How To Tame a Toxic Player? A Systematic Literature Review on Intervention Systems for Toxic Behaviors in Online Video Games
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Toxic behavior is known to cause harm in online games. Players regularly experience negative, hateful, or inappropriate behavior. Interventions, such as banning players or chat message filtering, can help combat toxicity but are not widely available or even comprehensively studied regarding their approaches and evaluations. We conducted a systematic literature review that provides insights into the current state of interventions literature, outlining their strengths and shortcomings. We identified 36 interventions and qualitatively analyzed their approaches. We describe the types of toxicity being addressed, the entities through which they act, the methods used by intervention systems, and how they are evaluated. Our results provide guidance for future interventions, outlining a design space based on known systems. Furthermore, our findings highlight gaps in the literature, e.g., a sparsity of empirical evaluations, and underexplored areas in the design space, enabling researchers to explore novel directions for future interventions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it