0.03M |          0.06M |          0.07M |
| Eurasian Plains      |                    14 |                    14,286 | Slow        |         0.02M |         0.04M |          0.07M |          0.11M |
| Continental Asia     |                   105 |                    13,333 | Slow-middle |         0.20M |         0.35M |          0.63M |          0.91M |
| Monsoonic Asia       |                   690 |                    13,913 | Mid-fast    |         1.92M |         3.84M |          6.24M |          7.68M |
| Oceanic Asia         |                   240 |                    15,833 | Mid-fast    |         0.76M |         1.52M |          2.47M |          3.04M |
| Oceania              |                    36 |                    20,833 | Fast        |         0.19M |         0.38M |          0.56M |          0.64M |
| Mediterranean Africa |                    20 |                    10,000 | Slow-middle |         0.03M |         0.05M |          0.09M |          0.13M |
| Saharan Africa       |                     9 |                     6,667 | Slow        |         0.01M |         0.01M |          0.02M |          0.03M |
| Monsoonic Africa     |                    49 |                     8,163 | Middle      |         0.07M |         0.13M |          0.22M |          0.29M |
| Highland Africa      |                    11 |                     7,273 | Slow-middle |         0.01M |         0.02M |          0.04M |          0.05M |
| Southern Africa      |                    18 |                     7,778 | Middle      |         0.02M |         0.04M |          0.08M |          0.10M |
| Arabia               |                    11 |                    22,727 | Slow-middle |         0.04M |         0.06M |          0.11M |          0.16M |
| **Total**            |             **2,810** |                         — | —           |     **7.99M** |    **15.88M** |     **24.89M** |     **29.67M** |
</pre>
  </main>
  <footer class="site-footer">
    <a class="back-link" href="/outline/calm_college/">Back to directory</a>
  </footer>
</body>
</html>
