TACKLING TOXICITY: IDENTIFYING AND ADDRESSING TOXIC BEHAVIOR IN
ONLINE VIDEO GAMES
MATTHEW LAPOLLA
Seton Hall University
Mae Pjec Primary Advisers: Renee Robinson, Ph.D. & Ruth Tsuria, Ph.D.
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the Master of Arts in Public Relations
Seton Hall University
South Orange, NJ 07079
2020
© 2020 Matthew Lapolla
SETON HALL UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF COMMUNICATION AND THE ARTS
GRADUATE STUDIES
APPROVAL FOR SUCCESSFUL PRESENTATION
Mae Cadidae, Matthew Lapolla, has successfully presented and made the required
dificai he e f he ae project for the Master of Arts degree during this 2020.
ADVISER(S) COMMITTEE
Primary Adviser:
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Name (printed) Signature Date
Adviser:
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Name (printed) Signature Date
Adviser:
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Name (printed) Signature Date
The adviser and any other committee members who wish to review revisions will sign and date this
document only when revisions have been completed. Please return this form to your Academic
Adie, hee i ill be laced i he cadidae file ad bi a c ih fial jec be
bound as page number two.
7/4/2020
Dr. Renee Robinson
Dr. Ruth Tsuria
7/5/2020
1
Abstract
Online video games are plagued with toxic behavior, which has a strong potential to
cause a reputation crisis for online video game developers. A grounded theory study was
conducted to determine what online video game players consider to be toxic. An analysis of
online forums for Overwatch and League of Legends was conducted alongside the observation of
player behavior in Apex: Legends. Behaviors that were found to be toxic include flaming, poor
teamwork, trolling, cyberbullying, and hate speech. The results were used to create a series of
recommendations for online video game developers in their attempts to address
toxicity. Recommendations included emphasizing transparency with a game's player base,
overhauling the in-game report function, and introducing a system for reinforcing positive
behaviors.
Keywords: video games, online video games, public relations, reputation management,
reputation crises, toxic behavior, online toxicity, online content moderation, grounded theory,
textual analysis
Tackling Toxicity
2
Table of Contents
Chapter 1 ......................................................................................................................................... 3
Statement of the Problem ............................................................................................................ 3
Chapter 2 ....................................................................................................................................... 11
Literature Review...................................................................................................................... 11
Trolling ................................................................................................................................. 11
Cyberbullying ....................................................................................................................... 13
Sexism ................................................................................................................................... 15
Racism................................................................................................................................... 17
Response to Toxicity............................................................................................................. 19
Chapter 3 ....................................................................................................................................... 25
Methods..................................................................................................................................... 25
Research Methodology ......................................................................................................... 26
Data Collection ..................................................................................................................... 28
Data Analysis ........................................................................................................................ 31
Chapter 4 ....................................................................................................................................... 33
Findings..................................................................................................................................... 33
Flaming ................................................................................................................................. 33
Poor Teamwork ..................................................................................................................... 37
Cyberbullying ....................................................................................................................... 40
Trolling, Throwing, Feeding, and Smurfing ......................................................................... 43
Racism, Sexism, and Hate Speech ........................................................................................ 46
Lack of Effective Systems .................................................................................................... 50
Atmosphere of Toxicity ........................................................................................................ 52
Chapter 5 ....................................................................................................................................... 55
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 55
Comparison to Behaviors Noted in the Literature ................................................................ 56
Addressing Toxicity through Public Relations ..................................................................... 59
Conclusion, Limitations, and Recommendations for Future Studies ................................... 66
Appendix A ................................................................................................................................... 69
Summary of Findings and Recommendations .......................................................................... 69
Appendix B ................................................................................................................................... 70
In-Depth Breakdown of Findings and Recommendations ........................................................ 70
Tackling Toxicity
3
Chapter 1
Statement of the Problem
Contemporary society is centered around the internet. Millions of people around the
world are connected to at least one digital device, whether in the workplace or at home. The
internet has become a space where people can perform several activities that were once
exclusively done outside of the virtual world, like shopping, playing games, and developing
personal relationships (Casas, Ruiz-Olivares, & Ortega-Ruiz, 2013). As internet platforms grow
in use and popularity, the understanding of their processes and functions becomes more of a
necessity. One of the most important of these functions is communication; according to Jadalhaq
and Alqodsi (2018), “…the internet represents the most relevant form of electronic
communication today, with the ability to radically to transform the media industry, cultural and
intellectual debate, and political discourse” (p. 284). Amichai-Hamburger, Kingsbury, and
Schneider (2013) state that information and communication technologies are among the most
important contexts for socialization of adolescents and young people. Online communication is
essential in contemporary society, which means that communication researchers must continue
investigating its effects, benefits, and consequences.
Research indicates that there are several benefits for those who participate in online
communication. The aspects of anonymity and asynchronicity (the lag in time between sending
and receiving messages) allow users several advantages, like the ability to strategically select
behaviors or to be flexible in self-presentation (Kamalou, Shaughnessy, & Moscovitch, 2019).
This is in turn makes it easier for users to discuss a wider range of topics and feel more
comfortable in discussing personal or sensitive matters (Peter & Valkenburg, 2006). Those who
suffer from shyness or social anxiety have the ability to use the internet to make better
Tackling Toxicity
4
impressions on others in comparison to offline communication because of this anonymity
(Kamalou et al., 2019). It is important to note that the specific consequences of online
communication are heavily dependent on user behavior. Clark and Green (2018) assert that
users “…who believe online interactions can contribute to their social lives are more likely to be
willing to engage in relationship-building social processes…and this willingness translates into
more positive expectations for online interactions’ aftermath (p. 75).
However, there are also several negatives that plague users who participate in online
communication. The anonymous nature of online communication can lead to legal issues for
corporations because those users have limited risk of being targeted for their statements,
criticism, or comments (Jadalhaq & Alqodsi, 2018). This kind of technological abuse occurs
when a person becomes socially isolated after reducing face-to-face activities in favor of
spending excessive time on digital devices, which impacts the way that they communicate with
others (Caplan, 2003). Those who abuse technology can cause psychological and social
difficulties in another person’s life, whether at school or in the workplace (Beard and Wolf,
2001). Similar issues result from other harmful behaviors that are pervasive on the internet, like
sexism and racism. Women in online communities feel compelled to abandon them altogether or
make their own communities specifically for women in order to escape overt and covert forms of
harassment (Fox & Tang, 2016; Workman, 2012). Online racism also exists in subtle and blatant
forms, and several spaces exist for groups to spread content that demeans and marginalizes
people of color (Keum & Miller, 2017; Van Blarcum, 2005). All of these behaviors can lead
users to lose enjoyment in online communication, have a lower chance of receiving the benefits
of online communication, or leave online communities altogether. For these reasons, the
research in the field of online communication is important for online content owners.
Tackling Toxicity
5
While the internet grows and the potential benefits and consequences of communication
are explored, similar research and results begin to appear in the world of video games. As
technology and knowledge of the platform developed, video game developers were able to
implement online functions within their games. Typically, these online games are “multiplayer,”
meaning that they connect multiple users to the same shared experience. Online video games
have exploded in popularity within the last two decades; in the United States alone, there are
55.2 million gamers who play online games on consoles, and this number is expected to increase
by 3% in 2020 (WePC, 2019). The online gaming market was valued at $38.4 billion in 2017,
and is expected to grow to $44.2 billion in 2020 (Capcom, 2018). Online games can have
hundreds of millions of online players throughout their lifetime; for example, PlayerUnknown’s
Battlegrounds has reached 400 million worldwide players since its release in 2017 (McWhertor,
2018). Gaming is no longer a simple leisure activity, but an integral part of life for millions of
people all over the world (Kim, Kim, & Oh, 2014).
Research on gaming is not only important because of the medium’s popularity, but
because of the potential benefits that players can experience. The Entertainment Software
Association (2019) reports that 79% of gamers find that playing games provide mental
stimulation, and 78% believe that games offer relaxation and stress-relief. Online games in
particular can motivate players to socialize with others, providing gamers with feelings of
sociability and belonging with others (McLean & Grifftiths, 2018). Studies have shown that
online games not only allow players to connect with people outside of their “real lives,” but that
playing online games with family and friends will bring those relationships closer and provide
more enjoyment (Cole & Griffiths, 2007). There are a variety of factors that motivate gamers to
play online games, which Yee (2006) breaks down into individual categories of discovery,
Tackling Toxicity
6
teamwork, role-playing, advancement, and escapism. Discovery entails the process of finding
things that other players have not discovered; role-playing involves creating a persona with a
unique background and interacting with the personas of other players; teamwork is centered
around satisfaction from being a part of a group effort; advancement refers to the desire to gain
power and progress by accumulating in-game symbols of wealth or status; and escapism is
defined as using online games to relax or escape from the problems of one’s “real life.” The
multitude of potential benefits that online games provide for gamers, particularly the ideas of
escapism and sociability, are similar to the benefits for online communication in general.
At the same time, the potential consequences for those who play online games are also
similar to the consequences of online communication. Ehrett (2016) stated that online
harassment is an epidemic in many digital communities, including the online gaming world.
Harassment in the setting of an online game is often referred to as “toxic behavior,” which
includes offensives language, verbal abuse, negative attitudes, inappropriate names, spamming,
and refusing to communicate (Kwak, Blackburn, & Han, 2015). It can also refer to several in-
game behaviors that would not necessarily exist outside of an online community; one example
would be “feeding,” which entails a player intentionally and repeatedly allowing their controlled
character to be “killed” or “eliminated” by an opposing team or player to the detriment of their
teammates. Another common “toxic” behavior is going “AFK,” or “away from the keyboard,”
which means that a player will intentionally remain inactive throughout an individual match to
give the opposition an advantage and potentially sabotage their own team (Kwak et al., 2015).
These behaviors are associated with depressive symptoms, delinquent behavior, and substance
abuse, and players who experience these behaviors have a greater motivation to stop playing
online games altogether. (De Letter, Van Rooij, & Van Looy, 2017).
Tackling Toxicity
7
Despite the fact that “toxic behavior” is pervasive in online games, two issues arise in
reviewing the literature. The first is that there is not a set list of what behaviors qualify as
“toxic.” Kwak et al. (2015) highlighted specific behaviors that are considered toxic and that the
gaming community as a collective will use the term “toxic,” yet the definition of the term is still
open-ended. It is unclear if all negative communication behaviors contribute to a toxic
environment, and it has yet to be determined if toxic behaviors are unique to online games or if
they are consistent throughout other online communities, like those on social networking sites or
internet forums. Another issue is that there is a significant lack of research on moderation for
online gaming. As previously mentioned, research into online communities, including online
games, is important in order to maintain enjoyment for users and prevent them from leaving the
platform(s). Effective moderation can potentially remove the drawbacks that come with playing
online games and maximize the potential for gamers to benefit from them. Moderation can
protect players from harassment while also allowing developers to control user behavior (Kou &
Nardi, 2015). Despite this, there is a lack of research on what policies and strategies could be
effective to moderate online games and tackle the toxic attitudes that plague the platform. The
research in this paper sought to develop a clear list of behaviors that are considered to be toxic in
online video games, and form guidelines for moderation that address these behaviors.
Toxic behavior also has the potential to negatively impact the reputation of an online
video game developer. Medeiros (2019) defines reputation as “…an informational mechanism
for making decisions about whether to trust or collaborate with others” (p. 161). Reputation is
not something that a person or an organization owns, but it is the perceptions that others own and
then assign. Effectively managing an organization’s reputation involves earning acceptability
and legitimacy from a wide audience (Griffin, 2014). If online gaming developers can build and
Tackling Toxicity
8
maintain good reputations, they can attract better candidates for employment and generate free
press that can be as valuable as advertising (Doorley & Garcia, 2010). However, the persistence
of toxic behavior in online games has the potential to cause certain developers and their games to
become associated with toxicity. An association with negative behaviors could then lead to a
reputation crisis in which a developer sees a loss in ac ceptability and legitimacy from an online
video game’s player base.
The reputation of online video game developers is at an even higher risk because of the
responsibility that they assume in crises that occur surrounding toxicity. Hagan (2011) refers to
a report from the Institute of Crisis Management (2008) that says most organizational crises are
“smoldering,” in which management knows about problems or issues before they gain
widespread recognition or media attention. Toxicity in online gaming can be considered a
smoldering crisis according to Ehrett (2016), who states that online organizations choose to
ignore the problem of online harassment as long as it is not severe enough to cause a noticeable
drop in traffic. Knowledge of a crisis before it happens gives organizations more responsibility
in dealing with them because they are preventable. According to Schoofs, Claeys, Waele, and
Cauberghe (2019), preventable crises are handled by organizations through the use of “rebuild”
strategies that allow organizations to take full responsibility for a crisis by offering apologies or
compensating victims because the organization is responsible for the underlying cause of a crisis.
They also assert that “…the more responsible an organization is considered for a crisis, the more
its reputation suffers” (p. 2).
Online video game developers can use public relations to more effectively navigate the
reputation crisis that toxicity may cause. Hagan (2011) defines public relations as the study of
how public opinion is shaped and influenced by media. She writes that public relations can
Tackling Toxicity
9
improve relationships with constituents and improve the representation of an organization, and
effectively handle crises before they happen. Proactively addressing crises is essential in the
public relations field according to Leighton and Shelton (2008), who write that public relations
practitioners have to protect the reputation of their organization by communicating the right
message to the right people at the right time. This is relevant to the examination of toxicity in
online video games, as its prevalence could lead to a crisis and damage the reputation of a
developer. Public relations practitioners in the video game industry must address these concerns
before they spiral out of control for the developer and generate negative publicity. The research
in this paper focused on improving in-game moderation systems in order to improve or maintain
a game developer’s reputation and address the crisis of toxicity before its impact becomes too
severe to manage.
In this paper, a grounded theory study was conducted to determine what online video
game players consider to be toxic behavior. A textual analysis of posts in online public forums
about video games was carried out in order to uncover a broad understanding of what toxicity is
while also keeping track of specific behaviors that gamers consider to be toxic. The researcher
simultaneously underwent observations of online video game players to obtain concrete
examples of toxic behavior that was noted in the forum posts. The findings from the textual
analysis and observations were then used to create a series of recommendations for public
relations practitioners in developing systems for online video game developers to improve
moderation of toxic behaviors. These recommendations were organized into two artifacts that
online video game developers and their public relations practitioners can use to guide their
efforts to address toxicity. The following questions guided the researcher throughout this
project:
Tackling Toxicity
10
RQ1: What communication behaviors are considered “toxic” in online video games?
RQ2: How can online video game developers use public relations to address toxic behavior?
The second chapter features an overview of the literature about toxic behaviors in other
online platforms and how they are moderated, showing that the unique qualities of every online
platform shape the basis for which behaviors qualify as toxic and how they should be moderated.
The third chapter outlines the grounded theory research methodology and the data collection and
analysis procedures that the researcher used in this study, explaining why each choice was made
in order to properly examine the behaviors that online video game players consider to be toxic.
The fourth chapter features an analysis of the data, breaking down and offering specific
examples of each individual toxic behavior mentioned by players in the forums. The fifth
chapter compares the information found in the data analysis to the information in the literature
review, highlighting similarities and differences in toxic behaviors within online video games
when compared to toxic behaviors within other online platforms. These similarities and
differences were used to guide the creation of a series of recommendations for online game
developers to consider when addressing toxicity, which are summarized in two artifacts located
in the appendix.
Tackling Toxicity
11
Chapter 2
Literature Review
In order to properly define the behaviors that are considered to be toxic in online games,
the specific communication behaviors that lead to a toxic online environment must be identified.
This literature review begins with the identification of four specific online behaviors that are
associated with toxic environments: trolling, cyberbullying, sexism, and racism. Through
examining these behaviors, toxicity in online environments is defined as it relates to gaming
environments. The final section of the literature review examines how online corporations have
begun to address toxicity in digital platforms. The following section begins with an analysis of
online trolling, a well-researched and complex toxic behavior.
Trolling
The term “trolling” encompasses a multitude of actions and behaviors in online settings.
Buckels, Trapnell, and Paulhus (2014) define online trolling as “…the practice of behaving in a
deceptive, destructive, or disruptive manner in a social setting on the internet with no apparent
instrumental purpose” (p. 97). Golf-Papez and Veer (2017) describe the actions of “trolls” as
“…deliberate, deceptive, and mischievous attempts that are engineered to elicit a reaction from
the target(s), are performed for the benefit of the troll(s) and their followers and may have
negative consequences for people and firms involved.” (p. 1339). Simply put, trolling is the use
of deceptive and disruptive actions in an online setting to provoke a negative emotional response
from the target, such as anger and frustration.
Trolling as a communication behavior is unique for several reasons, the most apparent
being the requirement of deception. Trolling requires the offender to intentionally deceive their
Tackling Toxicity
12
target in order to elicit a reaction and disrupt any ongoing communication (Craker and March,
2016). The disruption that results from deception is another factor that makes trolling a unique
communication behavior. Trolls are identified as “attention-seekers” in that they want their
target to pay attention to what they are saying and elicit a response of frustration or anger (Golf-
Papez and Veer, 2017).
These deceptive and disruptive actions that trolls subject their victims to vary in purpose.
Shachaf and Hara (2010) identified several key themes that motivated the behavior of trolls on
Wikipedia, including boredom, attention seeking, revenge, pleasure, and the desire to cause
damage to the community. All of these reasons lead to the conclusion that trolling is
exploitative; as Golf-Papez and Veer (2017) indicate, trolling “…is designed for the benefit of
the troll or their followers (i.e. audience members who find trolling entertaining)” (p. 1340-
1341). This behavior is also widely known by internet users, who often use the phrase “don’t
feed the trolls” to encourage other users to ignore those who participate in trolling (Golf-Papez &
Veer, 2017).
Examples of trolling behavior vary depending on context and platform. Initially, Donath
(1999) used trolling to refer to an activity of “baiting” certain kinds of posts. This involved
asking “stupid” questions and waiting for “clueless” users to take the bait, which would start a
fight between members of a community. Hardaker (2010) emphasized a similar behavior,
saying that many trolls enter a conversation in an online setting and ask an abundance of
questions to derail the discussion. Trolls also tend to repeat themselves and their actions to
further interrupt any attempts at a serious conversation (Shachaf & Hara, 2010). All of these
actions lead to the exploitation and disruption of online communities.
Tackling Toxicity
13
Cyberbullying
Cyberbullying is another complicated communication behavior that persists in toxic
online environments. Understanding the multitude of actions and behaviors associated with
cyberbullying is necessary in order to fully understand the phenomenon and place it among other
toxic behaviors. Some researchers prefer a broad description of cyberbullying as bullying via an
electronic medium (Weber & Pelfrey, 2014). Others prefer to be more specific when describing
the behavior; for example, Juvonen and Gross (2008) define cyberbullying as insulting or
threatening someone through the use of the internet or other digital communications. A similar
definition is brought up by Smith, Mahadvi, Carvalho, Fisher, Ruseel, and Tippett (2008), where
they define cyberbullying as “... an aggressive, intentional act carried out by a group or
individual, using electronic forms of contact, repeatedly and over time against a victim who
cannot easily defend him or herself” (p. 376). It is important to note that while there is no
universal or agreed upon definition, it is still necessary to identify specific behaviors that are
associated with cyberbullying (Mc Guckin & Corcoran, 2016).
Barlett, Chamberlin, and Witkower (2019) note important differences in online bullying
and traditional face-to-face bullying. They note that the nature of cyberbullying “…necessitates
that the bully and the victim do not physically touch, which suggests that cyberbullying is
manifested as verbal and or relational aggression” (p. 1). Because of this, cyberbullying ignores
the traditional requirement of a bully being “stronger” or “bigger” than their victim. Any
individual can “attack” another online, regardless of how popular, strong, or tall either party is
(Barlett et al., 2017). While the physical aspect is ignored, the verbal and psychological
dimensions of bullying are even more apparent in an online setting (Hanish & Guerra, 2000).
The repetitive quality of cyberbullying is further enhanced by the ability for a specific act to be
Tackling Toxicity
14
widely disseminated, copied, and reposted (Menesini & Nocentini, 2009). A larger audience
can witness specific instances of cyberbullying due to its online setting (Kowalski, Limber, &
Agaston, 2008). These instances can also be archived, making it possible for both victims and
bullies to continuously re-read and/or re-experience each transgression (Law, Shapka, Hymel,
Olson, & Waterhouse, 2012).
As with traditional bullying, cyberbullying has a distinct characteristic of
“aggressiveness” that is especially apparent when compared to other toxic behaviors. This
aggression comes in several forms that can vary in motivation. Mc Guckin and Corcoran (2016)
highlight four forms of aggression that are found in bullying and, subsequently, cyberbullying:
hostile, proactive, direct, and indirect. Hostile (or “reactive”) aggression is characteristically
impulsive and unplanned, motivated by anger with a focus on harming the target as a response to
a perceived provocation (Griffin & Gross, 2004). Proactive aggression involves more
premeditated tactics and has a primary goal of something other than harming a target (Anderson
& Bushman, 2002); in the case of bullying, this goal may be domination or intimidation (Mc
Guckin & Corcoran, 2016). Direct (or “overt”) aggression features confrontational behavior
towards others, like verbal threats or physical assault (Connor, Melloni, & Harrison, 1998), while
indirect (or “relational”) consists of behaviors that do not contain direct content between an
aggressor and a victim, like social rejection, rumor spreading, and public embarrassment (Griffin
& Gross, 2004).
It is important to note that while cyberbullying shares several characteristics with trolling,
there are a few differences between the two behaviors. Cyberbullying occurs on a more personal
level than trolling; cyberbullies often know their victims in real life, and the actions of
cyberbullies are direct and specifically targeted toward their victims (Dooley, Pyźalski, & Cross
Tackling Toxicity
15
2010; Steffgen, König, Pfetsch, & Melzer, 2011). The qualities of directness and targeting are
not present in trolling behavior, which is characteristically provocative, deceptive, and
disruptive. The aspect of aggression is also not vital to trolling like it is to cyberbullying.
Sexism
Sexism can be defined as “…an ideology of the derision of people based upon gender
status manifested socio-structurally and through cultural institutional practice as well as beliefs,
attitudes, and actions of the individual” (Nic Giolla Easpaig, 2018, p. 120; Swim & Hyers,
2009). This definition allows a flexible and broad understanding of the concept that allows it to
be examined in an online setting (Nic Giolla Easpaig, 2018). Sexism online can take several
forms; Fox, Cruz, and Lee (2015) highlight two different yet equally dangerous ways that sexism
persists. The first is “direct harassment,” which entails directly targeting a person based on their
gender. The second is referred to as “ambient sexism,” which entails a subtler and more
subliminal form of harassment. Fox et al. (2015) write “…if sexist attitudes and behavior are
prevalent in an environment, this atmosphere can have negative effects regardless of whether an
individual is directly targeted by sexism or sexual harassment” (p. 436). The attitudes that a
community displays about a certain gender can alone reinforce a toxic environment long before a
direct act of sexism occurs.
One of the behaviors that can contribute to ambient sexism is the view that most sexist
comments are intended to be jokes, which suggests that they are less serious than direct sexual
harassment (Ford & Ferguson, 2004). Marwick (2013) discusses the idea that, even if the jokes
are not hostile in tone, they can still be dangerous. She writes that sexist humor in online settings
“reinforces male entitlement and conventional gender stereotypes while normalizing egregiously
sexist behavior” (p. 12). Swim, Hyers, Cohen, and Ferguson (2001) further echo this sentiment
Tackling Toxicity
16
by saying that “everyday sexism” can be as detrimental as other forms of sexism no matter what
the offender’s intentions are. Victims of ambient sexism experience similar negative effects to
victims of direct harassment (Boxer & Ford, 2010). In addition, men who participate in sexist
humor often believe sexism to be normal, which leads the perpetrators to deflect blame away
from themselves and further engage in discriminatory behavior online (Ford, Boxer, Armstrong,
& Edel, 2008).
While sexism is a well-researched communication behavior, there is a significantly
smaller body of research on sexism in an online setting when compared to the behavior in other
settings, like face-to-face or workplace communication. Drakett, Rickett, Day, and Milnes
(2018) write that as online sexism and harassment are on the rise, scholarly research that
addresses these issues has either decreased or relies too heavily on dated literature. Sexism has
been identified as an ongoing issue on several online platforms, including blogs, online forums,
social networking sites, and video games (Fox et al., 2015). A survey from the Pew Research
Center conducted in 2014 indicated that online communities are viewed as more hostile towards
women than men, and women report greater emotional distress because of online harassment
(Duggan, 2014). This disparity means that women are less likely to remain on online
communities compared to their male counterparts (Fox & Tang, 2016).
The combination of women facing more harassment and the normalization of sexist
behaviors contribute to the idea that online settings have a quality called “male normativity”
(Marwick, 2013). This is the idea that things that are classified as “male-gendered” are more
valuable than things that are “female-gendered.” This results in the universalized male body and
experience being considered “normal” and female experiences as a variation from the norm.
Tackling Toxicity
17
Marwick (2013) writes that technology, including the internet, is male normative because a
disproportionate number of men and women are involved in designing and engineering.
Subsequently, many online communities have different “normative guidelines” for male
and female users. Herring (2005) asserts that, in mixed-gendered online communities, women
are more likely to be apologetic, justify their actions, and be upset by violations of politeness
when communicating. On the other hand, men tend to violate politeness norms, assert their own
opinions as facts, and use more assertive language. This leads women to create their own
communities in order to properly address their interests online. Herring (2005) believes this
suggests “…that the default activities on the Internet address the interests of men” (p. 221).
Workman (2012) further supports this idea in her analysis of the Reddit community
“TwoXChromosomes” (referred to as “2X”). The community fulfills a specific need for a safe
place for women on the internet when other places are not as welcoming. Workman writes that
2X “…provides information and camaraderie that community members feel they cannot find in
their offline lives for any variety of reasons” (p. 2). Online communities are inherently male-
centric, which means that women are compelled to make their own communities to escape
ambient and direct sexism.
Racism
Racism is another complex communication behavior that plagues online communities.
This research uses a definition of racism offered by Clark, Anderson, Clark, and Williams
(1999): “…beliefs, attitudes, institutional agreements, and acts that tend to denigrate individuals
and groups because of phenotypic characteristics or ethnic group affiliations” (p. 805). This
definition combines the aspects of racial prejudice (specific individual beliefs) and racial
discrimination (institutional agreements and behaviors) into something more broad (Bliuc,
Tackling Toxicity
18
Faulkner, Jakubowicz, & McGarty, 2018). Racism is not just an action of a belief, it is an
ideology and the use of power to prevent other groups from obtaining equal opportunities and
freedoms (Dovidio, 2001). People of color experience racism at individual, group, and
systematic levels, often in explicit and direct ways (Keum & Miller, 2017).
Research indicates that racism online has become commonplace (Daniels, 2013). Bliuc
et al. (2018) developed a definition for racism that exists in an online setting, or “cyber-racism.”
They assert that “any form of communication via electronic or digital media by groups or
individuals which seek to denigrate or discriminate against individuals (by denying their equal
rights, freedom, and opportunities) or groups because of their race or ethnicity” (p. 76) can be
considered cyber-racism. Not all literature indicates online racism as “cyber-racism,” but the
ideas that they discuss run in line with the definition offered by Bliuc et al. (2018). Like with
online sexism, there is a noticeable gap in literature for online racism despite its noted
prevalence.
Racist messages that appear online have been documented as either subtle or blatant,
although Keum and Miller (2017) found that these messages are blatant more often than not.
Online racism is pervasive in comparison to its offline counterpart; Bonilla and Rosa (2015)
mention that there is an abundance of online racist content that is created daily and is easily
available for other users to view and share. The content is also dynamic in nature, appearing in
several different forms including text, photo, and video. The internet itself is a potent digital
landscape that allows online racism to evolve through the use of multiple platforms and formats
(Hughey & Daniels, 2013). This content, like most other online content, has an aspect of
permanence due to the platforms it originates and is spread from. Keum & Miller (2017)
contend that online racism is inherently more dangerous than offline racism because of this
Tackling Toxicity
19
permanence. They use the example of a racist comment posted on a social media page, saying
that “…not bound to a discrete point in time because the actual events continue to exist online
and are available for individuals to relive and re-experience” (p. 311).
The internet contains many spaces where racism can flourish. Van Blarcum (2005)
mentions that internet platforms are a “safe haven” for those who want to avoid being labelled as
“racists” for their views and be free from political correctness. Several white supremacist groups
use the internet to promote their ideologies; Daniels (2009) specifically examined how the white
supremacist movements in Europe and North America use the internet to expand their reach
across national boundaries. At the same time, individuals still facilitate online racism without
the pressure of group ideologies. This is indicated by Tynes, Rose, and Markoe (2013), who
state that individuals will focus on excluding others on a variety of platforms with no affiliation
to a white supremacist group. A reason for both group and individual accounts of online racism
is the quality of anonymity that the internet offers. Suler (2004) argues that online anonymity
minimizes any influence that social norms have on general face-to-face interactions. There is a
psychological and emotional detachment that occurs between two individuals when they
communicate online because of the “virtual distance” between them (Lojeski & Reilly, 2008).
Response to Toxicity
While the previous section indicated that online toxic behavior is persistent, there is a
considerable lack of research on effective methods of online content moderation. The research
that does exist indicates that internet corporations use several different frameworks to moderate
toxic content in online communities. When discussing how these corporations address toxicity,
it is important to note a few factors. The first is that economic incentives play a large role in
guiding corporate policies on online content moderation. Ehrett (2016) asserts that corporate
Tackling Toxicity
20
desire to make profits prevents any chance of a corporation imposing “stringent top-down
controls” for online misconduct. Effectively moderating online content is not costless, regardless
of whether or not the company uses an automated moderation system or human technicians.
Many organizations view it to be more cost-effective to ignore the problem as long as
harassment is not severe enough to cause a noticeable drop in traffic (Ehrett, 2016).
Another important factor in creating a framework to moderate online content is the
difference in norms based on platform and community. Kiesler, Kraut, Resnick, and Kittur.
(2012) mention that “Communities differ on which behaviors are normative and which are not”
(p. 125), which means that there can never be one set framework to properly guide behavior in
every online setting. They compare the content on Huffington Post to the content on Wikipedia;
the Huffington Post will encourage guest bloggers to express their own opinions and personal
viewpoints, while Wikipedia expects writers to be neutral and unbiased when writing articles. A
final factor is also noted by Ehrett (2016): the difficulty of levying criminal charges against those
who violate behavioral norms in online communities. He notes that “Not only would it be
challenging to prove the requisite guilty intent to justify criminal sanction, but legal anti-
harassment measures would likely clash with established First Amendment law” (p. 275).
Because it is impractical for legal action to be taken against toxic players, more creative
solutions must be developed to deter the behavior. It is important to keep all of these factors in
mind when exploring potential solutions to toxicity because there is no simple fix to the problem;
every community has its own norms, expected behaviors, and unique user base that must be
considered.
Many online communities have simple rulesets that outline how users should behave on
the platform. These rulesets include End User License Agreements (called “EULAs”), codes of
Tackling Toxicity
21
conduct, and laws (Kou & Nardi, 2014). However, researchers have indicated that rules are not
always the best method of governing user behavior. For example, Adrian (2011) notes that user
agreements and agreed upon codes of conduct in video games are written to protect corporations
rather than the interests of players. Foo (2008) echoed a similar sentiment, saying that players do
not have any representative rights in online games. Many users will accept terms of service
agreements in order to enter an online community without actually reading and understanding
the terms that they agree to (Lastowka, 2011). As toxic behaviors continue to plague online
communities, some companies have decided to take more action to remedy the problem.
A well-researched framework of online content moderation involves giving power
directly to the community members themselves. Taylor (2006) argues that game companies
should give players the ability to govern their online communities because they are active and
engaged agents within the community. Ehrett (2016) offers a similar solution, referring to
community self-policing as an “e-judiciary” system. He writes “…online organizations should
strive to promote mass participation in the task of community self-governance. The success or
failure of an e-judiciary system rests on individuals’ diligent reporting of material they believe
violates community norms” (291). Kiesler et al. (2012) claim that moderation decided by
members of the community is perceived as more legitimate, meaning that the moderation is more
effective. They mention that that while members of an online community often have mixed
feelings about moderators, they feel more positively about them if they have a say in who is
selected to fill the roles. These moderators who earn or deserve these positions “…are more
likely to be perceived as less biased and more likely to reflect the prevailing standards of the
community more than those who are self-appointed or appointed by site owners” (p. 133).
Tackling Toxicity
22
One example of an online community that adopted self-governing procedures is the
online game League of Legends. Like in many other online games, League of Legends features a
chat function that allows players to communicate with their team – something important to the
strategy and teamwork necessary to play effectively. Ehrett (2016) notes that because of the
intensity of the game, it is common for players to express extreme rage and/or frustration and, in
many cases, act in a hostile manner towards their teammates or other players. This toxic
behavior is something that the game is known for, as Kou and Nardi (2014) state that “The
League of Legends community is famous for its players’ disruptive behavior” (p. 2). In order to
counteract this toxicity, Riot Games (the developer and publisher of League of Legends)
developed an e-judiciary system known as the “Tribunal.” The Tribunal is defined as “…a
crowdsourcing system that empowers players to identify and punish disruptive players” (Kou &
Nardi, 2014, p. 2). A developer that helped design the Tribunal stated that one of the key
philosophies of the system involves Riot Games and the player community engaging and
collaborating to solve problematic player behavior together (Kou & Nardi, 2014). This coincides
with what Ehrett (2016) describes as an e-judiciary system, giving power to the players in the
same way that Taylor (2006) envisioned.
The way in which the Tribunal worked is outlined by both Ehrett (2016) and Kou and
Nardi (2014). When a match in League of Legends ends, players immediately have the ability to
report disruptive players. If a certain player was reported by more than one player, then the
Tribunal would create a “case” for that player. The Tribunal itself was a voluntary program that
allows players to judge the actions and behaviors of their fellow players. Each Tribunal
consisted of anywhere from 100 to 150 players that are high-levelled and experienced (In League
of Legends, the maximum account level is 30, and players must be at least level 20 to participate
Tackling Toxicity
23
as a “judge” in a Tribunal). These judges could not see the player’s username or whether or not
the player had been punished before, and they could not see the specific sentence that would be
imposed on that player; the only thing a judge could see were the specific actions that sent the
subject to “trial.” This included a chat log to check for toxic behavior and language as well as
the specific behavior that other players reported following the end of a match. The judges chose
between two options: to “punish” or to “pardon” the offending player. Judges could also elect to
skip a case if they were uncertain about a verdict. If the majority of the judges chose to punish,
then the offending player faced a warning or a temporary or permanent account suspension. The
Tribunal would then send the punished player a link to a “reform card” that detailed the
disruptive behaviors that triggered the punishment.
The Tribunal was implemented from May 2011, and in its first year over 47 million votes
were cast judging toxic behavior; seventy-four percent of the players that faced disciplinary
actions for toxicity subsequently improved their behavior in-game (Kou & Nardi, 2014). League
of Legends players stated that the Tribunal allowed them to understand what behavior is
acceptable and unacceptable. The participation in and judgement received from Tribunals were
often discussed on Riot Games’ official forums, and through these discussions players were able
to discuss and determine what behavior is normative (Kou & Nardi, 2014). Riot Games
deactivated the Tribunal system in favor of the “Instant Feedback System,” or “IFS,” in 2014.
The IFS operates in a similar but much more efficient manner compared to the Tribunal, doling
out necessary punishments within 15 minutes of a game’s end. The IFS still relies on player
reports to accurately and properly moderate toxic behavior, as Riot Games still wanted to give
their players agency in having an impact in the punishment of toxic players (Riot Games, 2018).
Tackling Toxicity
24
While there are policies and systems that exist within online communities to reduce
and/or remove toxicity, it is unclear how effective these processes are. As stated in the first
chapter, there is no official or widely accepted list of toxic behaviors; as a result, online content
moderators do not have set frameworks for how to respond to potential negative behaviors that
users will experience. This research is necessary both to understand the types of behaviors that
gamers consider to be problematic and to develop a way for online game developers to reduce
them.
Tackling Toxicity
25
Chapter 3
Methods
This research had two main objectives: to better understand the forms of negative
communication behaviors that exist in online games and to use that information to guide online
video game developers in addressing these kinds of behaviors in their games. While research
exists on the subjects of online video games, negative online communication, and online content
moderation, there is a noticeable lack of research into a connection between the three subjects.
This research sought to bridge that gap, and the following research questions guided this
endeavor:
RQ1: What communication behaviors are considered “toxic” in online video games?
RQ2: How can online video game developers use public relations to address toxic behavior?
This chapter breaks down the processes that the researcher used in order to answer these
questions. The first section gives an overview of the grounded theory research methodology,
discussing why it was appropriate for this study and the limitations that are associated with it.
The next section goes over the specific procedures that were used to collect data in this study,
explaining why they were chosen and how they were implemented. It also outlines how the data
was coded and themed into specific categories based on player behavior. The following section
is a breakdown of grounded theory and why it was the most appropriate research methodology
for this study.
Tackling Toxicity
26
Research Methodology
A grounded theory study was selected as the research methodology for this project.
Grounded theory is defined by Charmaz, Thornberg, and Keane (2018) as “…a flexible,
systematic, comparative method of constructing theory from data” (p. 411). Grounded theory is
based around the of idea analytic induction, in which reoccurring commonalities in the data lead
to a description and explanation of a phenomena (Krathwohl, 1998). This allows researchers to
develop a theory about the research directly from data analysis. Part of the formation of
theoretical findings in a grounded theory study involve the constant comparison of collected
data. According to Regmi and Kottler (2010), this comparison forces the researcher to consider
different aspects of the phenomenon being investigated, which in turn reveals new insights for a
theory grounded in research to be developed.
The grounded theory methodology was appropriate for this study for a variety of reasons.
The literature revealed that there is not a universal understanding of what behaviors are
considered toxic in online video games, nor is there a definitive strategy for organizations to
address toxic behavior in online video games. According to Creswell and Poth (2018), grounded
theory is useful when an existing theory is not available to explain or understand a process. They
also note that the literature may have models available that are not appropriate for the current
study because they were tested on samples and populations other than what the researcher is
examining. This was relevant for two aspects of this research project; the existing literature for
both negative online communication behaviors and online content moderation are not centered
around online video games. Research into online video games can reveal aspects of negative
communication and content moderation that either would not apply to or would not be effective
in other online communication channels, like social media or online forums. While theories and
Tackling Toxicity
27
ideas about these areas of study certainly apply to moderation in online video games, they were
not tested against the populations that were sampled in this study. Charmaz (2004) states that
grounded theory research provides an explanation of phenomena that other researchers can form
hypotheses from, which is appropriate for this research project’s goal of developing a framework
for online game developers to use to better understand and address toxic behaviors. A clear and
grounded list of toxic behaviors was developed, which was used to form a series of
recommendations for how online video game developers can address these behaviors
While appropriate for this research, grounded theory studies are not without flaws.
Creswell and Poth (2018) note that a challenge for grounded theory researchers is the need to set
aside their own theoretical ideas in order to let a theory emerge from the data itself by following
the systematic approach to research. In order to make sure that previous theoretical
presumptions did not cloud the research, the data collection and data analysis occurred
simultaneously rather than sequentially. This means that any identified themes were developed
from initial data collection and were then tested against emergent themes as the study progressed
to ensure that they are worthy of inclusion, which is a key strength of grounded theory studies
(Charmaz et al., 2018). De Chesnay and Banner (2015) mention that another limitation of
grounded theory studies is a tendency for researchers to approach their research from a blank
slate. While this does avoid the issues that Creswell and Poth (2018) mention, it does mean that
the researcher can miss aspects of the research that could inform theory building and data
collection. This limitation was not an issue for this study, however; while research into online
gaming moderation may be scarce, there is an abundance of research into negative online
behaviors. That research informed this and provided a template for the kind of behaviors that
were examined and observed.
Tackling Toxicity
28
Data Collection
Data was collected through two different methods in this study. The first method was a
textual analysis of public forums for online games. Textual analysis is defined by Saldaña
(2011) as the study of “...texts and images that reflect and metaphorically represent their
creators’ ideologies and value systems” (p. 54). This methodology is common in many
disciplines, including communication and media studies (Lockyer, 2008). Textual analysis is
useful for research that intends to examine how particular cultures make sense of the world
around them (McKee, 2003). In this study, textual analysis was used to gain an understanding of
how gamers view toxic behaviors, which began the process of defining what toxicity in online
gaming is.
Posts from forums for two games, League of Legends and Overwatch, were reviewed for
data collection. Overwatch, a “first-person team based shooter,” has had over 40 million unique
players since its 2016 release (Blizzard, 2019). In Overwatch, two teams of six players compete
to carry out a variety of objectives, like escorting a vehicle called a “payload” across a map or
capturing an area that is defended by the opposing team. League of Legends has had even more
commercial success; the “multiplayer online battle arena” (or “MOBA”), has obtained a monthly
player count of over 100 million (Volk, 2016). League of Legends features two teams of five
players competing to destroy the opposition’s “nexus,” a building that is guarded by a variety of
defensive structures. Both of these games promote teamwork, communication, and coordination,
and both have active forums on their developer-run websites
(https://us.forums.blizzard.com/en/Overwatch/ and https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/)
and on Reddit (https://www.reddit.com/r/Overwatch/ and
Tackling Toxicity
29
https://www.reddit.com/r/leagueoflegends/) where players discuss a variety of topics related to
the games.
Posts on these forums were monitored throughout a four-week period to ensure that a
large body of data was reviewed. The researcher searched the term “toxic” throughout this four-
week period and collected any post that featured a discussion about toxic behavior. A total of
318 forum posts were collected from January 12, 2020 to February 8, 2020. 175 posts were
gathered from the official Overwatch forum, and 39 posts were gathered from the Overwatch
subreddit. 73 posts were collected from the League of Legends subreddit, while only 31 posts
were collected from the official League of Legends forum. Several spreadsheets were made in
order to easily keep track of the collected data. Individual spreadsheets for each forum and
subreddit were made to keep track of the total number of forum posts collected by source.
Another spreadsheet was made for each behavior that was discussed in order to keep track of the
total number of times that certain behaviors were mentioned across all four websites. Each
spreadsheet contained links to these posts, the date of each post’s creation, an overview of their
content, and the toxic behaviors that were mentioned and discussed.
Another data collection method used in this study was the observation of player behavior
in online video games. Observation is defined by Dixon, Singleton, and Straits (2016) as the
gathering of information from subjects or participants in a natural setting rather than in a
contrived setting. Beuving and Vries (2015) mention that observations are not limited to just
what is seen, but also entail any information an observer can gather using all of their senses. For
this project, participant observation was used to examine the kinds of toxic behaviors that exist in
online games. Participant observation is defined by Creswell and Poth (2018) as observations
made while the researcher is participating in the activity at the research site. In this study, the
Tackling Toxicity
30
researcher became a participant-observer by playing and engaging with other players in the
online game Apex: Legends. Apex: Legends is a “battle-royale” shooting game that was released
in March of 2019. In Apex: Legends, several teams of three players compete to survive on an
island while scavenging for weapons and equipment. The play area gradually shrinks over time,
and the last squad left standing is declared the victor. Since its launch, Apex: Legends has had 70
million unique players worldwide (Peres, 2019). The researcher participated in matches within
the game and documented any toxic behaviors that occurred.
A total of 80 individual matches of Apex: Legends were played over the same four-week
period as the textual analysis. 27 of those 80 matches featured at least one form of toxic
behavior that was also noted in the analysis of the forum posts. Observations took place on the
PlayStation 4 home console due to its accessibility to the researcher, who already had the game
installed on the system and had no other platform to play it. The researcher exercised what
Dixon et al. (2016) refer to as covert observation, which is a form of observation in which the
status and identity of the researcher are concealed. As a result, participants in the observation
were not aware that they were being observed or reported on in this study. To avoid any ethical
dilemmas, the identities of all observed players remained hidden. This process was possible
thanks to the anonymous nature of online play; the researcher only had access to the unique
usernames of other encountered players, and these usernames were not detailed in the
observation notes so that each participant’s privacy was fully protected. The researcher created a
spreadsheet in order to keep notes about each observed match. The spreadsheet contained the
date in which each individual match was played and a breakdown of any toxic behavior that was
examined.
Tackling Toxicity
31
Data Analysis
Data analysis took place simultaneously with data collection, as recommended by
Charmaz et al. (2018). Data analysis began by coding the data collected throughout the textual
analysis. Coding is defined by Schwandt (2001) as the process of disaggregating data by
breaking it down into manageable and named segments. For the textual analysis of forum posts,
these segments were categorized by specific, identified negative behaviors. The categories in
this study were “Racism,” “Sexism,” “Hate Speech,” “Cyberbullying.” “Flaming,” “Trolling,”
and “Poor Teamwork.” Breaking down the posts into these segments allowed information to
quickly and easily be retrieved for further analysis, which assisted in the process of discovering
patterns and relating concepts as recommended by Babbie (2011). Most of the collected posts
featured a discussion of more than one toxic behavior, so an additional spreadsheet was created
to keep track of the total number of posts that mentioned each type of behavior. The behaviors
coded throughout the initial textual analysis were further examined throughout the observation
process. Behaviors that occurred in the observation that were also indicated in the textual
analysis were included in the proposed list of behaviors that are considered toxic. The
observation of any behaviors that were not also noted in the forum posts prompted further
examination of the coded data to check for any potential errors.
Grounded theory studies seek to provide a new theory or model for researching a subject
that is not yet thoroughly explored. Rather than adopting a template for moderating other forms
of online content, this research developed a new model to better understand and respond to
negative communication behaviors that exist in online video games. Through a textual analysis
of forum posts and observation of online gamers, a concrete and grounded understanding of
Tackling Toxicity
32
“toxicity” was formed. This paved the way for the creation of a public relations artifact that
online video game developers can use to better address toxicity in their games.
Tackling Toxicity
33
Chapter 4
Findings
The data collected in this study was analyzed in order to answer the following research
questions:
RQ1: What communication behaviors are considered “toxic” in online video games?
RQ2: How can online video game developers use public relations to address toxic behavior?
This chapter breaks down each individual category of toxic behavior that was noted in the data
analysis. Each section of this chapter features examples from the forum posts of what each
behavior entails, and clarifies whether or not the behavior was experienced in the observation
process. Once the behaviors are explained, a further analysis of player opinions on toxicity is
conducted. The final two sections discuss greater problems that online game developers face
when dealing with high amounts of toxicity. The next section begins with an analysis of
flaming, which was the most common behavior noted in the forums.
Flaming
A total of 170 posts collected mentioned flaming, making it by far the most discussed
toxic behavior across the forums. Flaming is a term commonly used in the gaming community
to refer to insults, especially with the use of profanity. A player on the Overwatch forums started
a thread asking about what the word “toxic” actually constitutes, and several other players
mentioned that commenting about another player with the specific intent to hurt or anger them,
or “flaming,” would be toxic. It is important to note that the term “flaming” is broad, and that
other categories of toxicity discussed in this chapter also feature behavior that constitutes
Tackling Toxicity
34
flaming. Behavior outlined in the racism, sexism, and cyberbullying categories may feature
flaming, but flaming does not necessarily need to contain any of those behaviors.
Many posts that discussed flaming featured players criticizing their teammates for
playing poorly or making mistakes. One player in the Overwatch forums started a post admitting
that they become toxic towards their teammates when they play matches in the competitive game
mode. They mention that they will “go on voice chat and just shit on” teammates who are
performing poorly, like those who “can’t aim” (cchaos, 2020). Another player in the forums
commented that he will be criticized by “toxic” teammates for not consistently “landing
headshots” on opposing players (Floofdoof, 2020). In Overwatch, players will deal extra
damage to their target if they hit the opposing character in the head; criticizing someone for not
“landing headshots” is a direct criticism of their ability to aim properly and perform well. This
criticism can also lead to accusations of other forms of toxic behavior, like trolling or feeding
(both of which will be discussed later in this chapter). One player on the League of Legends
subreddit recalled a game in which a teammate continually accused them of intentionally trying
to lose a match, even though the player was making simple mistakes. This teammate called the
player a “troll” over text chat, even though the player mentioned that they were actually trying to
win (nickvng12, 2020). This kind of toxicity even caused one player in the League of Legends
subreddit to hesitate in returning to the game. They wrote that they had not played in over two
years and were considering picking the game back up, but they would rather not “be an active
detriment to the team and get flamed for it” (Pablo59, 2020).
Another basis for flaming in Overwatch and League of Legends was character selection.
In competitive online games such as these, the term “meta” is used to describe the characters that
are considered to be the best, or those that are used at the highest level of play in professional
Tackling Toxicity
35
leagues. Several posts across the forums mentioned that players will face heavy criticism for
picking “off-meta” characters, regardless of how they perform. One player in the League of
Legends subreddit pointed out this behavior as toxic, saying that there are players who “make
sure to let you know just how much they loathe you when you do something that isn’t according
to what they think is good” (AtreusIsBack, 2020). Another player on the subreddit mentioned
that they received criticism immediately upon selecting a certain hero, which led a toxic player to
call them “trash” and a “noob” throughout the match even though the player continually ignored
their insults (adric03, 2020). In this instance, the toxic player was angered to the point of
insulting the other player before the match even began solely because of their character selection.
There is a particular element of aggression that is associated with the incidents of flaming
described in the forums. Actively yelling and using vulgar language commonly accompanied the
insults that were considered to be flaming. For example, a player in the Overwatch forums
mentions that “I know what toxicity is, but I’m not the guy who yells and swears every
game…not to the point where I can insult people rapidly” (maggot, 2020). Several players
reported that they were told to “kill themselves” for their poor play or character selection. One
player on the Overwatch forums even states that players who “throw tantrums like little kids as
well as throwing out very harsh verbal abuse” would completely deter them from playing the
game (RoadhogsButt, 2020). A player on the League of Legends subreddit writes that a
teammate once told them that they hope their mother dies from cancer (schigger98, 2020), while
another player recalls playing for the first time and being repeatedly told to blow his head off
(Scoobie_Doobie11). Several players of Overwatch and League of Legends refer to this anger as
being “tilted” because of their own poor performance or as a result of losing a game. As one
player on the League of Legends subreddit states, players that “flame you all game” are “super
Tackling Toxicity
36
toxic” because they’re “tilted about losing” (BubbleBlower__, 2020). The mentality of many
toxic players appears to be centered around frustration over in-game performances or results, and
they often take out this frustration on their teammates.
Flaming was seen several times in the observation of Apex: Legends matches. Eight of
the 80 Apex: Legends matches contained at least one player that flamed their teammates. In one
match, the team that the observer played on was eliminated within the first two minutes of the
match. After the final player was eliminated, a player entered the voice chat and yelled “You
guys fucking suck” before leaving the match. In another match, a teammate was repeatedly
knocked down by enemy teams and needed to be revived. Every time the player was knocked
down, the other teammate would groan and yell “not this fucking guy again.” This player
repeatedly called the teammate “trash” as well. In several games, a player was criticized for their
hero selection and not using specific abilities properly. One character, Lifeline, has the ability to
heal her teammates by placing a drone. In three matches, a teammate complained that the
Lifeline player was not properly using her heal drone; one player demanded that the Lifeline
“never pick this character again.”
Because of its inherent qualities of vulgar language and personal insults, flaming is a
behavior that is considered toxic. Flaming features a combination of aggression and vulgarity,
often discouraging or distracting players from focusing on the game itself. Because of its
repeated mention on the forums, it qualifies as one of the toxic behaviors that video game
developers need to address.
Tackling Toxicity
37
Poor Teamwork
A total of 110 posts across the Overwatch and League of Legends forums discussed
different aspects of poor teamwork as toxic behavior. The behaviors that were sorted into this
category contained underlying aspects of poor sportsmanship, communication, and coordination
that team-oriented online games require. Players who fail to work as a team can damage the
experience for others, and several players believe this to be toxic. One player on the Overwatch
subreddit mentions that the amount of toxic players appears to be on the rise in recent months,
while the “genuinely nice or helpful people, or those just trying to play as a team” are being
drowned out (Sitiya, 2020). Another player on the League of Legends subreddit offers a similar
sentiment, saying that toxicity will prevent any effective communication from occurring, and that
if he tries to use the chat function, he will only end up arguing with other players rather than
developing an actual strategy (MeowingMango, 2020). There appears to be a desire to work
together as a team through the available communication channels, but toxic behavior makes this
incredibly difficult. This type of toxicity also has the potential to drive some players away from
competitive game modes and into more casual ones, as one player on the Overwatch subreddit
mentions that in the “quick play” game mode, everyone communicates well and is “genuinely
super friendly and nice” (Swinight22, 2020).
Lack of coordination can come in many forms in Overwatch and League of Legends. It is
common practice for players to “call out” specific things that the enemy team is doing, like
setting up in a certain formation or using certain abilities that can be dangerous for teammates.
One player on the Overwatch forum finds that “Almost no one listens to simple, valid callouts,
so even trying to use callouts is moot” (Mox, 2020). Another player on the forum states that “Its
annoying when your team fails to communicate, ignoring important callouts like enemies
Tackling Toxicity
38
attacking from behind and above” (SpiritMystic, 2020). This player asserted that players who do
not pay attention to callouts is “the toxic community messing with the game for their own
entertainment.” Acting in an uncooperative manner was also considered to be a toxic behavior
by many players on the forum. One player on the League of Legends subreddit finds that many
toxic players are “on their own vibe” and do not care about working with the rest of their
teammates (WhatDoIDoDood, 2020). Another player on the Overwatch subreddit mentions that
new players often opt to play for themselves rather than for their teammates. The player writes
that “If you’re all about the win, the stress and the fear of loss will take over and winning will
not really compensate you for how bad you feel. AKA – you become toxic” and that “If you
don’t mind your team, you will suffer yourself” (b3lial666, 2020).
Several players commented on the propensity for toxic players to shift blame away from
themselves in-game. One player on the Overwatch forum states that because of the need for
cooperation, players can very easily deflect responsibility away from themselves when they lose
a match or make a mistake. They write that “Overwatch gives you space to blame others and
excuse yourselves. Overlooking good plays and looking only for the mistakes makes us toxic”
(Smurfette, 2020). Reported incidents of blaming others often feature other forms of toxic
behavior as well. A player on the Overwatch subreddit believes that players will continue to go
off on their own and “immediately blame others” instead of playing with the team
(POOBEARHONEYPOT, 2020). In this instance, players are already being uncooperative by
not playing around their team, and then they will continue to be a bad teammate by blaming
others as the team is losing. Another player on the Overwatch forum mentions that players will
be “cussed out, shat on in text and voice chat, and at times not even healed out of spite” if his
Tackling Toxicity
39
team does not successfully defend an objective (Stodt, 2020). The player is being blamed for the
team losing the match, and will be ignored by his teammates and flamed as a result.
Another toxic behavior associated with poor teamwork that was mentioned on the forums
is leaving. “Leaving” in online games refers to a player withdrawing from the game in the
middle of the match. This can be a significant detriment to one’s team, as a team that has a
lower number of players compared to the opposition will be at a serious disadvantage. Both
Overwatch and League of Legends will punish players for leaving games early, but some toxic
players choose to do so anyway. Several posts on the Overwatch and League of Legends forums
listed “leaving” as a toxic behavior akin to flaming. One player on the Overwatch forum states
that reducing the number of leavers would create “a substantially less toxic environment” in the
game (604life, 2020). There is also an element of aggression that is associated with leaving,
leading the behavior to often be referred to as “rage-quitting.” For example, one player on the
League of Legends forums mentions that toxic players at their competitive rank will get angry
after their teammates make a small error and eventually leave the match in frustration (Sett a
trap, 2020.
Poor teamwork was the toxic behavior encountered the most often in the observation
process. 15 matches of Apex: Legends contained some aspect of poor teamwork as indicated by
the forum posts. In 7 individual matches, one player on the team acted in an uncooperative
manner by straying far from the other two players. It is important in Apex: Legends to not
wander too far from one’s teammates in case an enemy team approaches; the player who
abandons their team is liable to either be singled out by an opposing squad or leave their other
two teammates without necessary assistance. In several matches, both the researcher and the
second teammate attempted to communicate with the player who separated from the group;
Tackling Toxicity
40
however, the third player never responded to any attempt at coordination. The researcher also
encountered players leaving in the middle of the game in 12 individual matches. Most of these
incidents occurred almost immediately after the player was knocked down; rather than wait to
see if a teammate could revive them, the player opted to leave the game and leave their
teammates to continue without a third player.
While poor teamwork may include different behaviors based on the game, it is
unequivocally a behavior that is prevalent in toxic environments. The combination of poor
sportsmanship, a lack of coordination or communication, and a lack of care for one’s teammates
all actively detract from other players’ ability to enjoy a game. Whether a player leaves the
game in the middle of the match or refuses to acknowledge their own shortcomings in favor of
shifting the blame to their teammates, any aspect of poor teamwork can contribute to toxicity in
an online video game.
Cyberbullying
30 posts collected from the forums discussed some form of cyberbullying as toxic
behavior. While not every post in this category used the word “cyberbullying” or “bullying,”
each one discussed actions, attitudes, or behavior that qualifies as cyberbullying based on the
literature review. Two central qualities led to this distinction: aggression and targeted or
repeated behavior. It is important to note that other examples of toxic behavior discussed in this
research may mention or contain these aspects of cyberbullying. However, the posts that were
sorted into this category contained discussions that best exemplified these two qualities and
explicitly mentioned the behavior as toxic. There were specific posts that mentioned the word
“bullying” as a toxic behavior. For example, a player in the Overwatch forum mentions that
certain qualities of gameplay can lead to players being “bullied” into swapping in-game from one
Tackling Toxicity
41
character to another, which would “elevate the basis for toxicity” (PuffyPony, 2020). Another
player on the forums mentions a similar incident where players are “bullied” for playing an “off-
meta” character (IdolOfRoses, 2020). In the post in question, the player has seen his teammates
get “bullied” for playing characters that are not considered to be the best. The player mentions
seeing other players go as far as to encourage other players to report these “off-meta” players
simply for their character selection.
One of the most common forms of cyberbullying mentioned on the forums as a toxic
behavior actually occurs outside of the game. Several players discussed receiving “hate mail”
through either the game’s or the gaming console’s internal messaging systems. These systems
allow players to speak with each other outside of in-game voice or text channels. One player in
the League of Legends subreddit recalls a game in which his computer malfunctioned and he was
disconnected from the game, resulting in a loss. He received a message from a teammate after
the game, in which the teammate berated him for making team lose and told him to kill himself.
That player mentions that while he felt horrible for making his teammates lose and he understood
that the game can be stressful, the disconnection was out of his control and there is “no excuse
for this amount of toxicity” (UJustGotSlain, 2020). Another player, in a post titled “A Tale of
Toxicity on PS4,” recounts a series of matches in which a player repeatedly sent him angry
messages through the PlayStation 4’s messaging system. The two players were initially
teammates, and the toxic player sent him messages throughout and after their game criticizing
his gameplay. After the player blocked and reported them, the toxic player appeared on the
enemy team in the following match and continued to send hateful messages (Chance, 2020).
Another player on the forum mentions that he was repeatedly harassed by a player who accused
him of cheating. The player would block the toxic player in question from sending him
Tackling Toxicity
42
messages, only for the toxic player to log onto alternate accounts and repeatedly message the
player and continue to harass him (revale, 2020). All of these instances include specific acts of
singling out a player and using external methods to harass or insult them, and each of the posts
discussing this behavior used the word “toxic” in describing it.
Players are also targeted for their competitive ranks and their overall playtime, both of
which are considered to be toxic behaviors. The “competitive” game modes in both League of
Legends and Overwatch feature a “ladder” in which players can “rise through the ranks” by
winning matches. The more a player wins and improves their skills, the better their rank will be.
Player ranks are displayed upon entering a match in each competitive mode, and ranks from
previous dates are able to be accessed by viewing a specific player’s profile if the player has not
made their profile private. A player in the Overwatch forum mentions that he has experienced
players being made fun of for their rank and play time, mentioning that those at a lower rank or
who spent too much time playing the game will be shamed and belittled by toxic players
(SwankyPants, 2020). Another player on the Overwatch subreddit mentions that he was made
fun of for being in the lowest competitive rank often enough to where communication was
interrupted. He says that whenever he tried to point something out to his team, they would
dismiss his callout and say “you’re in bronze also” – which he called “a toxic comment” (-thac0,
2020).
No instances of cyberbullying occurred in the observation of Apex: Legends matches. It
is possible that an instance occurred between two other teammates through the PlayStation 4
messaging system, but the observer did not have access to that information. In addition, the
observer was not messaged by any of the teammates encountered during the observations.
Tackling Toxicity
43
Player-reported incidents of cyberbullying featured key characteristics of targeted,
aggressive communication that focused on a specific quality to humiliate another player. While
the term “cyberbullying” may not have been used in each of these examples, the actions and
underlying motivation behind these actions clearly constitute cyberbullying, and clearly qualify
the behavior as toxic.
Trolling, Throwing, Feeding, and Smurfing
98 posts across the Overwatch and League of Legends forums and subreddits described
trolling as a toxic behavior. This category had a similar quality as the “cyberbullying” category
in that not every post explicitly mentioned the word “trolling” or “troll,” but each post in this
category described actions or behavior that qualified as trolling based on the literature review.
Two toxic behaviors were heavily discussed in both Overwatch and League of Legends as
closely related to trolling: throwing and feeding. “Throwing” describes any action or behavior in
which a player is intentionally causing their team to lose. The League of Legends community
occasionally referred to this behavior as “inting” (based off of the word “intentional”), but both
the League of Legends and Overwatch communities used the word “throwing” as well.
Throwing can occur in a variety of ways, one of which is “feeding.” Feeding occurs when a
player deliberately allows themselves to be killed or eliminated by the opposing team. It is
important to note that throwing and feeding are not equivalent to poor play. While newer players
may make mistakes, they are not intentionally trying to hinder their team like “throwers” and
“feeders” will.
Throwing and feeding appeared to be understood by players of Overwatch and League of
Legends as behaviors associated with toxicity. A player on the Overwatch forum equates flaming
with throwing, saying that “in games there are always some toxic players that throw constant
Tackling Toxicity
44
insults, throw games, troll, etc.” (VictorLagina, 2020). Another player on the League of Legends
subreddit mentions that in most games at least two teammates will start flaming and “inting” as
soon as they think that the team is losing (BodyMovementIsTaken, 2020). Several players even
mention that flaming can devolve into throwing. For example, a player in the League of Legends
subreddit recounts a game in which a teammate stated that the other players in the match
“deserve to lose” and proceeded to throw the game. The player says that this is “by far the most
toxic thing I see people say in this game” and that players who do this are only trying to “tilt” the
rest of their team (RigLicker, 2020). The player discussed in this post did not only insult the rest
of their teammates, but further acted in a toxic way by attempting to force them to lose.
Throwing can also occur in different forms aside from feeding. A heavily discussed form
of throwing was inactivity, in which players would deliberately not move their characters in-
game. This is often referred to as going “AFK,” or “away from the keyboard.” It is important to
note that being inactive is not always a toxic behavior; there are instances where a player’s
system or controller malfunctions or something outside of the game causes them to turn their
attention away from the game. The inactivity described by the players on forums, however,
specifically refers to intentionally choosing to not move one’s character. This accomplishes a
similar goal as feeding, as players who go inactive are sabotaging their own team by removing
themselves from the action of the game. For example, a player on the Overwatch forum
discusses an instance where they played with a “toxic” teammate who “just sat down mid-game,”
which made it difficult for their team to win the match because they were effectively down a
player (Seraph, 2020). Another instance was noted on the League of Legends subreddit, in which
one player started “throwing” the game by ignoring their assignment, which caused a second
player to go AFK (FortnightlyBorough, 2020). While not directly moving their characters into
Tackling Toxicity
45
the enemy team, these players were still “throwing” the game by actively assisting the
opposition.
Multiple posts mentioned that throwing is particularly common among players who are
smurfing. “Smurfing” occurs when a player, typically at a high skill level, creates an alternate
account to play with players at a lower skill level. To do this, the player who is “smurfing” has
to intentionally play poorly to lose games and be placed into a lower skill ranking. Once the
players are ranked among players who are not as skilled, they are able to win games with little
trouble. Several posts mentioned smurfing as a toxic behavior for a variety of reasons. One
reason is that smurfs will intentionally throw games in order to be ranked lowly. A player in the
Overwatch forums states that players who are “overtly toxic” and “throw matches just to stay at
lower ranks” will ultimately damage the average player’s ability to improve their skill in the
game (FweenTSP, 2020). Another reason is that smurfs often exhibit other toxic behaviors
outside of throwing. For example, a player in the Overwatch forums recounts a match with a
smurf who consistently flamed the rest of the team for making mistakes. The smurf was angrily
telling his teammates how to play their respective characters and told the player who posted the
thread to “uninstall this game, you worthless piece of shit” (Miksolo, 2020). The tendency for
hostile communication and the requirement of throwing led several players in the forums to
criticize smurfing as a toxic behavior.
No instances of trolling or throwing were encountered in the observation process. It is
possible that one or more smurfs were encountered while playing Apex: Legends, but there were
no observed incidents of throwing and no other indication that a smurf was on the same team as
the observer.
Tackling Toxicity
46
Trolling in online video games seems to appear most frequently in the form of throwing
and smurfing. Whether a player is throwing to obtain a lower skill rank or going “AFK” after
getting frustrated by their teammates, the trolling that exists in online video games is inherently
disruptive to the experience of other players. The propensity for these behaviors to elicit
frustrated and angered responses from teammates, coupled with the fact that these behaviors are
often accompanied by another form of toxicity, clearly indicated that trolling in online video
games is a toxic behavior.
Racism, Sexism, and Hate Speech
Several players who posted in the forums brought up racism as a behavior that is
associated with toxicity. In total, 26 different posts mentioned racism as a behavior associated
with toxicity. In a conversation on the League of Legends subreddit, a commenter notes that
racism, homophobia, and other forms of hate speech are all examples of different kinds of
behaviors that are toxic (Mr Sett, 2020). Another discussion on the forum features a player
noting that, according to the rules of League of Legends, saying racist things will earn an
offender a two-week suspension even if they had never been suspended for something else that
was “toxic” (2Charmnot2Charm, 2020). This example shows that racism seems to be a clear
example of a behavior that is considered toxic by the player base because there is an
understanding that using those kinds of slurs will result in a harsher punishment from the
developer. In addition, the understanding among players that racism is toxic points to its
commonality in the gaming sphere. One player in the Overwatch subreddit started a thread
asking if it was necessary to enter the in-game voice channel because they are often met with
“typical slurs” when they do (any580, 2020). This suggests that racism is encountered often in
Tackling Toxicity
47
online games, which further emphasizes the need for developers to address it and other toxic
behaviors.
Several posts across the four forums gave specific examples of racist behavior when
discussing toxicity. One player in the Overwatch forums mentions that they are from Malaysia
and are of Chinese ethnicity. The player states that one teammate said that “only proper English
speakers from America should be allowed to play,” and another mimicked their voice with an
“exaggerated Chinese accent that is popular in American movies.” The player decided to “just
report these toxic racists” and try not to dwell on it (stormy001, 2020). Several posts mentioned
the use of racial slurs as toxic behaviors, like the player on the League of Legends subreddit who
recounts that they were greeted by “racial slurs” during their first session in the game’s
competitive mode (Jxcedoe, 2020). A player in the Overwatch forum also mentions an incident
where they reported another player for “calling black people gorillas and talking about slavery
and flaming all game calling people the N word.” After filing a report, the player noticed that
this teammate was not punished and found him on the same team acting in a similar matter in
multiple other games (NerfBearger, 2020). A few players on the forums also mentioned hearing
“the hard R,” which refers to the use of the N-word with a deliberately pronounced final syllable,
used towards black players.
Sexism was also noted on the forums as a toxic behavior, although there were
substantially less conversations about sexism than racism. Only 13 collected posts mentioned
sexism, half of the amount that mentioned racism. Most posts that mentioned sexism also
mentioned racism in their discussions on toxic behavior, equating the two as clear examples of
toxicity. Most of the discussion about sexism specifically was geared towards discrimination or
harassment of women, although one post on the Overwatch forum mentions that men have faced
Tackling Toxicity
48
some degree of sexism in the game. The player notes that he has heard men shamed and
criticized for playing as female characters rather than male characters in-game (AK1174, 2020).
Aside from this post, however, the majority of discussions about sexism dealt with what women
experience.
Specific examples that were discussed in these posts conveyed that women are targeted
for their gender in online games. One player in the Overwatch forum notes that toxic players
will criticize women for their gender rather than their gameplay, mentioning that he would rather
toxic players criticize others for poor gameplay instead of hearing that a female teammate should
“get offline and back in the kitchen” (Gatsby, 2020). Another player on the forum also recalls
hearing a male player tell a female player to “go back to the kitchen.” He clarifies, however, that
this comment “was the nicest thing he said” to this female player, indicating that more aggressive
or harsh sexist comments were made (Jaheira, 2020). Aggression was seen by another player
who was a male but used the name “Julia” as his username. He states that he has experienced
threats of sexual assault “simply because of my battletag” before players even find out that he is
not a woman (Julia, 2020).
Other forms of hate speech were discussed as toxic behaviors as well, though discussion
about them was not as common as racism or sexism. Some of the aforementioned posts that
mention racism and sexism as clearly toxic behaviors also mention “hate speech,” including
homophobia. Several posts mention that toxic players will casually use homophobic slurs or
discriminate against someone based on their sexuality. These posts accordingly say that
homophobia, like racism, is a behavior that will result in harsher punishments from game
developers based on the rules and regulations that individual games already have in place. One
player on the Overwatch subreddit notes that he was called a homophobic slur and told to kill
Tackling Toxicity
49
himself even though he played well in the match, and was confused why some players are “toxic
for no reason” (12saf991h, 2020). Hate speech directed towards those with disabilities was also
mentioned on the forums. One player in the Overwatch forum finds that toxic players that are
ranked highly in the competitive mode will often call their teammates “retarded” (TheMuffin27,
2020). Another player recalls several incidents where he was made fun of for his hearing
impairment; when he had trouble listening to his teammates’ directions, he was called “deaf and
dumb” for not following them. That player also mentions that he would face this kind of toxicity
even if he alerted his teammates of his condition at the start of a match (JetSetRadio, 2020).
Although each of these forms of hate speech were not widely discussed, there still seems to be an
understanding that this kind of behavior qualifies as toxic.
The researcher did not encounter any instances of direct harassment based on race,
gender, sexuality, or disability during the observation process. However, four individual
matches of Apex: Legends saw the use of derogatory slurs used by teammates. In one match of
Apex: Legends, the researcher was teamed up with a pair of players who appeared to be friends,
as they were discussing the previous match that they had played. They mentioned that their
previous third teammate was a “retard” who kept running into enemy teams without alerting their
teammates. Another match featured a player who was struggling to eliminate a certain player on
the enemy team. This player said several times “This faggot Pathfinder won’t die!” upon
continuously failing to eliminate them.
While there were not many posts that described or discussed racism, sexism, or other
forms of hate speech, the discussions that did mention those behaviors unequivocally recognized
them as toxic. These behaviors were also mentioned as commonplace in online video games, to
the point that posters that belong to minority groups appeared to expect this discrimination in
Tackling Toxicity
50
Overwatch and League of Legends. Actions that were discussed as toxic included both the use of
slurs against a specific minority group and also jokes made at the expense of those groups.
Lack of Effective Systems
Multiple posts about toxic behaviors on the Overwatch and League of Legends forums
also featured discussions about ineffective systems for addressing toxicity that exist within each
game. A total of 52 collected posts featured a discussion about systems that are ineffective in
addressing toxicity. Many of these posts featured players venting frustrations not only about one
or more of the aforementioned toxic behaviors, but also about the fact that Blizzard and Riot
Games, the developers of Overwatch and League of Legends respectively, are not properly
controlling these behaviors. There is an understanding that this lack of a proper response to
toxicity further compounds the issues that toxic behavior causes, making it even more important
for video game developers to make a more focused effort to address it.
Numerous individual policies were criticized in the forum posts. For example, two
separate posts on the Overwatch forums had players mention teammates with a “high
endorsement level” still being racist and toxic. The Endorsement system in Overwatch allows
players to positively endorse their teammates for good sportsmanship, strong leadership, and/or
good teamwork. Receiving endorsements from other players will increase one’s endorsement
level, which ranges from 1 to 5. Players at the highest endorsement rank are expected to be
positive communicators with good sportsmanship, but these two posts on the Overwatch forums
both mentioned examples of players that were highly endorsed displaying racist behaviors. The
first player asks in the Overwatch forum if people “actually think having a high endorsement
level means you aren’t toxic” (Jaeger, 2020). They mention that they have been called “the hard
R” by more players at endorsement level three or higher than they have been by those at the
Tackling Toxicity
51
lowest endorsement level. The other poster states that they specifically remember meeting
players at endorsement level four who used homophobic and racist slurs in game (FruityXNinja,
2020). These encounters stuck out to the player not only because of their toxicity, but because
they were at a high endorsement level and the player did not think that they deserved to be
ranked where they were. Both of these posts suggest that Overwatch’s endorsement system is
not effective; at the very least, the system is not entirely accurate in assuring players that their
teammates will not be toxic. In addition, experiencing toxicity from a highly endorsed player
has the chance to be more impactful because of the expectation of good communication or
behavior. Seeing a highly endorsed player could raise expectations and any subsequent toxicity
is potentially even more memorable or lasting.
Several other systems within Overwatch and League of Legends were criticized by
players in their respective forums. For example, a thread on the Overwatch forum featured a
discussion by players about hiding in-game “levels” that indicate total playtime. One player
mentions that removing indication of how much time a player has on a game would “eliminate a
lot of toxicity and harassment from Upper Tier players, and the high society children that play
this game just to bully and be toxic to others” (BrokenNinja, 2020). Other players in the thread
agree that, at the very least, players should have the option to hide indicators of total playtime to
avoid potential toxicity. Another player on the League of Legends forums criticized the
reporting system of the game in a post titled “This game promotes nothing but toxic behavior.”
They write that League of Legends has “too many fucking trolls and inters that never get
punished because the system to catch them is garbage” (RenSnow, 2020). The player also
implored Riot Games to work on improving player experience in order to reduce toxicity.
Another player in the League of Legends subreddit mentions the abundance of racial and
Tackling Toxicity
52
misogynistic slurs in player usernames, suggesting that the system to detect and delete or punish
those with offensive language in their usernames is not working effectively (inamontnytfe,
2020).
In many discussions about toxicity on the forums, a common response was the suggestion
of “muting” those who were behaving in a toxic way. If someone was flaming or using hate
speech, the player witnessing or experiencing the behavior is expected to use the in-game “mute”
function to cut off all forms of contact with the toxic player. While muting does silence any
verbal or text-based toxicity, it does not completely resolve the issue. In response to a post
questioning why players complain about toxicity, one player on the League of Legends subreddit
comments that players “Can’t mute someone from inting,” or “throwing” (oceansnak, 2020).
While toxicity encompasses several communicative behaviors, it also includes behaviors that
cannot be avoided just by cutting off all forms of contact. Game-oriented behaviors like
throwing, feeding, trolling, and poor teamwork are all toxic, yet they cannot be solved by muting
another player. This suggests that alternate forms of addressing those behaviors must be
implemented by game developers.
Atmosphere of Toxicity
The lack of effective systems for addressing toxic behavior also seems to contribute to a
perceived atmosphere of toxicity in certain online games. Several posts across the forums
indicated that an overall atmosphere of toxicity in Overwatch and League of Legends. A total of
69 posts collected used language to suggest that toxicity occurs far too often to be considered a
series of isolated incidents. Many of these posts featured players venting about a multitude of
toxic behaviors that are reducing their enjoyment of one of the games. For example, a player in
the Overwatch forum states that toxicity is at an all-time high because of the abundance of
Tackling Toxicity
53
smurfs, leavers, and bullies (Deuslrae, 2020). Another player on the League of Legends
subreddit states that toxicity, inactivity, and throwing are “rampant” and “universal,” saying that
other players will be unsurprised whenever a game has someone toxic in it because they likely
just left another game with another toxic player (NyukaNyuka, 2020). When these behaviors
become too common, members of the player base may start to expect to run into toxicity before
it actually happens.
Multiple posts on the forums featured players opting to stop playing one of the two
games altogether because of repeated encounters with toxic players. For example, a player on
the Overwatch forum states that “The single biggest thing that has made people quit Overwatch
is people. Throwers, smurfs, trolls, and toxic players” (Comixfan, 2020). Another player on the
League of Legends subreddit remarks that the current competitive season of the game is the
“worst experience I ever had with this game” due to the frequency of people flaming, going
inactive, or leaving matches (Slayosadc, 2020). Complaints about the communities of the games
were also common, as seen in a post titled “Competitive Toxicity at all time high (Opinion)” in
the Overwatch forum. A user named BrokenNinja (2020) remarks that there is “no reason I
should be playing” Overwatch because of the rampant flaming, smurfing, and trolling that
regularly occurs. The frequency of these behaviors not only contributes to a toxic environment,
but it contributes to players losing motivation to continue playing the game.
This atmosphere of toxicity has also caused some people to feel forced to opt out of
entering in-game communication channels in the first place. Many players remarked that they
will not enter the voice chat of Overwatch or immediately “mute all” text chat in League of
Legends to avoid encountering any verbal or written forms of toxicity. One player in the
Overwatch forums jokingly states that the “mute all” function is “magical,” saying that their
Tackling Toxicity
54
games instantly become “50% less toxic” (aeggin, 2020). Another player in the Overwatch
subreddit questions whether or not entering voice chat was necessary because they wanted to
avoid typical slurs and harassment (any580, 2020). The disruption that certain forms of toxicity
can cause is leading players to not even enter communication channels out of fear. Many players
will choose that not communicating with the team at all is a better alternative than dealing with
toxicity for any amount of time. In games like Overwatch and League of Legends, where
teamwork and coordination can be integral to the experience, this trend is alarming.
Toxicity in online video games can appear in a variety of forms. Each of the behaviors
discussed throughout this chapter were not only repeatedly mentioned by different users across
four separate online forums, but they were specifically mentioned alongside the term “toxic.”
The incidents and examples that Overwatch and League of Legends players discussed helped the
researcher gain a better understanding of what each behavior entails within the context of online
gaming. It also illuminated on larger issues of ineffective systems for addressing these behaviors
and an overall atmosphere of toxicity that permeates across these two communities. These issues
give further insight into what needs to be corrected and implemented in the future when online
video game developers attempt to address and moderate toxicity in their games.
Tackling Toxicity
55
Chapter 5
Conclusion
The two goals of this research were to understand what behaviors are considered toxic in
online video games and to use that understanding to assist online video game developers in their
attempts to address toxicity. The following questions guided the research in accomplishing those
goals:
RQ1: What communication behaviors are considered “toxic” in online video games?
RQ2: How can online video game developers use public relations to address toxic behavior?
This chapter features three sections that bring together the previous four chapters and answer
these two questions. The first section features a comparison of the data collected about toxic
behaviors that exist in online video games to the toxic behaviors that were identified in the
literature review. A comparison of common behaviors is conducted, pointing out similarities in
toxic behaviors in online platforms like blogs and social media sites as well as the differences
that these behaviors possess when examined within online video games. The second section uses
the collected data and the differences noted to provide recommendations for online video game
developers and their public relations teams to better address issues relating to toxicity that exist
or could possibly exist within their games. These recommendations seek to proactively address
the potential reputation crisis that toxicity could cause. A summarization of the
recommendations in the format of two easily accessible and readable artifacts is located in the
appendix of this paper. The final section concludes the study, goes over limitations that were
present in the study, and gives recommendations for other researchers who are pursuing or
considering a study on toxicity in online video games.
Tackling Toxicity
56
Comparison to Behaviors Noted in the Literature
Based on the data collection and analysis, the research in this paper asserts that toxic
behavior in online video games has several key differences and similarities to toxicity found in
other online platforms. The literature review revealed several different types of toxicity that
exist in platforms like online forums and social media websites, including trolling,
cyberbullying, racism, and sexism. All of these behaviors were discussed by online gamers on
the Overwatch and League of Legends forums, revealing that the behaviors exist in online games
and are considered to be toxic by the community. However, these behaviors have their own
unique qualities that make addressing them in online video games different from addressing
them in another online platform.
Certain types of trolling in online gaming feature a large departure from one of the
behavior’s defining qualities as indicated in the literature review. Buckels, Trapnell, and
Paulhaus (2014) and Golf-Papez and Veer (2017) described trolling as a behavior centered
around deceiving a target to elicit an emotional response. However, behaviors like throwing,
feeding, and inactivity do not involve any form of deception. These are all intentional acts
committed by toxic players, often accompanied by other toxic behaviors like flaming, racism, or
sexism. While deception is not a key characteristic of these behaviors, they all entail disruptive
actions that intentionally elicit negative reactions from the victim or victims. Players who throw
games, whether in frustration at the performance of a teammate or in order to intentionally lower
their competitive ranking, disrupt the integrity of the game and potentially the enjoyment of
other players. Golf-Papez and Veer (2017) indicated that trolls are attention-seekers, which
appears to be the case for those who throw, feed, or have a smurf account in online video games.
The fact that these behaviors are often accompanied by some other aspect of toxicity points to
Tackling Toxicity
57
the idea that those who engage in these actions are seeking to gain attention from their
teammates.
On the contrary, cyberbullying in online gaming is a behavior that featured several
similarities with key characteristics that were identified in the literature review. While online
gaming is a vastly different platform than those that previous research on cyberbullying were
centered on, the types of motivations and specific tendencies that define cyberbullying were
similar. Kowalski, Limber, and Agaston (2008) assert that a larger audience is able to see
specific acts of cyberbullying because of its online nature, which certainly can be the case for
cyberbullying in online gaming. When players are targeted for their character selection, for
example, any act of aggression or targeted comment towards that player is either read or heard
by the other members of the team. In the case of text chat, it is possible for these messages to be
read by members of the opposing team as well, should the sender decide to type in the “match
chat” channel rather than “team chat” channel.
The different forms of aggression and motivation that drive cyberbullying were also seen
in the examples noted from online games. The hostile aggression noted by Griffin and Gross
(2004) was seen in online gaming in instances where toxic players would message teammates
after a game to insult or belittle them. These instances were characteristically impulsive and
motivated by anger after a perceived provocation, which in this research was typically noted as
performing poorly. Proactive aggression was seen as well, in which cyberbullying has a goal of
something other than harm like domination or intimidation (Anderson & Bushman, 2002). In the
instances where players were “bullied” into playing as another character, the primary motivation
was more centered on controlling who plays which character rather than harming the target.
Tackling Toxicity
58
However, not every aspect of cyberbullying in online gaming was similar to those
defined in the literature review. One characteristic that differed when comparing cyberbullying
in online gaming to cyberbullying in other online platform’s is the permanence of the behavior.
Cyberbullying was described by Menesini and Nocentini (2009) as something that could be
widely disseminated, copied or reposted. The cyberbullying that occurs in online gaming
typically only lasts for a single match or a short time after the match if the cyberbully continually
messages a specific victim. The nature of other online platforms, like forums and social media
websites, facilitate the spread of particular acts of cyberbullying. In addition, it is difficult to
determine whether or not indirect aggression is present in the online gaming setting.
Cyberbullying with indirect aggression is associated with social rejection and rumor spreading
(Griffin & Gross, 2004); in the analysis of the forum posts, there was no discussion about any
social rejection or rumor spreading occurring in-game, which suggests that it is not an issue on
the platform. However, further research may need to be conducted in this area before a qualified
answer can be determined.
Online racism and sexism also share their own similarities with the behaviors that were
found to exist in online video games. Both racism and sexism were found to be among the
behaviors that were universally understood to be toxic. This coincides with what Fox et al.
(2015) stated saying that sexism is an ongoing issue in several online platforms, and the research
in this paper confirms that it is an issue in online gaming. It also confirms Daniels’s (2013)
assertion that racism in online platforms has become commonplace; the number of posts
mentioning individual incidents of racism suggest that it continues to be an issue for people of
color who play video games online. Examples of racism and sexism that were noted in the
analysis of forum posts mainly featured direct harassment rather than subtle or atmospheric
Tackling Toxicity
59
harassment. In the instances of racism, this confirms Keum and Miller’s (2017) suggestion that
racist messages in online platforms are blatant more often than not.
There were also examples in the forum posts of ambient sexism as noted by Fox et al.
(2015). Those noted instances of toxic players making jokes about female players by telling
them to “go back to the kitchen” reinforces several aspects of online sexism that occur on other
platforms. As Marwick (2013) asserts, the belief that these kinds of jokes are less harmful than
examples of direct harassment only further reinforces male entitlement and normalizes sexist
behavior. The previously noted atmosphere of toxicity that occurs in online platforms is similar
to the atmosphere of sexism that results from ambient sexism. As toxic behaviors, including
sexism, are normalized and expected from the consumers of or participants in an online platform,
they will begin to drive people away in a similar way to Fox and Tang’s (2016) assertion that
online sexism drives women away from online platforms.
Each of the toxic online behaviors that were examined in the literature review appeared in
the analysis of forum posts of online video games. While certain qualities and aspects of each
behavior may have varied across different platforms, their existence and toxic nature cannot be
denied. The analysis also revealed new actions that each behavior entails, laying the foundation
for further analysis into toxic online video game behaviors. Now that each behavior and the
qualities that make those behaviors unique in online gaming have been identified, the issue of
toxicity in online games can begin to be addressed.
Addressing Toxicity through Public Relations
As discussed in the literature review, methods of monitoring and addressing toxicity in
other online platforms may not be the most effective way to address the problems in online video
Tackling Toxicity
60
games. For example, if an online content moderation model centered around monitoring toxicity
in an online forum were to be applied to one of the online video games examined in this project,
there would be no way to address things like throwing, inactivity, leaving, feeding, and smurfing.
In addition, the nature of toxic behaviors that exist on other online platforms do not always
manifest the same characteristics when they appear in online gaming. As mentioned in the
previous section, a behavior like trolling may not necessarily be deceptive when occurring in an
online game despite deception being a defining characteristic of trolling in other online content.
For these reasons, it is important to look for alternate methods of addressing and minimizing the
existence of harmful behaviors within online gaming. This section will detail recommendations
for online game developers when creating or reworking systems that address these behaviors.
One of the main goals in addressing toxicity in online video games is to prevent a
reputation crisis from occurring for video game developers. The data collected in this study
revealed an atmosphere of toxicity that exists within online video games like Overwatch and
League of Legends, in which players expect toxicity to occur before an individual match even
begins. This drives some players to avoid toxicity by either choosing to not enter
communication channels or by outright quitting the game altogether. This gives certain online
games a negative reputation; players are starting to believe that a game’s community is toxic or
that the game itself induces toxic behaviors from players. As stated by Ehrett (2016), many
developers are aware of issues surrounding toxicity but choose to not address the issue until it
causing a larger exodus of players. This makes toxicity an example of a “smoldering” crisis as
defined by the Institute of Crisis Management (2008) where corporate leaders are aware of issues
before a crisis gets out of control. Having a reputation of toxicity can lead a game or a game’s
Tackling Toxicity
61
developers to lose acceptability and legitimacy from their player base and potential new players,
which is a direct result of poor reputation management as stated by Griffin (2014).
The research in this paper suggests that game developers can use public relations to
proactively address this crisis. If the atmosphere of toxicity is causing players to not play a game
and, in turn, damages the reputation of that game and its developer, then a reputation crisis could
potentially occur. Public relations can be useful in protecting the reputation of the organization
by monitoring and addressing the issue before a full-blown crisis occurs (Hagan, 2011). In order
to properly address the issues surrounding toxicity, public relations practitioners need to
communicate the right messages to the right people at the right time (Leighton & Sheldon,
2008). In the case of toxicity in online video gaming, the messages must include the
condemnation of the behaviors discussed throughout this study and the promotion of behaviors
that support teamwork and communication. These messages must be communicated to the
player base of the game in question, and they must be communicated before the game’s
reputation becomes too associated with toxicity. The recommendations detailed in this section
provide information on how these messages can be communicated in an effective and proactive
manner.
The first recommendation is to increase transparency between the developers of an online
video game and the player base of that game. While the exact nature of each behavior and what
actions specifically qualify as toxic is integral to this study, it is also important to note the source
of this information. Using an analysis of forum posts for two of the most popular online video
games, the researcher was able to determine what behaviors are toxic by taking feedback directly
from each game’s player base. The identification of toxic behavior was based not on what is
considered toxic in other online platforms, but specifically what online video game players
Tackling Toxicity
62
believe to be toxic. This grants two advantages for video game developers in addressing these
behaviors. The first is that the behaviors are specifically targeted and understood to be different
from similar behaviors on other online platforms. Using the information from this research to
build a system in addressing toxicity indicates that online game developers are looking to
specifically address the issues in their platforms and that they understand that the behaviors (and,
therefore, the means in which they must address these behaviors) are inherently unique. The
second is that it indicates a level of understanding between the developers and the player base.
Using their feedback indicates that they are directly listening to player opinions about not just
what is and is not toxic, but larger issues like inefficient existing systems and an atmosphere of
toxicity that permeates throughout the community.
Being transparent with the player base involves embracing their ideas about what specific
behaviors are toxic and implementing their feedback and criticism about how these behaviors are
being addressed. One step to show that developers are taking player opinions and considerations
seriously is to implement their feedback directly into in-game systems. This includes the
“report” feature that nearly every online game contains, through which players are allowed to
report a toxic player for specific behaviors to the game developers in order for some form of
punishment to be delivered. Maintaining transparency through the report function involves
allowing players to be as specific as possible in describing what behavior counted as toxic. The
report feature in Overwatch, for example, allows players to manually write in the exact behaviors
and actions that another player participated in to warrant the report. In addition to having this
feature, game developers should have an exhaustive list of toxic behaviors as indicated by their
own player base. If the community of a specific game is voicing their frustrations and concerns
about a certain behavior, the in-game report function should easily allow players to report others
Tackling Toxicity
63
who commit that behavior without needing to manually type out the events that transpired in a
particular incident.
This increased transparency should also continue throughout the punishment stage.
Players should be aware of the potential penalties that they face if they participate in toxic
behavior; whether the developer decides to temporarily ban the player from participating in the
game or outright suspend their user license to play the game, there needs to be an understanding
of what exactly will happen if they engage in toxicity. This involves the developers directly
communicating to the players the length of punishments and the number of offenses that can
occur before more severe punishments are given. An improved punishment system should also
give the reporting player feedback if a toxic player that they reported actually receives a
punishment. Even if game developers would prefer to keep both the identity of the toxic player
and the exact punishment that they received private, it is still beneficial to be transparent with the
player who initially filed the report. Receiving notice from the developer that a toxic player was
disciplined for their actions shows not only that the developer is listening, but that they are
actively working to address the atmosphere of toxicity that may exist in an online game.
The second recommendation is the implementation of more effective systems outside of
the reporting function to encourage good behavior among the player base. Some online games
have other systems that exist in order to limit or address toxic behavior. An example of one of
these systems is Overwatch’s endorsement system, which was mentioned in chapter four as a
way for players to endorse teammates who behave or act properly in the communication
channels during a match. Endorsements in Overwatch are broken down into three categories:
“shot caller” for those who assume a role as a leader; “good teammate” for those who have
helpful and effective communication, like warning others about an incoming attack or the
Tackling Toxicity
64
location of an enemy team member; and “sportsmanship” for those who act in a positive and
respectful manner towards teammates and opposing players alike. Overwatch players also have
an “endorsement level” from one to five that will rise as they give and receive more
endorsements. While this may be a good idea in theory, the analysis of Overwatch forums
revealed that the system is not completely effective and a high endorsement level does not
always accurately indicate whether or not a player is actually a good teammate.
To improve anti-toxicity mechanics like Overwatch’s endorsement system, a higher
degree of rigor must be implemented. In the case of the endorsement system, more positive
behaviors should be included to positively reinforce players who do not act in a toxic way.
Rather than keeping the categories that exist broad, players should be allowed to select specific
aspects of the categories that a player exemplified. Endorsing a player in the “shot caller”
category, for example, entails a very broad range of potential behaviors and actions. Rather than
simply endorsing a player as a good leader, game developers should allow players to select a
more targeted aspect of leadership, like strategy development, decision-making, encouragement,
or accountability for mistakes. Other categories of good behavior can be implemented for
recognition, which makes every endorsement received translate into an encouragement of a
specific behavior rather than a broad title. This system allows developers to set a specific
standard for how players should act and interact with others when playing a certain game.
An improved endorsement system can be further fleshed out through a more dynamic
levelling system and better in-game rewards for players who participate in the system. Some
complaints from players in the Overwatch forum noted that players with high endorsement levels
still acted in a toxic manner. One way to avoid this would be to expand the level range; judging
whether or not a player is toxic may be easier to do if the range changed from one through five to
Tackling Toxicity
65
one through ten, for example. The high end of the endorsement range would be difficult to
achieve in this system, requiring several endorsements from teammates. However, making the
top level difficult to achieve can be beneficial, as it can encourage players to communicate and
act in as healthy a way as possible in order to reach the top. In addition, increasing the level
range and the difficulty to achieve the highest rank would reduce the amount of confusion that
could come from previously highly endorsed players being toxic. To further incentivize players
to act in a non-toxic manner, developers should implement more in-game rewards for taking part
in systems that combat toxicity. Many online games feature cosmetic items that have no impact
on gameplay yet remain highly popular among gaming communities. Giving players who use
mechanics like the endorsement system access to more cosmetic items, or even unique cosmetic
items, would further encourage the player base to behave in a non-toxic manner. Making these
rewards frequently obtainable through participation and increasing the number of rewards for
higher-endorsed players could further incentivize use of anti-toxicity mechanics.
These recommendations are summarized in two separate artifacts located in the appendix
of this paper. The first artifact is a one-page break down of the key results of this study. Basic
information about the kinds of behaviors that are considered toxic in online video games, the
importance of addressing these behaviors, what online video game developers and their public
relations staff should focus on when addressing these behaviors, and goals in improving or
introducing reporting and reinforcement systems are all included in this artifact. The second
artifact is separated into three pages, but gives a more detailed breakdown of this information.
The first page goes over each toxic behavior and gives specific information about what the
behaviors entail in the setting of an online video game. The second page features a succinct
graphic that answers the questions of “why” and “how” should online video game developers
Tackling Toxicity
66
address toxicity. The third page contains a more in-depth breakdown of improving in-game
reporting functions and reinforcement systems in order to proactively address toxic behaviors.
Two separate artifacts were created with the goal of offering different summarizations for
different types of readers; those looking for a one-page breakdown of this study’s findings
should look to the first artifact, while the second artifact is more suitable for those who want a
more in-depth breakdown that is still easily conveyed through a series of graphics.
Conclusion, Limitations, and Recommendations for Future Studies
This study had two main objectives: to determine what behaviors are considered to be
toxic by players of online video games and to use knowledge of those behaviors to inform game
developers about more effective procedures and systems to address them. Through an analysis
of forum posts for two of the most popular online video games, League of Legends and
Overwatch, coupled with observations of player behavior in Apex: Legends, the researcher was
able to discover a variety of different behaviors that are considered toxic. Many of these
behaviors were already noted as being toxic in research about negative communication behaviors
on other online platforms; however, most of the behaviors previously noted were found to exist
in somewhat different ways in the setting of online video games. As a result, the moderation
tactics that developers must implement should focus on addressing the unique qualities that toxic
online video game behaviors possess. Increasing transparency between developers and the
player base while also implementing reward systems for good behavior are recommended based
on the complaints that players in the forums voiced about an overall atmosphere of toxicity and
currently ineffective methods of addressing toxicity that exist in many online video games.
There was a plethora of limitations in this study. Perhaps the most apparent is that one of
the data collection methods did not prove to be as fruitful as intended. Observing player
Tackling Toxicity
67
behavior in Apex: Legends was intended to better triangulate the collected data on toxic behavior
by allowing the researcher to place themselves within an online gaming environment and
confirm the existence of the behaviors that were noted in the forums. However, in a study of this
manner, more time was needed to collect a larger sample of individual observations. Many of
the games played by the researcher did not even feature any other players entering into the voice
communication channel, so any chance of encountering verbal toxicity like flaming, racism, and
sexism were severely limited. In addition, while Apex: Legends is very team-oriented with a
focus on coordination, there are only three players on a team at a time in a match; compared to
Overwatch’s six-player teams and League of Legend’s five player teams, this is a significantly
smaller sample size per game played. The researcher would only be able to communicate with
two players at a time; had another game with more teammates been observed, it is possible that
more observation of toxicity could have occurred. The researcher also planned on recording
individual matches in order to more accurately report on specific toxic behaviors. Unfortunately,
technical limitations prevented recordings from occurring, as the PlayStation 4 system that was
used in the observation process is nearly seven years old and would often freeze upon attempting
to capture the previous 30 minutes of gameplay. The researcher still took detailed observation
notes to ensure that the behaviors were properly recorded, but having video evidence would have
been ideal.
Timing was another major limitation in this study. As the researcher was a graduate
student, only so much time was able to be dedicated to this project. As a result, the period in
which the observation and textual analysis were conducted was limited to one month. In
different circumstances, a more rigorous and exhaustive data collection process would have been
possible, and likely would better illuminate on the types of toxic behaviors that exist in online
Tackling Toxicity
68
video games. More time would also allow for more games to be researched, and the data
collected would be more dynamic in considering different genres or styles of gameplay and how
different player bases view different toxic behaviors.
Future studies have a variety of potential avenues to further research this topic. The
researcher was initially planning on performing interviews instead of observations. This remains
an interesting potential methodology for collecting data, as interviewing gamers would yield
more nuanced and in-depth opinions about what toxicity entails. Gamers would also be able to
give their opinions on toxic atmospheres and effectiveness of anti-toxicity systems currently in
place, which would further inform any reformation of existing systems or development of new
ones.
Tackling Toxicity
69
Appendix A
Summary of Findings and Recommendations
Behaviors that are considered "toxic"
•Flaming: aggresively nsulting other players, for benign actions like making mistakes and choosing
certain characters
•Poor teamwork: Poor sportsmanship, ineffecitve communication, and a lack of effort to coordinate.
Also entails outright leaving a match
•Cyberbullying: Targetting another player and continually harassing them. Often occurs outside of the
match through exterior communication channels, like a console's messaging system
•Trolling: Disruptive actions meant to anger and frustrate other players. Includes behaviors like
intentionally losing matches (throwing), allowing one's character to be easily eliminated by an enemy
team (feeding), and making an alternate account to play with others at a lower skill level
•Hate Speech: Targetting and harassing someone based on race, gender, sexual orientation, or a
disabilit
Objectives for Game Developers in Addressing Toxicity
•Prevent the reputation that a game and/or a game developer has from becoming too associated with
toxic behaviors
•Reduce the existance of a toxic atmosphere in which players expect toxicity to occur when they play
•Proactively address a reputation crisis before it spirals out of control
Ways to Address Toxicity
•Increase the level of transparency between developers and players
•Overhaul reporting systems to more accurately punish behaviors that the player base considers toxic
•Introduce a system to reinforce good behavior and set standards for how players should interact with
each other in-game
Reporting Bad Behavior
•Describe in detail each behavior that is reportable and punishable
•Base the reportable and punishable behaviors on what the player base considers to be toxic
•Allow players to be specific in describing the behavior or action that they are reporting
•Directly communicate the length and form of punishments that can be given if a player acts in a toxic
manner
•Give feedback to the player that files a report if any action is taken against a reported player
Reinforcing Good Behavior
•Introduce a comprehensive and exhaustive system for players to positively reinforce those who do not
act in a toxic way
•Allow players to commend others for a wide variety of targeted and specific aspects of behaviors like
leadership, teamwork, and good communication
•Give incentive to participate in the reinforcement system through a dynamic levelling system and in-
game rewards like cosmetics
•Reward players who receive and give reinforcements often, allowing for more rewards for those who
participate in the system frequently
Tackling Toxicity
70
What behaviors are considered "toxic" in online
video games?
Appendix B
In-Depth Breakdown of Findings and Recommendations
Flaming
• Aggresively insulting other players, usually with profanity
• Criticizing players for certain in-game actions, like making mistakes or selecting a
certain character
Poor Teamwork
• Poor sportsmanship, communication, and coordination
• Leaving during the middle of a match and abandoning the rest of the team
• Acting selfishly instead of cooperating
• Blaming teammates when things go wrong
Cyberbullying
• Aggressively and repeatedly targetting another player
• Sending "hate mail" after a match
• Encouraging others to criticize or harass a specific target
• Making fun of players for aspects unique to them, like overall play time and
competitive ranking
Trolling
• Disruptive actions that elicit frustration or anger from a target
• "Throwing" (or "inting) - intentional attempt to lose a match
• "Feeding" - Allowing oneself to be eliminated by the opposing team
• "Inactivity" - Deliberately not moving one's character in a match
• "Smurfing"- Creating an alternate account and intentionally losing matches in order
to be placed into a lower competitive ranking
Hate Speech
• Discrimination or harassment based on race, gender, sexual orientation, or disability
• Jokes or comments made at the expense of a minority group
Tackling Toxicity
71
Why should
game
developers
address
toxicity?
Prevent a game or
game developer's
reputation from
becoming
associated with
toxicity
Reduce a game's
"toxic atmosphere"
where players
expect toxicity to
occur whenever
they play
Proactively address
a reputation crisis
before it spirals out
of control
Ways to
Address
Toxicity
Increase the level of
transparency
between developers
and players
Overhaul reporting
systems to more
accurately punish
behaviors that the
player base
considers to be
toxic
Introduce systems
to reinforce good
behavior and set
standards for how
players should
interact with each
other in-game
Tackling Toxicity
72
Reporting Bad Behavior
• Describe in detail each behavior that is
reportable and punishable
• Base the reportable behaviors on what the player
base considers to be toxic
• Allow players to be specific in describing the
offense that they are reporting
• Directly communicate the length and form of
punishments that will be given if a player acts in
a toxic way
• Give feedback to the player that files a report if
any action is taken against a reported player
Reinforcing Good Behavior
• Introduce a comprehensive and exhaustive
system for players to positively reinforce those
who do not act in a toxic way
• Allow players to commend others for a variety of
specific behaviors like leadership, teamwork, and
good communication
• Give incentive to participate in this system
through a dynamic levelling system and in-game
cosmetic rewards
• Reward players who receive and give
reinforcements often, allowing them to receive
more rewards if they participate frequently
References
-thac0 (2020, January 26). Re: Can we have s serious talk about smurfs and match making?
[Online forum comment]. Retrieved from
https://www.reddit.com/r/Overwatch/comments/eu9dfc/can_we_have_a_serious_talk_ab
out_smurfs_and_match/
2Charmnot2Charm (2020, January 25). Re: You know what I realized today. I’m not toxic till
someone intentionally chooses to lose [Online forum comment]. Retrieved from
https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/general-discussion/ZzdTGJnf-you-know-
what-i-realized-today-im-not-toxic-till-someone-intentionally-chooses-to-lose
12saf991h (2020, January 12). Re: I can get being toxic for when someone misplays. But why
the hell are people toxic for no reason ? [Online forum comment]. Retrieved from
https://www.reddit.com/r/Overwatch/comments/enje30/i_can_get_being_toxic_for_when
_someone_misplays/
604life (2020, January 26). Re: Competitive play idea… [Online forum comment]. Retrieved
from https://www.reddit.com/r/Overwatch/comments/euhnw3/competitive_play_idea/
2018 Video game industry statistics, trends & data - The ultimate list. (2019, September 10).
Retrieved from https://www.wepc.com/news/video-game-statistics/.
2019 Essential facts about the computer and video game industry. (2019, August 19). Retrieved
from https://www.theesa.com/esa-research/2019-essential-facts-about-the-computer-and-
video-game-industry/.
Adrian, A. (2010). Mischief and grief: virtual torts or real problems? International Journal of
Private Law 3, 1(2), 70
adric03 (2020, January 22). Re: I feel like tocivity in the game have rise up in the past month.
(sorry for my english I am not very good in english) [Online forum comment]. Retrieved
from
https://www.reddit.com/r/leagueoflegends/comments/esd17a/i_feel_like_the_toxicity_in_
the_game_have_rise_up/
aeggin (2020, January 22). Re: Focus on the game stop getting personal (Online forum
comment). Retrieved from https://us.forums.blizzard.com/en/overwatch/t/focus-on-the-
game-stop-getting-personal/449975/3
AK1174 (2020, January 26). Re: The problem with sexism [Online forum comment]. Retrieved
from https://us.forums.blizzard.com/en/overwatch/t/the-problem-with-sexism/451339/54
Anderson, C. A. and Bushman, B. J. (2002). Human aggression. Psychology, 53(1), 27-51. doi:
10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135231.
any580 (2020, January 15). Re: Is voice chat a necessity? [Online forum comment]. Retrieved
from https://www.reddit.com/r/Overwatch/comments/ep6tj9/is_voice_chat_a_necessity/
Amichai-Hamburger, Y., Kingsbury, M., & Schneider, B. H. (2013). Friendship: An old concept
with a new meaning? Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 33–39. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.05.025.
AtreusIsBack (2020, Janaury 27). Re: I think it’s interesting how a lot of toxic players are drawn
to champions like Yasuo, Rengar, etc. [Online forum comment]. Retrieved from
https://www.reddit.com/r/leagueoflegends/comments/euq5vi/i_think_its_interesting_how
_a_lot_of_toxic/
b3lial666 (2020, January 31). Re: The key to enjoying Overwatch competitive (mainly for
newbies) [Online forum comment]. Retrieved from
https://www.reddit.com/r/Overwatch/comments/ewm1x8/the_key_to_enjoying_overwatc
h_competitive_mainly/
Babbie, E. (2011). The basics of social research. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Group
Barlett, C., Chamberlin, K., & Witkower, Z. (2017). Predicting cyberbullying perpetration in
emerging adults: A theoretical test of the Barlett Gentile Cyberbullying Model.
Aggressive Behavior, 43, 147–154. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1002/ab.21670
Beard, K. W., & Wolf, E. M. (2001). Modification in the proposed diagnostic criteria for Internet
addiction. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 4, 377–383. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1089/109493101300210286.
Beuving, J., & Vries, G. C. de. (2015). Doing qualitative research: The craft of naturalistic
inquiry. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Amsterdam University Press. Retrieved from
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,sso&db=cat00991a&
AN=sth.ocn903955834&site=eds-live
Bliuc, A.-M., Faulkner, N., Jakubowicz, A., & McGarty, C. (2018). Online networks of racial
hate: A systematic review of 10 years of research on cyber-racism. Computers in Human
Behavior, 87, 75–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.05.026
BodyMovementIsTaken (2020, January 19). Re: Why is ARURF way more toxic this time
round than other times? [Online forum comment]. Retrieved from
https://www.reddit.com/r/leagueoflegends/comments/eqwntg/why_is_arurf_way_more_t
oxic_this_time_round_than/
Bonilla, Y., & Rosa, J. (2015). # Ferguson: Digital protest, hashtag ethnography, and the racial
politics of social media in the United States. American Ethnologist, 42, 4–17.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/amet.12112
Boxer, C. F., & Ford, T. E. (2010). Sexist humor in the workplace: A case of subtle harassment.
In J. Greenberg (Ed.), Insidious workplace behavior (pp. 175–206). Boca Raton, FL:
Routledge.
BrokenNinja (2020, January 12). Re: Competitive toxicity at all time high (opinion) [Online
forum comment]. Retrieved from
https://us.forums.blizzard.com/en/overwatch/t/competitive-toxicity-at-all-time-high-
opinion/445988
BrokenNinja (2020, February 1). Re: Vent: lvl2200 gets mm with a lvl30 who started today!?!
[Online forum comment]. Retrieved from
https://us.forums.blizzard.com/en/overwatch/t/vent-lvl2200-gets-mm-with-a-lvl30-who-
started-today/454465/5
BubbleBlower__ (2020, January 26). Re: Quality of this ranked season [Online forum
comment]. Retrieved from
https://www.reddit.com/r/leagueoflegends/comments/eu32iz/quality_of_this_ranked_seas
on/
Buckels, E. E., Trapnell, P. D., & Paulhus, D. L. (2014). Trolls just want to have fun. Personality
and Individual Differences, 67, 97–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.01.016
Caplan, S. E. (2003). Preference for online social interaction: A theory of problematic internet
use and psychosocial wellbeing. Communication Research, 30, 625–648.
Casas, J. A., Ruiz-Olivares, R., & Ortega-Ruiz, R. (2013). Validation of the internet and social
networking experiences questionnaire in Spanish adolescents. International Journal of
Clinical and Health Psychology, 13(1), 40–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1697-
2600(13)70006-1
cchaos (2020, January 19). Re: When I play comp [Online forum comment]. Retrieved from
https://us.forums.blizzard.com/en/overwatch/t/when-i-play-comp/448819
Chance (2020, February 1). Re: A tale of toxicity on PS4 [Online forum comment]. Retrieved
from https://us.forums.blizzard.com/en/overwatch/t/a-tale-of-toxicity-on-ps4/454219
Charmaz, K. (2004). Grounded theory. In The SAGE Encyclopedia of Social Science Research
Methods (Vol. 2, pp. 440-443). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Charmaz, K., Thornerg, R., & Kean, E. (2018). Evolving grounded theory and social justice
inquiry. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative
research (pp. 411-413, 418-419, 436). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Clark, R., Anderson, N. B., Clark, V. R., & Williams, D. R. (1999). Racism as a stressor for
African Americans: A biopsychosocial model. American Psychologist, 54, 805. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1037//0003-066x.54.10.805.
Clark, J. L., & Green, M. C. (2018). Self-fulfilling prophecies: Perceived reality of online
interaction drives expected outcomes of online communication. Personality and
Individual Differences, 133, 73–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.08.031
Cole, H., & Griffiths, M.D. (2007). Social interactions in massively multiplayer online role-
playing gamers. Cyberpsycholgy Behavior, 10(4), 575–583
Comixfan (2020, January 30). Re: Hero pool opinion here [Online forum comment]. Retrieved
from https://us.forums.blizzard.com/en/overwatch/t/hero-pool-opinion-here/453504/11
Connor, D. F., Melloni, R. H. and Harrison, R. J. (1998). Overt categorical aggression in referred
children and adolescents. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent
Psychiatry, 37(1), 66-73. doi: 10.1097/00004583-199801000-00019.
Craker, N., & March, E. (2016). The dark side of Facebook®: The Dark Tetrad, negative social
potency, and trolling behaviours. Personality and Individual Differences, 102, 79–84.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.06.043
Creswell, J. W. & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among
five approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.Daniels, J. (2013). Race
and racism in Internet studies: A review and critique. New Media & Society, 15, 695–719.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 1461444812462849
Daniels, J. (2009). Cyber racism: White supremacy online and the new attack on civil rights.
Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers
De Chesnay, M., & Banner, D. (2015). Nursing research using grounded theory: Qualitative
designs and methods in nursing. New York, NY: Springer Publishing Company.
Retrieved from
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,sso&db=e000xna&A
N=816762&site=ehost-live&authtype=sso&custid=s8475574
De Letter, J., Van Rooij, A. J., & Van Looy, J. (2017). Determinants of harassment in online
Multiplayer Games. Conference Papers -- International Communication Association, 1–
27. Retrieved from
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=sso&db=ufh&AN=13574
9782&site=eds-live
Deusirae (2020, February 2). Re: Fixing queue times [Online forum comment]. Retrieved from
https://us.forums.blizzard.com/en/overwatch/t/fixing-queue-times/454409/46
Dixon, J. C., Singleton Jr., R. A., & Straits, B. C. (2016). The process of social research. New
York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Donath, J. S. (1999). Identity and deception in the virtual community. In M. A. Smith & P.
Kollock (Eds.), Communities in cyberspace (pp. 29–59). London: Routledge.
Dooley, J. J., Pyżalski, J., & Cross, D. (2010). Cyberbullying versus face-to-face bullying.
Journal of Psychology, 217(4), 182–188. http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/0044-3409.217.4.182
Doorley, J., & Garcia, H. F. (2010). Reputation management: The key to successful public
relations and corporate communication. New York, NY: Routledge.
Dovidio, J. F. (2001). On the nature of contemporary prejudice: The third wave. Journal of
Social Issues, 57, 829–849. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00244.
Drakett, J., Rickett, B., Day, K., & Milnes, K. (2018). Old jokes, new media—Online sexism and
constructions of gender in internet memes. Feminism & Psychology, 28(1), 109–127.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0959353517727560
Duggan, M. (2014). Online harassment. Retrieved from
https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2014/10/22/part-1-experiencing-online-
harassment/
Ehrett, J. S. (2016). E-Judiciaries: A model for community policing in cyberspace. Information
& Communications Technology Law, 3, 272-291. doi: 10.1080/13600834.2016.1236428
Floofdoof (2020, January 24). Re: Low skilled heroes should be modeled after TF2 [Online
forum comment]. Retrieved from https://us.forums.blizzard.com/en/overwatch/t/low-
skill-heroes-should-be-modeled-after-tf2/450838/120
FruityXNinja (2020, January 14). Re: Level 1 endorsement rated players are toxic, please
change the way matchmaking works with them [Online forum comment]. Retrieved
from https://us.forums.blizzard.com/en/overwatch/t/level-1-endorsement-rated-players-
are-toxic-please-change-the-way-matchmaking-works-with-them/446342
Foo, C.Y. (2008). Grief play management. La Vergne, TN: Lightning Source, Inc.
Ford, T. E., Boxer, C. F., Armstrong, J., & Edel, J. R. (2008). More than ‘‘just a joke’’: The
prejudice-releasing function of sexist humor. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
34, 159–170. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167207310022.
Ford, T. E., & Ferguson, M. A. (2004). Social consequences of disparagement humor: A
prejudiced norm theory. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 79–94.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0801_4
FortnightlyBorough (2020, January 30). Re: What do you do when a toxic teammate bans your
champ cause you wouldn’t trade? [Online forum comment]. Retrieved from
https://www.reddit.com/r/leagueoflegends/comments/ew4p0t/what_do_you_do_when_a_
toxic_teammate_bans_your/
Fox, J., Cruz, C., & Lee, J. Y. (2015). Perpetuating online sexism offline: Anonymity,
interactivity, and the effects of sexist hashtags on social media. Computers in Human
Behavior, 52, 436–442. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.06.024
Fox, J., & Tang, W. Y. (2016). Women’s experiences with general and sexual harassment in
online video games: Rumination, organizational responsiveness, withdrawal, and coping
strategies. New Media & Society, 19(8), 1290–1307.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816635778
FweenTSP (2020, January 17). Re: Smurfs and people de-ranking intentionally are ruining
average players experiences [Online forum comment]. Retrieved from
https://us.forums.blizzard.com/en/overwatch/t/smurfs-and-people-de-ranking-
intentionally-are-ruining-average-players-experiences/448115
Gatsby (2020, January 22). Re: Focus on the game stop getting personal [Online forum
comment]. Retrieved from https://us.forums.blizzard.com/en/overwatch/t/focus-on-the-
game-stop-getting-personal/449975
Golf-Papez, M., & Veer, E. (2017). Don’t feed the trolling: rethinking how online trolling is
being defined and combated. Journal of Marketing Management, 33(15/16), 1336–1354.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2017.1383298
Gray, K. L., & Leonard, D. J. (2018). Woke Gaming: Digital challenges to oppression and social
injustice. Seattle: University of Washington Press. Retrieved from
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=sso&db=nlebk&AN=191
8485&site=eds-live
Griffin, A. (2014). Crisis, issues, and reputation management: A handbook for PR and
communications professionals. Philadelphia, PA: Kogan Page Limited.
Griffin, R. S. and Gross, A. M. (2004). Childhood bullying: Current empirical findings and
future directions for research. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 9(4), 379-400.
doi:10.1016/S1359-1789(03)00033-8.
Hanish, L. D., & Guerra, N. G. (2000). Children who get victimized at school: What is known?
What can be done? Professional School Counseling, 4, 113–119.
Hardaker, C. (2010). Trolling in asynchronous computer-mediated communication: From user
discussions to academic definitions. Journal of Politeness Research, 6(2), 215-242. doi:
10.1515/JPLR.2010.011
Herring, S. C. (2005). Gender and power in online communication. In J. Holmes & M.
Meyerhoff (Eds.), The Handbook of Language and Gender (pp. 202-228). Malden, MA:
Blackwell Publishing.
Hughey, M. W., & Daniels, J. (2013). Racist comments at online news sites: A methodological
dilemma for discourse analysis. Media Culture & Society, 35, 332–347.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0163443712472089
IdolOfRoses (2020, February 2). Re: We have no place here as off meta mains [Online forum
comment]. Retrieved from https://us.forums.blizzard.com/en/overwatch/t/we-have-no-
place-here-as-off-meta-mains/454717
inamontnytfe (2020, January 25). Re: The amount of petty sadism, toxicity, racism, and
psychopathy in this game now is actually incredible [Online forum comment]. Retrieved
from
https://www.reddit.com/r/leagueoflegends/comments/eu1os9/the_amount_of_petty_sadis
m_toxicity_racism_and/
Integrated report: Market analysis. (2018). Retrieved from
http://www.capcom.co.jp/ir/english/data/oar/2018/finance/market02.html.
Jadalhaq, I. M., & Alqodsi, E. M. (2018). Civil Liability for misuse of online communication
through websites: An analytical study of UAE law. Information & Communications
Technology Law, (Issue 3), 284. Retrieved from
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=sso&db=edshol&AN=ed
shol.hein.journals.infctel27.21&site=eds-live
Jaeger (2020, January 18). Re: Endorsement levels [Online forum comment]. Retrieved from
https://us.forums.blizzard.com/en/overwatch/t/endorsement-levels/448314
Jaheira (2020, January 26). Re: The problem with sexism [Online forum comment]. Retrieved
from https://us.forums.blizzard.com/en/overwatch/t/the-problem-with-
sexism/451339/110
JetSetRadio (2020, January 27). Re: Sorry my disability can be so intoxicating? [Online forum
comment]. Retrieved from https://us.forums.blizzard.com/en/overwatch/t/sorry-my-
disability-can-be-so-intoxicating/452133/2
Julia (2020, January 26). Re: The problem with sexism [Online forum comment]. Retrieved
from https://us.forums.blizzard.com/en/overwatch/t/the-problem-with-sexism/451339
Juvonen, J. and Gross, E. F. (2008). Extending the schoolgrounds?—Bullying experiences in
cyberspace. Journal of School Health, 78(9), 496-505. doi: 10.1111/j.1746-
1561.2008.00335.x.
Jxcedoe (2020, January 12). Re: Ranked questions [Online forum comment]. Retrieved from
https://www.reddit.com/r/leagueoflegends/comments/ennw15/ranked_questions/
Kamalou, S., Shaughnessy, K., & Moscovitch, D. A. (2019). Social anxiety in the digital age:
The measurement and sequelae of online safety-seeking. Computers in Human Behavior,
90, 10–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.08.023
Keum, B. T., & Miller, M. J. (2017). Racism in digital era: Development and initial validation of
the Perceived Online Racism Scale (PORS v10). Journal of Counseling Psychology,
64(3), 310–324. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000205
Kiesler, S., Kraut, R. E., Resnick, P., & Kittur, A. (2012). Regulating behavior in online
communities. In R. E. Kraut, S. Kiesler, P. Resnick, Building successful online
communities: Evidence-based social design (pp. 125-177). Cambridge, MA:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Kou, Y., & Nardi, B. (2014). Governance in League of Legends: A hybrid system. Proceedings,
Foundations of Digital Games, 3–7. Fort Lauderdale, FL.
Kowalski, R. M., Limber, S. P., & Agatston, P. W. (2008). What is cyber bullying? Cyber
Bullying, 41. Retrieved from
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=sso&db=edb&AN=7492
0966&site=eds-live
Krathwohl, D.R. (1998). Methods of educational & social science research: An integrated
approach. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley Educational Publishers, Inc.
Kwak, H., Blackburn, J., & Han, S. (2015). Exploring cyberbullying and other toxic behavior in
team competition online games. Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
Proceedings, 3739. Retrieved from
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=sso&db=edb&AN=1036
46520&site=eds-live
Law, D. M., Shapka, J. D., Hymel, S., Olson, B. F., & Waterhouse, T. (2012). The changing face
of bullying: An empirical comparison between traditional and internet bullying and
victimization. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(1), 226–232.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.09.004
Lastowka, G. (2011). Virtual justice: The new laws of online worlds. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press, 2011.
Leighton, N., & Shelton, T. (2008). Proactive crisis communication planning. In P. F.
Anthonissen (Ed.), Crisis communication: Practical PR strategies for reputation
management and company survival (pp. 24-43). Philadelphia, PA: Kogan Page Limited
Lockyer, S. (2008). Textual Analysis. In The SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research
Methods (Vol. 2, pp. 865-866). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc
Lojeski, K. S., & Reilly, R. R. (2008). Uniting the virtual workforce: Transforming leadership
and innovation in the globally integrated enterprise (Vol. 2). New York, NY: Wiley.
maggot (2020, January 18). Re: Got demoted from 4th lvl of endrosment to 1st [Online forum
comment]. Retrieved from https://us.forums.blizzard.com/en/overwatch/t/got-demoted-
from-4th-lvl-of-endrosment-to-1st/448215
Marwick, A. (2013). Gender, sexuality, and social media. In T. Senft & J. Hunsinger (Eds.), The
social media handbook (pp. 59–75). New York: Routledge. <http://
www.tiara.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Marwick_gender_sexuality_
chapter_2013.pdf>.
Mc Guckin, C., & Corcoran, L. (2016). Bullying and cyberbullying: Prevalence, psychological
impacts and intervention strategies. Nova Science Publishers, Inc. Retrieved from
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=sso&db=cat00991a&AN
=sth.ocn957223390&site=eds-live
McKee, A. (2003). Textual analysis: A beginner’s guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications, Inc. Retrieved from
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,sso&db=cat00991a&
AN=sth.ocm70774169&site=eds-live
McLean, L., & Griffiths, M. D. (2019). Female gamers’ experience of online harassment and
social support in online gaming: A qualitative study. International Journal of Mental
Health and Addiction, (4), 970. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-018-9962-0
McWhertor, M. (2018). PUBG reaches 50M copies sold, 400M total players. Retrieved from
https://www.polygon.com/2018/6/19/17478476/playerunknowns-battlegrounds-sales-
pubg-number-of-players.
Medeiros, B. (2019). Evaluating the reputation management industry through the lens of public
relations ethics. Journal of Media Ethics, 34(3), 160-170.
https://doi.org/10.1080/23736992.2019.1638261
Menesini, E., & Nocentini, A. (2009). Cyberbullying definition and measurement: Some critical
considerations. Journal of Psychology, 217(4), 230-232. http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/0044-
3409.217.4.230
MeowingMango (2020, January 13). Re: It only takes a fraction of a group to affect everyone
else [Online forum comment]. Retrieved from
https://www.reddit.com/r/leagueoflegends/comments/eo91kb/it_only_takes_a_fraction_o
f_a_group_to_affect/
Miksolo (2020, February 2). Re: Give me ideas: Comebacks for toxic or throwing smurfs
[Online forum comment]. Retrieved from
https://us.forums.blizzard.com/en/overwatch/t/give-me-ideas-comebacks-for-toxic-or-
throwing-smurfs/454757
Mox (2020, January 17). Re: Leavers…… LOL! [Online forum comment]. Retrieved from
https://us.forums.blizzard.com/en/overwatch/t/leavers-lol/448027/5
Mr Sett (2020, January 13). Re: List of toxic words [Online forum comment]. Retrieved from
https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/player-behavior-moderation/035l8sIc-list-of-
toxic-words
NerfBearger (2020, February 4). Re: How to tackle negativity in overwatch [Online forum
comment]. Retrieved from https://us.forums.blizzard.com/en/overwatch/t/how-to-tackle-
negativity-in-overwatch/455211/2
Nic Giolla Easpaig, B. (2018). An exploratory study of sexism in online gaming communities:
Mapping contested digital terrain. Community Psychology in Global Perspective, (2),
119. https://doi.org/10.1285/i24212113v4i2p119
Nickvng12 (2020, February 3). Re: The most toxic game I have ever played [Online forum
comment]. Retrieved from
https://www.reddit.com/r/leagueoflegends/comments/ey1ua0/the_most_toxic_game_i_ha
ve_ever_played/
NyukaNyuka (2020, February 4). Re: Toxicity, AFK, inting, etc are rampant and it makes the
game unplayable [Online forum comment]. Retrieved from
https://www.reddit.com/r/leagueoflegends/comments/ez28ha/toxicity_afk_inting_etc_are
_rampant_and_it_makes/
oceansnak (2020, January 30). Re: Why do people complain about toxicity when muting is a
thing? [Online forum comment]. Retrieved from
https://www.reddit.com/r/leagueoflegends/comments/ewhb78/why_do_people_complain
_about_toxicity_when_muting/
Overwatch®. (n.d.). Retrieved October 7, 2019, from https://us.shop.battle.net/en-
us/product/overwatch?blzcmp=ow_buy_nav
Pablo59 (2020, January 18). Re: Help for a returning player [Online forum comment].
Retrieved from
https://www.reddit.com/r/leagueoflegends/comments/eqp5w9/help_for_a_returning_play
er/
Peres, P. (2019, October 29). Apex Legends reaches 70 million players. Retrieved from
https://dotesports.com/apex-legends/news/apex-legends-reaches-70-million-players.
Peter, J., & Valkenburg, P. M. (2006). Research note: Individual differences in perceptions of
internet communication. European Journal of Communication, 21(2), 213–226.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323105064046
POOBEARHONEYPOT (2020, January 27). Re: Toxic new accounts [Online forum comment].
Retrieved from
https://www.reddit.com/r/Overwatch/comments/eup0pg/toxic_new_accounts/
PuffyPony (2020, January 29). Re: Forced roles are bad and unnecessary [Online forum
comment]. Retrieved from https://us.forums.blizzard.com/en/overwatch/t/forced-roles-
are-bad-and-unnecessary/452772/18
RenSnow (2020, February 1). Re: This game promotes nothing but toxic behavior [Online
forum comment]. Retrieved from
https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/rant/V7cxABZF-this-game-promotes-
nothing-but-toxic-behavior
Regmi, K. & Kottler, J.A. (2010). An epidemiologist learns grounded theory. In V. M.
Minichiello & J. A. Kottler (Eds.), Qualitative journeys: Student and mentor experiences
with research (pp. 72, 75). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
revale (2020, January 28). Re: Overwatch is toxic [Online forum comment]. Retrieved from
https://us.forums.blizzard.com/en/overwatch/t/overwatch-is-toxic/452632
RigLicker (2020, January 18). Re: “You deserve to lose.” [Online forum comment]. Retrieved
from https://www.reddit.com/r/leagueoflegends/comments/eqdb6n/you_deserve_to_lose/
RoadhogsButt (2020, January 24). Re: Is one tricking really okay? [Online forum comment].
Retrieved from https://us.forums.blizzard.com/en/overwatch/t/is-one-tricking-really-
okay/450169/135
Saldaña, J. (2011). Fundamentals of qualitative research. New York: Oxford University Press.
Retrieved from
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,sso&db=cat00991a&
AN=sth.ocn704434258&site=eds-live
schigger98 (2020, January 12). Re: Toxicity increasing from season to season [Online forum
comment]. Retrieved from
https://www.reddit.com/r/leagueoflegends/comments/enm088/toxicity_increasing_from_
season_to_season/
Schoofs, L., Claeys, A., De Waele, A., & Cauberghe, V., (2019). The role of empathy in crisis
communication: Providing a deeper understanding of how organizational crises and crisis
communication affect reputation. Public Relations Review, 45, 1-9.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2019.101851
Schwandt, T.A. (2001). Dictionary of qualitative inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Publications, Inc.
Shachaf, P., & Hara, N. (2010). Beyond vandalism: Wikipedia trolls. Journal of Information
Science, 36, 357–370. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 0165551510365390.
Scoobie_Doobie11 (2020, January 22). Re: Community toxicity [Online forum comment].
Retrieved from
https://www.reddit.com/r/leagueoflegends/comments/es8e56/community_toxicity/
Seraph (2020, February 1). Re: Make your secret MMR public already! [Online forum
comment]. Retrieved from https://us.forums.blizzard.com/en/overwatch/t/make-your-
secret-mmr-public-already/453760/39
Sett a trap (2020, January 23). Re: This game is incredibly toxic at p4 and above [Online forum
comment]. Retrieved from https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/rant/svQvLKmT-
this-game-is-incredibly-toxic-at-p4-and-above
Slayosadc (2020, January 18). Re: worst community [Online forum comment]. Retrieved from
https://www.reddit.com/r/leagueoflegends/comments/eqfec1/worst_community/
SpiritMystic (2020, January 17). Re: Loving Overwatch [Online forum comment]. Retrieved
from https://us.forums.blizzard.com/en/overwatch/t/loving-overwatch/448109
Sitiya (2020, January 15). Re: What’s with the dramatic increase in toxic community in game?
[Online forum comment]. Retrieved from
https://www.reddit.com/r/Overwatch/comments/eozqj2/whats_with_the_dramatic_increa
se_in_toxic/
Steffgen, G., König, A., Pfetsch, J., & Melzer, A. (2011). Are cyberbullies less empathic?
Adolescents' cyberbullying behavior and empathic responsiveness. Cyberpsychology,
Behavior and Social Networking, 14(11), 643–648. http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/cyber.
2010.0445.
Smith, P. K., Mahdavi, J., Carvalho, M., Fisher, S., Russel, S. and Tippett, N. (2008).
Cyberbullying: Its nature and impact in secondary school pupils. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 49(4), 376-385. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2007.01846.x.
Smurfette (2020, January 12). Re: One more thread about toxicity [Online forum comment].
Retrieved from https://us.forums.blizzard.com/en/overwatch/t/one-more-thread-about-
toxicity/445790
Stodt (2020, January 30). Re: Getting really tired of the overwatch community [Online forum
comment]. Retrieved from https://us.forums.blizzard.com/en/overwatch/t/getting-really-
tired-of-the-overwatch-community/453467
stormy001 (2020, January 29). Re: Sexism isn’t a problem, the racism is the real problem
[Online forum comment]. Retrieved from
https://us.forums.blizzard.com/en/overwatch/t/sexism-isnt-a-problem-the-racism-is-the-
real-problem/452174/16
Suler, J. (2004). The online disinhibition effect. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 7, 321–326.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/1094931041291295
SwankyPants (2020, February 3). Re: Winning against toxic enemies [Online forum comment].
Retrieved from https://us.forums.blizzard.com/en/overwatch/t/winning-against-toxic-
enemies/454969
Swinight22 (2020, February 5). Re: Quickplay find group is the perfect medium of casual and
competitive. Retrieved from
https://www.reddit.com/r/Overwatch/comments/ezll25/quickplay_find_group_is_the_per
fect_medium_of/
Swim, J. K., & Hyers, L. L. (2009). Sexism. In T. D. Nelson (Ed.), Handbook of prejudice,
stereotyping, and discrimination (pp. 407-430). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis Group
Swim, J. K., Hyers, L. L., Cohen, L. L., & Ferguson, M. J. (2001). Everyday sexism: Evidence
for its incidence, nature, and psychological impact from three daily diary studies. Journal
of Social Issues, 57, 31–53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/0022- 4537.00200.
Taylor, T.L. (2006). Beyond management: Considering participatory design and governance in
player culture. First Monday, Special Issue 7.
TheMuffin27 (2020, February 4). Re: How to tackle negativity in overwatch [Online forum
comment]. Retrieved from https://us.forums.blizzard.com/en/overwatch/t/how-to-tackle-
negativity-in-overwatch/455211
Tynes, B. M., Rose, C. A., & Markoe, S. L. (2013). Extending campus life to the Internet: Social
media, discrimination, and perceptions of racial climate. Journal of Diversity in Higher
Education, 6, 102–114. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0033267.
UJustGotSlain (2020, January 13). Re: Friendly reminder: League is justa game, there’s no
excuse for this amount of toxicity [Online forum comment]. Retrieved from
https://www.reddit.com/r/leagueoflegends/comments/eodzps/friendly_reminder_league_i
s_just_a_game_theres_no/
Van Blarcum, C. D. (2005). Internet hate speech: The European framework and the emerging
American haven. Washington and Lee Law Review, 62, 781–830.
VictorLagina (2020, January 29). Re: Looking for a way to completely disable chat input
[Online forum comment]. Retrieved from
https://us.forums.blizzard.com/en/overwatch/t/looking-for-a-way-to-completely-disable-
chat-input/452763
Volk, P. (2016). League of Legends now boasts over 100 million monthly active players
worldwide. Retrieved from https://www.riftherald.com/2016/9/13/12865314/monthly-
lol-players-2016-active-worldwide.
Weber, N. L., & Pelfrey Jr., W. V. (2014). Cyberbullying: causes, consequences, and coping
strategies. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. Retrieved from
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=sso&db=cat00991a&AN
=sth.ocn892799679&site=eds-live
WhattDoIDoDood (2020, January 16). Re: [OCE server] does queuing get any better? [Online
forum comment]. Retrieved from
https://www.reddit.com/r/leagueoflegends/comments/eps5zm/oce_server_does_queueing
_get_any_better/
Will tribunal return? (2018). Retrieved from https://nexus.leagueoflegends.com/en-
us/2018/08/ask-riot-will-tribunal-return
Workman, H., & Coleman, C. A. (2014). “The front page of the internet”: Safe spaces and
hyperpersonal communication among females in an online community. Southwestern
Mass Communication Journal, 29(2), 1–21.
