That's not what the article says at all. It says that 25% of the staff fired in the year prior to the experiment would have been given the "toxic" label had they been subject to the experiment rather than fired for whatever reason. Most of the employees labeled "toxic" were, as you might expect, younger and junior, with less experience in "the working world". The article suggests nothing about some huge portion of Riot's "OG" staff being fired by this policy.
> Riot looked at the preceding 12 months of gameplay of every employee and discovered there was a correlation between in-game and in-Riot toxicity. They determined that 25% of employees who had been let go in the previous year were players with unusually high in-game toxicity
Note that the article you cite also reports Riot as being one of the best places to work (according to Fortune) and indeed explicitly makes the claim that it is not a toxic environment.
It sounds more like the wanted to reduce the turn-over of their hiring process by pre-screening candidates for behavior, rather than dealing with a systemic problem in their organization.
It could be that the results of the re:work article were glossing over unaddressed toxic behavior (i.e. crude language) but it could also be that they were targeting different kinds of toxic behavior.
Now, I wouldn't use the kind of language described by the OP, nor do I think I would feel especially comfortable working in an environment that did. However, I can conceive of other kinds of behavior (with regard to playing the game) that they might have been looking for, including:
* being a "lone wolf" and generally not cooperating with teammates
* persistently blaming others for one's own failings
* taking undue credit for successes
* rage quiting, or otherwise being a sore loser
* trolling others rather than actually playing the game
That's not what the article says at all. It says that 25% of the staff fired in the year prior to the experiment would have been given the "toxic" label had they been subject to the experiment rather than fired for whatever reason. Most of the employees labeled "toxic" were, as you might expect, younger and junior, with less experience in "the working world". The article suggests nothing about some huge portion of Riot's "OG" staff being fired by this policy.
> Riot looked at the preceding 12 months of gameplay of every employee and discovered there was a correlation between in-game and in-Riot toxicity. They determined that 25% of employees who had been let go in the previous year were players with unusually high in-game toxicity