Overview of Cluster’s Content Policies and

Grey Zone” Dynamics

“

Cluster is a Japanese social VR platform that lets users create and share custom avatars (VRM) and

worlds/events. Its oﬃcial policies emphasize free expression and creativity, but also ban explicit

harassment or illegal content. For example, the Terms of Service expressly forbid “content related to

ꢀ

criminal acts or contrary to public order and morality”

, and require that copyrighted audio/video be

licensed. The Content Guideline (for items sold in the Cluster store) similarly bars “Representations of

ꢁ

or suggestive of sexual acts”, nudity, excessive exposure, child porn, and extreme violence or gore

In practice, Cluster relies heavily on user self-policing: its guidelines state that if a world or avatar is

technically “within the bounds of the Terms”, the company will not proactively remove it – only if

ꢂ

other users ﬁnd it “troubling or oﬀensive” and report it will Cluster consider penalties

words, most content is allowed by default unless someone complains.

. In other

Within these broad rules, Cluster imposes few technical barriers on uploads. Users can freely upload VRM

avatars (up to 100 ﬁles) as long as they meet basic size/bone limits

. World creation via Unity or the in-

app World Craft tool is similarly open. The only explicit limitations on uploads are on ﬁle size and

complexity – for example, VRM ﬁles must meet Unity’s humanoid rig requirements and stay under

polygon/texture limits

. Cluster’s FAQ even notes that it has only “internal restrictions that

encourage common sense usage” of avatars, and that “generally, you can upload your avatar without

worrying about the restrictions.”

. This reﬂects Cluster’s trust in users to abide by the basic rules

themselves. At the same time, Cluster publishes a detailed Community Guideline f orbidding various

forms of harassment (e.g. “stalking,” “molesting an avatar,” hate speech, etc.)

and stressing

that abusive or exclusionary behavior (such as attempts to forcibly remove users without just cause) is

prohibited

. The guideline speciﬁcally warns users not to eject or block others unjustly: “Attempts to

remove certain users from worlds or events (without justiﬁcation based on indicated rules)” are listed as

harassing behavior

. Finally, Cluster’s IP rules forbid using copyrighted game or character images as

avatars without permission

events can apply via “Cluster perform,” but actual master licenses are not granted) . Taken

, and require that any music played (e.g. at events) be rights-approved

ꢀꢃ

(

together, Cluster’s oﬃcial policies allo w broad freedom for user-created VR content, while banning

ꢀ

ꢁ

clear-cut illegal or extreme material

Platform Growth and Content Openness

Cluster’s user base has grown rapidly as an event-driven VR platform. For example, a 2024 press release

touts “cumulative 35 million event attendees” on Cluster (making it “one of the largest metaverse

ꢀ

platforms in Japan”)

. Similarly, Cluster’s app has exceeded millions of downloads since launch.

This growth coincides with Cluster’s open-content model: by permitting users to upload virtually any

non-criminal VRM avatars and worlds, the platform encourages a wide variety of experiences. In practice,

many niche or fan-driven events (e.g. anime concerts, live DJ sets, educational conferences) thrive on

Cluster precisely because users can share custom avatars, worlds, and media. The platform’s “no

ꢂ

policing unless reported” stance

means content tends to be more permissive than in tightly

moderated spaces. In general, researchers note that social VR platforms which maximize user creativity

and freedom—while managing harassment—tend to attract larger, active communities. Cluster’s

ꢀꢁ

emphasis on “openness and freedom” and creativity

seems aligned with this: by reducing upfront

ﬁltering, Cluster lowers barriers for users and content creators, which likely aids its adoption.

At the same time, this permissive approach creates “grey-area” content: material that is legal but

ꢀ

perhaps “profoundly violate[s] people’s sense of decency, morality, or justice”

become salient: academic studies describe VR experiences (e.g. harassment or hateful speech in virtual

. In VR these cases

ꢀꢂ

worlds) as especially intense due to immersion . Cluster’s own policy implicitly recognizes this: it

encourages users to be sensitive to diversity and not assume all content is appropriate for public spaces

ꢀ

For example, the Community Guideline notes that a graphic or sexual avatar “can cause

discomfort, distress, or even fear,” and urges users to consider the mixed audience (including minors) in

ꢂ

public worlds

. However, as long as such content does not clearly break a rule, Cluster leaves

moderation to user reports. This mixture of broad permission plus reactive policing means “lawful but

awful” content can circulate freely until someone objects.

Community Policing and Exclusion Tactics

Given the ambiguous boundaries, some community members take it upon themselves to judge and

exclude others. Anecdotal reports from Cluster users indicate that event organizers or inﬂuential

attendees sometimes accuse others of being “illegal” or “unacceptable” based on subjective

interpretations of the rules, and then kick or shun them from events. For instance, if an avatar or world

uses unlicensed copyrighted material (like game character models or music), some hosts will loudly label

the participant’s presence as “違法 (illegal)” and bar them from the room. Similarly, users have

described seeing notices or hearing moderators say things like ꢀこのイベントは禁止です (this event is

forbidden)” or ꢀお前は出禁だ (you are banned from entry)ꢁ when they violate a site-speciﬁc rule. These

actions eﬀectively use Cluster’s vague “public order and morality” clause as a lever to exclude

individuals.

Importantly, Cluster’s oﬃcial rules disapprove of such vigilante exclusions. The Community

Guideline explicitly lists “attempts to remove certain users from worlds or events (without

justiﬁcation)” as prohibited harassment

violation of the guidelines on its own

, and it warns that even admonishing others can be a

ꢀ

. In practice, however, many worlds allow the host to kick or

mute participants, so organizers can exercise control. When combined with strong rhetoric (“illegal,”

banned”), this yields a powerful social tool. In eﬀect, some groups exploit the “grey zone” by

“

applying moral pressure rather than formal rules. We could illustrate this with a hypothetical dialogue: a

host might admonish a user, “Your avatar is not authorized – this is illegal activity! You can’t be here,”

even if the user’s actions technically fall within Cluster’s broad Terms. Such exchanges show how

community norms, not just platform policy, determine participation.

Reporting and Moderation Process

For addressing violations, Cluster provides an in-app reporting mechanism. Users can report individuals

ꢀ7

ꢀ8

or whole worlds/events by clicking the menu (triple-dot) on a proﬁle or event page

. The Help

Center describes exactly how to ﬁle a report from the Cluster app or website, but gives no detail on what

happens afterward. There is no public log or transparency portal showing which reports were acted on. In

practice, enforcement seems largely reactive: if enough users report an oﬀending avatar or world (or if

intellectual-property holders complain), Cluster staﬀ will review it. Penalties range from feature bans to

ꢀ

. In its Community Guideline Cluster notes that proven guideline

temporary account suspensions

violations can lead to temporary or permanent bans, and in severe cases the company may even pursue

legal remedies

ꢀ

However, from a user perspective the moderation process is a “black box.” Cluster does not publish

clear statistics on reports or appeals, nor does it explain decisions to the community. This opacity can

embolden users who distrust the oﬃcial process: if someone feels a reported oﬀense is not being

punished, they may take matters into their own hands by publicly shaming or exiling the violator.

Conversely, if someone believes a complaint is frivolous, they may appeal informally within the group. In

sum, reporting exists, but the platform’s actual response is neither visible nor easily understood by

ordinary users.

Community Self-Governance

Cluster’s culture emphasizes peer respect and caution in enforcement. The oﬃcial guidelines advise

users not to publicly scold others for minor infractions: “chiding other users for a violation…can be

ꢁ

ꢃ

. Instead, it urges members to discreetly point newcomers to the

considered a violation on your part”

published rules or to simply report issues to Cluster staﬀ

ꢁꢀ

. The recommended user tools are actions

ꢁ

, rather than shaming. This reﬂects an ideal of

ꢁ

like muting, blocking, or moving to a diﬀerent space

mutual support: users should “praise one another” and respect diversity

built-in safety features.

ꢁ3

, using the platform’s

In reality, however, clusters of veteran users often form tight-knit event communities (“circles”) with

their own social norms. Experienced hosts may rigorously enforce their version of the rules, sometimes

exceeding Cluster’s written policies. For example, an anime fan event’s organizers might insist on pre-

approval of all avatars and eject anyone wearing an unlicensed character model, eﬀectively policing

chat as a threat: “If you don’t leave, I’ll report you for [X] violation.” These dynamics create a

subculture where community norms govern behavior as much as platform rules do.

From a critical perspective, this self-policing culture has pros and cons. On one hand, it can help maintain

order when oﬃcial moderation is slow or unclear: vigilant users catch real problems (harassment, hate

speech) more quickly than a remote moderator could. On the other hand, it can lead to abuse of

authority: members with no formal role might expel others for petty or even imagined infractions,

turning ambiguity in the rules into social weapons. Cluster’s guidelines implicitly acknowledge this

ꢁ

ꢀ

, but the advice relies on users’ goodwill.

tension by discouraging public shaming

Summary

In summary, Cluster’s open platform—allowing users to upload custom VRM avatars and worlds with

few upfront checks—naturally creates a “grey zone” where content sits between oﬃcial permissibility

ꢀ

and community standards. Oﬃcially, only clearly illegal or extremely oﬀensive material is banned

ꢁ

;

everything else is largely left to user judgment. The platform’s growth suggests that this freedom

attracts many creators and participants, but it also shifts moderation burden onto the community. Some

users or event hosts exploit the vagueness of the rules to label others as “違法” (illegal) or “禁

止” (forbidden) as a means of exclusion, even when Cluster’s own rules would not automatically

ꢁꢃ

ꢀ7

mandate such punishment

. Cluster provides reporting tools to address disputes , but with

little transparency on outcomes. Thus the safety and culture of Cluster’s virtual spaces depend heavily

on how community members choose to enforce norms. As one review notes, VR platforms must balance

ꢀ

freedom of expression with immersive safety

common sense” and by encouraging them to moderate each other via the reporting system

– a challenge Cluster navigates by trusting its users’

ꢂ

“

Sources: Cluster’s oﬃcial document ation (Terms of Service, Content/Community Guidelines) provides

. Cluster’s own announcements report user/adoption statistics

the above policy details