An unofficial website called Intlist.org targeting Marvel Rivals has surfaced with a controversial bounty board system. The site lets players publicly list accounts they claim are throwing or griefing matches. Users can attach monetary bounties to these accusations and incentivize others to queue into matches with the targeted player and disrupt their games.
The stated purpose is punishing bad actors through vigilante enforcement. A player accused of intentionally losing or ruining matches gets added to the list. Someone else then attempts to match with them and throw their games in return. If successful, they claim the bounty payment.
The system has drawn immediate criticism for creating more problems than it solves. To claim a bounty, players must grief matches themselves. This ruins the experience for innocent teammates caught in the crossfire. The site essentially pays people to do exactly what it claims to prevent.
False accusations are another major concern. The website appears to have no verification system for determining whether someone actually threw a match or just played poorly. Players could weaponize the bounty system for personal vendettas or target anyone who had a bad game. One person’s throw is another person’s learning curve.
The bounty mechanism also creates a feedback loop. Players who throw matches to complete bounties become targets themselves. The cycle continues with each round of retaliation adding more names to the list.
> Lose with a griefer
— Knuten (@KnutenMR) February 23, 2026
> Queue again
> Lose with someone griefing the griefer
Get this shit outta here
Marvel Rivals players have expressed frustration with what they see as inadequate official moderation. Multiple community members claim the game has frequent AFKers and throwers who face minimal consequences. Some say disruptive players receive only short matchmaking cooldowns rather than meaningful bans. This perceived enforcement gap appears to have fueled demand for player-run solutions.
Team-based hero shooters like Marvel Rivals are particularly vulnerable to intentional sabotage. A single player refusing to participate or feeding kills to opponents can swing match outcomes. This makes disruptive behavior especially frustrating and amplifies blame dynamics within teams.
The challenge is that intent is hard to prove. Automated systems struggle to separate genuinely bad play from deliberate sabotage. Someone experimenting with a new hero looks similar to someone intentionally feeding. This ambiguity makes community-driven punishment systems risky.
Fighting fire with gasoline
Users have also raised concerns about the site’s data handling practices. Some claim the opt-out process is confusing or deceptive. Others note the site appears to be quickly built and question its security and trustworthiness.
The website monetizes what amounts to coordinated harassment. Many game publishers prohibit targeted behavior in their Terms of Service even when aimed at alleged rule breakers. Payment processors also typically restrict services tied to harassment campaigns. If the site processes actual transactions for bounties, it may face challenges from these platforms.
