Harassment of game makers: Prevalence and impact

Harassment of game makers: Prevalence and impact | F1000Research "use strict";function _typeof(t){return(_typeof="function"==typeof Symbol&&"symbol"==typeof Symbol.iterator?function(t){return typeof t}:function(t){return t&&"function"==typeof Symbol&&t.constructor===Symbol&&t!==Symbol.prototype?"symbol":typeof t})(t)}!function(){var t=function(){var t,e,o=[],n=window,r=n;for(;r;){try{if(r.frames.__tcfapiLocator){t=r;break}}catch(t){}if(r===n.top)break;r=r.parent}t||(!function t(){var e=n.document,o=!!n.frames.__tcfapiLocator;if(!o)if(e.body){var r=e.createElement("iframe");r.style.cssText="display:none",r.name="__tcfapiLocator",e.body.appendChild(r)}else setTimeout(t,5);return!o}(),n.__tcfapi=function(){for(var t=arguments.length,n=new Array(t),r=0;r 3&&2===parseInt(n[1],10)&&"boolean"==typeof n[3]&&(e=n[3],"function"==typeof n[2]&&n[2]("set",!0)):"ping"===n[0]?"function"==typeof n[2]&&n[2]({gdprApplies:e,cmpLoaded:!1,cmpStatus:"stub"}):o.push(n)},n.addEventListener("message",(function(t){var e="string"==typeof t.data,o={};if(e)try{o=JSON.parse(t.data)}catch(t){}else o=t.data;var n="object"===_typeof(o)&&null!==o?o.__tcfapiCall:null;n&&window.__tcfapi(n.command,n.version,(function(o,r){var a={__tcfapiReturn:{returnValue:o,success:r,callId:n.callId}};t&&t.source&&t.source.postMessage&&t.source.postMessage(e?JSON.stringify(a):a,"*")}),n.parameter)}),!1))};"undefined"!=typeof module?module.exports=t:t()}(); dataLayer = dataLayer || []; // Standard GTM initialization - Google Consent Mode handles consent automatically (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start': new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0], j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src= 'https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl+ '>m_auth=hzk0Vc3qFsQYhCrIoHz68A>m_preview=env-1>m_cookies_win=x';f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f); })(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-MWFK8L5J'); ;window.NREUM||(NREUM={});NREUM.init={distributed_tracing:{enabled:true},privacy:{cookies_enabled:true},ajax:{deny_list:["bam.nr-data.net"]}}; ;NREUM.loader_config={accountID:"438030",trustKey:"438030",agentID:"772317073",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073"} ;NREUM.info={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073",sa:1} ;/*! For license information please see nr-loader-spa-1.236.0.min.js.LICENSE.txt */ (()=>{"use strict";var e,t,r={5763:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P_:()=>l,Mt:()=>g,C5:()=>s,DL:()=>v,OP:()=>T,lF:()=>D,Yu:()=>y,Dg:()=>h,CX:()=>c,GE:()=>b,sU:()=>_});var n=r(8632),i=r(9567);const o={beacon:n.ce.beacon,errorBeacon:n.ce.errorBeacon,licenseKey:void 0,applicationID:void 0,sa:void 0,queueTime:void 0,applicationTime:void 0,ttGuid:void 0,user:void 0,account:void 0,product:void 0,extra:void 0,jsAttributes:{},userAttributes:void 0,atts:void 0,transactionName:void 0,tNamePlain:void 0},a={};function s(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");if(!a[e])throw new Error("Info for ".concat(e," was never set"));return a[e]}function c(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");a[e]=(0,i.D)(t,o),(0,n.Qy)(e,a[e],"info")}var u=r(7056);const d=()=>{const e={blockSelector:"[data-nr-block]",maskInputOptions:{password:!0}};return{allow_bfcache:!0,privacy:{cookies_enabled:!0},ajax:{deny_list:void 0,enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},distributed_tracing:{enabled:void 0,exclude_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_tracecontext_headers:void 0,allowed_origins:void 0},session:{domain:void 0,expiresMs:u.oD,inactiveMs:u.Hb},ssl:void 0,obfuscate:void 0,jserrors:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},metrics:{enabled:!0},page_action:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30},page_view_event:{enabled:!0},page_view_timing:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30,long_task:!1},session_trace:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},harvest:{tooManyRequestsDelay:60},session_replay:{enabled:!1,harvestTimeSeconds:60,sampleRate:.1,errorSampleRate:.1,maskTextSelector:"*",maskAllInputs:!0,get blockClass(){return"nr-block"},get ignoreClass(){return"nr-ignore"},get maskTextClass(){return"nr-mask"},get blockSelector(){return e.blockSelector},set blockSelector(t){e.blockSelector+=",".concat(t)},get maskInputOptions(){return e.maskInputOptions},set maskInputOptions(t){e.maskInputOptions={...t,password:!0}}},spa:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10}}},f={};function l(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");if(!f[e])throw new Error("Configuration for ".concat(e," was never set"));return f[e]}function h(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");f[e]=(0,i.D)(t,d()),(0,n.Qy)(e,f[e],"config")}function g(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");var r=l(e);if(r){for(var n=t.split("."),i=0;i {r.d(t,{D:()=>i});var n=r(50);function i(e,t){try{if(!e||"object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires an object as input");if(!t||"object"!=typeof t)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires a model to set its initial properties");const r=Object.create(Object.getPrototypeOf(t),Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptors(t)),o=0===Object.keys(r).length?e:r;for(let a in o)if(void 0!==e[a])try{"object"==typeof e[a]&&"object"==typeof t[a]?r[a]=i(e[a],t[a]):r[a]=e[a]}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occurred while setting a property of a Configurable",e)}return r}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting a Configurable",e)}}},6818:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Re:()=>i,gF:()=>o,q4:()=>n});const n="1.236.0",i="PROD",o="CDN"},385:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{FN:()=>a,IF:()=>u,Nk:()=>f,Tt:()=>s,_A:()=>o,il:()=>n,pL:()=>c,v6:()=>i,w1:()=>d});const n="undefined"!=typeof window&&!!window.document,i="undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator),o=n?window:"undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis),a=""+o?.location,s=/iPad|iPhone|iPod/.test(navigator.userAgent),c=s&&"undefined"==typeof SharedWorker,u=(()=>{const e=navigator.userAgent.match(/Firefox[/\s](\d+\.\d+)/);return Array.isArray(e)&&e.length>=2?+e[1]:0})(),d=Boolean(n&&window.document.documentMode),f=!!navigator.sendBeacon},1117:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{w:()=>o});var n=r(50);const i={agentIdentifier:"",ee:void 0};class o{constructor(e){try{if("object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("shared context requires an object as input");this.sharedContext={},Object.assign(this.sharedContext,i),Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,r]=e;Object.keys(i).includes(t)&&(this.sharedContext[t]=r)}))}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting SharedContext",e)}}}},8e3:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{L:()=>d,R:()=>c});var n=r(2177),i=r(1284),o=r(4322),a=r(3325);const s={};function c(e,t){const r={staged:!1,priority:a.p[t]||0};u(e),s[e].get(t)||s[e].set(t,r)}function u(e){e&&(s[e]||(s[e]=new Map))}function d(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:"",t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:"feature";if(u(e),!e||!s[e].get(t))return a(t);s[e].get(t).staged=!0;const r=[...s[e]];function a(t){const r=e?n.ee.get(e):n.ee,a=o.X.handlers;if(r.backlog&&a){var s=r.backlog[t],c=a[t];if(c){for(var u=0;s&&u {let[t,r]=e;return r.staged}))&&(r.sort(((e,t)=>e[1].priority-t[1].priority)),r.forEach((e=>{let[t]=e;a(t)})))}function f(e,t){var r=e[1];(0,i.D)(t[r],(function(t,r){var n=e[0];if(r[0]===n){var i=r[1],o=e[3],a=e[2];i.apply(o,a)}}))}},2177:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{c:()=>f,ee:()=>u});var n=r(8632),i=r(2210),o=r(1284),a=r(5763),s="nr@context";let c=(0,n.fP)();var u;function d(){}function f(e){return(0,i.X)(e,s,l)}function l(){return new d}function h(){u.aborted=!0,u.backlog={}}c.ee?u=c.ee:(u=function e(t,r){var n={},c={},f={},g=!1;try{g=16===r.length&&(0,a.OP)(r).isolatedBacklog}catch(e){}var p={on:b,addEventListener:b,removeEventListener:y,emit:v,get:x,listeners:w,context:m,buffer:A,abort:h,aborted:!1,isBuffering:E,debugId:r,backlog:g?{}:t&&"object"==typeof t.backlog?t.backlog:{}};return p;function m(e){return e&&e instanceof d?e:e?(0,i.X)(e,s,l):l()}function v(e,r,n,i,o){if(!1!==o&&(o=!0),!u.aborted||i){t&&o&&t.emit(e,r,n);for(var a=m(n),s=w(e),d=s.length,f=0;fn,p:()=>i});var n=r(2177).ee.get("handle");function i(e,t,r,i,o){o?(o.buffer([e],i),o.emit(e,t,r)):(n.buffer([e],i),n.emit(e,t,r))}},4322:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>o});var n=r(5546);o.on=a;var i=o.handlers={};function o(e,t,r,o){a(o||n.E,i,e,t,r)}function a(e,t,r,i,o){o||(o="feature"),e||(e=n.E);var a=t[o]=t[o]||{};(a[r]=a[r]||[]).push([e,i])}},3239:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{bP:()=>s,iz:()=>c,m$:()=>a});var n=r(385);let i=!1,o=!1;try{const e={get passive(){return i=!0,!1},get signal(){return o=!0,!1}};n._A.addEventListener("test",null,e),n._A.removeEventListener("test",null,e)}catch(e){}function a(e,t){return i||o?{capture:!!e,passive:i,signal:t}:!!e}function s(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;window.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}function c(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;document.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}},4402:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Ht:()=>u,M:()=>c,Rl:()=>a,ky:()=>s});var n=r(385);const i="xxxxxxxx-xxxx-4xxx-yxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx";function o(e,t){return e?15&e[t]:16*Math.random()|0}function a(){const e=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let t,r=0;return e&&e.getRandomValues&&(t=e.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31))),i.split("").map((e=>"x"===e?o(t,++r).toString(16):"y"===e?(3&o()|8).toString(16):e)).join("")}function s(e){const t=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let r,i=0;t&&t.getRandomValues&&(r=t.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31)));const a=[];for(var s=0;s {r.d(t,{Bq:()=>n,Hb:()=>o,oD:()=>i});const n="NRBA",i=144e5,o=18e5},7894:(e,t,r)=>{function n(){return Math.round(performance.now())}r.d(t,{z:()=>n})},7243:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{e:()=>o});var n=r(385),i={};function o(e){if(e in i)return i[e];if(0===(e||"").indexOf("data:"))return{protocol:"data"};let t;var r=n._A?.location,o={};if(n.il)t=document.createElement("a"),t.href=e;else try{t=new URL(e,r.href)}catch(e){return o}o.port=t.port;var a=t.href.split("://");!o.port&&a[1]&&(o.port=a[1].split("/")[0].split("@").pop().split(":")[1]),o.port&&"0"!==o.port||(o.port="https"===a[0]?"443":"80"),o.hostname=t.hostname||r.hostname,o.pathname=t.pathname,o.protocol=a[0],"/"!==o.pathname.charAt(0)&&(o.pathname="/"+o.pathname);var s=!t.protocol||":"===t.protocol||t.protocol===r.protocol,c=t.hostname===r.hostname&&t.port===r.port;return o.sameOrigin=s&&(!t.hostname||c),"/"===o.pathname&&(i[e]=o),o}},50:(e,t,r)=>{function n(e,t){"function"==typeof console.warn&&(console.warn("New Relic: ".concat(e)),t&&console.warn(t))}r.d(t,{Z:()=>n})},2587:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>c,T:()=>u});var n=r(2177),i=r(5546),o=r(8e3),a=r(3325);const s={stn:[a.D.sessionTrace],err:[a.D.jserrors,a.D.metrics],ins:[a.D.pageAction],spa:[a.D.spa],sr:[a.D.sessionReplay,a.D.sessionTrace]};function c(e,t){const r=n.ee.get(t);e&&"object"==typeof e&&(Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,n]=e;void 0===u[t]&&(s[t]?s[t].forEach((e=>{n?(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,e,r):(0,i.p)("block-"+t,[],void 0,e,r),(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+t,[Boolean(n)],void 0,e,r)})):n&&(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,void 0,r),u[t]=Boolean(n))})),Object.keys(s).forEach((e=>{void 0===u[e]&&(s[e]?.forEach((t=>(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+e,[!1],void 0,t,r))),u[e]=!1)})),(0,o.L)(t,a.D.pageViewEvent))}const u={}},2210:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>i});var n=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty;function i(e,t,r){if(n.call(e,t))return e[t];var i=r();if(Object.defineProperty&&Object.keys)try{return Object.defineProperty(e,t,{value:i,writable:!0,enumerable:!1}),i}catch(e){}return e[t]=i,i}},1284:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n});const n=(e,t)=>Object.entries(e||{}).map((e=>{let[r,n]=e;return t(r,n)}))},4351:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P:()=>o});var n=r(2177);const i=()=>{const e=new WeakSet;return(t,r)=>{if("object"==typeof r&&null!==r){if(e.has(r))return;e.add(r)}return r}};function o(e){try{return JSON.stringify(e,i())}catch(e){try{n.ee.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}}},3960:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{K:()=>a,b:()=>o});var n=r(3239);function i(){return"undefined"==typeof document||"complete"===document.readyState}function o(e,t){if(i())return e();(0,n.bP)("load",e,t)}function a(e){if(i())return e();(0,n.iz)("DOMContentLoaded",e)}},8632:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{EZ:()=>u,Qy:()=>c,ce:()=>o,fP:()=>a,gG:()=>d,mF:()=>s});var n=r(7894),i=r(385);const o={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net"};function a(){return i._A.NREUM||(i._A.NREUM={}),void 0===i._A.newrelic&&(i._A.newrelic=i._A.NREUM),i._A.NREUM}function s(){let e=a();return e.o||(e.o={ST:i._A.setTimeout,SI:i._A.setImmediate,CT:i._A.clearTimeout,XHR:i._A.XMLHttpRequest,REQ:i._A.Request,EV:i._A.Event,PR:i._A.Promise,MO:i._A.MutationObserver,FETCH:i._A.fetch}),e}function c(e,t,r){let i=a();const o=i.initializedAgents||{},s=o[e]||{};return Object.keys(s).length||(s.initializedAt={ms:(0,n.z)(),date:new Date}),i.initializedAgents={...o,[e]:{...s,[r]:t}},i}function u(e,t){a()[e]=t}function d(){return function(){let e=a();const t=e.info||{};e.info={beacon:o.beacon,errorBeacon:o.errorBeacon,...t}}(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.init||{};e.init={...t}}(),s(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.loader_config||{};e.loader_config={...t}}(),a()}},7956:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>i});var n=r(3239);function i(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]&&arguments[1],r=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,i=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;return void(0,n.iz)("visibilitychange",(function(){if(t)return void("hidden"==document.visibilityState&&e());e(document.visibilityState)}),r,i)}},1214:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{em:()=>v,u5:()=>N,QU:()=>S,_L:()=>I,Gm:()=>L,Lg:()=>M,gy:()=>U,BV:()=>Q,Kf:()=>ee});var n=r(2177);const i="nr@original";var o=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty,a=!1;function s(e,t){return e||(e=n.ee),r.inPlace=function(e,t,n,i,o){n||(n="");var a,s,c,u="-"===n.charAt(0);for(c=0;c 2?n-2:0),o=2;o {r(A[T],e,w),r(E[T],e,w)})),r(l._A,"fetch",y),t.on(y+"end",(function(e,r){var n=this;if(r){var i=r.headers.get("content-length");null!==i&&(n.rxSize=i),t.emit(y+"done",[null,r],n)}else t.emit(y+"done",[e],n)})),t}const O={},j=["pushState","replaceState"];function S(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("history")}(e);return!l.il||O[t.debugId]++||(O[t.debugId]=1,s(t).inPlace(window.history,j,"-")),t}var P=r(3239);const C={},R=["appendChild","insertBefore","replaceChild"];function I(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("jsonp")}(e);if(!l.il||C[t.debugId])return t;C[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=/[?&](?:callback|cb)=([^&#]+)/,o=/(.*)\.([^.]+)/,a=/^(\w+)(\.|$)(.*)$/;function c(e,t){var r=e.match(a),n=r[1],i=r[3];return i?c(i,t[n]):t[n]}return r.inPlace(Node.prototype,R,"dom-"),t.on("dom-start",(function(e){!function(e){if(!e||"string"!=typeof e.nodeName||"script"!==e.nodeName.toLowerCase())return;if("function"!=typeof e.addEventListener)return;var n=(a=e.src,s=a.match(i),s?s[1]:null);var a,s;if(!n)return;var u=function(e){var t=e.match(o);if(t&&t.length>=3)return{key:t[2],parent:c(t[1],window)};return{key:e,parent:window}}(n);if("function"!=typeof u.parent[u.key])return;var d={};function f(){t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}function l(){t.emit("jsonp-error",[],d),t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}r.inPlace(u.parent,[u.key],"cb-",d),e.addEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.addEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1)),t.emit("new-jsonp",[e.src],d)}(e[0])})),t}var k=r(5763);const H={};function L(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("mutation")}(e);if(!l.il||H[t.debugId])return t;H[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=k.Yu.MO;return i&&(window.MutationObserver=function(e){return this instanceof i?new i(r(e,"fn-")):i.apply(this,arguments)},MutationObserver.prototype=i.prototype),t}const z={};function M(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("promise")}(e);if(z[t.debugId])return t;z[t.debugId]=!0;var r=n.c,o=s(t),a=k.Yu.PR;return a&&function(){function e(r){var n=t.context(),i=o(r,"executor-",n,null,!1);const s=Reflect.construct(a,[i],e);return t.context(s).getCtx=function(){return n},s}l._A.Promise=e,Object.defineProperty(e,"name",{value:"Promise"}),e.toString=function(){return a.toString()},Object.setPrototypeOf(e,a),["all","race"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){let i=!1;[...e||[]].forEach((e=>{this.resolve(e).then(a("all"===r),a(!1))}));const o=n.apply(this,arguments);return o;function a(e){return function(){t.emit("propagate",[null,!i],o,!1,!1),i=i||!e}}}})),["resolve","reject"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){const r=n.apply(this,arguments);return e!==r&&t.emit("propagate",[e,!0],r,!1,!1),r}})),e.prototype=a.prototype;const n=a.prototype.then;a.prototype.then=function(){var e=this,i=r(e);i.promise=e;for(var a=arguments.length,s=new Array(a),c=0;c e())),t};function m(e,t){i.inPlace(t,["onreadystatechange"],"fn-",E)}function b(){var e=this,t=r.context(e);e.readyState>3&&!t.resolved&&(t.resolved=!0,r.emit("xhr-resolved",[],e)),i.inPlace(e,f,"fn-",E)}if(function(e,t){for(var r in e)t[r]=e[r]}(o,p),p.prototype=o.prototype,i.inPlace(p.prototype,J,"-xhr-",E),r.on("send-xhr-start",(function(e,t){m(e,t),function(e){h.push(e),a&&(y?y.then(A):u?u(A):(w=-w,x.data=w))}(t)})),r.on("open-xhr-start",m),a){var y=c&&c.resolve();if(!u&&!c){var w=1,x=document.createTextNode(w);new a(A).observe(x,{characterData:!0})}}else t.on("fn-end",(function(e){e[0]&&e[0].type===d||A()}));function A(){for(var e=0;e {r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.ajax},6660:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{A:()=>i,t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.jserrors,i="nr@seenError"},3081:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{gF:()=>o,mY:()=>i,t9:()=>n,vz:()=>s,xS:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.metrics,i="sm",o="cm",a="storeSupportabilityMetrics",s="storeEventMetrics"},4649:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageAction},7633:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Dz:()=>i,OJ:()=>a,qw:()=>o,t9:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewEvent,i="firstbyte",o="domcontent",a="windowload"},9251:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewTiming},3614:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BST_RESOURCE:()=>i,END:()=>s,FEATURE_NAME:()=>n,FN_END:()=>u,FN_START:()=>c,PUSH_STATE:()=>d,RESOURCE:()=>o,START:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.sessionTrace,i="bstResource",o="resource",a="-start",s="-end",c="fn"+a,u="fn"+s,d="pushState"},7836:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BODY:()=>A,CB_END:()=>E,CB_START:()=>u,END:()=>x,FEATURE_NAME:()=>i,FETCH:()=>_,FETCH_BODY:()=>v,FETCH_DONE:()=>m,FETCH_START:()=>p,FN_END:()=>c,FN_START:()=>s,INTERACTION:()=>l,INTERACTION_API:()=>d,INTERACTION_EVENTS:()=>o,JSONP_END:()=>b,JSONP_NODE:()=>g,JS_TIME:()=>T,MAX_TIMER_BUDGET:()=>a,REMAINING:()=>f,SPA_NODE:()=>h,START:()=>w,originalSetTimeout:()=>y});var n=r(5763);const i=r(3325).D.spa,o=["click","submit","keypress","keydown","keyup","change"],a=999,s="fn-start",c="fn-end",u="cb-start",d="api-ixn-",f="remaining",l="interaction",h="spaNode",g="jsonpNode",p="fetch-start",m="fetch-done",v="fetch-body-",b="jsonp-end",y=n.Yu.ST,w="-start",x="-end",A="-body",E="cb"+x,T="jsTime",_="fetch"},5938:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{W:()=>o});var n=r(5763),i=r(2177);class o{constructor(e,t,r){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.aggregator=t,this.ee=i.ee.get(e,(0,n.OP)(this.agentIdentifier).isolatedBacklog),this.featureName=r,this.blocked=!1}}},9144:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{j:()=>m});var n=r(3325),i=r(5763),o=r(5546),a=r(2177),s=r(7894),c=r(8e3),u=r(3960),d=r(385),f=r(50),l=r(3081),h=r(8632);function g(){const e=(0,h.gG)();["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease","addPageAction","setCurrentRouteName","setPageViewName","setCustomAttribute","interaction","noticeError","setUserId"].forEach((t=>{e[t]=function(){for(var r=arguments.length,n=new Array(r),i=0;i 1?r-1:0),i=1;i {e.exposed&&e.api[t]&&o.push(e.api[t](...n))})),o.length>1?o:o[0]}(t,...n)}}))}var p=r(2587);function m(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:{},m=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,v=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0,{init:b,info:y,loader_config:w,runtime:x={loaderType:m},exposed:A=!0}=t;const E=(0,h.gG)();y||(b=E.init,y=E.info,w=E.loader_config),(0,i.Dg)(e,b||{}),(0,i.GE)(e,w||{}),(0,i.sU)(e,x),y.jsAttributes??={},d.v6&&(y.jsAttributes.isWorker=!0),(0,i.CX)(e,y),g();const T=function(e,t){t||(0,c.R)(e,"api");const h={};var g=a.ee.get(e),p=g.get("tracer"),m="api-",v=m+"ixn-";function b(t,r,n,o){const a=(0,i.C5)(e);return null===r?delete a.jsAttributes[t]:(0,i.CX)(e,{...a,jsAttributes:{...a.jsAttributes,[t]:r}}),x(m,n,!0,o||null===r?"session":void 0)(t,r)}function y(){}["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease"].forEach((e=>h[e]=x(m,e,!0,"api"))),h.addPageAction=x(m,"addPageAction",!0,n.D.pageAction),h.setCurrentRouteName=x(m,"routeName",!0,n.D.spa),h.setPageViewName=function(t,r){if("string"==typeof t)return"/"!==t.charAt(0)&&(t="/"+t),(0,i.OP)(e).customTransaction=(r||"http://custom.transaction")+t,x(m,"setPageViewName",!0)()},h.setCustomAttribute=function(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2];if("string"==typeof e){if(["string","number"].includes(typeof t)||null===t)return b(e,t,"setCustomAttribute",r);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nNon-null value must be a string or number type, but a type of was provided."))}else(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nName must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.setUserId=function(e){if("string"==typeof e||null===e)return b("enduser.id",e,"setUserId",!0);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setUserId.\nNon-null value must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.interaction=function(){return(new y).get()};var w=y.prototype={createTracer:function(e,t){var r={},i=this,a="function"==typeof t;return(0,o.p)(v+"tracer",[(0,s.z)(),e,r],i,n.D.spa,g),function(){if(p.emit((a?"":"no-")+"fn-start",[(0,s.z)(),i,a],r),a)try{return t.apply(this,arguments)}catch(e){throw p.emit("fn-err",[arguments,this,"string"==typeof e?new Error(e):e],r),e}finally{p.emit("fn-end",[(0,s.z)()],r)}}}};function x(e,t,r,i){return function(){return(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/"+t+"/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),i&&(0,o.p)(e+t,[(0,s.z)(),...arguments],r?null:this,i,g),r?void 0:this}}function A(){r.e(439).then(r.bind(r,7438)).then((t=>{let{setAPI:r}=t;r(e),(0,c.L)(e,"api")})).catch((()=>(0,f.Z)("Downloading runtime APIs failed...")))}return["actionText","setName","setAttribute","save","ignore","onEnd","getContext","end","get"].forEach((e=>{w[e]=x(v,e,void 0,n.D.spa)})),h.noticeError=function(e,t){"string"==typeof e&&(e=new Error(e)),(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/noticeError/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),(0,o.p)("err",[e,(0,s.z)(),!1,t],void 0,n.D.jserrors,g)},d.il?(0,u.b)((()=>A()),!0):A(),h}(e,v);return(0,h.Qy)(e,T,"api"),(0,h.Qy)(e,A,"exposed"),(0,h.EZ)("activatedFeatures",p.T),T}},3325:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n,p:()=>i});const n={ajax:"ajax",jserrors:"jserrors",metrics:"metrics",pageAction:"page_action",pageViewEvent:"page_view_event",pageViewTiming:"page_view_timing",sessionReplay:"session_replay",sessionTrace:"session_trace",spa:"spa"},i={[n.pageViewEvent]:1,[n.pageViewTiming]:2,[n.metrics]:3,[n.jserrors]:4,[n.ajax]:5,[n.sessionTrace]:6,[n.pageAction]:7,[n.spa]:8,[n.sessionReplay]:9}}},n={};function i(e){var t=n[e];if(void 0!==t)return t.exports;var o=n[e]={exports:{}};return r[e](o,o.exports,i),o.exports}i.m=r,i.d=(e,t)=>{for(var r in t)i.o(t,r)&&!i.o(e,r)&&Object.defineProperty(e,r,{enumerable:!0,get:t[r]})},i.f={},i.e=e=>Promise.all(Object.keys(i.f).reduce(((t,r)=>(i.f[r](e,t),t)),[])),i.u=e=>(({78:"page_action-aggregate",147:"metrics-aggregate",242:"session-manager",317:"jserrors-aggregate",348:"page_view_timing-aggregate",412:"lazy-feature-loader",439:"async-api",538:"recorder",590:"session_replay-aggregate",675:"compressor",733:"session_trace-aggregate",786:"page_view_event-aggregate",873:"spa-aggregate",898:"ajax-aggregate"}[e]||e)+"."+{78:"ac76d497",147:"3dc53903",148:"1a20d5fe",242:"2a64278a",317:"49e41428",348:"bd6de33a",412:"2f55ce66",439:"30bd804e",538:"1b18459f",590:"cf0efb30",675:"ae9f91a8",733:"83105561",786:"06482edd",860:"03a8b7a5",873:"e6b09d52",898:"998ef92b"}[e]+"-1.236.0.min.js"),i.o=(e,t)=>Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call(e,t),e={},t="NRBA:",i.l=(r,n,o,a)=>{if(e[r])e[r].push(n);else{var s,c;if(void 0!==o)for(var u=document.getElementsByTagName("script"),d=0;d {s.onerror=s.onload=null,clearTimeout(h);var i=e[r];if(delete e[r],s.parentNode&&s.parentNode.removeChild(s),i&&i.forEach((e=>e(n))),t)return t(n)},h=setTimeout(l.bind(null,void 0,{type:"timeout",target:s}),12e4);s.onerror=l.bind(null,s.onerror),s.onload=l.bind(null,s.onload),c&&document.head.appendChild(s)}},i.r=e=>{"undefined"!=typeof Symbol&&Symbol.toStringTag&&Object.defineProperty(e,Symbol.toStringTag,{value:"Module"}),Object.defineProperty(e,"__esModule",{value:!0})},i.j=364,i.p="https://js-agent.newrelic.com/",(()=>{var e={364:0,953:0};i.f.j=(t,r)=>{var n=i.o(e,t)?e[t]:void 0;if(0!==n)if(n)r.push(n[2]);else{var o=new Promise(((r,i)=>n=e[t]=[r,i]));r.push(n[2]=o);var a=i.p+i.u(t),s=new Error;i.l(a,(r=>{if(i.o(e,t)&&(0!==(n=e[t])&&(e[t]=void 0),n)){var o=r&&("load"===r.type?"missing":r.type),a=r&&r.target&&r.target.src;s.message="Loading chunk "+t+" failed.\n("+o+": "+a+")",s.name="ChunkLoadError",s.type=o,s.request=a,n[1](s)}}),"chunk-"+t,t)}};var t=(t,r)=>{var n,o,[a,s,c]=r,u=0;if(a.some((t=>0!==e[t]))){for(n in s)i.o(s,n)&&(i.m[n]=s[n]);if(c)c(i)}for(t&&t(r);u {i.r(o);var e=i(3325),t=i(5763);const r=Object.values(e.D);function n(e){const n={};return r.forEach((r=>{n[r]=function(e,r){return!1!==(0,t.Mt)(r,"".concat(e,".enabled"))}(r,e)})),n}var a=i(9144);var s=i(5546),c=i(385),u=i(8e3),d=i(5938),f=i(3960),l=i(50);class h extends d.W{constructor(e,t,r){let n=!(arguments.length>3&&void 0!==arguments[3])||arguments[3];super(e,t,r),this.auto=n,this.abortHandler,this.featAggregate,this.onAggregateImported,n&&(0,u.R)(e,r)}importAggregator(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:{};if(this.featAggregate||!this.auto)return;const r=c.il&&!0===(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"privacy.cookies_enabled");let n;this.onAggregateImported=new Promise((e=>{n=e}));const o=async()=>{let t;try{if(r){const{setupAgentSession:e}=await Promise.all([i.e(860),i.e(242)]).then(i.bind(i,3228));t=e(this.agentIdentifier)}}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("A problem occurred when starting up session manager. This page will not start or extend any session.",e)}try{if(!this.shouldImportAgg(this.featureName,t))return void(0,u.L)(this.agentIdentifier,this.featureName);const{lazyFeatureLoader:r}=await i.e(412).then(i.bind(i,8582)),{Aggregate:o}=await r(this.featureName,"aggregate");this.featAggregate=new o(this.agentIdentifier,this.aggregator,e),n(!0)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Downloading and initializing ".concat(this.featureName," failed..."),e),this.abortHandler?.(),n(!1)}};c.il?(0,f.b)((()=>o()),!0):o()}shouldImportAgg(r,n){return r!==e.D.sessionReplay||!1!==(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"session_trace.enabled")&&(!!n?.isNew||!!n?.state.sessionReplay)}}var g=i(7633),p=i(7894);class m extends h{static featureName=g.t9;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];if(super(r,n,g.t9,i),("undefined"==typeof PerformanceNavigationTiming||c.Tt)&&"undefined"!=typeof PerformanceTiming){const n=(0,t.OP)(r);n[g.Dz]=Math.max(Date.now()-n.offset,0),(0,f.K)((()=>n[g.qw]=Math.max((0,p.z)()-n[g.Dz],0))),(0,f.b)((()=>{const t=(0,p.z)();n[g.OJ]=Math.max(t-n[g.Dz],0),(0,s.p)("timing",["load",t],void 0,e.D.pageViewTiming,this.ee)}))}this.importAggregator()}}var v=i(1117),b=i(1284);class y extends v.w{constructor(e){super(e),this.aggregatedData={}}store(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,r,i);return o.metrics=function(e,t){t||(t={count:0});return t.count+=1,(0,b.D)(e,(function(e,r){t[e]=w(r,t[e])})),t}(n,o.metrics),o}merge(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,n,i);if(o.metrics){var a=o.metrics;a.count+=r.count,(0,b.D)(r,(function(e,t){if("count"!==e){var n=a[e],i=r[e];i&&!i.c?a[e]=w(i.t,n):a[e]=function(e,t){if(!t)return e;t.c||(t=x(t.t));return t.min=Math.min(e.min,t.min),t.max=Math.max(e.max,t.max),t.t+=e.t,t.sos+=e.sos,t.c+=e.c,t}(i,a[e])}}))}else o.metrics=r}storeMetric(e,t,r,n){var i=this.getBucket(e,t,r);return i.stats=w(n,i.stats),i}getBucket(e,t,r,n){this.aggregatedData[e]||(this.aggregatedData[e]={});var i=this.aggregatedData[e][t];return i||(i=this.aggregatedData[e][t]={params:r||{}},n&&(i.custom=n)),i}get(e,t){return t?this.aggregatedData[e]&&this.aggregatedData[e][t]:this.aggregatedData[e]}take(e){for(var t={},r="",n=!1,i=0;i t.max&&(t.max=e),e 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,r,j.t,n),c.il&&((0,t.OP)(e).initHidden=Boolean("hidden"===document.visibilityState),(0,N.N)((()=>(0,s.p)("docHidden",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee)),!0),(0,O.bP)("pagehide",(()=>(0,s.p)("winPagehide",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee))),this.importAggregator())}}var P=i(3081);class C extends h{static featureName=P.t9;constructor(e,t){let r=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,P.t9,r),this.importAggregator()}}var R,I=i(2210),k=i(1214),H=i(2177),L={};try{R=localStorage.getItem("__nr_flags").split(","),console&&"function"==typeof console.log&&(L.console=!0,-1!==R.indexOf("dev")&&(L.dev=!0),-1!==R.indexOf("nr_dev")&&(L.nrDev=!0))}catch(e){}function z(e){try{L.console&&z(e)}catch(e){}}L.nrDev&&H.ee.on("internal-error",(function(e){z(e.stack)})),L.dev&&H.ee.on("fn-err",(function(e,t,r){z(r.stack)})),L.dev&&(z("NR AGENT IN DEVELOPMENT MODE"),z("flags: "+(0,b.D)(L,(function(e,t){return e})).join(", ")));var M=i(6660);class B extends h{static featureName=M.t;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,M.t,i),this.skipNext=0;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}const o=this;o.ee.on("fn-start",(function(e,t,r){o.abortHandler&&(o.skipNext+=1)})),o.ee.on("fn-err",(function(t,r,n){o.abortHandler&&!n[M.A]&&((0,I.X)(n,M.A,(function(){return!0})),this.thrown=!0,(0,s.p)("err",[n,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee))})),o.ee.on("fn-end",(function(){o.abortHandler&&!this.thrown&&o.skipNext>0&&(o.skipNext-=1)})),o.ee.on("internal-error",(function(t){(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee)})),this.origOnerror=c._A.onerror,c._A.onerror=this.onerrorHandler.bind(this),c._A.addEventListener("unhandledrejection",(t=>{const r=function(e){let t="Unhandled Promise Rejection: ";if(e instanceof Error)try{return e.message=t+e.message,e}catch(t){return e}if(void 0===e)return new Error(t);try{return new Error(t+(0,D.P)(e))}catch(e){return new Error(t)}}(t.reason);(0,s.p)("err",[r,(0,p.z)(),!1,{unhandledPromiseRejection:1}],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}),(0,O.m$)(!1,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),(0,k.gy)(this.ee),(0,k.BV)(this.ee),(0,k.em)(this.ee),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}onerrorHandler(t,r,n,i,o){"function"==typeof this.origOnerror&&this.origOnerror(...arguments);try{this.skipNext?this.skipNext-=1:(0,s.p)("err",[o||new F(t,r,n),(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(t){try{(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(e){}}return!1}}function F(e,t,r){this.message=e||"Uncaught error with no additional information",this.sourceURL=t,this.line=r}let U=1;const q="nr@id";function G(e){const t=typeof e;return!e||"object"!==t&&"function"!==t?-1:e===c._A?0:(0,I.X)(e,q,(function(){return U++}))}function V(e){if("string"==typeof e&&e.length)return e.length;if("object"==typeof e){if("undefined"!=typeof ArrayBuffer&&e instanceof ArrayBuffer&&e.byteLength)return e.byteLength;if("undefined"!=typeof Blob&&e instanceof Blob&&e.size)return e.size;if(!("undefined"!=typeof FormData&&e instanceof FormData))try{return(0,D.P)(e).length}catch(e){return}}}var X=i(7243);class W{constructor(e){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.generateTracePayload=this.generateTracePayload.bind(this),this.shouldGenerateTrace=this.shouldGenerateTrace.bind(this)}generateTracePayload(e){if(!this.shouldGenerateTrace(e))return null;var r=(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier);if(!r)return null;var n=(r.accountID||"").toString()||null,i=(r.agentID||"").toString()||null,o=(r.trustKey||"").toString()||null;if(!n||!i)return null;var a=(0,_.M)(),s=(0,_.Ht)(),c=Date.now(),u={spanId:a,traceId:s,timestamp:c};return(e.sameOrigin||this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useTraceContextHeadersForCors())&&(u.traceContextParentHeader=this.generateTraceContextParentHeader(a,s),u.traceContextStateHeader=this.generateTraceContextStateHeader(a,c,n,i,o)),(e.sameOrigin&&!this.excludeNewrelicHeader()||!e.sameOrigin&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useNewrelicHeaderForCors())&&(u.newrelicHeader=this.generateTraceHeader(a,s,c,n,i,o)),u}generateTraceContextParentHeader(e,t){return"00-"+t+"-"+e+"-01"}generateTraceContextStateHeader(e,t,r,n,i){return i+"@nr=0-1-"+r+"-"+n+"-"+e+"----"+t}generateTraceHeader(e,t,r,n,i,o){if(!("function"==typeof c._A?.btoa))return null;var a={v:[0,1],d:{ty:"Browser",ac:n,ap:i,id:e,tr:t,ti:r}};return o&&n!==o&&(a.d.tk=o),btoa((0,D.P)(a))}shouldGenerateTrace(e){return this.isDtEnabled()&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)}isAllowedOrigin(e){var r=!1,n={};if((0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"distributed_tracing")&&(n=(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier).distributed_tracing),e.sameOrigin)r=!0;else if(n.allowed_origins instanceof Array)for(var i=0;i 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,Z.t,i),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(this.dt=new W(r),this.handler=(e,t,r,n)=>(0,s.p)(e,t,r,n,this.ee),(0,k.u5)(this.ee),(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),function(r,n,i,o){function a(e){var t=this;t.totalCbs=0,t.called=0,t.cbTime=0,t.end=E,t.ended=!1,t.xhrGuids={},t.lastSize=null,t.loadCaptureCalled=!1,t.params=this.params||{},t.metrics=this.metrics||{},e.addEventListener("load",(function(r){_(t,e)}),(0,O.m$)(!1)),c.IF||e.addEventListener("progress",(function(e){t.lastSize=e.loaded}),(0,O.m$)(!1))}function s(e){this.params={method:e[0]},T(this,e[1]),this.metrics={}}function u(e,n){var i=(0,t.DL)(r);i.xpid&&this.sameOrigin&&n.setRequestHeader("X-NewRelic-ID",i.xpid);var a=o.generateTracePayload(this.parsedOrigin);if(a){var s=!1;a.newrelicHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("newrelic",a.newrelicHeader),s=!0),a.traceContextParentHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("traceparent",a.traceContextParentHeader),a.traceContextStateHeader&&n.setRequestHeader("tracestate",a.traceContextStateHeader),s=!0),s&&(this.dt=a)}}function d(e,t){var r=this.metrics,i=e[0],o=this;if(r&&i){var a=V(i);a&&(r.txSize=a)}this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.listener=function(e){try{"abort"!==e.type||o.loadCaptureCalled||(o.params.aborted=!0),("load"!==e.type||o.called===o.totalCbs&&(o.onloadCalled||"function"!=typeof t.onload)&&"function"==typeof o.end)&&o.end(t)}catch(e){try{n.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}};for(var s=0;s 1?e[1]=i:e.push(i)}else e[0]&&e[0].headers&&s(e[0].headers,n)&&(this.dt=n);function s(e,t){var r=!1;return t.newrelicHeader&&(e.set("newrelic",t.newrelicHeader),r=!0),t.traceContextParentHeader&&(e.set("traceparent",t.traceContextParentHeader),t.traceContextStateHeader&&e.set("tracestate",t.traceContextStateHeader),r=!0),r}}function x(e,t){this.params={},this.metrics={},this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.dt=t,e.length>=1&&(this.target=e[0]),e.length>=2&&(this.opts=e[1]);var r,n=this.opts||{},i=this.target;"string"==typeof i?r=i:"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof Y?r=i.url:c._A?.URL&&"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof URL&&(r=i.href),T(this,r);var o=(""+(i&&i instanceof Y&&i.method||n.method||"GET")).toUpperCase();this.params.method=o,this.txSize=V(n.body)||0}function A(t,r){var n;this.endTime=(0,p.z)(),this.params||(this.params={}),this.params.status=r?r.status:0,"string"==typeof this.rxSize&&this.rxSize.length>0&&(n=+this.rxSize);var o={txSize:this.txSize,rxSize:n,duration:(0,p.z)()-this.startTime};i("xhr",[this.params,o,this.startTime,this.endTime,"fetch"],this,e.D.ajax)}function E(t){var r=this.params,n=this.metrics;if(!this.ended){this.ended=!0;for(var o=0;o 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,we.t,r),this.importAggregator()}}new class{constructor(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:(0,_.ky)(16);c._A?(this.agentIdentifier=t,this.sharedAggregator=new y({agentIdentifier:this.agentIdentifier}),this.features={},this.desiredFeatures=new Set(e.features||[]),this.desiredFeatures.add(m),Object.assign(this,(0,a.j)(this.agentIdentifier,e,e.loaderType||"agent")),this.start()):(0,l.Z)("Failed to initial the agent. Could not determine the runtime environment.")}get config(){return{info:(0,t.C5)(this.agentIdentifier),init:(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier),loader_config:(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier),runtime:(0,t.OP)(this.agentIdentifier)}}start(){const t="features";try{const r=n(this.agentIdentifier),i=[...this.desiredFeatures];i.sort(((t,r)=>e.p[t.featureName]-e.p[r.featureName])),i.forEach((t=>{if(r[t.featureName]||t.featureName===e.D.pageViewEvent){const n=function(t){switch(t){case e.D.ajax:return[e.D.jserrors];case e.D.sessionTrace:return[e.D.ajax,e.D.pageViewEvent];case e.D.sessionReplay:return[e.D.sessionTrace];case e.D.pageViewTiming:return[e.D.pageViewEvent];default:return[]}}(t.featureName);n.every((e=>r[e]))||(0,l.Z)("".concat(t.featureName," is enabled but one or more dependent features has been disabled (").concat((0,D.P)(n),"). This may cause unintended consequences or missing data...")),this.features[t.featureName]=new t(this.agentIdentifier,this.sharedAggregator)}})),(0,T.Qy)(this.agentIdentifier,this.features,t)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Failed to initialize all enabled instrument classes (agent aborted) -",e);for(const e in this.features)this.features[e].abortHandler?.();const r=(0,T.fP)();return delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.api,delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.[t],delete this.sharedAggregator,r.ee?.abort(),delete r.ee?.get(this.agentIdentifier),!1}}}({features:[J,m,S,class extends h{static featureName=oe;constructor(t,r){if(super(t,r,oe,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;const n=this.ee;let i;(0,k.QU)(n),this.eventsEE=(0,k.em)(n),this.eventsEE.on(se,(function(e,t){this.bstStart=(0,p.z)()})),this.eventsEE.on(ae,(function(t,r){(0,s.p)("bst",[t[0],r,this.bstStart,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),n.on(ce+ne,(function(e){this.time=(0,p.z)(),this.startPath=location.pathname+location.hash})),n.on(ce+ie,(function(t){(0,s.p)("bstHist",[location.pathname+location.hash,this.startPath,this.time],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)}));try{i=new PerformanceObserver((t=>{const r=t.getEntries();(0,s.p)(te,[r],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),i.observe({type:re,buffered:!0})}catch(e){}this.importAggregator({resourceObserver:i})}},C,xe,B,class extends h{static featureName=de;constructor(e,r){if(super(e,r,de,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;if(!(0,t.OP)(e).xhrWrappable)return;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}let n,i=0;const o=this.ee.get("tracer"),a=(0,k._L)(this.ee),s=(0,k.Lg)(this.ee),u=(0,k.BV)(this.ee),d=(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),f=this.ee.get("events"),l=(0,k.u5)(this.ee),h=(0,k.QU)(this.ee),g=(0,k.Gm)(this.ee);function m(e,t){h.emit("newURL",[""+window.location,t])}function v(){i++,n=window.location.hash,this[ve]=(0,p.z)()}function b(){i--,window.location.hash!==n&&m(0,!0);var e=(0,p.z)();this[pe]=~~this[pe]+e-this[ve],this[ye]=e}function y(e,t){e.on(t,(function(){this[t]=(0,p.z)()}))}this.ee.on(ve,v),s.on(be,v),a.on(be,v),this.ee.on(ye,b),s.on(ge,b),a.on(ge,b),this.ee.buffer([ve,ye,"xhr-resolved"],this.featureName),f.buffer([ve],this.featureName),u.buffer(["setTimeout"+le,"clearTimeout"+fe,ve],this.featureName),d.buffer([ve,"new-xhr","send-xhr"+fe],this.featureName),l.buffer([me+fe,me+"-done",me+he+fe,me+he+le],this.featureName),h.buffer(["newURL"],this.featureName),g.buffer([ve],this.featureName),s.buffer(["propagate",be,ge,"executor-err","resolve"+fe],this.featureName),o.buffer([ve,"no-"+ve],this.featureName),a.buffer(["new-jsonp","cb-start","jsonp-error","jsonp-end"],this.featureName),y(l,me+fe),y(l,me+"-done"),y(a,"new-jsonp"),y(a,"jsonp-end"),y(a,"cb-start"),h.on("pushState-end",m),h.on("replaceState-end",m),window.addEventListener("hashchange",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("load",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("popstate",(function(){m(0,i>1)}),(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}}],loaderType:"spa"})})(),window.NRBA=o})(); window.jQuery || document.write(' ') CKEDITOR_BASEPATH='https://f1000research.com/js/vendor/ckeditor/' window.reactTheme = 'research'; window.MathJax = { CommonHTML: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, 'HTML-CSS': { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, SVG: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, AuthorInit: function() { MathJax.Hub.Register.MessageHook('End Process', function () { let timeout = false; // holder for timeout id const delay = 250; // delay after event is "complete" to run callback const reflowMath = function() { const dispFormulas = document.querySelectorAll('.disp-formula.panel'); if (!dispFormulas) { return; } for (const dispFormula of dispFormulas) { const child = dispFormula.querySelector('.MathJax_Preview').nextSibling.firstChild; const isMultiline = MathJax.Hub.getAllJax(dispFormula)[0].root.isMultiline; if (dispFormula.offsetWidth < child.offsetWidth || isMultiline) { MathJax.Hub.Queue(['Rerender', MathJax.Hub, dispFormula]); } } }; window.addEventListener('resize', function() { clearTimeout(timeout); // clear the timeout timeout = setTimeout(reflowMath, delay); // start timing for event "completion" }); }); }, }; if (window.location.hash == '#_=_'){ window.location = window.location.href.split('#')[0] } !function(f,b,e,v,n,t,s){if(f.fbq)return;n=f.fbq=function() {n.callMethod? n.callMethod.apply(n,arguments):n.queue.push(arguments)} ;if(!f._fbq)f._fbq=n; n.push=n;n.loaded=!0;n.version='2.0';n.queue=[];t=b.createElement(e);t.async=!0; t.src=v;s=b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0];s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s)}(window, document,'script','https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbevents.js'); fbq('init', '1641728616063202'); fbq('track', "PixelInitialized", {}); (function(h,o,t,j,a,r){ h.hj=h.hj||function(){(h.hj.q=h.hj.q||[]).push(arguments)}; h._hjSettings={hjid:2318163,hjsv:6}; a=o.getElementsByTagName('head')[0]; r=o.createElement('script');r.async=1; r.src=t+h._hjSettings.hjid+j+h._hjSettings.hjsv; a.appendChild(r); })(window,document,'https://static.hotjar.com/c/hotjar-','.js?sv='); search file_upload Submit your research search menu close search Browse Gateways & Collections How to Publish Submit your Research My Submissions Article Guidelines Article Guidelines (New Versions) Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines Open Data and Accessible Source Materials Guidelines (HSS) Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines (PSE) Prepublication Checks Production Process Posters and Slides Guidelines Document Guidelines Article Processing Charges Peer Review Finding Article Reviewers About How it Works For Reviewers Our Advisors Policies Glossary FAQs For Developers Newsroom Contact My Research Submissions Content and Tracking Alerts My Details Sign In file_upload Submit your research { "@context": "https://schema.org", "@type": "ScholarlyArticle", "mainEntityOfPage": { "@type": "WebPage", "@id": "https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1518" }, "headline": "Harassment of game makers: Prevalence and impact", "datePublished": "2022-12-14T11:52:41", "dateModified": "2023-01-20T16:52:11", "author": [ { "@type": "Person", "name": "Rachel Kowert" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Eve Crevoshay" } ], "publisher": { "@type": "Organization", "name": "F1000Research", "logo": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://f1000research.com/img/AMP/F1000Research_image.png", "height": 480, "width": 60 } }, "image": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://f1000research.com/img/AMP/F1000Research_image.png", "height": 1200, "width": 150 }, "description": "Background: Online harassment is a relatively commonplace occurrence in the video gaming industry and player communities. A lack of diversity has unquestionably contributed to the high levels of such incidences. Methods: In this paper, we take an exploratory approach, via a cross-sectional observational study, to evaluate the harassment of game industry professionals on social media. In this new sphere of growing concern, there is evidence of significant harm for game makers and their radius of impact. We will discuss the prevalence rates, nature of harassment, and the ways in which a lack of diversity has contributed to this phenomenon. Results: In total, 282 video game industry professionals completed the survey in its entirety. More than half of all participants reported experiencing harassment on social media (59.6%) and nearly all reported witnessing harassment happening to other members of the videogames industry via social media (92.2%). This harassment can have a significant impact on well-being, including increased anxiety (62.1%), feelings of isolation (37.6%) and increased depression (36.2%). Almost one quarter (23.8%) reported symptoms related to post-traumatic stress disorder. One out of 10 participants reported suicidal thoughts because of online harassment. A significant number of respondents (37.3%) reported that had to take steps to reduce their physical safety due to online harassment. Over half of all respondents saying they were targets of hate because of some aspect of their identity. Conclusions: The results indicate high rates of online harassment, both direct and indirect, among members of the gaming industry at all levels. Responses also pointed to substantial mental health and behavioral impacts of both experiencing and witnessing online harassment. Without large-scale action, this problem will continue to reinforce the lack of diversity inside game studios, pushing out marginalized employees due to a hostile work environment." } { "@context": "http://schema.org", "@type": "BreadcrumbList", "itemListElement": [ { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "1", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/", "name": "Home" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "2", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/browse/articles", "name": "Browse" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "3", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1518", "name": "Harassment of game makers: Prevalence and impact" } } ] } Home Browse Harassment of game makers: Prevalence and impact ALL Metrics - Views Downloads Get PDF Get XML Cite How to cite this article Kowert R and Crevoshay E. Harassment of game makers: Prevalence and impact [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2023, 11 :1518 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.126998.2 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. Close Copy Citation Details Export Export Citation Sciwheel EndNote Ref. Manager Bibtex ProCite Sente EXPORT Select a format first Track Share ▬ ✚ Research Article Revised Harassment of game makers: Prevalence and impact [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations] Rachel Kowert https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9522-9945 1 , Eve Crevoshay 1 Rachel Kowert https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9522-9945 1 , Eve Crevoshay 1 PUBLISHED 20 Jan 2023 Author details Author details 1 Take Thisq, Seattle, WA, USA Rachel Kowert Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Eve Crevoshay Roles: Conceptualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing OPEN PEER REVIEW DETAILS REVIEWER STATUS This article is included in the Diversity, Inclusion and Equity in Game Development and Design collection. Abstract Background: Online harassment is a relatively commonplace occurrence in the video gaming industry and player communities. A lack of diversity has unquestionably contributed to the high levels of such incidences. Methods: In this paper, we take an exploratory approach, via a cross-sectional observational study, to evaluate the harassment of game industry professionals on social media. In this new sphere of growing concern, there is evidence of significant harm for game makers and their radius of impact. We will discuss the prevalence rates, nature of harassment, and the ways in which a lack of diversity has contributed to this phenomenon. Results: In total, 282 video game industry professionals completed the survey in its entirety. More than half of all participants reported experiencing harassment on social media (59.6%) and nearly all reported witnessing harassment happening to other members of the videogames industry via social media (92.2%). This harassment can have a significant impact on well-being, including increased anxiety (62.1%), feelings of isolation (37.6%) and increased depression (36.2%). Almost one quarter (23.8%) reported symptoms related to post-traumatic stress disorder. One out of 10 participants reported suicidal thoughts because of online harassment. A significant number of respondents (37.3%) reported that had to take steps to reduce their physical safety due to online harassment. Over half of all respondents saying they were targets of hate because of some aspect of their identity. Conclusions: The results indicate high rates of online harassment, both direct and indirect, among members of the gaming industry at all levels. Responses also pointed to substantial mental health and behavioral impacts of both experiencing and witnessing online harassment. Without large-scale action, this problem will continue to reinforce the lack of diversity inside game studios, pushing out marginalized employees due to a hostile work environment. READ ALL READ LESS Keywords video games, game development, hate, harassment, mental health, diversity Corresponding Author(s) Rachel Kowert ( [email protected] ) Close Corresponding author: Rachel Kowert Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information: The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work. Copyright: © 2023 Kowert R and Crevoshay E. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. How to cite: Kowert R and Crevoshay E. Harassment of game makers: Prevalence and impact [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2023, 11 :1518 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.126998.2 ) First published: 14 Dec 2022, 11 :1518 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.126998.1 ) Latest published: 20 Jan 2023, 11 :1518 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.126998.2 ) Revised Amendments from Version 1 We have systematically addressed the concerns from reviewer #1 and added more context around the discussions and findings as well as elaborated on the references used in the background of the article. We have systematically addressed the concerns from reviewer #1 and added more context around the discussions and findings as well as elaborated on the references used in the background of the article. See the authors' detailed response to the review by Amanda C. Cote READ REVIEWER RESPONSES Introduction Online harassment is a relatively commonplace occurrence in digital game and game adjacent spaces ( Anti-Defamation League, 2022 ; Kowert & Cook, 2022 ). A 2022 report from the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) indicated that 83% of adults and 60% of teenagers experienced harassment in online multiplayer games in the last six months. Of these, 71% of adult online multiplayer gamers experienced severe abuse, including physical threats, stalking, and sustained harassment. This high rate of incidence is supported by other frequency reports ( Bryter, 2020 ; Kowert & Cook, 2022 ), which have found the more extreme forms of hate and harassment to be more the exception than the norm. For example, Kowert and Cook (2022) reported that nearly half of all game players have directly experienced sexual harassment (45%) and violent threats (46.8%) in game, and more than half have experienced hate speech (64%). These experiences can have significant mental health impacts on the victim, including short-term distress to long-term post-traumatic stress symptomatology (ADL, 2021). This experience tends to be magnified for victims of marginalized genders and ethnic backgrounds ( Bryter, 2020 ; Fagan, 2021 ). The sheer prevalence of hate and harassment in gaming communities suggests a level of normalization of these behaviors. This normalization is also sometimes referred to as “toxic gamer culture,” which is a phrase that has entered our common vernacular to reference to the set of culturally justified behaviors within gaming communities that are harmful to others within and outside of gaming spaces. In the last few years, there has been a growing trend for hate and harassment in gaming cultures to expand beyond other players towards game makers. The aim of this study is to quantify these trends and explore the prevalence rates, nature of harassment, and the ways in which a lack of diversity has contributed to this phenomenon. As no known research has previously examined these outcomes among video game industry professionals, this work is exploratory. Background Harassment of game makers In the last few years, there have been several high-profile cases of the harassment of game makers. In this context, “game maker” refers to a professional in the video games industry that works in any aspect of video game production at any level. While the harassment of game makers (especially female ones) has been a very real issue for many years, in 2019 we started to see discussions of these behaviors within the broader public spotlight when former Guild Wars 2 narrative designer Jessica Price’s was fired from ArenaNet after engaging in a Twitter exchange with a player. Because the Twitter exchange itself was relatively innocuous, her firing surprised and angered many. As Price noted: “[ArenaNet CEO Mike O’Brien] spent some time insisting that developers must be friends with the company’s customers, and that it was unacceptable to say that we aren’t, even when we’re not on the clock.” ( Campbell, 2018 ). Discussions about the harassment of game makers reemerged in 2021 after the release of Boyfriend Dungeon by Montreal studio Kitfox Games and subsequent harassment campaign of one of the game’s voice actors, Alexander Gross, who voiced the game’s main villain, Eric. Players developed a universal disdain for this character due to his use of emotional manipulation towards the character-controlled protagonist. This, combined with an insufficiently specific content warning, led to players being taken aback by Eric’s overtly manipulative behavior. A small but significant number turned to harassment of Gross in response ( Gach, 2021 ). Multiple other cases of online harassment of game developers also came to light in the last few years. Several developers and voice actors of The Last of Us 2 , received harassment and death threats following its release; largely centered around discontent about the main character being depicted as a strong woman with a muscular physique ( Hernandez, 2019 ). Ron Gilbert, the creator of Return to Monkey Island , was relentlessly abused online by fans who did not like the art style that was shown in previews of his new release in the series ( Troughton, 2022 ). In an in-depth interview ( Mazanko, 2022 ), Joe Hobbs, lead prop artist at Ubisoft, and Chris Goodswen, an artist at Ubisoft, disclosed that they have received death threats in the past over the release of new titles. Estelle Tigani, the Cinematic Producer on God of War Ragnarok, was subject to online sexual harassment after an announcement of a production delay ( Mansoor, 2022 ). Why these incidents happen is a multifaceted question. We know from previous work from online harassment that there are many interpersonal and environmental reasons someone may be motivated to harass another person online – including lower levels of empathy, the online disinhibition effect, a lack of formal punishment, etc. ( Cook, 2019 ; Cook et al. , 2018, 2019 ; March, 2019 ). However, there are additional variables to be considered specifically within the context of the harassment of game makers, such as the lack of clear boundaries between professional and personal social media accounts belonging to game makers, toxic gaming cultures within the gaming industry, and a lack of diversity within gaming content and cultures. There has also been research exploring a potential cycle of exclusion in gaming cultures ( Fron et al. , 2007 ; Kowert et al. , 2017 ) and the role of masculinity in studio culture may specifically play in creating a culture of harassment ( Johnson, 2013 ; 2014 ). As noted in the previously mentioned quote from Price, there are often blurred lines between player and creator; making it difficult to negotiate social boundaries. One aspect of this is a lack of formal delineation between the professional and personal social media accounts of game makers. This is, at least partially, because many studios do not have formal social media policies and, if they do, the policies are often unclear about the boundaries between one’s personal and professional online presence. Today, whilst there remain many different guides available online about the best way for game makers to engage with game players online, very few (if any) discuss the role of personal and professional boundaries. Organizational climate can also contribute to the harassment of game makers. Some scholars argue that game companies themselves are fundamentally toxic within their organizational structure ( Bourdreau, 2022 ) and the games they create reinforce toxicity through in-game narratives and mechanics ( Bergstrom, 2020 ; Tompkins & Martins, 2021 ). Some have argued that this is a result of a cycle that starts in early childhood. Referred to as the “Cycle model of exclusion in gaming content and cultures” ( Kowert et al. , 2017 ), it is agued that early socialization of games as a male activity leads to the exclusion of non-men in the industry, which creates a male dominated industry and gendered game content and a normalization of gendered views of the world, including sexist attitudes and beliefs within gaming communities and the industry itself. This cycle is self-perpetuating. The outcome of this cycle, “toxic cultures”, are particularly concerning as “toxic cultures” in game studios are often overlooked or denied. As discussed by Price in an interview, “Game companies are generally unwilling to be honest with themselves about how they’re complicit in creating and sustaining that [toxic] environment” ( Farokhmanesh, 2018 ). The “cycle model of exclusion” discussed above would also provide some context for understanding the lack of diversity in game content and game industry professionals. A lack of diversity among game industry professionals has unquestionably contributed to high levels of hate and harassment in gaming spaces and towards game makers specifically ( Anti-Defamation League, 2022 ; Kowert & Cook, 2022 ). The global video game industry is overwhelmingly white and male ( Game Developers Association, 2022 ; International Game Developers Association, 2021 ), with the self-reported number of women and people of ethnically and racially marginalized identities being significantly lower than that of the general US population ( International Game Developers Association, 2021 ). Similar trends are found in the UK, with the most recent industry report ( UKIE, 2022 ) confirming that most game makers are male (67%), white (66%) and heterosexual (76%). Game content itself is another element for consideration, as it can reinforce heterogeneity though the reinforcement of stereotypes ( Burgess et al. , 2008 ). For example, the systematic lack of female characters ( Lynch et al. , 2016 ; Williams et al. , 2009 ) and/or noticeably and disproportionately sexualized female characters ( Dill & Thill, 2007 ). The nature of this content has been under scrutiny for many years, perhaps most notably by Anita Sarkeesian with her Tropes vs women in video games YouTube series ( Sarkeesian, 2013 ). The popularity of this video series itself sparked a round of hate and harassment towards Anita and was a precursor to the 2014 Gamergate movement. Gamergate was arguably the first famous example of how public backlash by a small subset of people can directly impact the mental health of industry employees ( Mortensen, 2018 ). It resulted in a psychologically damaging public attack on predominantly female members of the game industry by a subset of predominantly male fans and developers. This movement, which started in 2014 and remains problematic today, quickly devolved from baseless accusations to character assassinations, misogyny, hate speech, and death threats ( Campbell, 2014 ), the repercussions of which were severe. Personal information, including home addresses of the targets and their families, social security numbers, and even nude photos were posted online, forcing people from their jobs and their homes ( Robertson, 2014 ). It is worth noting that while game content has become notably more diverse in the last decade, gaps remain and award-winning and best-selling titles continue to underrepresent characters with marginalized gender, ethnic, and racial identities ( Lopez et al. , 2019 ). While it is possible to draw the connections between a lack of diversity in the industry to game content and then to online harassment, little remains known about the extent to which game creators and other online creators are experiencing this kind of abuse online, and how it impacts their lives, beyond anecdotal evidence ( Francis, 2022 ; Grayson, 2019 ). Understanding the prevalence and impact of hate and harassment among industry professionals is the first step towards understanding how to address the problem. Current research Hate and harassment within gaming communities has received a large amount of attention, both publicly and within scholarly communities. However, less attention has been given to the rising incidences of the harassment of game creators even though there seem to be disproportionately high rates of hate and harassment in professional gaming spaces, both within studios and directed at gaming professionals online. To better understand the prevalence and nature of the harassment of game makers, we conducted a cross-sectional study of game makers via an online survey. Methods Setting The survey was advertised online across social media platforms ( Twitter and Facebook ) and email lists targeted at game professionals (e.g., gamesnetwork). The survey was also directly emailed to the authors’ points of contact at several game studios, from small independent studios to large AAA studios. Data was collected throughout the month of October 2021. Procedure The only requirement for participation in this study to be a professional within the games industry at any level. After providing informed consent, participants were asked a series of questions about their direct and indirect ( i.e. , witnessed) experiences with online harassment via social media. All participants completed the questions in the same order. The survey consisted of six sections: workplace role and culture, direct experiences of harassment, witnessed experiences of harassment, general experience and impact of harassment, general thoughts about harassment via social media, and demographic questionnaire. Demographic questions were presented at the end of the survey for all participants to reduce any potential priming effects for gender or ethnicity. Measures Participants were asked to complete the Game Developers Social Media Experience Survey ( Kowert & Crevoshay, 2021 ). This measure includes a series of questions about harassment via social media. First, they were asked about the kinds of actions they had experienced, the perceived motivations behind them, any changes in behavior due to the harassment, and their mental health impact. They were then asked the same series of questions in relation to their indirect ( i.e. , witnessed) experiences. Participants were also asked their general thoughts on actions that could mitigate these behaviors in the future. The full questionnaire can be found in the extended data. Results Our survey results, presented below, are openly available in full on the open science framework repository ( Kowert & Crevoshay, 2021 ). Participants In total, 304 participants responded to the online call for participation and completed the survey. 7.2% (22 participants) were excluded from the final analysis as they indicated that they did not work in the games industry. Of the 282 participants who fully completed the survey, 46.1% worked for an AAA developer, 42.6% for an Indie developer and 11.3% did not work directly within a game studio. Most participants worked in core creation or development roles within their studio. 17% of participants held management positions and 11% were administrative or ancillary roles. The rest of the participants were primarily game publishers (3.5%), journalists or critics (1.8%) educators (1.1%) who work with the gaming industry, game artists (0.7%), or producers of game related events (0.7%). Most participants were White (72.3%), male (54.8%), aged 26-45 (78.7%), and resided in the United States (50.7%). Prevalence of harassment More than half of all participants reported experiencing harassment on social media (59.6%) and nearly all participants reported witnessing harassment happening to other members of the videogames industry via social media (92.2%). Most of the reported harassment had been directly experienced (82.1%) and witnessed (94.2%) on Twitter. However, as seen in Table 1 , a significant amount of harassment was reported being experienced and witnessed across platforms. Several respondents specified “Other” platforms in their responses, including Tumblr , Snapchat , and personal email. Table 1. Percentage of experienced and witnessed harassment of game industry professionals across social media platforms. Platform Directly experienced Witnessed Twitter 82.1 94.2 Online forums 51.8 62.7 Facebook 25 36.2 Instagram 17.3 20.4 Discord 6.5 2.3 Twitch 3 2.3 YouTube 2.4 2.3 Nature of harassment Participants were asked to identify which of a series of behaviors they had experienced and witnessed from a list of eight behaviors: trolling/griefing (deliberate attempts to upset or provoke someone), offensive name-calling, threats of physical violence (conveying threats of physical or mental injury), stalking (online monitoring and/or information gathering used to threaten or harass), sexual harassment, discrimination by a stranger due to age, gender, ethnicity, ability or sexual orientation, doxxing (having personally identifying information made public), swatting (having a stranger make a false report to emergency services to target someone), and sustained harassment (harassment that occurs over multiple instances or a longer period of time). More than half of all participants reported experiencing harassment on social media (59.6%) and nearly all participants reported witnessing harassment happening to other members of the videogames industry via social media (92.2%). The type of harassment directly experienced and witnessed by members of the gaming industry ranged from offensive name-calling to sustained harassment, to one incidence of an entire website being created mimicking an alternate history to one’s life. Several participants reported “Other” forms of harassment as well, including threats to one's job, impersonation attempts through the creation of fake social media profiles, hacked social media accounts, and violent physical assault. The rates of the most common forms of harassment, both directly experienced and witnessed, is presented in Table 2 . Table 2. Prevalence of types of harassment experienced and witnessed by game industry professionals on social media by percentage. Type of harassment Directly experienced Witnessed Trolling/griefing 86.3 93.1 Offensive name calling 79.2 91.5 Threats of physical violence 48.2 76.9 Identity-based discrimination 42.9 81.2 Stalking (off- or online) 38.7 56.9 Sustained harassment 39.9 63.1 Doxxing 25.6 53.5 Swatting 3 21.9 Trolling/griefing (broadly defined as deliberate attempts to provoke someone) were the most common form of harassment reported, followed by offensive name calling. Identity based harassment was experienced by 42.9% of participants. Nearly one in two participants reported experiencing threats of physical violence, with three out of four participants having witnessed threats of physical violence directed at another member of the industry. Stalking was also experienced (38.7%) and witnessed (56.9%) by a large percentage of participants. Sustained harassment, defined as harassment that occurs over multiple instances or over time, was experienced (39.9%) and witnessed (63.1%) by almost half of everyone surveyed. Doxxing, which refers to one's personal information being shared online and is considered one of the most severe forms of online harassment, was experienced by a quarter of all participants (25.6%) and witnessed by more than half (53.5%). Swatting, which is when a stranger makes a prank call to emergency services to have them dispatched to you and was the most severe form of online harassment on the list of selections, had been witnessed by more than one in five individuals (21.9%). Motivation of harassment When asked what they thought the motivating factors behind the harassment were, a variety of responses were selected. The most popular included: being a public figure in the games community (47.9%); identity-based harassment (46.1%); the norms of the games industry generally independent of the game studio one works for (38.3%); displeasure towards a recent game release (37.1%) and the general reputation of working for a particular studio (35.9%). A similar proportion of responses were found when asked about what they believed motivated their witnessed experiences of harassment. These findings are presented in Table 3 . Table 3. Perceived motivating factors for harassment of game industry professionals through social media by percentage. Motivating factor Directly experienced Witnessed Being a public figure in games 47.9 73.0 Identity based harassment 46.1 77.2 Games industry generally (not studio specific) 43.1 55.2 General reputation of a specific studio 35.9 59.5 A recent game release 37.1 64.5 Response to harassment As a direct target, participants reported varying degrees of response to online harassment. Blocking and reporting (85.1%) and ignoring the comment or behavior (83.3%) were the most common responses. Many also reported that they confronted or challenged the harasser (33.3%) and shared information about the experience with others (26.2%). Almost one-third (29.2%) of participants noted that they contacted their workplace for information on how to respond and/or to seek support. 43.3% of all participants reported that they have attempted to hide an aspect of their identity (e.g., age, gender, ethnicity, ability) because of being targeted by hate. As a witness to online harassment, participants most often blocked or reported the person (84%), followed by ignoring the comment (49.4%). As was found when being the direct target, just about one-third of participants reported that they directly confronted or challenged the offender (30.4%) and shared information about the experience with others (34.6%). Only 17.5% of participants reported that they sought information from their workplace about how to respond and/or seek support when witnessing online harassment of others in the gaming industry. Impact of harassment Participants reported that being a direct target and/or directly witnessing online harassment has had a significant impact on their mental health and offline behavior. In terms of mental health, most participants reported feeling uncomfortable or upset (77.7%). Most participants reported increased anxiety (62.1%) and being less social (51.1%). Around a third of participants reported feeling more isolated or alone (37.6%) and increased depression (36.2%). Almost one quarter (23.8%) reported symptoms related to post-traumatic stress disorder. One out of 10 participants reported suicidal thoughts because of online harassment. In terms of offline behavior, many participants reported it had negatively impacted their work performance (41.1%), they had sought professional psychological help (27.3%), and had personal relationships disrupted (22%). Just about a third reported they had to take steps to reduce risk to their physical safety (37.2%). One out of 10 participants had contacted the police because of online harassment. These results are summarized in Table 4 . Table 4. Impact of online harassment among game industry professionals by percentage. Impact of harassment % Mental health impact Felt uncomfortable 77.8 Been less social 51.4 Felt isolated/alone 38 Increased depression 36.6 Behavioral impact Taken steps to reduce risk to physical safety 37.3 Occupational performance negatively impacted 41.5 Contacted police 10.2 Policy and support considerations Around half of all participants reported that their studio had a policy about online harassment already in place (47.5%); however, most did not have support structures in place around online harassment specifically (58.5%). Most respondents believe that gaming companies should have stronger policies in place around hate and harassment (87.2%). Most respondents believe that the games industry contributes to the ease with which people engage in online hate and harassment (62.4%) and should be doing more to support employees being targeted by online hate and harassment (92.2%). The way that social media works is also believed to contribute to the ease with which people engage in online hate and harassment (96.5%) and respondents think social media companies should be doing more to support people being targeted online (93.7%). Most respondents (80.1%) believe laws need to be created to enact consequences around online harassment. These numbers are significantly higher than those reported by the ADL from a survey of the overall game playing population in 2021, who found only 68% of respondents believe games companies should be doing more to support people being targeted by online hate, with 59% endorsing the need to create new laws being developed to address hate and harassment online. Discussion The harassment of game makers through social media is a growing concern. This study looked at the prevalence and nature of online harassment among game makers to better understand the scope of this problem. Results indicated high rates of online harassment, both direct and indirect, among members of the gaming industry at all levels. Responses also pointed to substantial mental health and behavioral impacts of both experiencing and witnessing online harassment. Notably, the harassment of game makers seems directly tied to a lack of diversity within the industry, as evidenced by the ubiquity of identity-based harassment. The impact of hate and harassment of game makers appears to be more severe than found among a general game playing population. As reported by the ADL in 2019, less than one-third of their respondents reported feeling uncomfortable or upset (31%), felt isolated or alone (14%), took steps to reduce risk to physical safety (12%). depressive or suicidal thoughts (11%), or had their occupational performance negatively impacted (13%). Comparable outcomes between game makers and the general game playing population (as reported by the ADL) are presented in Table 5 . This may be, at least partially, due to the high rates of the more severe forms of harassment, doxxing and swatting, being reported by game makers. Table 5. Impact of online harassment on game players (ADL, 2019 * ) and game makers by percentage. Type of Harassment Game players Game makers Mental health impact Felt uncomfortable 31 77.8 Been less social 16 51.4 Felt isolated/alone 14 38 Increased depression 11 36.6 Behavioral impact Taken steps to reduce risk to physical safety 12 37.3 Occupational performance negatively impacted 13 41.5 Contacted police 9 10.2 * Information is drawn from ADL (2019) but percentages are attributed to a 2020 data collection. The prevalence of the more severe forms of harassment are noteworthy when compared to the frequency at which these behaviors occur within the general gaming community, specifically doxxing and swatting. As reported by Kowert and Cook (2022) , of the general game playing population, 11.1% had experienced doxxing directly, and 24.1% had witnessed it happen to someone else. In this analysis, we found 25.6% of game makers report a direct experience and 53.5% reporting directly witnessing, respectively. For swatting, similar numbers of direct experience are found among the general game playing population (3%) and members of the gaming industry (3%), however far more industry members have witnessed swatting (21.9%) than among the general population (1.5%). We postulate that one of the causes of these higher rates among industry members is because awareness of this phenomenon is higher among this population. Notably, threats of physical violence are similar between industry members (48.2%) and the general game playing population (46.8%), suggesting that these behaviors may be more endemic to gaming cultures rather than something specific to members of the gaming industry. While the results of this work are noteworthy, there are limitations to consider. First, the sample was recruited primarily via social media. It is possible that this led to an oversampling of those most active on social media and, as such, these findings may be over-representative of the proportion of game industry professionals who have experienced or witnessed harassment through these platforms. Future work should aim to recruit samples through studios directly to obtain a more representative sample. Secondly, most participants within the sample worked in core creation or development roles within the studio. However, we know harassment towards industry professionals can happen to those in any role and at any level. Future work should aim to sample more professionals in different areas of the gaming industry to better evaluate the frequency and impact of these behaviors across job functions. Lastly, this work was developed to be exploratory, with the aim of providing a broad overview of what harassment via social media looks like for game industry professionals. Future work should build upon these findings to evaluate any potential points of intersectionality between harassment experiences, mental health impact, role within the industry, and demographic factors. Conclusions Harassment of game industry professionals is a large problem with most people in the game industry having directly experienced some form being directed at them specifically. This harassment can be (and often is) magnified if the person is a marginalized voice, with over half of all respondents saying they were targets of hate because of some aspect of their identity. The harassment has a negative impact on industry members’ feelings of comfort, isolation, wellbeing, and job performance. Many game makers also recognize the need for more policy change to better address this growing issue. Games leadership need to create stronger policies around hate and harassment of their employees, delineate clearer social boundaries between game maker and game player, and provide greater mental health support should their employees become targets of online harassment. Without large-scale action to address the norms of interaction between developers and fans, this problem will continue to drive people out of the industry and reinforce the lack of diversity inside game studios, pushing out marginalized employees due to a hostile work environment. However, we are hopeful that these first steps are being taken as, in 2022, Bungie, a major game studio based in Washington State, filed a lawsuit against a Destiny 2 player and streamer who had harassed and threatened staff members ( Good, 2022 ). Many game studios have also started to speak publicly about zero tolerance for the harassment of their employees, including, most recently, Respawn. Respawn saw a marked increase in harassment after dealing with a crashing issue in their game Apex Legends , as well as an AMA (Ask Me Anything chat on Reddit) about the game ( Respawn (@Respawn), 2022 ). It will take more than Twitter statements for these norms to change, but the public pushback from game studios is a relatively recent development, a marked shift from the perspective of ArenaNet CEO Mike O’Brien in 2018 that developers “must be friends” with players. The authors hope that this shift marks the beginning of an era of more comprehensive response and proactive support of people who make games by their employers. There is also a growing number of researchers in this space actively seeking strategies for victims of online harassment to better mitigate the negative mental health impacts and avenues for support ( Cote, 2016 ; Tang et al. , 2019 ). Drawing from this research and work from other disciplines, such as the online harassment of female journalists ( Ferrier & Garud-Paktar, 2018 ), we can begin to develop effective reporting strategies, support structures for the victims, and tools to dismantle the systems for harassment. However, while change can, and should include, greater institutional support, this isn’t the starting point for sustainable change. In efforts across the industry, we are starting to see game studios make the connection between the people in the room, making decisions about game content, mechanics, and marketing and the resulting harassment. With this shift to more diversity, and with the newfound sense of responsibility that game makers have towards their employees, we can begin to see the seeds of a sustainable and substantive change in both the expectations and incidence of harassment of people who makes games and of other players. We firmly believe a more diverse group of people making games that work well for a more diverse player base is the first step towards a more inclusive and less hateful environment. Consent To retain data integrity and anonymity, the survey data was collected and retained on private servers hosted by Take This. Participant responses were anonymized and no identifying information was collected. Data availability OSF: ‘Game Developers Social Media Experience Survey’. DOI: https://osf.io/5bd4g/ ( Kowert & Crevoshay, 2021 ) Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC-BY 4.0). Underlying data The project contains the following underlying data: - Data collection 2021, Game Developers Social Media Experience Survey (internet recruitment).csv (raw data) Extended data This project contains the following extended data: - Game Developers Social Media Experience Survey, (Game Developers Social Media Experience Survey.pdf ) References Anti-Defamation League: Hate is No Game: Harassment and Positive Social Experiences in Online Games 2021. 2022. Reference Source Beres NA, Frommel J, Reid E, et al. : Don’t you know that you’re toxic: Normalization of toxicity in online gaming. Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA,. 2021; 1–15. Article 438. Publisher Full Text Bergstrom K: Destruction as deviant leisure in EVE online. J. Virtual Worlds Res. 2020; 13 (1). Publisher Full Text Bourdreau K: Beyond deviance: toxic gaming culture and the potential for positive change. Crit. Stud. Media Commun. 2022; 39 (3): 181–190. Publisher Full Text Bryter:2020. Female Gamer Survey 2020. Bryter - Female Gamers Survey 2020.pdf Bryter - Female Gamers Survey 2020.pdf (bryter-research.co.uk). Burgess MCR, Dill KE, Stermer P, et al. : Playing with prejudice: The prevalence and consequences of racial stereotypes in video games. Media Psychol. 2008; 3 : 289–311. Campbell C: Sarkeesian driven out of home by online abuse and death threats. Polygon. 2014. Reference Source Campbell C: ArenaNet ‘folded like a cheap card table,’ says fired Guild Wars 2 writer. Polygon. 2018. Reference Source Cook C: Between a troll and a hard place: the demand framework’s answer to one of gaming’s biggest problems. Media Commun. 2019; 7 (4): 176–185. Publisher Full Text Cook C, Conijn R, Antheunis M, et al. : For whom the gamer trolls: A study of trolling interactions in the online gaming context. J. Comput.-Mediat. Commun. 2019; 24 : 293–318. Publisher Full Text Cook C, Schaafsma J, Antheunis M: Under the bridge: an in-depth examination of online trolling in the gaming context. New Media Soc. 2018; 20 (9): 3323–3340. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Cote A: “I can defend myself”: Women’s strategies for coping with harassment while gaming online. Games Cult. 2016; 12 (2). Publisher Full Text Dill K, Thill KP: Video Game Characters and the Socilization of Gender Roles: Young People’s Perceptions Mirror Sexist Media Depictions. Sex Roles. 2007; 57 : 851–864. Publisher Full Text Fagan K: I felt helpless - the IRL impact of harassment in gaming. YR Media. 2021; Reference Source Farokhmanesh M: Guild Wars studio fires two employees after clash with streamer. The Verge. 2018. Reference Source Ferrier M, Garud-Paktar N: TrollBusters: Fighting Online Harassment of Women Journalists. Mediating Misogyny. 2018; pp. 311–332. Publisher Full Text Francis B: More developers are pushing back against player toxicity. Game Developer. 2022. Reference Source Fron J, Fullerton T, Morie JF, et al. : The Hegemony of Play. Situated Play, Proceedings of DiGRA 2007 Conference. 2007; pp. 1–10. Gach E: Boyfriend Dungeon voice actor responds to harassment over playing a villan. Kotaku. 2021. Reference Source Game Developers Association: 2022 State of the Game Industry. 2022. Good OS: Bungie sues Destiny 2 streamer alleged to cheat, harass employees. Polygon. 2022, July 18. Reference Source Grayson N: For streamers dealing with stalkers, Twitch’s solutions fall short. Kotaku. 2019. Reference Source Hernandez P: Overwatch artist says Sigma’s bare feet meant to ‘sell the asylum look’. Polygon. 2019. Reference Source International Game Developers Association: Developer Satisfaction Survey 2021. 2021. Johnson RS: Toward greater production diversity: Examining social boundries at a video game studio. Games Cult. 2013; 8 (3): 136–160. Publisher Full Text Johnson RS: Hiding in plain sight: Reproducing masuline culture at a video game studio. Communication. Cult. Crit. 2014; 7 (4): 578–594. Publisher Full Text Kowert R, Crevoshay E: Game Developers Social Media Experience Survey. 2021. Reference Source Kowert R, Breuer J, Quandt T:Women are from FarmVille, Men are from ViceCity: The cycle of exclusion and sexism in video game content and culture.Kowert R, Quandt T, editors. New Perspectives on the Social Aspects of Digital Gaming: Multiplayer 2. Routledge;2017; (pp. 136–152). Kowert R, Cook C: The toxicity of our (virtual) cities: Prevalence of dark participation in games and perceived effectiveness of reporting tools. Proceedings of the 55th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. 2022. Lopez JA, Cole AM, Campbell A, et al. : Diversity in Gaming. 2019. Lynch T, Tompkins JE, van Driel I , et al. : Sexy, strong, and secondary: A content analysis of female characters in video games across 31 years. J. Commun. 2016; 66 (4): 564–584. Publisher Full Text Mansoor A: God of War developers sexually harassed due to announcement delay. Exputer. Retrieved from. Exputer. 2022. March E: Psychopathy, sadism, empathy, and the motivation to cause harm: New evidence confirms malevolent nature of the internet troll. Pers. Individ. Dif. 2019; 141 : 133–137. Publisher Full Text Mazanko V: Ubisoft artist says entitled gamers make game launches “a horrid experience”. The Gamer. 2022. Reference Source . Mortensen TE: Anger, fear, and games: The long event of #GamerGate. Games Cult. 2018; 13 (8): 787–806. Publisher Full Text Respawn (@Respawn): Recently we have seen increased harassment towards members of our development team. 2022. Robertson A: What’s happening in GamerGate? The Verge. 2014, October. Reference Source Sarkeesian A: Damsel in Distress: Part 1 (A. Sarkeesian (ed.)). Feminist Frequency. 2013. Reference Source Tang WY, Reer F, Quandt T: Investigating sexual harassment in online video games: How personality and context factors are related to toxic sexual behaviors against fellow players. Aggress. Behav. 2019; 46 (1): 127–135. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Tompkins JE, Martins N: Masculine pleasures as normalized practices: Character design in the video game industry. Games Cult. 2021; 17 (3). Troughton J: Ron Gilbert “Won’t be posting anymore” about Return to Monkey Island following abuse. The Gamer. 2022, June. Reference Source UKIE: UK Games Industry Census. 2022. Reference Source Williams D, Martins N, Consalvo M, et al. : The virtual census: Representations of gender, race and age in video games. New Media Soc. 2009; 11 (5): 815–834. Publisher Full Text Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 2 VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 14 Dec 2022 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment Author details Author details 1 Take Thisq, Seattle, WA, USA Rachel Kowert Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Eve Crevoshay Roles: Conceptualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Competing interests No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work. Article Versions (2) version 2 Revised Published: 20 Jan 2023, 11:1518 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.126998.2 version 1 Published: 14 Dec 2022, 11:1518 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.126998.1 Copyright © 2023 Kowert R and Crevoshay E. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Download Export To Sciwheel Bibtex EndNote ProCite Ref. Manager (RIS) Sente metrics Views Downloads F1000Research - - PubMed Central info_outline Data from PMC are received and updated monthly. - - Citations open_in_new 0 open_in_new 0 open_in_new SEE MORE DETAILS CITE how to cite this article Kowert R and Crevoshay E. Harassment of game makers: Prevalence and impact [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2023, 11 :1518 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.126998.2 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS track receive updates on this article Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article. TRACK THIS ARTICLE Share Open Peer Review Current Reviewer Status: ? Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW HIDE Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Version 2 VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 20 Jan 2023 Revised Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: de Castell S. Reviewer Report For: Harassment of game makers: Prevalence and impact [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2023, 11 :1518 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.143119.r166316 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1518/v2#referee-response-166316 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 27 Nov 2023 Suzanne de Castell , Faculty of Education, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.143119.r166316 Kowert and Crevoshay’s paper contributes an important exploratory study of the types, frequency and mental health impacts of online harassment upon gamesworkers, carried out by means of an online survey of 282 videogame professionals. As their results make very clear, ... Continue reading READ ALL Kowert and Crevoshay’s paper contributes an important exploratory study of the types, frequency and mental health impacts of online harassment upon gamesworkers, carried out by means of an online survey of 282 videogame professionals. As their results make very clear, people working in games suffer and witness extremely high levels (92% reported) of online harassment, and experience profound and even grave suffering because of it. The work is of great interest, and this review is far, far too long because of that. The authors aim to “... discuss the prevalence rates, nature of harassment, and the ways in which a lack of diversity has contributed to this phenomenon.” It would be useful to know from the outset to what extent this paper reporting and analyzing survey data is also setting out explanations, given that the authors explicitly say they don’t want to be doing this. If it's not what they are doing, then it would help make that clearer by perhaps reframing things as suggestions, indications, hypotheses even? Instead, on page 2, right at the beginning of the paper, some seemingly explanatory conclusions are already set out “… the lack of clear boundaries between professional and personal social media accounts belonging to game makers, toxic gaming cultures within the gaming industry, and a lack of diversity within gaming content and cultures .” Encountering this right at the beginning of the paper does give the impression that the analysis has already taken place and the conclusions have been arrived at prior to any of the data being presented, analyzed or interrogated. Similarly, it appears pre-determined from the outset that a, perhaps even the , primary problem underlying the phenomenon is lack of diversity. Without questions, evidence, or argument sufficient to answer the fundamental question (however much we might agree with this, and indeed I do) HOW lack of diversity explains toxicity in the games industry: it is from the start simply declared that it does so. Interestingly, the concluding discussion states “ …the harassment of game makers seems directly tied to a lack of diversity within the industry, as evidenced by the ubiquity of identity-based harassment.” The language of "seeming’’ communicates that this is an impression, not a now-established fact. However, as early as the second sentence of the abstract, and again (p4, para 3), it's stated that “A lack of diversity has unquestionably contributed to the high levels of such incidences .” It would help readers to follow the argument more logically if it were to begin with ‘impressions’, then take up evidence and argument, reach (or not, perhaps) the conclusion that lack of diversity has an “unquestionable” relationship to these toxic incidents. As to the difficult question of HOW lack of diversity, questionably or not, does this, the reason provided here is that over half of the respondents stated they were targeted because of “some aspect of their identity”. The problem is that ‘identity’ is underspecified: obviously straight white males have an ‘identity’, but to what extent is that identity targeted for online harassment? (And if they were to be harassed because of their SWM identity, how would that harassment indicate there’s a problem of a lack of diversity? It just doesn’t quite follow. And this is where closer attention to intersectionality is missing. (This need for conceptual nuance around 'identity' is paralleled by a need, as well, for greater nuance around who counts as a “gamesworker” - something the authors recognize in their discussion of limitations.) This study included anyone “working in games” - yet the problems of toxicity and harassment are actually not problems experienced first hand by “anyone working in games”; we know from other studies that both identity and work role make a huge difference to who gets harassed, with what levels and kinds of harassment - and to what effect personally and professionally. As the authors do point out: “Future work should aim to sample more professionals in different areas of the gaming industry to better evaluate the frequency and impact of these behaviors across job functions.” It's as important, especially given the discussion and recommendations in this paper, to enable data disaggregation in terms that speak to identity and intersectionalities. And, again, these researchers obviously are just as aware of that, as they note, “ This experience tends to be magnified for victims of marginalized gender and ethnic backgrounds ”. But those differences are otherwise methodologically obscured in this study, and not investigated so that we might learn more about who - specifically people having what identities, and what job roles - experience what levels and kinds of harassment. The problem here is that knowing about type and frequency, of harassment, without also knowing about its distribution , can guide principles, not policy, nor therefore justify the conclusion advanced that “Without large-scale action, this problem [online harassment] will continue to reinforce the lack of diversity inside game studios, pushing out marginalized employees...” As a general point, this is surely true, but without conceptual nuance and empirical specificity, we can have no practical idea of what that “large-scale action” should or could look like. With respect to ‘toxic gamer culture’, a similar problem arises, in that, while we know from this work that gamesworkers experience more online harassment than members of the games community, this study’s focus is on gamers harassing gamesworkers: “ there has been a growing trend for hate and harassment in gaming cultures to expand beyond other players towards gamemakers. ” Without diminishing the importance of that observation, it remains the case that much of the literature reports on harassment (typically of women, as we all know very well) not by gamers but by other gamesworkers, yet this subject is not raised here, which of course means that this paper’s suggested solution that employers build studio policies that address “the lack of clear boundaries between professional and personal social media accounts belonging to game makers” will leave a significant dimension - and maybe the MOST significant dimension - of the problem uninterrogated. It would be useful to find out what percentage of the online hate and harassment came from ‘gamers’ - and how much from games industry ‘colleagues’. Perhaps most importantly, while employer inaction and toxic gamer culture are identified in this analysis of online harassment, it’s interesting that no consideration is given to the role unregulated social media technologies and policies play in a burgeoning culture of harassment and hatred that is pervasive far beyond gamer culture or the games industry. Indeed, the respondents to this survey do “...believe that gaming companies should have stronger policies in place around hate and harassment (87.2%).” But note that survey participants see social media companies as bearing greater responsibility for the problem: “... respondents think social media companies should be doing more to support people being targeted online (93.7%) " - this suggests that more respondents situate responsibility with media companies than with game companies. The information gleaned from this survey, while, as is acknowledged, it may be from a limited and specific sample, is nevertheless extremely interesting, and it would have been terrific to delve more deeply into these findings, and how they speak to this paper’s analysis, and its recommendations around policy and best courses of action. As well we learn that “Most respondents believe that the games industry contributes to the ease with which people engage in online hate and harassment (62.4%)..." but many more see the problem as lying elsewhere: “ The way that social media works is also believed to contribute to the ease with which people engage in online hate and harassment (96.5%)..." Yet nowhere is that participant response, suggesting this kind of toxicity might be a widespread phenomenon, probed into in this analysis - it’s as if gamesworkers experience significantly MORE online harassment and hatred than people in other fields - but do they? How do we know? What about K-pop stars, whose virulent online harassment has led to increasing rates of suicide and mental health breakdowns? Or pro-choice activists? Or prominent authors who voice unpopular views about sex and gender, for that matter? This matters enormously for where we do the work of reparation. But how do we know (and why would we assume) that gamesworkers as a group experience more extreme and more frequent harassment on Twitter (etc.) than other groups? We simply don’t know this, and we have no reason to suppose it's true. This doesn’t in any way take away from the importance of understanding - and acting to address - what does happen to gamesworkers, but it does make quite a difference to the analysis and to any proposed laws, policies or procedures designed to contend with it. The paper’s conclusion that “Games leadership need to create stronger policies around hate and harassment of their employees, delineate clearer social boundaries between game maker and game player, and provide greater mental health support should their employees become targets of online harassment.” only makes sense IF the problem has been correctly diagnosed. But what if the problem isn’t one experienced any more often by gamesworkers than other professionals, and what if that problem is due primarily to the inbuilt toxicity of platforms like Twitter, which not only allow and enable but actively incite and invite hateful and assaultive behaviours, and what if it’s not gamesworkers at all, but women, trans folk, people of colour and other minorities working (and here mostly in lower level positions) in games who are experiencing the high percentages of workplace toxicity, as well as the online forms of harassment that are reported here as if it were a generic feature of games industry worker experience. So with all respect for the work that this paper accomplishes, it's sometimes hard to grasp relationships between data, analysis, and recommendations. It would help enormously to have the authors state explicitly the connection between knowing the types and frequencies of online harassment for gamesworkers as a group, and courses of action to address that problem, besides providing mental health and other supports for victims, who appear to constitute a considerable percentage of the gamesworkers surveyed. Specifically, this would call for clarification of what 'identity' means, specification of WHOSE experiences (i.e. what ‘identities’ and roles) these findings refer to - because it's surely not everyone who works in games who experiences hate and vitriol - some explanation of how this analysis is “intersectional”, consideration of the question of whether it is actually games culture or ‘twitterculture’ that is the root problem here, and whether its specific to gamesworkers or is a toxic element across many workplaces and professions - and what we leave out when we frame the problem as harassment of gamesworkers by gamers, leaving out entirely how much more devastating it just might be when that harassment, online as well as off, is up close and personal, at work, or carried out by bosses and co-workers. I hope these comments are helpful, thank you for this paper, I enjoyed and learned from it. ____________________________________________________________ There are several minor corrections that should be made: I noted these… " The outcome of this cycle, “toxic cultures”, are particularly… " (should be "is") " The only requirement for participation in this study to be a professional within the games industry at any level. " (should be “was to be”) " More than half of all participants reported experiencing harassment on social media (59.6%) and nearly all participants reported witnessing harassment happening to other members of the videogames industry via social media (92.2%). " (this sentence is repeated verbatim under “prevalence”) “ The prevalence of the more severe forms of harassment are noteworthy...” (should be "is") " ...to the frequency at which.. ." (should be "with which") " As reported by the ADL in 2019, less than one-third of their respondents... " (should be "fewer") "...these behaviors occur within the general gaming community, specifically doxxing and swatting." (should be " behaviours - specifically doxing and swatting"). Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Not applicable Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Digital game-based learning, gender and games, educational theory, policy and practice, new media research. I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT de Castell S. Reviewer Report For: Harassment of game makers: Prevalence and impact [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2023, 11 :1518 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.143119.r166316 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1518/v2#referee-response-166316 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: C. Cote A. Reviewer Report For: Harassment of game makers: Prevalence and impact [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2023, 11 :1518 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.143119.r161074 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1518/v2#referee-response-161074 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 21 Mar 2023 Amanda C. Cote , School of Journalism and Communication, University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon, USA Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.143119.r161074 In response to my original feedback, the authors have made many small changes to update how this piece refers to/draws on additional existing work. I appreciate their thoughtfulness and how they have adjusted the article while still remaining concise and ... Continue reading READ ALL In response to my original feedback, the authors have made many small changes to update how this piece refers to/draws on additional existing work. I appreciate their thoughtfulness and how they have adjusted the article while still remaining concise and attentive to the word limits. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Games, gender, identity, audience studies, media industry studies I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT C. Cote A. Reviewer Report For: Harassment of game makers: Prevalence and impact [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2023, 11 :1518 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.143119.r161074 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1518/v2#referee-response-161074 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Version 1 VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 14 Dec 2022 Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: C. Cote A. Reviewer Report For: Harassment of game makers: Prevalence and impact [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2023, 11 :1518 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.139461.r158166 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1518/v1#referee-response-158166 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 04 Jan 2023 Amanda C. Cote , School of Journalism and Communication, University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon, USA Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.139461.r158166 This study employs an online survey of 282 gamesworkers to assess their direct and witnessed experiences with harassment. It breaks down the types and prevalence of harassment they have experienced or witnessed, the perceived motivations of harassers, and the impacts ... Continue reading READ ALL This study employs an online survey of 282 gamesworkers to assess their direct and witnessed experiences with harassment. It breaks down the types and prevalence of harassment they have experienced or witnessed, the perceived motivations of harassers, and the impacts harassment has had on themselves and others in terms of mental and physical health. Overall, this study is clearly conducted and written, with good attention to limitations. It also addresses a newer and significant aspect of harassment and toxicity in gaming communities and cultures. There is little to no academic work currently addressing the harassment of game makers, although a lot of anecdotal evidence shows that it occurs frequently and significantly. There are only a few small things I would like to see the researchers consider moving forward. First, the literature review could benefit from slightly clearer organization and attention to the broader history of harassment directed at gamesworkers. The piece opens with recent examples of harassment (pg. 1-2), stating, “ The harassment of game makers first made its way into the spotlight when former Guild Wars 2 narrative designer Jessica Price’s was fired from ArenaNet after engaging in a Twitter exchange with a player. ” This event, however, did not occur until 2018; the harassment of game makers, especially female ones, and public recognition of these issues predate this event by several years, at minimum - e.g., Jennifer Hepler’s harassment at Bioware in 2012-2013, GamerGate, etc. Some of these events come up later in the article, but it would be useful to note and trace some of this broader trajectory (and the role of identity) from the start. Harassment in the games industry is not a new issue! This only makes it more in need of studies like this. Similarly, it’s worth briefly noting the intellectual development of concepts such as the cycle of exclusion in gaming. These also date back until at least the early 2000s (e.g., Fron et al. (2007) 1 ), and that labor should be recognized. Other work on the industry, such as Robin Johnson’s studies of masculinity in studio culture, would also be useful here (see suggested citations at end 2 , 3 ). Second, the content analysis section (pg. 4, lack of representation in games) could benefit from some more updated stats, such as those by Lynch et al. (2016). 4 Finally, the analysis and discussion could benefit from more connections back to existing work on industry, as well as on players’ experience with harassment and their means for coping with this. The ADL data is useful, but there are also many critical analyses of these issues that fit the survey data well and could be tied in. The results of this study are important and meaningful; be sure to situate them within the field effectively to demonstrate this to the fullest extent. Suggested Citations: Fron, J., Fullerton, T., Morie, J. F., & Pearce, C. (2007). 'The Hegemony of Play'. Situated Play, Proceedings of DiGRA 2007 Conference 1 Johnson, R. S. (2013). 'Toward Greater Production Diversity: Examining Social Boundaries at a Video Game Studio'. Games and Culture 2 Johnson, R. (2014). 'Hiding in Plain Sight: Reproducing Masculine Culture at a Video Game Studio'. Communication, Culture & Critique 3 Lynch, T., Tompkins, J. E., van Driel, I. I., & Fritz, N. (2016). 'Sexy, Strong, and Secondary: A Content Analysis of Female Characters in Video Games across 31 Years'. Journal of Communication 4 Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Yes References 1. Fron J, Fullerton T, Morie JF, Pearce C: The Hegemony of Play. Situated Play, Proceedings of DiGRA 2007 Conference . 2007. 1-10 Reference Source 2. Johnson R: Toward Greater Production Diversity. Games and Culture . 2013; 8 (3): 136-160 Publisher Full Text 3. Johnson R: Hiding in Plain Sight: Reproducing Masculine Culture at a Video Game Studio. Communication, Culture & Critique . 2014; 7 (4): 578-594 Publisher Full Text 4. Lynch T, Tompkins J, van Driel I, Fritz N: Sexy, Strong, and Secondary: A Content Analysis of Female Characters in Video Games across 31 Years. Journal of Communication . 2016; 66 (4): 564-584 Publisher Full Text Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Games, gender, identity, audience studies, media industry studies I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT C. Cote A. Reviewer Report For: Harassment of game makers: Prevalence and impact [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2023, 11 :1518 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.139461.r158166 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1518/v1#referee-response-158166 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 20 Jan 2023 Rachel Kowert , Take Thisq, Seattle, USA 20 Jan 2023 Author Response Reviewer's comment: First, the literature review could benefit from slightly clearer organization and attention to the broader history of harassment directed at gamesworkers. The piece opens with recent examples of ... Continue reading Reviewer's comment: First, the literature review could benefit from slightly clearer organization and attention to the broader history of harassment directed at gamesworkers. The piece opens with recent examples of harassment (pg. 1-2), stating, “The harassment of game makers first made its way into the spotlight when former Guild Wars 2 narrative designer Jessica Price’s was fired from ArenaNet after engaging in a Twitter exchange with a player.” This event, however, did not occur until 2018; the harassment of game makers, especially female ones, and public recognition of these issues predate this event by several years, at minimum - e.g., Jennifer Hepler’s harassment at Bioware in 2012-2013, GamerGate, etc. Some of these events come up later in the article, but it would be useful to note and trace some of this broader trajectory (and the role of identity) from the start. Harassment in the games industry is not a new issue! Author's response: The reviewer is correct in that this is not a new issue. Highlighting the event with Jessica Price was meant more to illustrate this is when the discussion of the harassment of game makers moved out of more niche communities and whisper networks and towards a more broad acknowledgement of its existence within this industry specifically. The wording has been changed slightly in the introduction to reflect this. Specifically, the following text has been added: While the harassment of game makers (especially female ones) has been a very real issue for many years, in 2018 we started to see discussions of these behaviors within a broader public spotlight when former Guild Wars 2 narrative designer Jessica Price was fired from ArenaNet after engaging in a Twitter exchange with a player. Reviewer's comment: Similarly, it’s worth briefly noting the intellectual development of concepts such as the cycle of exclusion in gaming. These also date back until at least the early 2000s (e.g., Fron et al. (2007) 1 ), and that labor should be recognized. Other work on the industry, such as Robin Johnson’s studies of masculinity in studio culture, would also be useful here (see suggested citations at end 2 , 3 ). Author’s response: The aim of this paper is not to explore why these events happen but rather shed light on their frequency and mental health impact. That said, the text has been amended to recognize that there has been work in this space examining the potential underpinning motivations/causes for this behavior. Specifically, the following text has been added: There has also been research exploring a potential cycle of exclusion in gaming cultures (Fron et al., 2007; Kowert et al, 2017) and the role masculinity in studio culture may specifically play in creating a culture of harassment (Johnson, 2013; 2014). The cycle of exclusion in gaming culture is also more formally described later in the paper. Specifically with the following passage: Some have argued that this is a result of a cycle that starts in early childhood. Referred to as the “Cycle Model of Exclusion in Gaming Content and Cultures,” (Kowert et al., 2017), it is believed that early socialization of games as a male activity leads to the exclusion of non-men in the industry, which creates a male dominated industry and gendered game content and a normalization of gendered views of the world including sexist attitudes and beliefs within gaming communities and the industry itself. This cycle is self-perpetuating. Reviewer's comment: Second, the content analysis section (pg. 4, lack of representation in games) could benefit from some more updated stats, such as those by Lynch et al. (2016). 4 Author's response: Thank you for this suggestion! Lynch et al. (2016) has been added as a reference in that section. Reviewer's comment: the analysis and discussion could benefit from more connections back to existing work on industry, as well as on players’ experience with harassment and their means for coping with this. The ADL data is useful, but there are also many critical analyses of these issues that fit the survey data well and could be tied in. The results of this study are important and meaningful; be sure to situate them within the field effectively to demonstrate this to the fullest extent. Author’s response: We agree that situating this work within the context of the ongoing work within this field is important. We lean heavily on the ADL work here as it is publicly available data looking at a broad range of experiences and impact. While it can be useful to draw on work looking at player harassment, the harassment of game makers is something that needs to be examined through a more nuanced lens because of the additional contextual factors that are specific to this experience among game developers (studio culture, lack of personal/professional boundaries, personal and professional consequences to action and inaction). That said, additional text has been added to better contextualize this work and lend more insight into potential solutions and strategies. Specifically, the following text has been added: There is also a growing number of researchers in this space actively seeking strategies for victims of online harassment to better mitigate the negative mental health impacts and avenues for support (Cote, 2016; Tang et al., 2019). Drawing from this research and work from other disciplines, such as the online harassment of female journalists (Ferrier & Garud-Paktar, 2019), we can begin to develop effective reporting strategies, support structures for the victims, and tools to dismantle the systems for harassment. Reviewer's comment: First, the literature review could benefit from slightly clearer organization and attention to the broader history of harassment directed at gamesworkers. The piece opens with recent examples of harassment (pg. 1-2), stating, “The harassment of game makers first made its way into the spotlight when former Guild Wars 2 narrative designer Jessica Price’s was fired from ArenaNet after engaging in a Twitter exchange with a player.” This event, however, did not occur until 2018; the harassment of game makers, especially female ones, and public recognition of these issues predate this event by several years, at minimum - e.g., Jennifer Hepler’s harassment at Bioware in 2012-2013, GamerGate, etc. Some of these events come up later in the article, but it would be useful to note and trace some of this broader trajectory (and the role of identity) from the start. Harassment in the games industry is not a new issue! Author's response: The reviewer is correct in that this is not a new issue. Highlighting the event with Jessica Price was meant more to illustrate this is when the discussion of the harassment of game makers moved out of more niche communities and whisper networks and towards a more broad acknowledgement of its existence within this industry specifically. The wording has been changed slightly in the introduction to reflect this. Specifically, the following text has been added: While the harassment of game makers (especially female ones) has been a very real issue for many years, in 2018 we started to see discussions of these behaviors within a broader public spotlight when former Guild Wars 2 narrative designer Jessica Price was fired from ArenaNet after engaging in a Twitter exchange with a player. Reviewer's comment: Similarly, it’s worth briefly noting the intellectual development of concepts such as the cycle of exclusion in gaming. These also date back until at least the early 2000s (e.g., Fron et al. (2007) 1 ), and that labor should be recognized. Other work on the industry, such as Robin Johnson’s studies of masculinity in studio culture, would also be useful here (see suggested citations at end 2 , 3 ). Author’s response: The aim of this paper is not to explore why these events happen but rather shed light on their frequency and mental health impact. That said, the text has been amended to recognize that there has been work in this space examining the potential underpinning motivations/causes for this behavior. Specifically, the following text has been added: There has also been research exploring a potential cycle of exclusion in gaming cultures (Fron et al., 2007; Kowert et al, 2017) and the role masculinity in studio culture may specifically play in creating a culture of harassment (Johnson, 2013; 2014). The cycle of exclusion in gaming culture is also more formally described later in the paper. Specifically with the following passage: Some have argued that this is a result of a cycle that starts in early childhood. Referred to as the “Cycle Model of Exclusion in Gaming Content and Cultures,” (Kowert et al., 2017), it is believed that early socialization of games as a male activity leads to the exclusion of non-men in the industry, which creates a male dominated industry and gendered game content and a normalization of gendered views of the world including sexist attitudes and beliefs within gaming communities and the industry itself. This cycle is self-perpetuating. Reviewer's comment: Second, the content analysis section (pg. 4, lack of representation in games) could benefit from some more updated stats, such as those by Lynch et al. (2016). 4 Author's response: Thank you for this suggestion! Lynch et al. (2016) has been added as a reference in that section. Reviewer's comment: the analysis and discussion could benefit from more connections back to existing work on industry, as well as on players’ experience with harassment and their means for coping with this. The ADL data is useful, but there are also many critical analyses of these issues that fit the survey data well and could be tied in. The results of this study are important and meaningful; be sure to situate them within the field effectively to demonstrate this to the fullest extent. Author’s response: We agree that situating this work within the context of the ongoing work within this field is important. We lean heavily on the ADL work here as it is publicly available data looking at a broad range of experiences and impact. While it can be useful to draw on work looking at player harassment, the harassment of game makers is something that needs to be examined through a more nuanced lens because of the additional contextual factors that are specific to this experience among game developers (studio culture, lack of personal/professional boundaries, personal and professional consequences to action and inaction). That said, additional text has been added to better contextualize this work and lend more insight into potential solutions and strategies. Specifically, the following text has been added: There is also a growing number of researchers in this space actively seeking strategies for victims of online harassment to better mitigate the negative mental health impacts and avenues for support (Cote, 2016; Tang et al., 2019). Drawing from this research and work from other disciplines, such as the online harassment of female journalists (Ferrier & Garud-Paktar, 2019), we can begin to develop effective reporting strategies, support structures for the victims, and tools to dismantle the systems for harassment. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 20 Jan 2023 Rachel Kowert , Take Thisq, Seattle, USA 20 Jan 2023 Author Response Reviewer's comment: First, the literature review could benefit from slightly clearer organization and attention to the broader history of harassment directed at gamesworkers. The piece opens with recent examples of ... Continue reading Reviewer's comment: First, the literature review could benefit from slightly clearer organization and attention to the broader history of harassment directed at gamesworkers. The piece opens with recent examples of harassment (pg. 1-2), stating, “The harassment of game makers first made its way into the spotlight when former Guild Wars 2 narrative designer Jessica Price’s was fired from ArenaNet after engaging in a Twitter exchange with a player.” This event, however, did not occur until 2018; the harassment of game makers, especially female ones, and public recognition of these issues predate this event by several years, at minimum - e.g., Jennifer Hepler’s harassment at Bioware in 2012-2013, GamerGate, etc. Some of these events come up later in the article, but it would be useful to note and trace some of this broader trajectory (and the role of identity) from the start. Harassment in the games industry is not a new issue! Author's response: The reviewer is correct in that this is not a new issue. Highlighting the event with Jessica Price was meant more to illustrate this is when the discussion of the harassment of game makers moved out of more niche communities and whisper networks and towards a more broad acknowledgement of its existence within this industry specifically. The wording has been changed slightly in the introduction to reflect this. Specifically, the following text has been added: While the harassment of game makers (especially female ones) has been a very real issue for many years, in 2018 we started to see discussions of these behaviors within a broader public spotlight when former Guild Wars 2 narrative designer Jessica Price was fired from ArenaNet after engaging in a Twitter exchange with a player. Reviewer's comment: Similarly, it’s worth briefly noting the intellectual development of concepts such as the cycle of exclusion in gaming. These also date back until at least the early 2000s (e.g., Fron et al. (2007) 1 ), and that labor should be recognized. Other work on the industry, such as Robin Johnson’s studies of masculinity in studio culture, would also be useful here (see suggested citations at end 2 , 3 ). Author’s response: The aim of this paper is not to explore why these events happen but rather shed light on their frequency and mental health impact. That said, the text has been amended to recognize that there has been work in this space examining the potential underpinning motivations/causes for this behavior. Specifically, the following text has been added: There has also been research exploring a potential cycle of exclusion in gaming cultures (Fron et al., 2007; Kowert et al, 2017) and the role masculinity in studio culture may specifically play in creating a culture of harassment (Johnson, 2013; 2014). The cycle of exclusion in gaming culture is also more formally described later in the paper. Specifically with the following passage: Some have argued that this is a result of a cycle that starts in early childhood. Referred to as the “Cycle Model of Exclusion in Gaming Content and Cultures,” (Kowert et al., 2017), it is believed that early socialization of games as a male activity leads to the exclusion of non-men in the industry, which creates a male dominated industry and gendered game content and a normalization of gendered views of the world including sexist attitudes and beliefs within gaming communities and the industry itself. This cycle is self-perpetuating. Reviewer's comment: Second, the content analysis section (pg. 4, lack of representation in games) could benefit from some more updated stats, such as those by Lynch et al. (2016). 4 Author's response: Thank you for this suggestion! Lynch et al. (2016) has been added as a reference in that section. Reviewer's comment: the analysis and discussion could benefit from more connections back to existing work on industry, as well as on players’ experience with harassment and their means for coping with this. The ADL data is useful, but there are also many critical analyses of these issues that fit the survey data well and could be tied in. The results of this study are important and meaningful; be sure to situate them within the field effectively to demonstrate this to the fullest extent. Author’s response: We agree that situating this work within the context of the ongoing work within this field is important. We lean heavily on the ADL work here as it is publicly available data looking at a broad range of experiences and impact. While it can be useful to draw on work looking at player harassment, the harassment of game makers is something that needs to be examined through a more nuanced lens because of the additional contextual factors that are specific to this experience among game developers (studio culture, lack of personal/professional boundaries, personal and professional consequences to action and inaction). That said, additional text has been added to better contextualize this work and lend more insight into potential solutions and strategies. Specifically, the following text has been added: There is also a growing number of researchers in this space actively seeking strategies for victims of online harassment to better mitigate the negative mental health impacts and avenues for support (Cote, 2016; Tang et al., 2019). Drawing from this research and work from other disciplines, such as the online harassment of female journalists (Ferrier & Garud-Paktar, 2019), we can begin to develop effective reporting strategies, support structures for the victims, and tools to dismantle the systems for harassment. Reviewer's comment: First, the literature review could benefit from slightly clearer organization and attention to the broader history of harassment directed at gamesworkers. The piece opens with recent examples of harassment (pg. 1-2), stating, “The harassment of game makers first made its way into the spotlight when former Guild Wars 2 narrative designer Jessica Price’s was fired from ArenaNet after engaging in a Twitter exchange with a player.” This event, however, did not occur until 2018; the harassment of game makers, especially female ones, and public recognition of these issues predate this event by several years, at minimum - e.g., Jennifer Hepler’s harassment at Bioware in 2012-2013, GamerGate, etc. Some of these events come up later in the article, but it would be useful to note and trace some of this broader trajectory (and the role of identity) from the start. Harassment in the games industry is not a new issue! Author's response: The reviewer is correct in that this is not a new issue. Highlighting the event with Jessica Price was meant more to illustrate this is when the discussion of the harassment of game makers moved out of more niche communities and whisper networks and towards a more broad acknowledgement of its existence within this industry specifically. The wording has been changed slightly in the introduction to reflect this. Specifically, the following text has been added: While the harassment of game makers (especially female ones) has been a very real issue for many years, in 2018 we started to see discussions of these behaviors within a broader public spotlight when former Guild Wars 2 narrative designer Jessica Price was fired from ArenaNet after engaging in a Twitter exchange with a player. Reviewer's comment: Similarly, it’s worth briefly noting the intellectual development of concepts such as the cycle of exclusion in gaming. These also date back until at least the early 2000s (e.g., Fron et al. (2007) 1 ), and that labor should be recognized. Other work on the industry, such as Robin Johnson’s studies of masculinity in studio culture, would also be useful here (see suggested citations at end 2 , 3 ). Author’s response: The aim of this paper is not to explore why these events happen but rather shed light on their frequency and mental health impact. That said, the text has been amended to recognize that there has been work in this space examining the potential underpinning motivations/causes for this behavior. Specifically, the following text has been added: There has also been research exploring a potential cycle of exclusion in gaming cultures (Fron et al., 2007; Kowert et al, 2017) and the role masculinity in studio culture may specifically play in creating a culture of harassment (Johnson, 2013; 2014). The cycle of exclusion in gaming culture is also more formally described later in the paper. Specifically with the following passage: Some have argued that this is a result of a cycle that starts in early childhood. Referred to as the “Cycle Model of Exclusion in Gaming Content and Cultures,” (Kowert et al., 2017), it is believed that early socialization of games as a male activity leads to the exclusion of non-men in the industry, which creates a male dominated industry and gendered game content and a normalization of gendered views of the world including sexist attitudes and beliefs within gaming communities and the industry itself. This cycle is self-perpetuating. Reviewer's comment: Second, the content analysis section (pg. 4, lack of representation in games) could benefit from some more updated stats, such as those by Lynch et al. (2016). 4 Author's response: Thank you for this suggestion! Lynch et al. (2016) has been added as a reference in that section. Reviewer's comment: the analysis and discussion could benefit from more connections back to existing work on industry, as well as on players’ experience with harassment and their means for coping with this. The ADL data is useful, but there are also many critical analyses of these issues that fit the survey data well and could be tied in. The results of this study are important and meaningful; be sure to situate them within the field effectively to demonstrate this to the fullest extent. Author’s response: We agree that situating this work within the context of the ongoing work within this field is important. We lean heavily on the ADL work here as it is publicly available data looking at a broad range of experiences and impact. While it can be useful to draw on work looking at player harassment, the harassment of game makers is something that needs to be examined through a more nuanced lens because of the additional contextual factors that are specific to this experience among game developers (studio culture, lack of personal/professional boundaries, personal and professional consequences to action and inaction). That said, additional text has been added to better contextualize this work and lend more insight into potential solutions and strategies. Specifically, the following text has been added: There is also a growing number of researchers in this space actively seeking strategies for victims of online harassment to better mitigate the negative mental health impacts and avenues for support (Cote, 2016; Tang et al., 2019). Drawing from this research and work from other disciplines, such as the online harassment of female journalists (Ferrier & Garud-Paktar, 2019), we can begin to develop effective reporting strategies, support structures for the victims, and tools to dismantle the systems for harassment. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 2 VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 14 Dec 2022 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment keyboard_arrow_left keyboard_arrow_right Open Peer Review Reviewer Status info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Reviewer Reports Invited Reviewers 1 2 Version 2 (revision) 20 Jan 23 read read Version 1 14 Dec 22 read Amanda C. Cote , University of Oregon, Eugene, USA Suzanne de Castell , The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada Comments on this article All Comments (0) Add a comment Sign up for content alerts Sign Up You are now signed up to receive this alert Browse by related subjects keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2023 de Castell S. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 27 Nov 2023 | for Version 2 Suzanne de Castell , Faculty of Education, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada 0 Views copyright © 2023 de Castell S. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (0) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Kowert and Crevoshay’s paper contributes an important exploratory study of the types, frequency and mental health impacts of online harassment upon gamesworkers, carried out by means of an online survey of 282 videogame professionals. As their results make very clear, people working in games suffer and witness extremely high levels (92% reported) of online harassment, and experience profound and even grave suffering because of it. The work is of great interest, and this review is far, far too long because of that. The authors aim to “... discuss the prevalence rates, nature of harassment, and the ways in which a lack of diversity has contributed to this phenomenon.” It would be useful to know from the outset to what extent this paper reporting and analyzing survey data is also setting out explanations, given that the authors explicitly say they don’t want to be doing this. If it's not what they are doing, then it would help make that clearer by perhaps reframing things as suggestions, indications, hypotheses even? Instead, on page 2, right at the beginning of the paper, some seemingly explanatory conclusions are already set out “… the lack of clear boundaries between professional and personal social media accounts belonging to game makers, toxic gaming cultures within the gaming industry, and a lack of diversity within gaming content and cultures .” Encountering this right at the beginning of the paper does give the impression that the analysis has already taken place and the conclusions have been arrived at prior to any of the data being presented, analyzed or interrogated. Similarly, it appears pre-determined from the outset that a, perhaps even the , primary problem underlying the phenomenon is lack of diversity. Without questions, evidence, or argument sufficient to answer the fundamental question (however much we might agree with this, and indeed I do) HOW lack of diversity explains toxicity in the games industry: it is from the start simply declared that it does so. Interestingly, the concluding discussion states “ …the harassment of game makers seems directly tied to a lack of diversity within the industry, as evidenced by the ubiquity of identity-based harassment.” The language of "seeming’’ communicates that this is an impression, not a now-established fact. However, as early as the second sentence of the abstract, and again (p4, para 3), it's stated that “A lack of diversity has unquestionably contributed to the high levels of such incidences .” It would help readers to follow the argument more logically if it were to begin with ‘impressions’, then take up evidence and argument, reach (or not, perhaps) the conclusion that lack of diversity has an “unquestionable” relationship to these toxic incidents. As to the difficult question of HOW lack of diversity, questionably or not, does this, the reason provided here is that over half of the respondents stated they were targeted because of “some aspect of their identity”. The problem is that ‘identity’ is underspecified: obviously straight white males have an ‘identity’, but to what extent is that identity targeted for online harassment? (And if they were to be harassed because of their SWM identity, how would that harassment indicate there’s a problem of a lack of diversity? It just doesn’t quite follow. And this is where closer attention to intersectionality is missing. (This need for conceptual nuance around 'identity' is paralleled by a need, as well, for greater nuance around who counts as a “gamesworker” - something the authors recognize in their discussion of limitations.) This study included anyone “working in games” - yet the problems of toxicity and harassment are actually not problems experienced first hand by “anyone working in games”; we know from other studies that both identity and work role make a huge difference to who gets harassed, with what levels and kinds of harassment - and to what effect personally and professionally. As the authors do point out: “Future work should aim to sample more professionals in different areas of the gaming industry to better evaluate the frequency and impact of these behaviors across job functions.” It's as important, especially given the discussion and recommendations in this paper, to enable data disaggregation in terms that speak to identity and intersectionalities. And, again, these researchers obviously are just as aware of that, as they note, “ This experience tends to be magnified for victims of marginalized gender and ethnic backgrounds ”. But those differences are otherwise methodologically obscured in this study, and not investigated so that we might learn more about who - specifically people having what identities, and what job roles - experience what levels and kinds of harassment. The problem here is that knowing about type and frequency, of harassment, without also knowing about its distribution , can guide principles, not policy, nor therefore justify the conclusion advanced that “Without large-scale action, this problem [online harassment] will continue to reinforce the lack of diversity inside game studios, pushing out marginalized employees...” As a general point, this is surely true, but without conceptual nuance and empirical specificity, we can have no practical idea of what that “large-scale action” should or could look like. With respect to ‘toxic gamer culture’, a similar problem arises, in that, while we know from this work that gamesworkers experience more online harassment than members of the games community, this study’s focus is on gamers harassing gamesworkers: “ there has been a growing trend for hate and harassment in gaming cultures to expand beyond other players towards gamemakers. ” Without diminishing the importance of that observation, it remains the case that much of the literature reports on harassment (typically of women, as we all know very well) not by gamers but by other gamesworkers, yet this subject is not raised here, which of course means that this paper’s suggested solution that employers build studio policies that address “the lack of clear boundaries between professional and personal social media accounts belonging to game makers” will leave a significant dimension - and maybe the MOST significant dimension - of the problem uninterrogated. It would be useful to find out what percentage of the online hate and harassment came from ‘gamers’ - and how much from games industry ‘colleagues’. Perhaps most importantly, while employer inaction and toxic gamer culture are identified in this analysis of online harassment, it’s interesting that no consideration is given to the role unregulated social media technologies and policies play in a burgeoning culture of harassment and hatred that is pervasive far beyond gamer culture or the games industry. Indeed, the respondents to this survey do “...believe that gaming companies should have stronger policies in place around hate and harassment (87.2%).” But note that survey participants see social media companies as bearing greater responsibility for the problem: “... respondents think social media companies should be doing more to support people being targeted online (93.7%) " - this suggests that more respondents situate responsibility with media companies than with game companies. The information gleaned from this survey, while, as is acknowledged, it may be from a limited and specific sample, is nevertheless extremely interesting, and it would have been terrific to delve more deeply into these findings, and how they speak to this paper’s analysis, and its recommendations around policy and best courses of action. As well we learn that “Most respondents believe that the games industry contributes to the ease with which people engage in online hate and harassment (62.4%)..." but many more see the problem as lying elsewhere: “ The way that social media works is also believed to contribute to the ease with which people engage in online hate and harassment (96.5%)..." Yet nowhere is that participant response, suggesting this kind of toxicity might be a widespread phenomenon, probed into in this analysis - it’s as if gamesworkers experience significantly MORE online harassment and hatred than people in other fields - but do they? How do we know? What about K-pop stars, whose virulent online harassment has led to increasing rates of suicide and mental health breakdowns? Or pro-choice activists? Or prominent authors who voice unpopular views about sex and gender, for that matter? This matters enormously for where we do the work of reparation. But how do we know (and why would we assume) that gamesworkers as a group experience more extreme and more frequent harassment on Twitter (etc.) than other groups? We simply don’t know this, and we have no reason to suppose it's true. This doesn’t in any way take away from the importance of understanding - and acting to address - what does happen to gamesworkers, but it does make quite a difference to the analysis and to any proposed laws, policies or procedures designed to contend with it. The paper’s conclusion that “Games leadership need to create stronger policies around hate and harassment of their employees, delineate clearer social boundaries between game maker and game player, and provide greater mental health support should their employees become targets of online harassment.” only makes sense IF the problem has been correctly diagnosed. But what if the problem isn’t one experienced any more often by gamesworkers than other professionals, and what if that problem is due primarily to the inbuilt toxicity of platforms like Twitter, which not only allow and enable but actively incite and invite hateful and assaultive behaviours, and what if it’s not gamesworkers at all, but women, trans folk, people of colour and other minorities working (and here mostly in lower level positions) in games who are experiencing the high percentages of workplace toxicity, as well as the online forms of harassment that are reported here as if it were a generic feature of games industry worker experience. So with all respect for the work that this paper accomplishes, it's sometimes hard to grasp relationships between data, analysis, and recommendations. It would help enormously to have the authors state explicitly the connection between knowing the types and frequencies of online harassment for gamesworkers as a group, and courses of action to address that problem, besides providing mental health and other supports for victims, who appear to constitute a considerable percentage of the gamesworkers surveyed. Specifically, this would call for clarification of what 'identity' means, specification of WHOSE experiences (i.e. what ‘identities’ and roles) these findings refer to - because it's surely not everyone who works in games who experiences hate and vitriol - some explanation of how this analysis is “intersectional”, consideration of the question of whether it is actually games culture or ‘twitterculture’ that is the root problem here, and whether its specific to gamesworkers or is a toxic element across many workplaces and professions - and what we leave out when we frame the problem as harassment of gamesworkers by gamers, leaving out entirely how much more devastating it just might be when that harassment, online as well as off, is up close and personal, at work, or carried out by bosses and co-workers. I hope these comments are helpful, thank you for this paper, I enjoyed and learned from it. ____________________________________________________________ There are several minor corrections that should be made: I noted these… " The outcome of this cycle, “toxic cultures”, are particularly… " (should be "is") " The only requirement for participation in this study to be a professional within the games industry at any level. " (should be “was to be”) " More than half of all participants reported experiencing harassment on social media (59.6%) and nearly all participants reported witnessing harassment happening to other members of the videogames industry via social media (92.2%). " (this sentence is repeated verbatim under “prevalence”) “ The prevalence of the more severe forms of harassment are noteworthy...” (should be "is") " ...to the frequency at which.. ." (should be "with which") " As reported by the ADL in 2019, less than one-third of their respondents... " (should be "fewer") "...these behaviors occur within the general gaming community, specifically doxxing and swatting." (should be " behaviours - specifically doxing and swatting"). Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Not applicable Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Digital game-based learning, gender and games, educational theory, policy and practice, new media research. I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (0) de Castell S. Peer Review Report For: Harassment of game makers: Prevalence and impact [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2023, 11 :1518 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.143119.r166316) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1518/v2#referee-response-166316 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2023 C. Cote A. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 21 Mar 2023 | for Version 2 Amanda C. Cote , School of Journalism and Communication, University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon, USA 0 Views copyright © 2023 C. Cote A. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (0) Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions In response to my original feedback, the authors have made many small changes to update how this piece refers to/draws on additional existing work. I appreciate their thoughtfulness and how they have adjusted the article while still remaining concise and attentive to the word limits. Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Games, gender, identity, audience studies, media industry studies I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. reply Respond to this report Responses (0) C. Cote A. Peer Review Report For: Harassment of game makers: Prevalence and impact [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2023, 11 :1518 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.143119.r161074) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1518/v2#referee-response-161074 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2023 C. Cote A. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 04 Jan 2023 | for Version 1 Amanda C. Cote , School of Journalism and Communication, University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon, USA 0 Views copyright © 2023 C. Cote A. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions This study employs an online survey of 282 gamesworkers to assess their direct and witnessed experiences with harassment. It breaks down the types and prevalence of harassment they have experienced or witnessed, the perceived motivations of harassers, and the impacts harassment has had on themselves and others in terms of mental and physical health. Overall, this study is clearly conducted and written, with good attention to limitations. It also addresses a newer and significant aspect of harassment and toxicity in gaming communities and cultures. There is little to no academic work currently addressing the harassment of game makers, although a lot of anecdotal evidence shows that it occurs frequently and significantly. There are only a few small things I would like to see the researchers consider moving forward. First, the literature review could benefit from slightly clearer organization and attention to the broader history of harassment directed at gamesworkers. The piece opens with recent examples of harassment (pg. 1-2), stating, “ The harassment of game makers first made its way into the spotlight when former Guild Wars 2 narrative designer Jessica Price’s was fired from ArenaNet after engaging in a Twitter exchange with a player. ” This event, however, did not occur until 2018; the harassment of game makers, especially female ones, and public recognition of these issues predate this event by several years, at minimum - e.g., Jennifer Hepler’s harassment at Bioware in 2012-2013, GamerGate, etc. Some of these events come up later in the article, but it would be useful to note and trace some of this broader trajectory (and the role of identity) from the start. Harassment in the games industry is not a new issue! This only makes it more in need of studies like this. Similarly, it’s worth briefly noting the intellectual development of concepts such as the cycle of exclusion in gaming. These also date back until at least the early 2000s (e.g., Fron et al. (2007) 1 ), and that labor should be recognized. Other work on the industry, such as Robin Johnson’s studies of masculinity in studio culture, would also be useful here (see suggested citations at end 2 , 3 ). Second, the content analysis section (pg. 4, lack of representation in games) could benefit from some more updated stats, such as those by Lynch et al. (2016). 4 Finally, the analysis and discussion could benefit from more connections back to existing work on industry, as well as on players’ experience with harassment and their means for coping with this. The ADL data is useful, but there are also many critical analyses of these issues that fit the survey data well and could be tied in. The results of this study are important and meaningful; be sure to situate them within the field effectively to demonstrate this to the fullest extent. Suggested Citations: Fron, J., Fullerton, T., Morie, J. F., & Pearce, C. (2007). 'The Hegemony of Play'. Situated Play, Proceedings of DiGRA 2007 Conference 1 Johnson, R. S. (2013). 'Toward Greater Production Diversity: Examining Social Boundaries at a Video Game Studio'. Games and Culture 2 Johnson, R. (2014). 'Hiding in Plain Sight: Reproducing Masculine Culture at a Video Game Studio'. Communication, Culture & Critique 3 Lynch, T., Tompkins, J. E., van Driel, I. I., & Fritz, N. (2016). 'Sexy, Strong, and Secondary: A Content Analysis of Female Characters in Video Games across 31 Years'. Journal of Communication 4 Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Yes References 1. Fron J, Fullerton T, Morie JF, Pearce C: The Hegemony of Play. Situated Play, Proceedings of DiGRA 2007 Conference . 2007. 1-10 Reference Source 2. Johnson R: Toward Greater Production Diversity. Games and Culture . 2013; 8 (3): 136-160 Publisher Full Text 3. Johnson R: Hiding in Plain Sight: Reproducing Masculine Culture at a Video Game Studio. Communication, Culture & Critique . 2014; 7 (4): 578-594 Publisher Full Text 4. Lynch T, Tompkins J, van Driel I, Fritz N: Sexy, Strong, and Secondary: A Content Analysis of Female Characters in Video Games across 31 Years. Journal of Communication . 2016; 66 (4): 564-584 Publisher Full Text Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Games, gender, identity, audience studies, media industry studies I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 20 Jan 2023 Rachel Kowert, Take Thisq, Seattle, USA Reviewer's comment: First, the literature review could benefit from slightly clearer organization and attention to the broader history of harassment directed at gamesworkers. The piece opens with recent examples of harassment (pg. 1-2), stating, “The harassment of game makers first made its way into the spotlight when former Guild Wars 2 narrative designer Jessica Price’s was fired from ArenaNet after engaging in a Twitter exchange with a player.” This event, however, did not occur until 2018; the harassment of game makers, especially female ones, and public recognition of these issues predate this event by several years, at minimum - e.g., Jennifer Hepler’s harassment at Bioware in 2012-2013, GamerGate, etc. Some of these events come up later in the article, but it would be useful to note and trace some of this broader trajectory (and the role of identity) from the start. Harassment in the games industry is not a new issue! Author's response: The reviewer is correct in that this is not a new issue. Highlighting the event with Jessica Price was meant more to illustrate this is when the discussion of the harassment of game makers moved out of more niche communities and whisper networks and towards a more broad acknowledgement of its existence within this industry specifically. The wording has been changed slightly in the introduction to reflect this. Specifically, the following text has been added: While the harassment of game makers (especially female ones) has been a very real issue for many years, in 2018 we started to see discussions of these behaviors within a broader public spotlight when former Guild Wars 2 narrative designer Jessica Price was fired from ArenaNet after engaging in a Twitter exchange with a player. Reviewer's comment: Similarly, it’s worth briefly noting the intellectual development of concepts such as the cycle of exclusion in gaming. These also date back until at least the early 2000s (e.g., Fron et al. (2007) 1 ), and that labor should be recognized. Other work on the industry, such as Robin Johnson’s studies of masculinity in studio culture, would also be useful here (see suggested citations at end 2 , 3 ). Author’s response: The aim of this paper is not to explore why these events happen but rather shed light on their frequency and mental health impact. That said, the text has been amended to recognize that there has been work in this space examining the potential underpinning motivations/causes for this behavior. Specifically, the following text has been added: There has also been research exploring a potential cycle of exclusion in gaming cultures (Fron et al., 2007; Kowert et al, 2017) and the role masculinity in studio culture may specifically play in creating a culture of harassment (Johnson, 2013; 2014). The cycle of exclusion in gaming culture is also more formally described later in the paper. Specifically with the following passage: Some have argued that this is a result of a cycle that starts in early childhood. Referred to as the “Cycle Model of Exclusion in Gaming Content and Cultures,” (Kowert et al., 2017), it is believed that early socialization of games as a male activity leads to the exclusion of non-men in the industry, which creates a male dominated industry and gendered game content and a normalization of gendered views of the world including sexist attitudes and beliefs within gaming communities and the industry itself. This cycle is self-perpetuating. Reviewer's comment: Second, the content analysis section (pg. 4, lack of representation in games) could benefit from some more updated stats, such as those by Lynch et al. (2016). 4 Author's response: Thank you for this suggestion! Lynch et al. (2016) has been added as a reference in that section. Reviewer's comment: the analysis and discussion could benefit from more connections back to existing work on industry, as well as on players’ experience with harassment and their means for coping with this. The ADL data is useful, but there are also many critical analyses of these issues that fit the survey data well and could be tied in. The results of this study are important and meaningful; be sure to situate them within the field effectively to demonstrate this to the fullest extent. Author’s response: We agree that situating this work within the context of the ongoing work within this field is important. We lean heavily on the ADL work here as it is publicly available data looking at a broad range of experiences and impact. While it can be useful to draw on work looking at player harassment, the harassment of game makers is something that needs to be examined through a more nuanced lens because of the additional contextual factors that are specific to this experience among game developers (studio culture, lack of personal/professional boundaries, personal and professional consequences to action and inaction). That said, additional text has been added to better contextualize this work and lend more insight into potential solutions and strategies. Specifically, the following text has been added: There is also a growing number of researchers in this space actively seeking strategies for victims of online harassment to better mitigate the negative mental health impacts and avenues for support (Cote, 2016; Tang et al., 2019). Drawing from this research and work from other disciplines, such as the online harassment of female journalists (Ferrier & Garud-Paktar, 2019), we can begin to develop effective reporting strategies, support structures for the victims, and tools to dismantle the systems for harassment. View more View less Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. reply Respond Report a concern C. Cote A. Peer Review Report For: Harassment of game makers: Prevalence and impact [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2023, 11 :1518 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.139461.r158166) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1518/v1#referee-response-158166 Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Adjust parameters to alter display View on desktop for interactive features Includes Interactive Elements View on desktop for interactive features Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Stay Updated Sign up for content alerts and receive a weekly or monthly email with all newly published articles Register with F1000Research Already registered? Sign in Not now, thanks close PLEASE NOTE If you are an AUTHOR of this article, please check that you signed in with the account associated with this article otherwise we cannot automatically identify your role as an author and your comment will be labelled as a “User Comment”. If you are a REVIEWER of this article, please check that you have signed in with the account associated with this article and then go to your account to submit your report, please do not post your review here. If you do not have access to your original account, please contact us . All commenters must hold a formal affiliation as per our Policies . The information that you give us will be displayed next to your comment. User comments must be in English, comprehensible and relevant to the article under discussion. We reserve the right to remove any comments that we consider to be inappropriate, offensive or otherwise in breach of the User Comment Terms and Conditions . Commenters must not use a comment for personal attacks. When criticisms of the article are based on unpublished data, the data should be made available. I accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions Please confirm that you accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions. Affiliation ✕ refresh Please enter your institution. Note: To add your institution or organisation, start typing the name and then select the correct name from the list. Where applicable, the name will appear in both the original language and in English. Do not paste in the name. If the name does not appear in the drop-down list, we will display the information you have entered. ✕ refresh Country/Region * USA UK Canada China France Germany Afghanistan Aland Islands Albania Algeria American Samoa Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory British Virgin Islands Brunei Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote d'Ivoire Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Democratic Republic of the Congo Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands Faroe Islands Federated States of Micronesia Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guam Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and Mcdonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Kosovo (Serbia and Montenegro) Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Minor Outlying Islands of the United States Moldova Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands Antilles New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island North Korea North Macedonia Northern Mariana Islands Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Palestinian Territory Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Helena Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Is South Korea South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syria Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania Thailand The Gambia The Netherlands Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu UK USA Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United States Virgin Islands Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela Vietnam Wallis and Futuna West Bank and Gaza Strip Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Please select your country/region. You must enter a comment. Competing Interests Please disclose any competing interests that might be construed to influence your judgment of the article's or peer review report's validity or importance. Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Please state your competing interests The comment has been saved. An error has occurred. Please try again. Cancel Post var lTitle = "Harassment of game makers: Prevalence and...".replace("'", ''); var linkedInUrl = "http://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1518/v2" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle) + "&summary=" + encodeURIComponent('Read the article by '); var deliciousUrl = "https://del.icio.us/post?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1518/v2&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); var redditUrl = "http://reddit.com/submit?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1518/v2" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); linkedInUrl += encodeURIComponent('Kowert R and Crevoshay E'); var offsetTop = /chrome/i.test( navigator.userAgent ) ? 4 : -10; var addthis_config = { ui_offset_top: offsetTop, services_compact : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_expanded : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_custom : [ { name: "LinkedIn", url: linkedInUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_linkedin.svg" }, { name: "Mendeley", url: "http://www.mendeley.com/import/?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1518/v2/mendeley", icon:"/img/icon/at_mendeley.svg" }, { name: "Reddit", url: redditUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_reddit.svg" }, ] }; var addthis_share = { url: "https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1518", templates : { twitter : "Harassment of game makers: Prevalence and impact. Kowert R and Crevoshay E, published by " + "@F1000Research" + ", https://f1000research.com/articles/11-1518/v2" } }; if (typeof(addthis) != "undefined"){ addthis.addEventListener('addthis.ready', checkCount); addthis.addEventListener('addthis.menu.share', checkCount); } $(".f1r-shares-twitter").attr("href", "https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=" + addthis_share.templates.twitter); $(".f1r-shares-facebook").attr("href", "https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=" + addthis_share.url); $(".f1r-shares-linkedin").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[0].url); $(".f1r-shares-reddit").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[2].url); $(".f1r-shares-mendelay").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[1].url); function checkCount(){ setTimeout(function(){ $(".addthis_button_expanded").each(function(){ var count = $(this).text(); if (count !== "" && count != "0") $(this).removeClass("is-hidden"); else $(this).addClass("is-hidden"); }); }, 1000); } close How to cite this report {{reportCitation}} Cancel Copy Citation Details $(function(){R.ui.buttonDropdowns('.dropdown-for-downloads');}); $(function(){R.ui.toolbarDropdowns('.toolbar-dropdown-for-downloads');}); $.get("/articles/acj/126998/143119") new F1000.Clipboard(); new F1000.ThesaurusTermsDisplay("articles", "article", "143119"); $(document).ready(function() { $( "#frame1" ).on('load', function() { var mydiv = $(this).contents().find("div"); var h = mydiv.height(); console.log(h) }); var tooltipLivingFigure = jQuery(".interactive-living-figure-label .icon-more-info"), titleLivingFigure = tooltipLivingFigure.attr("title"); tooltipLivingFigure.simpletip({ fixed: true, position: ["-115", "30"], baseClass: 'small-tooltip', content:titleLivingFigure + " " }); tooltipLivingFigure.removeAttr("title"); $("body").on("click", ".cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); var ref = $(this).attr("data-ref"); $(this).closest(".living-figure-list-container").find("#" + ref).fadeIn(200); }); $("body").on("click", ".close-cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); $(this).closest(".popup-window-wrapper").fadeOut(200); }); $(document).on("mouseup", function(e) { var metricsContainer = $(".article-metrics-popover-wrapper"); if (!metricsContainer.is(e.target) && metricsContainer.has(e.target).length === 0) { $(".article-metrics-close-button").click(); } }); var articleId = $('#articleId').val(); if($("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics) { $("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics(articleId, { articleMetricsView: true }); } }); var figshareWidget = $(".new_figshare_widget"); if (figshareWidget.length > 0) { window.figshare.load("f1000", function(Widget) { // Select a tag/tags defined in your page. In this tag we will place the widget. _.map(figshareWidget, function(el){ var widget = new Widget({ articleId: $(el).attr("figshare_articleId") //height:300 // this is the height of the viewer part. [Default: 550] }); widget.initialize(); // initialize the widget widget.mount(el); // mount it in a tag that's on your page // this will save the widget on the global scope for later use from // your JS scripts. This line is optional. //window.widget = widget; }); }); } close Error Close Add Reset F1000.MICROSERVICES.AFFILIATION = ''; $(document).ready(function () { $('.js-affiliations-form').each((index, form) => { new AffiliationForm({ formId: form.id, institutionErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-institution', departmentErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-department', placeSelector: '.js-add-comment-place', stateSelector: '.js-add-comment-state', zipCodeSelector: '.js-add-comment-zipcode', countrySelector: '.js-add-comment-country', countryErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-country', }); }); }); $(document).ready(function () { var reportIds = { "161074": 13, "158166": 66, "158167": 0, "158164": 0, "158165": 0, "158168": 0, "158169": 0, "166316": 10, "161884": 0, }; $(".referee-response-container,.js-referee-report").each(function(index, el) { var reportId = $(el).attr("data-reportid"), reportCount = reportIds[reportId] || 0; $(el).find(".comments-count-container,.js-referee-report-views").html(reportCount); }); var uuidInput = $("#article_uuid"), oldUUId = uuidInput.val(), newUUId = "e9bae175-8dc6-451e-9ceb-043efe747dd6"; uuidInput.val(newUUId); $("a[href*='article_uuid=']").each(function(index, el) { var newHref = $(el).attr("href").replace(oldUUId, newUUId); $(el).attr("href", newHref); }); }); An innovative open access publishing platform offering rapid publication and open peer review, whilst supporting data deposition and sharing. Browse Gateways Collections How it Works Contact For Developers Cookie Notice Privacy Notice RSS Submit Your Research Follow us © 2012-2026 F1000 Research Ltd. ISSN 2046-1402 | Legal | Partner of Research4Life • CrossRef • ORCID • FAIRSharing R.templateTests.simpleTemplate = R.template(' $text $text $text $text $text '); R.templateTests.runTests(); var F1000platform = new F1000.Platform({ name: "f1000research", displayName: "F1000Research", hostName: "f1000research.com", id: "1", editorialEmail: "[email protected]", infoEmail: "[email protected]", usePmcStats: true }); $(function(){R.ui.dropdowns('.dropdown-for-authors, .dropdown-for-about, .dropdown-for-myresearch');}); // $(function(){R.ui.dropdowns('.dropdown-for-referees');}); $(document).ready(function () { if ($(".cookie-warning").is(":visible")) { $(".sticky").css("margin-bottom", "35px"); $(".devices").addClass("devices-and-cookie-warning"); } $(".cookie-warning .close-button").click(function (e) { $(".devices").removeClass("devices-and-cookie-warning"); $(".sticky").css("margin-bottom", "0"); }); $("#tweeter-feed .tweet-message").each(function (i, message) { var self = $(message); self.html(linkify(self.html())); }); $(".partner").on("mouseenter mouseleave", function() { $(this).find(".gray-scale, .colour").toggleClass("is-hidden"); }); }); Sign In Remember me Forgotten your password? Sign In Cancel Email or password not correct. Please try again Please wait... $(function(){ // Note: All the setup needs to run against a name attribute and *not* the id due the clonish // nature of facebox... $("a[id=googleSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("GOOGLE"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=facebookSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("FACEBOOK"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=orcidSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("ORCID"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); }); If you've forgotten your password, please enter your email address below and we'll send you instructions on how to reset your password. The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000. Email address not valid, please try again You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here . You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here . Code not correct, please try again Reset password Cancel Email us for further assistance. Server error, please try again. If your email address is registered with us, we will email you instructions to reset your password. If you think you should have received this email but it has not arrived, please check your spam filters and/or contact for further assistance. Please wait... Register $(document).ready(function () { signIn.createSignInAsRow($("#sign-in-form-gfb-popup")); $(".target-field").each(function () { var uris = $(this).val().split("/"); if (uris.pop() === "login") { $(this).val(uris.toString().replace(",","/")); } }); });