Discussion of survey results on the implementation of and opinions on flagging in larp
Editorial note: This article was originally published in the Knutpunkt 2026 book Seasons of Larp. It has been reprinted from there with the editors’ and authors’ permission. It has not been edited by Nordiclarp.org.
Heated debates about safety flagging in larp are as old as the tool itself. Even in communities where its use is the norm, there are – and always will be – widely differing stances on how beneficial the approach actually is. The discussions are mostly highly subjective and tend to even veer into toxic territory. In order to escape the debate loop, in which the most disarming argument on either side is “but this is my experience”, actual data is needed. We are asking ourselves, what kind of systems are commonly used? How prevalent is abuse of flagging for petty or nefarious reasons? Is flagging as a tool so flawed it wouldn’t survive an overhaul?
Generally and for the purpose of this article, flagging is defined as a safety tool in which players may report (flag) other players to the organisers for misconduct and/or personal incompatibilities, which in some cases will lead to the exclusion of a player from the event in question.
In May 2024, the SK Book article ‘Flagging is Flawed’ (Brown and Teerilahti, 2024) was republished on the Nordic Larp website. What followed were hundreds of comments on Facebook and numerous discussions all across social media revolving around flagging and its pitfalls. One of the main criticisms stemming from the above-mentioned opinion piece consisted of flagging being ripe for abuse: several commenters, as well as the article itself, claimed that people would not use flagging for its intended purpose (anymore), but to maliciously exclude others for petty reasons such as disliking them, or them being an ex-partner they wanted removed from a larp community. Opinions emerged calling for flagging to be abolished because they would rather have no safety tool in place than one that is, allegedly, as faulty and dangerous as this one.
To directly quote Brown and Teerilahti (2024): “A player who does not like another player can simply flag them and ensure they will not have to see them at an event. The threat of weaponizing the flagging safety practice is also unfortunately common.”
The article, and people who (largely) agreed with it, also criticised the lack of nuance implemented in flagging when the only – and most common – option was to “Red Flag” someone, which would lead to automatic, unquestioned exclusion. Also, they argued, any kind of more nuanced system and so-called investigation into flags would put an undue burden on organisers, forcing them to take on the roles of judge, jury, executioner, or – sometimes – therapists meddling in the interpersonal conflicts within the player group.
Other authors in the larp scene entered the discussion, most notably Laura Wood and Mo Holkar, who published a response piece that same month, ‘Flagging: A Response’ (Wood and Holkar, 2024). In their article, the authors point out that they – and other larp organisers they have encountered in the international scene – use more nuanced flagging systems than the initial piece suggests to be most common, quote: “that [the only option being “Red Flag” leading to immediate exclusion] would indeed be a problem – which is why larp organisers don’t, in general, ask solely for red flags. Instead, they usually ask for a range of different indications of concern, with only the most severe meriting a red flag and hence exclusion.”
Both sides of this debate have one thing in common: They rely on anecdotal evidence to underscore their points made. In both articles named above, it is made clear that there is no other data available than what the authors have experienced, seen, or been told, themselves.
If we want to move beyond individual anecdotes or loudly voiced opinions, we need to ask questions on a bigger and more structured scale than what a discussion on social media can provide. For this reason, the author of this article launched two surveys in an attempt to quantify and put data behind some of the arguments brought up in the Flagging Debate. Both surveys were completely anonymous, not collecting names or email addresses, and were shared widely in international and more regional larping groups on Facebook and Discord servers. Of course, this makes the accounts of respondents unverifiable and (potentially) biased. However, the author believes that some core trends and concepts can be extrapolated even if some of the quantitative data is unreliable.
The author does not claim universal truth by the analysis of the survey results. They do not claim that the sample groups are of scientific relevance. The surveys were conducted purely to gather some data about much-discussed topics as a basis for more conversation. Furthermore, the author does not claim any of the quoted opinions or reported experiences as their own. This article is an analysis of collected data and published discussions, not an expression of personal belief, and therefore relies exclusively on respondent statements and cited materials to illustrate the range of perspectives within larping communities.
In the first survey, called “Harmful Misuse of Flagging”, a total of 83 larp organisers offer a rare glimpse into how flagging actually works on the ground. Though the dataset is non-scientific, it is the first attempt to quantify the real breadth and variation of these systems and – maybe most importantly – how rampant (or not) the aforementioned abuse of flagging is.
The second survey, dubbed “The Big Ol’ Flagging Survey”, collected responses from 117 people, larpers and organisers alike. The questions aimed to find out about fears and worries tied to flagging in general, as well as experiences of safety tools such as flagging or blacklists. For the purposes of the survey, blacklists were defined as follows:
“[A] private list maintained (either as an actual list, or from memory) by event organisers to track individuals who are barred from attending their events.”
Player exclusion was defined as “a (potential) participant being uninvited from, or disallowed to attend, one singular specific event. It does not mean being banned in a wider sense unless otherwise specified within the framework of the question.”
A comprehensive write-up of the results of “Harmful Misuse of Flagging” is available as a freely accessible PDF.1 For this article, the author uses and compares data from both surveys in cases where questions overlap.
The majority of respondents in both surveys reported their main larping activities to take place in Europe. European countries, regions – or just plainly “Europe” – make up about 90% of responses. The rest consists of mentions of the USA and Canada, and a few mentions of Australia. From the outset, both surveys aimed to look into a wide range of larping communities and their use of safety tools rather than the Nordic Larp Community specifically, as larping has become an international and intercultural hobby, and the concept of flagging has been implemented, as these two surveys show, all over Europe and beyond. To confine the discussion to include Nordic only would not accurately reflect the scope of the issue.
The results of the second survey show a wide variety of participants, ranging from new larpers with 3 months of larping experience to veterans with 40 years under their larping belt. On average, respondents participate as players/guests in 6 events a year, with responses ranging from 0 to 20 larps or larp-adjacent events per annum.
With about 90.5% an overwhelming majority of respondents report to attend at least some larps which use flagging or other reporting systems as safety tools. The rest reported to not attend events with flagging at all, some indicating that they had been unfamiliar with the concept until taking the survey.
When asked for possible reasons for flagging someone, respondents described wanting to avoid romantic or emotionally intense play with ex-partners, real-life spouses, or those with incompatible play styles, among other minor concerns or personal differences. Individual flags in this category don’t usually lead to exclusion of the flagged player. However, a total of 81% of participating organisers in the second survey who use flagging reported having excluded players for minor to moderate concerns, such as but not limited to personal dislikes, not wanting to deal with specific player drama, having received a certain number of non-exclusionary flags that made the player impossible to cast, or non-dangerous but repeated breaking of event rules.
Some respondents, both larpers and organisers, reported flagging on behalf of others, reflecting community care but also risk of rumor-based exclusion. These results echo those of the first survey, where the 83 participating organisers reported widely the same reasoning for and definitions of flags and exclusions.
Among the 78 participants in the second survey reporting to be or having been an organiser, a total of 63 use flagging or similar tools such as organisation-only blacklists or other reporting systems they don’t explicitly call “flagging”. They reported an average of 12 non-exclusionary flags per event. Interestingly, they report an average of one exclusionary flag per event, and a clear majority of participating organisers report having had between zero and three exclusions ever, from all of their events combined. This comes to a total of more than 1300 events over the span of 27 years. These numbers are fairly similar to what was reported in the first survey, where almost 80% of respondents reported between zero and two player exclusions on average per event. Overall, the data from the two surveys strongly suggests that player exclusions due to flagging is not as prevalent, or rampant, as the public discourse suggests.
Across both surveys, both larpers and organisers indicated nearly identical reasonings for exclusionary flags or bans. The most severe cases involved sexual assault, harassment, grooming of minors, and boundary violations – flags and exclusions often cited as necessary acts of protection. Others flagged or excluded players for reasons including but not limited to physical aggression, unsafe combat, substance use, or hate speech such as antisemitic or transphobic behaviour.
Among the 117 respondents of the second survey were a total of 19 who reported having been excluded from at least one larp at least once due to flagging or a blacklist. Most of them reported having been excluded once or twice. Two respondents reported having been excluded from an entire event series, putting the number at 20 events they’ve been disallowed from attending.
Their detailed responses reveal a landscape marked by secrecy, fear, and emotional harm. Many describe being banned or “Red Flagged” without being told who flagged them or why. For several, the experience was described as devastating: reports include weeks of depression, anxiety, and a lasting fear of signing up for new events. Some called it the most psychologically damaging experience of their larp life, describing a sense of public accusation without trial, akin to being branded unsafe or dangerous without evidence or recourse. A recurring theme is lack of transparency and accountability.
This leads to one of the most important takeaways from the survey results: exclusion from larps is perceived by some as harm. And, by extension, taking measures to purposefully exclude someone may be considered facilitating said harm. Even if not stated outright, results show that (admitting to) flagging someone with intent to have them excluded is widely avoided, and respondents report rather dropping out themselves than triggering the exclusion of another. When asked if they had ever reported / flagged anyone regardless of whether exclusion from the event was a possible outcome, 70% of all respondents answered Yes. However, when it came to flagging someone with the specific intent or purpose of having them removed, only 34% of respondents said they have done so, stating reasons of severe (sometimes criminal) misconduct as outlined above.
This shows that among respondents, flagging is widely used but clearly separated from intent to remove someone from a larp. This result alone contradicts the notion that malicious flagging and wrongful exclusions are commonplace. The data suggests that when presented with a choice, only a third of larpers would, figuratively, choose violence. It becomes apparent through the responses that excluding someone from larp or larping spaces is perceived as a socially violent act, depriving people of a way to fulfill their basic human need for community and social interaction. This hesitancy to flag to exclude showed up throughout responses regardless of whether respondents have been excluded themselves or not.
The sentiment of harm and reducing it is further supported by responses from all respondents to “Agree or Disagree”2 questions aiming to indicate levels of worry about being (unfairly) excluded or banned from larps.
While the level of worry about exclusion, ban, or discrimination of themselves was generally very low, with an average of 26% of respondents marking “Strongly Agree” or “Agree”, the same could not be said when it came to worry on behalf of others: 33% reported being worried about someone other than themselves being excluded from larps, which shows a trend of compassion for others’ experiences rather than fearing exclusion oneself.
When asked about discriminatory flagging, another trend came to light. There were many instances of respondents fearing misunderstanding and/or unfair exclusions of neurodivergent larpers, with terms like “neurospicy” or “autism” coming up in 75% of responses reporting to be worried, or very worried. However, neither survey showed indications that exclusions due to neurodivergence are a widespread phenomenon. The first survey asked about reasons for flags which later turned out to have been false, exaggerated, or even malicious in order to exclude a player. Responses indicate that neurodivergence has been a very rare reason for false flags. This does not mean these cases don’t exist. Rather, the responses in both surveys are an indication of a misalignment of risk perception between organisers and players. Specifically, when it comes to the risk of these safety tools leading to exclusion on the basis of neurotype, more transparency from organisers could mitigate these worries.
The results of the second survey also show opinions and experiences of respondents who do not use, or outright reject, flagging. About 9% of all respondents reported not attending events as a player or guest with flagging or reporting systems in place. Almost 20% of participating organisers do not have any flagging, reporting system, or blacklist, in place for their own events. An additional 11.5% of organisers reported having ceased using flagging, or currently working on abandoning the tool.
Whilst there have been concerns raised about the data protection implications of flagging in public and online conversations, these concerns were not reflected in the survey results despite a specific question about the issue. The clear majority of organisers not using flagging (anymore) stated lack of evidentiary standards and a preference to solve conflicts in conversation rather than with a safety tool as their main reasons. This also marks a trend among flagging-skeptical respondents regardless of whether they are organisers or not.
Several respondents preferred direct communication or mediation over anonymous reporting, with some explaining that they view flagging as a way to avoid accountability or honest conversation, among other things. These accounts clearly echo the worries voiced in ‘Flagging is Flawed’ (Brown and Teerilahti, 2024), as well as that side of the public debate. However, it is important to note that – while clearly existent and valid – a clear anti-flagging stance makes up less than 10% of overall responses.
Several flagging-critical respondents shared personal experiences of false or vague flagging leading to loss of reputation or opportunities. Overall, critics are viewing flagging as corruptible, divisive, and damaging to community trust. When asked about their general stance on flagging, respondents were provided with a list of choices ranging from Extremely Important to Harmful. Five respondents chose the Harmful option, making up 4.3% of the group. They emphasized that while the system’s intent can be valuable in theory, in practice it often becomes unreliable, biased, and easily abused. Some noted that differing interpretations of flags (from “awkward to be around” to “rapist”) make the tool dangerously inconsistent. One respondent compared flagging to a “secret police” system, turning organisers into unqualified arbiters of justice and enabling social exclusion through rumor or retaliation.
The majority of respondents, however, reported a positive-leaning outlook on flagging, with Extremely Important and Important making up 67% of responses. In discussions online, it might sometimes seem like people calling for organisers to stop using flagging are a majority, especially when influential or widely-known figures are chiming in. However, these two surveys show that while extreme opinions, as well as cases of system abuse, do exist, they represent only a small fraction of opinions voiced. In this case, 4.3% stand against 67%. And just because the smaller group is sometimes louder and uses stronger, more emotionally charged language, does not make their opinions more valid.
The surveys confirm the opinion that, yes, flagging is indeed not perfect and some flaws are perceived and pointed out even by respondents viewing flagging as Extremely Important. However, most respondents make it very clear that a flawed system is still better than none. Many of respondents’ worries as addressed above could be mitigated by implementing tiered flagging systems more widely, and reducing “Immediate Exclusion” to being an the ultimate remedy for extreme – and thus extremely rare – cases instead of being the norm.
Respondents of the second survey pro-posed a wide range of improvements to make flagging systems fairer, more trans-parent, and less prone to abuse. The most common suggestion was the need for clear, transparent procedures — players should know when and why they were flagged, and ideally be offered a chance to respond, appeal, or demonstrate change. This is reflected in the responses to “Agree or Disagree” questions about transparency toward a flagged person and rehabilitation from exclusion.
70% either agree or strongly agree that it is important that flagged individuals be told about their status and the reasons for the flag(s). The question asking whether organisers should put effort towards investigating exclusionary flags was either agreed or strongly agreed to by almost 70% as well. When it comes to rehabilitation, a smaller majority (38%) agree that it is important that flagged individuals be given at least one chance at rehabilitation. 36% marked the neutral “no opinion” option for this question, the reason almost unanimously being that a right to rehabilitation heavily depends on the reasons for the exclusion. Some respondents calling for no chances at rehabilitation for anyone argued that e.g. rapists do not deserve to reenter a larp community. This implies that the only people banned earned their status by committing serious misconduct, which is demonstrably untrue given the wide variety of non-criminal conduct listed above that has earned people an exclusion or ban.
Many argued that organisers could profit from training in mediation, trauma-in-formed practice, and bias awareness, since poor handling often causes more harm than the flag itself. Of course, we have to acknowledge that the burden of expecta-tions placed on organisers here is very high, and not every organiser will want or be able to take these steps. However, it is also important to note that not every single individual larp team member is being asked to do extensive training. It is evident from the survey results that there is a need for specific individuals who are tasked with handling flagging and/or casting within the team and could consider such measures.
A few respondents proposed community-based alternatives to the organisers investi-gating or handling flagging, like trained confidants, mediators, or ombudspersons who can handle complaints privately and neutrally. Another few recommended a centralized, transparent authority or data-base – with documentation and oversight – to prevent gossip-based or arbitrary bans.
While many organisers already report diligently working on continuously improving upon their processes, the surveys suggest that these improvements have not been widely implemented on an international level. At the very least, the steps taken seem to have gone largely unnoticed by groups or communities not involved in design or safety discourse.
Overall, participants of the survey stressed that flagging must prioritize communication, education, fairness, and rehabilitation over punishment. Systems should be accompanied by clear policies, accountability mechanisms, and cultural guidance, ensuring that they serve safety and inclusion rather than fear or social control.
In the end, flagging stands as both a mirror and measure of our communities’ maturity. It reflects how we handle harm, trust, and responsibility when no perfect system exists. The data suggests that while flagging and subsequent exclusions can wound, the absence of it is not at all widely accepted as a viable solution. The challenge ahead lies not in abolishing the tool, but in refining it. Anchoring its use in transparency, compassion, and due process rather than secrecy or fear. If larp is to remain a space of trust and transformation, then flagging, too, must evolve. Not as a weapon, but as a bridge between safety and accountability.
The purpose of this article, as well as the two surveys it is based on, is to spark further conversation on the topics discussed. More thorough research could be conducted inspired by this text. Most importantly, we as larpers, organisers, designers, authors, should talk to each other and work together, not against each other, to sharpen the safety tools at our disposal. Misunderstandings and disagreements will happen, but our focus should remain on the core of the conversation: safety within and around larping. Safety for players and organisers alike. Safety for our mental health, and empathy for the mental health of those who might have been wronged by processes in need of improvement. From what the author has seen in the surveys, the path to making flagging better is already being walked by many, no matter how loud the voices from the sidelines scream at them. They are putting in the work and there is grounds for hope that this work will be successful. We just can’t stop now.
Bibliography
Brown, M. and Teerilahti, N. 2024. ‘Flagging is Flawed.’ In Liminal Encounters: Evolving Discourse in Nordic and Nordic Inspired Larp, edited by Kaisa Kangas, Jonne Arjoranta, and Ruska Kevätkoski. Helsinki, Finland: Ropecon ry.
Wood, L. and Holkar, M. 2024. ‘Flagging: A Response.’ Nordic Larp. Available from https://www.nordiclarp.org/2024/05/22/flagging-a-response/
This article is republished from the Knutpunkt 2026 book. Please cite it as:
Lade, J. D. 2026. ‘Much Ado about Flagging.’ In Seasons of Larp eds. Erlandsson, A., Svanevik, M., Holkar, M., and Brind, S. Gothenburg. Knutpunkt.
- https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JffL7rxTxN5Mw6X2f4Yupv76VnpwrtWQ/view?usp=drivesdk ↩︎
- All Agree/Disagree questions used this scale:
1 – Strongly Disagree, 2 – Disagree, 3 – Neutral / No opinion, 4 – Agree, 5 – Strongly Agree ↩︎
