There's plenty that the creators can do to empower change at a lower level. Like making people muted by default, or maybe if someone has been reported they are

There's plenty that the creators can do to empower change at a lower level. Like making people muted by default, or maybe if someone has been reported they are muted by default. An issue with muting is that, depending on the implementation, the person behaving badly may not be aware they are being muted, and certainly won't know why. Providing some sort of feedback mechanism so that people being immature online get some sort of encouragement to change their behavior. Maybe a reputation system, that is viewable by others, so they can choose to not interact with toxic players. It's not about having tons of moderators policing everything, it's about the fundamental mechanics of the system you are creating, the incentives. This can involve the peripherals of the game like player chat, community events and outreach, and even the core mechanics. A competitive multiplayer game where the mechanics are set up so that each team is only as strong as their weakest player, for example, is naturally going to increase tension and be unfriendly to new players. This was (possibly) alluded to in one sentence in the article: "the team emerged with a new focus not just on disruptive players, but on the ways competitive games can make assholes of us all." All this goes to say that preventing a game community from becoming toxic is not a simple or trivial thing, and it's important if you want your game to succeed. It sounds like a coalition sharing ideas and experiences dealing with toxic behavior is exactly what we need.