# Public Moderation Guidelines

This document serves both Moderators and Community Members to ensure everyone understands the rules, processes, and standards that guide moderation in Agartha.

# Introduction: Purpose of This Document

Welcome to the Agartha Moderation Team Guidelines & Procedures.

By making these guidelines public, we promote trust, accountability, and mutual understanding between the moderation team and the Agartha community.

Please read through this document whether you're a mod or a member to align with the same expectations.

---

# 1. Moderator Roles & Responsibilities

# Head of Moderation (O5-1)

• Oversees moderation activities.
• Handles recruitment and onboarding.
• Updates moderation policies.
• Resolves internal issues.
• Current Head: gritsts.

# Senior Moderators

• Log and document actions.
• Mentor new and probationary moderators.
• Use advanced moderation tools.
• Act as bridge between Moderators and the Head.

# Moderators

• Enforce rules and take action.
• Monitor interactions.
• Assist users and resolve disputes.
• Use essential tools effectively.

# Probationary Moderators

• New recruits in 1-month probation.
• Limited tool access.
• Supervised by Seniors.
• Evaluated for promotion.

---

# 2. Step-by-Step Procedures

# 2.1 Handling User Reports

1. Acknowledge Report in mod channels:

   • As soon as a report is received, acknowledge it by tagging the moderator team in the appropriate channel.

   • Provide a brief summary of the report for transparency. Example:

     "Report received: User X potentially violating Rule 4 (spamming)."

2. Review Evidence:

   • Thoroughly examine all evidence provided with the report, including screenshots, chat logs, or any other media submitted by the reporter.

   • Look for patterns or context that could help determine whether the incident is isolated or part of repeated behavior.

3. Match to Rules:

   • Compare the reported behavior with the specific rules outlined in the moderation guidelines. Determine if the actions are a clear violation or if the situation is ambiguous.

   • If necessary, discuss with other mods for a second opinion if the violation isn't clear-cut.

4. Check User History:

   • Check the user's history of past reports, punishments, and interactions. Take note of any prior rule violations that could influence your decision.

   • A history of repeated behavior can indicate a need for harsher penalties, while first-time offenses might warrant leniency.

5. Determine Action:

   • Based on the severity of the violation, the user’s history, and the evidence gathered, decide on an appropriate action.

     • Warning: For minor infractions or first-time violations.

     • Temporary Mute: For non-harassment behavior that disrupts conversations.

     • Ban: For severe violations, repeat offenders, or harmful actions (e.g., harassment, hate speech).

   • Always ensure that the action aligns with the guidelines, but also consider moderator discretion.

6. Log Action:

   • Record the decision in the appropriate moderation log or tracking system. This is crucial for transparency and for reference in case of future incidents.

   • Include details like the user’s name, the violation, the action taken, and any other relevant information.

7. Communicate Outcome (if appropriate):

   • If the situation allows, inform the reporter and the reported user of the outcome.

   • For the reporter, explain the outcome and the reasoning behind the decision (if they are eligible to know).

   • For the user, a direct message can be sent explaining the violation and the action taken. Ensure the tone is firm but respectful, even when delivering penalties.

---

# 2.2 Handling Rule Violations

1. Identify Violation:

   • Carefully review the situation to identify the specific rule being violated. Look at the context of the violation—did the user intend to break the rule, or was it an accident?

   • For ambiguous cases, seek input from other moderators or consult the Head of Moderation for clarification.

2. Gather Evidence:

   • Collect all available evidence to support your decision. This may include chat logs, screenshots, user behavior history, and any other data relevant to the situation.

   • Make sure the evidence is clear and easily interpretable, and ensure there is no bias in the collection process.

3. Apply Action:

   • Based on the severity and nature of the violation, apply an appropriate action. Actions may include:

     • Mute: For non-harassment offenses that disrupt discussions.
     • Warning: For first-time or minor infractions.
     • Temporary Suspension: For serious violations, particularly repeat offenses.
     • Permanent Ban: For severe or continuous offenses, or harmful behavior.

   • Always apply moderator discretion, adjusting actions based on the specific context of the violation.

4. Use Discretion:

   • Moderators have the ability to adjust punishments based on several factors, such as:
     • Previous Violations: Repeat offenders often warrant stricter punishment.
     • Severity of Violation: More serious violations (e.g., harassment, hate speech) may call for harsher actions.
     • User's Intent: If the violation was accidental, apply a milder punishment.
     • User Behavior During the Incident: Was the user cooperative? Were they apologetic? This can influence the final decision.

5. Document Action:

   • After taking action, document the incident in the moderation log. This includes:

     • User’s name and behavior.
     • Evidence collected.
     • Final action taken and reasoning.

   • Documentation ensures consistency and helps build a case if the incident needs to be reviewed in the future.

6. Follow-Up:

   • If the user has received a temporary mute or suspension, follow up after the penalty period has passed to monitor for any repeat violations.

   • If the user’s behavior has not improved, consider escalating the punishment or imposing a permanent ban.

---

# 2.3 Issuing Bans

1. Verify Offense:

   • Double-check the reported incident to ensure the violation justifies a ban. Confirm that the offense falls under the category that requires a permanent ban, such as harassment, hate speech, or other extreme behaviors.

   • Ensure there’s enough evidence to support the decision. A ban should not be based on ambiguous or incomplete evidence.

2. Consult Senior/Head (for permanent bans):

   • Before applying a permanent ban, consult with a Senior Moderator or the Head of Moderation.
     • Discuss the severity of the violation and the context surrounding it.
     • If the situation involves multiple moderators or a gray area, it is best to involve higher-ups in the decision-making process.

3. Apply Ban:

   • If the offense clearly justifies a permanent ban, take immediate action by issuing the ban.

   • If a temporary ban is appropriate, set the duration based on the violation's severity (e.g., a 1-day, 7-day, or 30-day ban).

   • If the platform allows, consider adding a reason for the ban so that it’s clear to the user and others why it was applied.

4. Log Action:

   • Record all details about the ban in the moderation log. This should include:

     • User’s information.
     • Evidence of the violation.
     • The ban duration (if temporary).
     • The reasoning for the ban and any relevant context.

   • This helps maintain transparency and ensures that the action can be reviewed later if needed.

5. Monitor Evasion:

   • After issuing a ban, stay vigilant for any ban evasion attempts, such as the user creating a new account to circumvent the ban.

   • Use platform tools to monitor new user sign-ups and track IP addresses, if necessary, to identify evasion.

   • If a user is found to be evading their ban, take immediate action, including banning the new account and applying harsher penalties if applicable.

---

# 3. Communication Protocols

# 3.1 Internal Mod Communication

• Use Official Mod Channels Only
  All moderation discussions, reports, and decisions must happen in the designated private moderation channels. Never handle moderation cases in public channels or DMs.

• Follow Chain of Command
  Escalate issues in order:

  • Probationary Mods → Moderators → Senior Mods
  • Senior Mods → Head of Moderation This ensures issues are handled at the right level and maintains team structure.
  • Issues related to Moderation Management should be forwarded directly to an acting Senior Moderator

• Log All Actions
  Every action (warnings, mutes, bans, major interventions) must be documented in the logs channel. Include:

  • Username and ID
  • Violation details
  • Action taken
  • Timestamp
    Proper logs protect both moderators and the community in case of future disputes.

• Escalate Major Issues Immediately
  Serious cases (e.g., harassment, doxxing, threats, or mass evasion) must be brought to the attention of Senior Mods or the Head right away. Do not handle major cases alone.

• Maintain Professional Tone
  Keep communication clear, concise, and respectful among the team. Avoid gossip, sarcasm, or emotional reactions in moderation discussions.

• Check Team Announcements Regularly
  Stay up to date with rule updates, policy changes, and important notices shared by Senior Mods or the Head.

---

# 3.2 Confidentiality

Do Not Share:

• Case details, reports, or logs with anyone outside the mod team.
• Moderation selection criteria or recruitment processes.
• Ongoing investigations or internal disciplinary actions.

# Protect User Privacy

• All user reports may include sensitive details (e.g., harassment, threats, personal info).
• Moderators must keep this information strictly confidential.
• Only discuss reports and cases within approved, private mod channels.

# No Leaks

• Sharing internal moderation info publicly, even casually or indirectly, is a serious violation.
• This includes joking about bans, hinting at future actions, or leaking internal team chats.
• Any confirmed leak may result in removal from the mod team and possible community penalties.

# Handle with Care

• Avoid discussing active or recent cases even with friends, server partners, or other staff outside Agartha moderation.
• Always assume that sensitive moderation discussions must stay within the team unless the Head of Moderation approves sharing.

# Recusal for Conflicts

• If you are personally involved, too emotionally affected, or socially connected to a user in a case:
  • Recuse yourself (step back) and notify the team.
  • A neutral mod will be assigned to handle the case.
  • This protects both the fairness of the process and your own position as a moderator.

---

---

# 4. Best Practices (Dos & Don’ts)

# 4.1 Dos

• Be Fair but Firm
  Always approach situations with neutrality and fairness. Apply rules consistently without favoritism, but do not hesitate to take firm action when necessary.

• Use Discretion Wisely
  Every situation has context. Use your judgment to consider the intent, severity, and history before deciding on a punishment. Strive for balanced actions that fit both the rules and the spirit of fairness.

• Document Everything
  Every moderation action—warnings, mutes, bans—must be logged properly. This ensures transparency within the team and protects both moderators and the community in case of future disputes.

• Mentor and Learn
  Senior Mods should actively mentor new and probationary mods. All moderators should also seek feedback and stay open to learning new approaches to improve their moderation skills.

• Enforce Loophole Policies
  Always crack down on loophole abuse. If users try to exploit technicalities or ambiguities in the rules, escalate penalties in line with the Loophole Policy. Prevent rule evasion before it spreads.

• Maintain Professional Tone
  Keep your communications with users professional, even when addressing rule violations. Avoid sarcasm or hostile remarks that may escalate tensions.

• Escalate When Needed
  If a case is complex or involves severe infractions, escalate to a Senior Moderator or the Head of Moderation. Never hesitate to ask for a second opinion.

---

# 4.2 Don’ts

• Don’t Ignore Reports
  Every user report must be reviewed. Failing to address reports undermines community trust and allows rulebreakers to go unchecked.

• Don’t Discuss Internal Matters Publicly
  Moderation cases, team discussions, and internal processes must remain confidential. Leaking this information is a breach of mod duties.

• Don’t Apply Bias
  Personal feelings, friendships, or grudges should never influence moderation decisions. Mods must recuse themselves from cases where they cannot be impartial (see Conflict of Interest policy).

• Don’t Overlook Loopholes
  Allowing users to exploit gray areas weakens rule enforcement. Clamp down on technical or semantic rule evasion decisively.

• Don’t Misuse Tools
  Moderation powers are for enforcing rules—never for personal gain, jokes, or punishing users without cause. Misuse of tools may result in removal from the mod team.

• Don’t Delay Urgent Cases
  Safety-related reports (harassment, threats, doxxing) must be prioritized and acted upon immediately. Delaying action in critical cases puts the community at risk.

• Don’t Skip Logging Actions
  Failing to log warnings, bans, or major interventions creates gaps in records, leading to confusion and undermining accountability.

---

# 5. Policies for Special Cases

# 5.1 Loophole Policy

Rules cannot cover every possible scenario, but exploiting gaps or technicalities is strictly prohibited.

• Deliberate Loophole Abuse
  Any attempt to find and exploit rule gaps will result in harsher punishments than the violation itself.

• Examples of Loophole Abuse:

  • Circumventing chat filters or restrictions to avoid penalties.
  • Using vague wording or jokes to excuse offensive behavior.
  • Encouraging others to bend rules without explicitly breaking them.

• Moderator Guidance:

  • Treat loophole abuse as an act of bad faith.
  • Escalate penalties beyond the standard for the base rule.
  • Log it clearly as a "Loophole Violation" for future reference.

---

# 5.2 Moderator Discretion Policy

Moderators are trusted with discretion, meaning they can adjust punishments based on context. Use this power carefully and fairly.

# Factors to Consider:

• Repeat Offenses
  A user with prior violations may receive harsher penalties, even for minor infractions.

• Severity of Violation
  More extreme or harmful actions (e.g., targeted harassment) should escalate punishment severity.

• Context of Situation

  • Was the violation accidental or deliberate?
  • Did the user show remorse or hostility?
  • Did the violation impact many people?

# Examples:

• A first-time spammer → standard mute.
• A repeat spammer with prior offenses → longer mute or temp ban.
• An offensive joke with malicious intent → escalated action.

# Moderator Responsibilities:

• Always log the reasoning behind discretion-based decisions.
• Be consistent, discretion doesn’t mean arbitrary.
• Consult Senior Mods for borderline or severe cases.

Tip: Discretion exists to make moderation adaptable, but fairness and consistency must always come first.

---

# 6. Moderation Team Intake

# 6.1 Interest Form

1. Always Open:

   • The Moderation Team Interest Form is continuously open, allowing anyone interested in applying to become a moderator to submit their application at any time. However, it’s important to note that submission of the form does not guarantee selection.
   • This openness allows for a steady stream of potential candidates, ensuring that the team can expand or replace members as needed without a formal, limited application window.

2. 1-Month Cooldown:

   • After submitting an application, there is a 1-month cooldown period before applicants can submit a new form if they are not selected or if they wish to reapply.
     • This cooldown is to prevent users from submitting multiple applications in a short period, which could overwhelm the review process or flood the team with unqualified applicants.
     • The cooldown also ensures applicants take time to reflect on any feedback from previous attempts or learn from their inactivity.

3. No Guarantee of Selection:

   • Submission does not guarantee entry into the moderation team.
     • Even after submitting the form, potential candidates will undergo an assessment process. This means not all who apply will be selected, even if they meet basic eligibility criteria.
     • The selection process is rigorous and takes into account factors such as prior behavior, community involvement, and a demonstrated understanding of the rules.

4. Form Review and Tracking:

   • There is no automatic tracking system or confirmation once the form is submitted. However, all submissions will be manually reviewed periodically.

Important Reminder
Ensure that the information provided on the form is accurate and truthful. Submitting false information may result in disqualification from the process.

---

# 6.2 Selection Stages

The selection of new moderators is a multi-stage process that involves a thorough evaluation of candidates. The process is designed to ensure that only the most qualified individuals are selected.

# 1. Handpick Candidates:

• Potential candidates are selected by the current moderation team through a handpicking method.
• Candidates are identified based on submitted interest forms, their community involvement, and prior interactions in the server or platform.
• The handpicking process focuses on selecting individuals who have demonstrated positive behavior, a clear understanding of the server rules, and a willingness to contribute to maintaining the community’s health.
  • Candidates may also be selected for their experience or specific skill sets, such as conflict resolution, communication, or technical know-how.
• Cultural fit is also an important factor in the handpicking process, ensuring that the candidate aligns with the moderation team’s values and principles.

# 2. Interview Process:

• Once a candidate is handpicked, they will be invited to undergo an interview. This process serves to assess the candidate’s:
  • Knowledge of the Rules: An understanding of community guidelines and how they should be applied to various scenarios.
  • Judgment and Decision-Making: The candidate’s ability to make fair, unbiased, and logical decisions when handling moderation issues.
  • Behavior and Temperament: Whether the candidate maintains a calm and neutral attitude under pressure, especially when handling difficult situations or conflicts.
  • Communication Skills: The ability to clearly and respectfully communicate with both the team and the community, especially when enforcing rules or delivering penalties.
• The interview can take the form of:
  • A chat interview where moderators ask situational questions.
  • A test moderation scenario to evaluate how the candidate would handle hypothetical situations (e.g., dealing with a disruptive user or a sensitive issue).
• Interview Evaluation: After the interview, the moderation team will evaluate the candidate’s responses and performance. A successful interview means the candidate progresses to the next stage, while an unsuccessful interview may result in a rejection or a need for further training.

# 3. 1-Month Probation:

• Candidates who pass the interview process will enter a probationary period, typically lasting one month.
• During this probationary period, the candidate is considered a Probationary Moderator. They will:
  • Have limited access to moderation tools: This restriction ensures that they can observe and learn the moderation process before taking on full responsibilities.
  • Be closely supervised: Senior Moderators will mentor and guide them, reviewing their actions and offering constructive feedback.
  • Undergo performance evaluation: Senior Moderators will assess the candidate’s decision-making, communication skills, and overall suitability for a full moderator role.
  • Complete tasks: The candidate will be expected to complete various tasks such as handling user reports, monitoring the community, and responding to questions from users, though always under supervision and with guidance.
• At the end of the probationary period, the Senior Moderators will evaluate the candidate’s performance.
  • If the candidate meets expectations, they will be promoted to a full Moderator position and given access to all moderation tools and responsibilities.
  • If the candidate does not meet expectations, they may either be placed on another probationary period or removed from the moderation team.

---

# 6.3 Confidentiality

1. Selection Process Details are Classified:

   • The details of the selection criteria, as well as the interview evaluation, are confidential and will not be shared with applicants or the community at large.
   • This confidentiality is maintained to ensure fairness and to prevent candidates from tailoring their applications or interview responses based on knowledge of the specific criteria.
   • Transparency: While the selection process remains confidential, the moderation team will ensure that all applicants are treated fairly and consistently. They will be given feedback where possible, though not all feedback may be disclosed.

2. Confidentiality of Candidate Information:

   • All information submitted by candidates in the interest form will be handled with care and will only be used for evaluation purposes.
   • The privacy of all applicants will be respected, and sensitive information such as personal contact details will not be shared publicly or misused.

3. Ethical Considerations:

   • The moderation team must maintain a high standard of ethical behavior throughout the recruitment process. All candidates will be judged solely on their merits and qualifications without bias, prejudice, or favoritism.
   • Confidentiality should extend to all aspects of the moderation process, including discussions, evaluations, and decisions made during the selection stages.

Reminder
All applicants should know that their personal information and responses will be handled respectfully and in accordance with our confidentiality policy. The process is designed to ensure that only the most suitable candidates are selected for the role.

---

Summary of Moderation Team Intake Process:

• Interest Form submission is open at all times, but there’s a 1-month cooldown for resubmissions.
• The handpicking process is used to identify candidates, followed by an interview to assess qualifications and judgment.
• Successful candidates enter a 1-month probation period, where they are supervised and evaluated for promotion.
• All details about the selection process and candidate evaluations are confidential, ensuring fairness and integrity in recruitment.

---

# 7. Standard Procedures

# 7.1 Appeals Process

The Appeals Process ensures that moderators' decisions are fair, transparent, and open to review. Community members who feel that a moderation decision was unjust can submit an appeal. This process is meant to provide an avenue for review, ensuring that all actions taken align with community guidelines and that no member feels unjustly penalized.

# 1. User Submits Appeal:

• Appeal Submission: If a user disagrees with a moderation decision (such as a ban, mute, or warning), they may submit an appeal. Appeals should be submitted through the designated appeals channel, form, or email address as outlined in the community guidelines.
• Timeliness: The appeal should be submitted within a specified period after the moderation action (e.g., 48 hours) to ensure that the case is still relevant and can be reviewed in the proper context.

# 2. Senior Moderator Acknowledges Appeal:

• Initial Review: A Senior Moderator will acknowledge receipt of the appeal and confirm that it will be reviewed within a set timeframe. They will ensure that the appeal process is clearly explained to the user, including the next steps.
• Clarification Requests: If the Senior Moderator needs more information to review the appeal, they may contact the user to clarify the reasons for their appeal or to gather more context regarding the incident.

# 3. Gather Case Details:

• Review of Original Decision: The Senior Moderator reviews the details of the initial moderation action, including evidence, logs, and the reasoning behind the decision.
• User Input: The Senior Moderator should also take the user's perspective into account, examining the reasons provided in the appeal and any additional context the user offers.
• Consultation with Other Moderators: If necessary, the Senior Moderator may consult with the original moderator or other team members involved to get further clarity on the case.

# 4. Reviewed by 2+ Senior Moderators:

• Peer Review: To ensure fairness, the appeal case should be reviewed by at least two Senior Moderators. This peer review process helps to prevent bias and ensures that all perspectives are considered.
• Deliberation: The Senior Moderators will deliberate on the situation, taking into account the original decision, the appeal, the community’s best interests, and whether the moderation action was consistent with the rules.

# 5. Decision Made (Escalate if Needed):

• Outcome: Based on the review, the Senior Moderators will make a final decision on the appeal. They can either:
  • Uphold the original decision: If they believe the action was correct.
  • Reverse the decision: If they believe the moderation action was unfair or made in error.
• Escalation: In rare cases, if the appeal is complex or the decision is highly contentious, the matter may be escalated to the Head of Moderation for a final review.

# 6. Communicate Outcome:

• User Notification: Once a decision is made, the outcome is communicated to the user who filed the appeal. The communication should include a clear explanation of the reasoning behind the decision.
• Transparency: It's important to be transparent in the explanation, providing both the original moderation team's reasoning and any relevant points from the appeal review. If the appeal is rejected, users should be informed of any available next steps, such as further appeals or clarifications.
• Externally Applied Bans: If a ban was applied by a member of a department with permission to do so and the ban is deemed to be invalid/false, the appeals moderator holds the responsibility of contacting a proper command body to report the issue.
• Event Bans: Event bans may not be appealed.

# 7. Log Appeal:

• Record-Keeping: The entire appeals process should be logged, including the appeal submission, all communications, the review process, and the final outcome. This log helps maintain transparency, accountability, and serves as a reference for future cases.
• Review for Patterns: The team may periodically review appeal logs to identify patterns in certain decisions or areas where the moderation process may need to be adjusted. This can improve the consistency and fairness of future actions.

Note: The Appeals Process is designed to ensure fairness and transparency. It allows users to voice concerns about moderation decisions, ensuring that the team is held accountable while also protecting the integrity of the community rules.

---

# 7.2 Activity Expectations

Moderators must maintain an active presence in the community to ensure proper moderation. The effectiveness of the moderation team depends on consistent engagement, communication, and prompt response to issues. This section outlines the activity expectations for all moderators, from regular participation to handling periods of inactivity.

# 1. Weekly Moderation Activity:

• Minimum Commitment: Moderators are expected to participate in community activities on a weekly basis. While the specific time commitment may vary, this ensures that there is always sufficient coverage in the community and that issues are dealt with promptly.
• Active Involvement: Moderators should not just be logging in but actively engaging with the community. This includes:
  • Monitoring user activity for potential rule violations.
  • Responding to user reports and taking appropriate action.
  • Engaging in community discussions to maintain order and address any emerging concerns.

# 2. Weekly Check-Ins:

• Team Communication: To ensure smooth coordination and proper follow-up on ongoing issues, all moderators should participate in weekly check-ins with the rest of the moderation team. These check-ins could be through an internal chat, dedicated meetings, or another form of communication agreed upon by the team.
• Status Updates: During the check-in, moderators should provide updates on their activity, any major issues they've handled, and any challenges they are facing. This allows the team to stay aligned and support each other.
• Issue Reporting: Moderators should also use the check-ins to report any ongoing concerns, such as problematic users or technical issues with moderation tools.

# 3. Notify for Inactivity:

• Pre-emptive Communication: If a moderator knows that they will not be able to meet the activity expectations for a particular week, they must notify the team in advance. This allows for proper planning to ensure that other moderators can step in and maintain community order.
• Emergencies: If an unexpected situation arises that prevents a moderator from being active, they should notify the team as soon as possible. While emergencies happen, prompt communication ensures the team can manage the situation effectively.

# 4. Penalties for Extended Inactivity:

• Short-Term Inactivity: Occasional lapses in activity are understandable, but they should be communicated. If a moderator is inactive for a short period (e.g., a few days), this typically does not result in any formal penalties.
• Extended Inactivity: If a moderator is inactive for an extended period (e.g., a full month) without any prior notice or explanation, this could lead to further action:
  • Probationary Status: The moderator may be placed on a probationary status until they prove they can maintain their regular activity.
  • Removal from Team: If inactivity persists beyond a reasonable period, the moderator may be removed from the team to ensure that other team members can maintain their duties.
  • Reapplication: In some cases, a moderator who has been removed due to inactivity may be allowed to reapply once they can commit to regular participation.

# 7.3 Conflict of Interest

A conflict of interest arises when a moderator’s personal relationships, interests, or circumstances could potentially influence their decisions or actions in a way that is unfair or biased. It is crucial that all moderators act impartially, without letting personal biases interfere with their judgment or the integrity of the moderation process.

# 1. Definition of Conflict of Interest:

• A conflict of interest occurs when a moderator’s ability to make unbiased decisions is compromised due to:
  • Personal connections: If a moderator has a close personal relationship with the user involved in a moderation case (e.g., close friends, family members, or significant others).
  • Pre-existing biases: If a moderator has strong personal opinions or past experiences that could unfairly affect their judgment of a user or issue (e.g., dislike or favoritism toward a particular user or group).
  • Personal interests: If a moderator stands to gain something personally from the outcome of a case, such as a promotion, power, or a financial interest.

A conflict of interest undermines the integrity of the moderation process and could lead to unfair treatment of community members or bias in moderation actions.

# 2. Responsibilities of Moderators to Avoid Conflicts:

• Self-Assessment: Every moderator must regularly self-assess their involvement and relationships within the community. If there is any concern or doubt about a potential conflict of interest, they should take appropriate action to ensure impartiality.
• Transparency: Moderators should be open and transparent about any potential conflicts that might arise in a situation. It is essential to acknowledge any bias upfront rather than allow it to influence decisions behind the scenes.

Examples of Conflicts of Interest:

• A moderator who is involved in a dispute with a community member is asked to moderate their case.
• A moderator is asked to moderate a situation involving a close friend or someone they have collaborated with on other projects.
• A moderator has a financial stake in a related business or platform and may benefit from decisions that favor certain users.

# 3. Steps to Resolve Conflict of Interest:

If a moderator identifies or is made aware of a potential conflict of interest, they must follow these steps:

1. Notify the Moderation Team:

   • The moderator should immediately notify the moderation team of the potential conflict. This could be done in a private, confidential mod channel or through direct communication with a senior moderator or the head of moderation.
   • Documentation of the conflict and the decision to recuse oneself should be logged for transparency and accountability.

2. Recuse Yourself from Involved Cases:

   • The moderator should remove themselves from any decision-making or moderation regarding the specific case or issue where the conflict exists.
   • This includes refraining from reviewing evidence, making any judgments, or enforcing punishments related to the case.

3. Assign a Neutral Moderator:

   • In cases where a conflict of interest is present, a neutral moderator (someone not connected to the case or the individuals involved) should be assigned to take over the moderation task.
   • Senior Moderators or the Head of Moderation should make these assignments, ensuring that the situation is handled by someone impartial and capable of fair judgment.

4. Escalation if Necessary:

   • In the case where a conflict of interest is suspected but not immediately clear, the issue should be escalated to a Senior Moderator or the Head of Moderation for a second opinion.
   • If necessary, an external party or mediator may be brought in to ensure the conflict is resolved in an ethical manner.

5. Continuous Monitoring:

   • Even after a case has been reassigned, moderators should ensure that the handling of the case continues to follow the established procedures.
   • Documentation of the conflict and the steps taken to resolve it should be kept for future reference, and the situation should be reviewed periodically to prevent further conflicts.

Reminder
Moderators must be vigilant in recognizing conflicts of interest not only in their own actions but also in the actions of their fellow moderators. Peer oversight helps maintain the integrity of the moderation process.

# 4. Examples of When to Recuse Yourself:

Below are specific scenarios where a moderator should step aside and recuse themselves from a case:

• Personal Relationships: If a moderator is personally friends with, or has a business relationship with, a user involved in a moderation case (e.g., a moderator and the user are both in a similar online or offline group, or they have known each other for many years).
• Conflicting Opinions or History: If a moderator has a history with a user that could affect their objectivity (e.g., personal disputes, unresolved conflicts, or bias formed from past interactions).
• Self-Interest: If a moderator would personally benefit from the outcome of a decision (e.g., gaining access to specific rewards, promotions, or affiliations based on the decision).
• Involvement in the Case: If the moderator is directly involved in the situation in question, such as being the subject of a user report or dispute.

In these cases, stepping aside is essential to maintain the integrity and fairness of the moderation process.

# 5. Why It Matters:

A conflict of interest undermines the community’s trust in the moderation system. If users believe that moderation decisions are influenced by personal bias or connections, it can lead to:

• Community distrust: Users may feel that the rules are not applied fairly or consistently, which could lead to dissatisfaction, disengagement, or hostility.
• Inconsistent enforcement: Favoritism or bias in decision-making may lead to inconsistent punishments, which could confuse users about the severity of certain violations or create resentment.
• Internal issues: If conflicts are not properly addressed, it can lead to internal conflicts within the moderation team, resulting in low morale or misunderstandings.

By adhering to conflict-of-interest policies, moderators help ensure that all users are treated equally and that decisions are based on rules, not relationships or biases.

# 6. Moderation Team Oversight:

Senior Moderators or the Head of Moderation should periodically review how conflict-of-interest cases are handled to ensure the process remains fair. They should also conduct training and discussions to ensure all moderators understand the importance of maintaining impartiality and how to handle potential conflicts when they arise.

---

Summary of Conflict of Interest Handling:

• Moderators must avoid situations where personal biases or relationships could affect their decision-making.
• If a conflict of interest arises, moderators must recuse themselves from the case and notify the team.
• The case should be reassigned to an unbiased moderator to ensure fair treatment.
• Maintaining transparency and accountability is key to preserving the community’s trust in the moderation system.

---

# 7.4 Ban Evasion Handling

Ban evasion occurs when a user who has been banned attempts to bypass their punishment by creating new accounts, using VPNs, or other methods. This behavior undermines the enforcement of moderation rules and creates a disruptive experience for other users.

# 1. Identifying Ban Evasion:

• Behavioral Patterns: If a banned user reappears and exhibits the same disruptive behavior or engages in similar rule-breaking activities, it may indicate ban evasion.
• Account Analysis: A moderator can check account creation dates, usernames, or other identifiers to verify if the user is attempting to circumvent a ban. Moderators should build profiles on problematic community members to detect behavior patterns.
• Reports from Other Users: Sometimes, other users may report suspected evasion, especially if the user behaves in a way that mirrors previous actions.

# 2. Steps for Handling Ban Evasion:

1. Verify the Evasion:

   • Before taking any action, confirm that the new account or behavior is indeed a case of ban evasion. Gather evidence to support this claim (e.g., similar patterns of behavior or identifiable details).

2. Ban the New Account:

   • Once confirmed, the moderator should ban the new account associated with the evading user.

3. Log the Evasion:

   • Document the ban evasion in the moderation logs, detailing the new account and why it was banned.

4. Inform Senior Moderators/Head:

   • Notify a Senior Moderator or the Head of Moderation about the evasion to ensure it is handled appropriately. This may include reviewing past bans and confirming if harsher penalties are warranted.

5. Apply Harsher Penalties if Needed:

   • Escalate the Ban: Depending on the severity of the evasion or the user’s behavior, a more severe punishment may be applied, such as a longer ban or a permanent ban on all future accounts.

# 3. Ongoing Monitoring:

• Keep an eye on the situation to ensure that no further evasion occurs. This may include monitoring the community for new suspicious accounts and reviewing cases where evasion is suspected.

# 4. Preventative Measures:

• Ban Notifications: Ensure users are clearly notified about the consequences of ban evasion and the seriousness of the offense.

Note: Ban evasion can be a serious issue in maintaining community integrity. It is important to handle these cases with caution, but decisively, to deter future evasion attempts.

---

Summary:
Ban evasion is handled by verifying the evasion, banning the new account, documenting the issue, and escalating if necessary. Continuous monitoring and preventative measures help ensure that ban evasion does not undermine moderation efforts.

---