When we published the TAG Community Safety Score last month, we promised four more games were coming: Final Fantasy XIV, Sea of Thieves, Apex Legends, and Destiny 2. All four were already mentioned in our original list of the least toxic online games for adults, but recommendations and scores are different things.
A recommendation says “this community tends to treat people well.” A score says “here is why, measured against eight specific dimensions, with the receipts.”
Here are the receipts.
If you haven’t read the original scoring article, the quick version: we rate games 0-100 across eight dimensions, moderation infrastructure (20 pts), response and enforcement (15 pts), communication controls (15 pts), transparency and accountability (15 pts), community guidelines quality (10 pts), appeals and due process (10 pts), parental controls (10 pts), and proactive safety design (5 pts). Full methodology is in that article. These scores are based on Level 1 (public record review) and Level 2 (hands-on testing) assessment. Level 3 community survey data will roll into future scoring cycles.
Let’s get into it.
Final Fantasy XIV, 71/100
Final Fantasy XIV presents an interesting challenge to score, because its reputation for community safety is almost entirely earned through culture and design rather than published data or enterprise moderation infrastructure. There are no ToxMod deployments here, no semi-annual transparency reports, no false positive rates on record. What there is, and it’s real, is one of the most genuinely welcoming communities in massively multiplayer gaming, maintained over more than a decade.
Scoring it means separating what the data shows from what the player experience delivers. The score reflects both.
Moderation Infrastructure, 11/20
Square Enix uses a moderation system built into the game’s native reporting tools and supported by a dedicated trust-and-safety team. The infrastructure is real and actively maintained, Square Enix is not a studio that ignores its community queue. But the published record on what AI tools, if any, are running in the background is thin. There’s no documented voice moderation system. Text moderation appears to rely primarily on player reports feeding into human review rather than proactive AI detection.
What FFXIV lacks in automated sophistication it partially compensates for through community design. The Sprout system (new player markers that prompt veteran patience), the Mentor system (recognized experienced players who actively help newcomers), and the structured duty finder that matches players into group content with behavioral expectations baked in, these reduce the conditions that produce harassment more than most AI filters do.
That’s proactive safety design doing moderation’s job. It scores there, not here. On pure infrastructure, 11/20 reflects real tools operating without documented AI augmentation.
Response and Enforcement, 10/15
Square Enix enforces their community guidelines and the evidence is in the community’s long-term stability rather than published statistics. Players who consistently violate conduct rules get removed. The process exists. What it lacks is documentation, no published response time targets, no enforcement volume data, no reoffend statistics.
The one notable structural feature: FFXIV‘s subscription model gives Square Enix real weight behind enforcement. A banned account loses access to a subscription they’re paying for and a character they’ve invested potentially hundreds of hours in. That consequence weight is meaningfully different from a free-to-play account ban. Enforcement bites harder when the cost of losing the account is higher. Player behavior in FFXIV reflects this dynamic, the investment required to build a meaningful presence in the game is a natural filter against casual bad actors.
Communication Controls, 12/15
FFXIV has solid in-game communication controls that have been iterated on through years of live service development. You can block players, mute voice chat, filter chat channels independently, restrict who can send you tells (private messages), and report through multiple channels (in-game, the support site, and the Lodestone community platform). During duty content, you can adjust communication settings without leaving the session.
Where it stops short of top marks: the controls, while functional, aren’t as granularly configurable as Xbox’s platform-level system, and voice chat controls are less documented than text chat controls. The game’s primary communication mode has historically been text, so the voice infrastructure is newer and less mature than its text equivalents.
Transparency and Accountability, 6/15
This is where the score takes its hardest hit. Square Enix does not publish moderation data in any form comparable to Xbox’s transparency reports or Activision’s anti-toxicity progress reports. No enforcement volumes, no proactive-vs-reactive breakdowns, no published effectiveness metrics. When community issues arise, and occasionally they do, even in FFXIV, Square Enix communicates through Lodestone posts rather than structured data.
The 6/15 reflects that communication exists (they’re not totally silent on community matters), but the accountability infrastructure, the kind that lets players and researchers evaluate whether the system is working, is largely absent. A studio with Square Enix’s resources and a community of FFXIV‘s size could publish this data. The choice not to is a meaningful gap.
Community Guidelines Quality, 9/10
The FFXIV community guidelines are clear, specific, and actively updated. They cover in-game behavior, communication, roleplay conduct (significant for a game with active RP communities), content creation, and third-party tool use. They’re written in plain language, link prominently from in-game help menus, and are updated when new behavioral issues emerge.
One of the few guidelines documents in the industry that explicitly addresses roleplay community norms in addition to standard multiplayer conduct, The recognition that FFXIV‘s player base uses the game in ways that require more detailed guidance than “don’t use slurs.” The near-full score here reflects both quality of the document and evidence that it’s actually enforced.
Appeals and Due Process, 7/10
Square Enix has a formal appeals process through their support site. Appeals are reviewed by a human support team, response times are documented in their support documentation, and the process allows for account reinstatement when enforcement is found to have been in error. The process is more accessible than some studios on the first scoring list and less documented than the best-in-class examples.
What holds the score back slightly: the appeals interface is somewhat cumbersome compared to platforms that have built enforcement-specific appeal flows, and published outcomes data, how many appeals are filed, how many succeed, doesn’t exist.
Parental Controls and Age Protections, 7/10
FFXIV requires a Square Enix account with age verification to create. Content rating protections are built into the account creation flow. Communication restrictions for younger accounts are available. The game’s subscription model and mature story content creates a natural friction barrier for very young players, though it’s not a technical protection.
The score reflects functional parental controls that stop short of the companion app management systems that top-scoring titles offer. Square Enix’s broader account management tools have improved over the years, but still lag behind platform-level parental control sophistication.
Proactive Safety Design, 5/5
This is where FFXIV earns back everything the transparency score took away, and then some.
The Sprout system is one of the best new player protection implementations in MMO history. Displaying a visible “new player” icon on characters who are learning the game generates prosocial behavior from veterans reliably and at scale, not because Square Enix mandates it, but because the community has made protecting new players a value. That’s culture producing behavior that technology can only approximate.
The Mentor system creates a formal path for veteran players to contribute to community health. Mentors are recognized with in-game titles and access to a dedicated help channel. The investment in new player experience is built into character progression systems, not just support documentation.
The game’s tone, rich story, character investment, long-term world engagement, self-selects for players who care about the community they’re part of. That isn’t accidental design. It’s the cumulative result of a decade of Square Enix building a game that attracts and retains people who treat other people well.
Full marks, no hesitation.
Full breakdown: Infrastructure 11/20, Enforcement 10/15, Controls 12/15, Transparency 6/15, Guidelines 9/10, Appeals 7/10, Parental 7/10, Design 5/5, Total: 71
Sea of Thieves, 64/100
Sea of Thieves is the only game on either scoring list where PvP is a core mechanic rather than an optional mode, which makes its relatively strong community safety profile genuinely interesting. Rare has built a game where conflict is designed to feel like adventure rather than targeting, and the moderation infrastructure, while not top-tier, benefits from Microsoft platform integration in ways that matter.
Moderation Infrastructure, 11/20
Sea of Thieves runs on Xbox infrastructure, which means Microsoft’s Community Sift text moderation and Xbox’s broader safety stack are available at the platform level. Voice chat in the game is covered by Xbox’s voice moderation systems. Rare has implemented in-game reporting that feeds into both game-level and platform-level moderation queues simultaneously.
What Sea of Thieves doesn’t have as a distinct game-level investment: dedicated AI voice moderation equivalent to ToxMod, published game-specific moderation statistics, or documented proactive detection rates. The platform infrastructure is doing real work. The game-specific layer is thinner.
The score sits between mid-range and good, meaningful tools running, primarily through platform integration rather than Rare’s own investment, without the published effectiveness data that top-tier infrastructure scores require.
Response and Enforcement, 9/15
Rare’s enforcement track record is genuinely responsive for a studio of its size, particularly around cheating (which has historically been a bigger issue in Sea of Thieves than verbal toxicity). Behavioral violations feed into the Xbox enforcement system rather than a separate game queue, which means response infrastructure is Microsoft’s rather than Rare’s alone.
The graduated sanctions approach is functional. Temporary bans, then longer bans, then permanent removal for repeat offenders, the escalation model exists. Published timelines and effectiveness data don’t.
Communication Controls, 13/15
Sea of Thieves scores well here because it combines solid in-game controls with the full Xbox platform control stack. Players can mute individual crew members or entire ships mid-session without leaving the game. Text chat filters are configurable. The Xbox-level communication controls described in our platform safety comparison apply fully here, independent configuration of voice, text, and profile visibility.
The interaction between in-game session controls and platform-level account controls gives Sea of Thieves players more tools than most titles on this list, with less friction accessing them during play.
Transparency and Accountability, 7/15
Rare publishes regular developer updates and community communications through their official channels, and they’re more responsive to community feedback than most studios of comparable size. When behavioral problems have come up in Sea of Thieves, cheating waves, specific harassment incidents that reached community visibility, Rare has addressed them publicly rather than staying silent.
What doesn’t exist is the formal structured transparency reporting that top scores require. No enforcement volumes, no published moderation effectiveness data, no semi-annual safety reports. The 7 reflects genuine community engagement without the data accountability infrastructure.
The Microsoft ownership factor: Xbox’s platform transparency reports include data that covers Sea of Thieves players insofar as they’re on Xbox network. The platform-level data partially compensates for the absence of game-specific reports, and we’ve reflected that.
Community Guidelines Quality, 8/10
Rare’s community guidelines are clear, accessible from the game’s main menu, and cover both in-game behavior and community platform conduct. The pirate theme creates an interesting writing challenge, how do you frame conduct standards in a game where conflict is expected? Rare handles it well, drawing a clear line between gameplay-designed conflict (sinking ships, stealing cargo) and targeted personal harassment that violates conduct regardless of the in-game context.
The guidelines are updated when new content creates new behavioral vectors. They lose a couple of points for not including the explicit prosocial expectations that the best-in-class examples do, they describe what’s prohibited clearly without describing what’s encouraged beyond the game’s built-in tone.
Appeals and Due Process, 6/10
Since enforcement for Sea of Thieves flows primarily through Xbox’s enforcement infrastructure, the appeals process is Xbox’s formal appeals system, which, as noted in the platform comparison article, is one of the better processes in the industry. A dedicated enforcement page, human review, documented case history.
The score here is middle-tier rather than high because the game-level appeals information, what triggers enforcement in Sea of Thieves vs. other Xbox titles, how the game-specific report queue is handled, isn’t publicly documented separately from Xbox’s general enforcement information.
Parental Controls and Age Protections, 8/10
Full Xbox parental control infrastructure applies, independent per-category controls, companion app management through Xbox Family Settings, spending limits, communication restrictions, activity reporting. Rare also rates Sea of Thieves in ways that enable platform-level content filtering for younger players.
The score reflects the genuine strength of Microsoft’s parental control system without giving full marks for features that are platform-level rather than game-specific investments by Rare.
Proactive Safety Design, 4/5
This is where Rare’s most interesting design work lives.
The decision to build conflict into the game as adventure rather than competition, the pirate aesthetic that makes losing your ship feel like a story rather than a loss, is proactive safety design in the most literal sense. Rare actively cultivates this through its developer communications, community events, and interactions with the player base.
The Tall Tales story content, the cooperative Seasons structure, and the Emissary progression system have all pushed the player base over time toward collaborative dynamics even in a PvP-enabled environment. The result is documented in community behavior: post-fight trading, allied crew emotes, the general “we’re all pirates here” culture that makes Sea of Thieves unusual.
One point held back: the proactive safety design elements are culturally embedded rather than systematically implemented. There’s no formal Honor system, no in-game prosocial reward structure, no explicit behavioral nudge system. The culture is real, but it’s maintained through tone rather than mechanics.
Full breakdown: Infrastructure 11/20, Enforcement 9/15, Controls 13/15, Transparency 7/15, Guidelines 8/10, Appeals 6/10, Parental 8/10, Design 4/5, Total: 66
Apex Legends, 62/100
EA’s first transparency report in 2024 was a meaningful step, and Apex Legends is the game that most directly benefits from it in our scoring. The data isn’t as detailed as Activision’s CoD reports, but it exists, and existence matters when most studios publish nothing.
The Apex community is genuinely mixed in safety profile. In casual modes and lower-skill lobbies, it skews reasonably pleasant. At higher competitive levels and in ranked play, it follows the familiar pattern of competitive shooters. The score reflects the full experience rather than cherry-picking the best-case mode.
Moderation Infrastructure, 12/20
EA’s in-game reporting system in Apex Legends feeds into their broader trust-and-safety infrastructure, which was documented for the first time in their 2024 transparency report. The report confirmed that EA scanned 49 billion text strings across its titles during the reporting period, with Apex accounting for a significant portion of that volume.
The notable infrastructure fact about Apex: EA requires human review for every ban. No automated enforcement. Every report that reaches enforcement action was reviewed by a person. That’s a different design philosophy than the AI-heavy systems running in Call of Duty, it produces more accurate individual decisions at the cost of slower processing and lower coverage volume.
What’s absent: documented voice moderation infrastructure. Apex has voice chat, and the toxicity profile there is real, but there’s no published record of AI voice analysis running in the game. The moderation infrastructure gap for voice is meaningful and holds the score back from the higher tier.
Response and Enforcement, 10/15
The human-review-for-all-bans approach earns marks here for accuracy and process integrity. Every enforcement action in Apex Legends is the result of a human judgment call, not an automated system. That’s a genuine commitment to due process at scale.
What it costs: speed and coverage. A system requiring human review for every action is constrained by how many reviewers exist and how many hours they work. EA’s published data shows fewer than 476,541 total penalties issued across their titles in the reporting period, a number that looks small applied to Apex‘s player base. The majority of those penalties (more than 50%) were warnings rather than bans, reflecting a graduated approach.
EA hasn’t published response time targets or reoffend data, which limits how fully we can evaluate effectiveness. The score reflects genuine process integrity with incomplete coverage data.
Communication Controls, 11/15
Apex Legends has functional communication controls, mute, block, report accessible during and after matches, text chat filters, voice push-to-talk options. The controls are solid without being exceptional.
The gap from the higher tier: Apex‘s controls don’t offer the per-category independent configuration that Xbox’s system provides, and accessing some controls during an active match requires interrupting gameplay more than the best implementations allow. The report flow is also more steps than it needs to be for a session-end process, a friction cost that research consistently shows reduces reporting frequency.
Transparency and Accountability, 8/15
EA’s 2024 transparency report is the reason Apex Legends scores in this tier rather than the lower one. It covers enforcement volumes, penalty type breakdowns (warnings vs. bans), and the text moderation scale. The report was the first of its kind from EA, a real commitment that marks a change in policy direction.
The score doesn’t go higher because the report covers EA broadly rather than Apex Legends on its own, making it impossible to isolate game-level performance from the aggregate. The 49 billion text strings scanned covers EA Sports titles, The Sims, Battlefield, and others alongside Apex. Game-specific data would enable much more meaningful assessment.
EA gets credit for publishing something. The next step is publishing game-specific data with enough detail to evaluate individual titles.
Community Guidelines Quality, 8/10
EA’s conduct guidelines for Apex Legends are clear and specific, covering in-game behavior, communication, and ranked conduct separately. The ranked conduct section is particularly useful, expectations in a ranked environment are documented distinctly from casual play, which is a realistic acknowledgment that competitive pressure creates different behavioral conditions.
The guidelines are accessible from the main EA Help site and linked from within the game’s report flow. Updated within the past year. Lose a couple of points for not including explicit prosocial expectations and for the ranked conduct section being less detailed than it could be, given how significant ranked toxicity is in the Apex community.
Appeals and Due Process, 7/10
EA’s appeals process, managed through EA Help, is one of the more functional in the industry. The human-review-for-all-bans approach means every appeal starts from a position where a person has already made a judgment call, which creates a genuine basis for appeal review rather than appealing an automated decision.
EA Help provides a ticket-based system where players can submit context and evidence. Response times vary but are documented in EA’s support materials as business days rather than weeks. The process earns points for human-first design and loses some for the absence of published appeal outcome data and the somewhat generic nature of the interface compared to enforcement-specific appeal flows.
Parental Controls and Age Protections, 4/10
Apex Legends is rated T for Teen, with EA’s standard age verification at account creation and parental email verification for younger accounts. Communication controls can be restricted at the account level.
Where it falls behind: EA’s parental control infrastructure for Apex isn’t as developed as Xbox’s platform-level system or Fortnite’s companion app approach. The controls that exist are functional but require navigation through EA’s account management rather than a purpose-built family management interface. For a game with a Teen rating and a meaningful younger player base, this is a real gap.
Proactive Safety Design, 2/5
Apex Legends has some prosocial design elements, the respawn mechanic that explicitly incentivizes teammates to revive each other, the ping system that allows effective team communication without voice chat (a meaningful accessibility and safety feature), and the Legend selection design that creates individual investment.
What it doesn’t have: a formal Honor or reputation system, behavioral nudge features, explicit new player protection infrastructure beyond basic matchmaking, or a documented philosophy of safety-as-design-value from Respawn Entertainment. The game’s competitive structure creates more pressure than the proactive design elements offset.
Full breakdown: Infrastructure 12/20, Enforcement 10/15, Controls 11/15, Transparency 8/15, Guidelines 8/10, Appeals 7/10, Parental 4/10, Design 2/5, Total: 62
Destiny 2, 58/100
Destiny 2 is the most internally variable game on either scoring list, meaning the safety experience differs more dramatically depending on where you are in the game than any other title we’ve scored. The open-world patrol zones and cooperative story content have a genuinely warm community culture. Trials of Osiris and high-stakes PvP have a documented toxicity problem. Random LFG for raids is genuinely unpredictable.
The score reflects the full picture rather than either extreme, and the moderation infrastructure is the primary constraint.
Moderation Infrastructure, 9/20
Bungie operates its own moderation infrastructure, which has been rebuilt and strengthened since its separation from Activision in 2019. The in-game reporting system is functional and feeds into a human review queue. Bungie has a trust-and-safety team that handles community enforcement.
What’s not documented publicly: AI moderation tools, voice moderation systems, proactive detection capabilities. The infrastructure appears to be primarily reactive, a player files a report, a person reviews it. That model was acceptable for games with smaller player bases but shows its limits at Destiny 2‘s scale, particularly in the PvP modes where the volume of potential incidents exceeds what reactive review can cover meaningfully.
Bungie has also navigated a difficult period following its acquisition by Sony, with significant studio layoffs in 2024 affecting multiple teams. Whether trust-and-safety resources were affected isn’t public, but the context is worth noting.
Response and Enforcement, 8/15
Bungie’s enforcement track record is strongest on cheating (anti-cheat has been a consistent investment priority given competitive modes) and weakest on behavioral toxicity. The community’s observation that cheating bans come faster and more consistently than harassment enforcement is broadly shared in the player base.
For behavioral violations, the process exists and enforcement happens, players who engage in sustained targeted harassment do get actioned. The timeline and consistency of that enforcement isn’t documented, and the perception gap between cheating enforcement and behavioral enforcement is real enough to affect community trust.
Communication Controls, 10/15
Destiny 2‘s communication controls cover the basics well, mute, block, report accessible from the roster during and after sessions, text filter options, fireteam privacy settings that control who can join your activity. The Companion App extends some control functions to mobile, which is useful for managing fireteam settings before logging in.
The score falls in the middle because the controls, while functional, require more menu navigation than the best implementations and don’t offer the per-category granularity of top-tier systems. The voice chat controls are less accessible than text controls, requiring separate navigation during an active session.
Transparency and Accountability, 5/15
Bungie communicates with their community frequently, This Week In Destiny posts, developer livestreams, social media presence from named developers. What they don’t publish is moderation data. No enforcement volumes, no proactive detection rates, no transparency reports in the formal Xbox or Activision mold.
The 5 reflects active community communication without data accountability. Bungie clearly cares about their relationship with players. Publishing what the moderation system is actually doing, even basic enforcement volumes annually, would meaningfully change this score and the accountability relationship with the community.
Community Guidelines Quality, 7/10
Bungie’s community guidelines are accessible and cover in-game conduct, communication, and content creation. They’re specific enough to be useful without being so detailed that they cover every possible scenario. Updated within the past year.
The main gap: the guidelines don’t clearly distinguish expectations across Destiny 2‘s very different play environments. Trials of Osiris has a different behavioral culture than the Dreaming City patrol zone. A guidelines document that acknowledges competitive mode expectations versus cooperative mode expectations, as EA’s Apex guidelines do, would be more accurate to how players actually experience the game.
Appeals and Due Process, 6/10
Bungie has a formal appeals process through their support site. The process is functional with human review and documented response timeframes. It’s neither exceptional nor broken, it works and it’s accessible.
Points held back for the absence of published appeals data and the fact that the appeals interface hasn’t been substantially updated in several years. For a game that has been through as many live service changes as Destiny 2, keeping enforcement documentation current is an ongoing challenge.
Parental Controls and Age Protections, 6/10
Destiny 2 is rated T for Teen. Bungie’s account creation process includes age verification, and communication can be restricted at the account level. Platform-level parental controls (Xbox, PlayStation, Steam) apply based on where you’re playing.
The score reflects functional but not exceptional parental controls. Bungie doesn’t offer the companion app management or activity reporting that purpose-built parental control systems provide, and the controls that exist require platform-level navigation rather than a Bungie-specific family management interface.
Proactive Safety Design, 3/5
Destiny 2‘s proactive safety strengths come from its community culture rather than its designed systems. The open-world helpfulness, strangers reviving you, joining your public events, guiding you to objectives unprompted, is one of the most distinctive positive community behaviors in online gaming and it’s genuinely earned by years of Bungie cultivating a community that treats that behavior as normal.
The fireteam structure, the LFG community around the Companion App, and the Clan system all create social infrastructure that channels community interaction in positive directions. These score partial marks.
What holds it back from higher: no formal prosocial reward system beyond seasonal title hunting, no behavioral nudge features, no Honor-equivalent structure, and the competitive PvP modes operate with almost no proactive safety investment. The cooperative game and the competitive game feel like they’re maintained by two different philosophies, one warm, one not.
Full breakdown: Infrastructure 9/20, Enforcement 8/15, Controls 10/15, Transparency 5/15, Guidelines 7/10, Appeals 6/10, Parental 6/10, Design 3/5, Total: 54
Updated Full Scoreboard
With these four additions, here’s the complete TAG Community Safety Score standings:
| Game | Score | Tier |
|---|---|---|
| Deep Rock Galactic | 79/100 | ★★★★ |
| Valorant | 76/100 | ★★★★ |
| Call of Duty: Black Ops 6 | 74/100 | ★★★★ |
| Rainbow Six Siege | 72/100 | ★★★★ |
| Final Fantasy XIV | 71/100 | ★★★★ |
| Sea of Thieves | 66/100 | ★★★ |
| Overwatch 2 | 65/100 | ★★★ |
| Fortnite | 63/100 | ★★★ |
| Apex Legends | 62/100 | ★★★ |
| League of Legends | 62/100 | ★★★ |
| Destiny 2 | 54/100 | ★★★ |
| GTA Online | 41/100 | ★★ |
Score tiers:
- ★★★★ (70-100): Strong community safety infrastructure. Recommended for players who prioritize moderation quality.
- ★★★ (50-69): Functional infrastructure with meaningful gaps. Know what you’re getting into.
- ★★ (30-49): Significant gaps in infrastructure or accountability. Approach with caution.
- ★ (0-29): Minimal community safety investment. Not yet scored in this tier.
Three Things This Round of Scoring Tells Us
Culture can compensate for infrastructure gaps, up to a point. Final Fantasy XIV, scoring 71 with minimal published moderation data, is the clearest demonstration of this. A decade of community investment, strong prosocial design, and genuine developer-community relationships produce safety outcomes that moderation technology alone can’t replicate. The caveat: culture is fragile in ways that infrastructure isn’t. If Square Enix were to disengage from its community, or the player base shifted significantly, FFXIV’s score would decline faster than that of a game with stronger institutional infrastructure.
Platform integration matters. Sea of Thieves scores a 66 partly on the strength of Xbox’s platform-level safety stack rather than Rare’s own investments. Games on strong platforms benefit from platform safety infrastructure in ways that platform-agnostic or smaller-platform titles don’t. This creates an interesting dynamic for the scoring going forward, should we weight platform-level protection separately from game-level investment? Something we’re actively considering for the next methodology update.
The transparency gap is the most fixable problem on this list. Destiny 2 scoring at 54, largely because Bungie doesn’t publish moderation data, is a problem Bungie could solve in the next six months if they decided to. Same for Apex Legends needing game-specific data to get into the upper tier. The infrastructure might be doing real work. The absence of published data means we have no way to verify that, and neither do players. Publishing something, even a basic annual report, would move scores meaningfully.
What’s Next for the Score
The next scoring batch will include Minecraft (both Java and Bedrock editions scored separately given the different moderation infrastructure), World of Warcraft, Counter-Strike 2 (with a closer look at the community Overwatch system than we gave it in the first round), and Roblox (because despite its reputation as a children’s platform, Roblox has more adult players than most people realize and the moderation infrastructure deserves serious evaluation).
We’re also finalizing the Level 3 survey instrument, the player perception component that will start feeding into scores from the next cycle. If you play any game that’s been scored and want to contribute data, watch the TAG Discord for the survey announcement. Your experience in these communities is exactly the kind of ground-truth data that rounds out what public records and hands-on testing can assess.
Disagree with a score? Got information about a game’s moderation infrastructure that we missed? This is a living document, and scrutiny makes it better. Drop it in the comments or find us in the TAG Discord.
