At Sbarter, we are building a platform rooted in competitive challenge. A place where players can face rivals, interact directly with opponents, prove their skills, and turn every match into a challenge that matters. But building for competition also means spending time with its most uncomfortable truth: toxicity exists, and yes, we will have to deal with it. That’s why, before finding all the answers, we wanted to explore this topic.
The side of competition we tend to accept too easily
Anyone who has spent time in competitive gaming knows what it looks like. A close match that ends in frustration. A message that goes too far. A sudden wave of insults. A rage quit. And sometimes, the quiet decision to simply stop playing for the day, or for good.
Over time, these moments have become familiar. So familiar, in fact, that many consider them part of the experience. The cost of competition. An inevitable by-product of intensity.
We don’t fully agree with that conclusion. Competition is supposed to be intense. It should create emotion, pressure, and excitement. But there is a difference between intensity and toxicity. And the more we work on Sbarter, the more we believe that distinction matters.
What the data already tells us
Research from the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) gives scale to something most players already sense.
According to their findings, 86% of in-game harassers believe their behavior is justified by the context of the game. More than 70% of adult gamers report having experienced severe harassment online, including threats or sustained toxic behavior.
Behind these numbers are millions of individual moments that quietly reshape how people experience games. Not always in dramatic ways, but in cumulative ones. A match becomes less enjoyable. A community feels less welcoming and a game is eventually left behind.
Why it happens is not a mystery
Toxicity is not random. It tends to emerge in environments where pressure is high, communication is immediate, and outcomes matter deeply.
In competitive spaces, performance is often the only visible currency. When everything revolves around winning or losing, emotional regulation becomes secondary. Frustration has nowhere structured to go, and it spills into interactions between players.
This is not an excuse. But it is a pattern worth understanding if the goal is to change it.
Designing with behavior in mind
As Sbarter moves from concept to product, one question keeps resurfacing in every discussion we have: How do you build an environment that preserves the emotional intensity of competition without letting it drift into harmful behavior?
There is no simple answer to that question. But we are exploring several paths, inspired by existing approaches in gaming and tech.
Recognizing positive behavior
One direction focuses on what gets rewarded. Many systems today primarily respond to negative behavior through punishment. But there is another layer that can be built: recognition.
Inspired by endorsement systems such as those seen in Overwatch, players could be able to acknowledge positive interactions after a match. A good teammate. A respectful opponent. A fair competitor.
Over time, this shifts visibility. It creates a space where how you behave matters just as much as how you perform. And where being a “good competitor” is not invisible, but part of your identity in the ecosystem.
Rethinking who plays with whom
Another direction is structural. Behavior-based matchmaking, already explored in various forms in online games, suggests a simple idea: the environment you experience should reflect the way you behave in it.
Players who consistently engage in toxic behavior could be grouped together, while those who contribute positively to the experience are protected from repeated negative interactions.
This is not about exclusion, because it’s not irreversible. There is always room to change and re-enter the broader community.
The power of a pause
A large part of toxicity is not strategic. It is impulsive and it happens in seconds, not minutes.
This is why another idea we are exploring focuses on timing. Small moments of friction inserted between emotion and action. Inspired by safety mechanisms used in digital products, a message could trigger a simple question before being sent: are you sure?
Or a short delay could allow emotions to settle before words are published. These are subtle interventions, but often, subtle is enough.
Still early, still learning
We are not presenting these ideas as solutions. They are directions, hypotheses, starting points for discussion and experimentation.
What is clear to us, however, is that ignoring toxicity is not an option if the goal is to build something that lasts. Competitive communities only thrive when they are both intense and sustainable.
