The moderation team operates with full discretion to keep the community safe and orderly. Every action is logged and subject to internal review. Impact determines severity — jokes and accidents are judged by their impact, not claimed intent.

Principles

Every moderation action is logged and reviewable by senior staff.
Impact determines severity — behaviour is judged by its impact, not claimed intent.
Active (unexpired) warnings compound severity; expired warnings are logged but do not count toward escalation.
Loophole attempts escalate the applicable penalty.
Staff may act on any harmful or disruptive behaviour even if not explicitly listed.

Evidence standards

All actions must be documented with clear reasoning in the case note.
Screenshots, message links, or user IDs are required for external-platform reports.
Automated moderation flags are for review only — they do not result in punishment without staff confirmation.
Appeal evidence must be verifiable.

Staff conduct

Staff who misuse moderation tools are subject to internal disciplinary review.
No staff member is above the rules.
When in doubt, escalate — do not guess on serious cases.
Preemptive actions are permitted to protect the community and are reviewable via appeal only.

Practical guide

Moderation combines published standards, evidence review, staff judgment, and recorded outcomes to stop harm and encourage correction.

Key actions

Follow instructions during an incident
Keep relevant evidence
Review the stated reason
Use formal appeals for errors

Is every case handled identically?

The same standards apply to everyone, but context, severity, history, risk, and evidence affect the proportionate outcome.

Keep in mind:

Actions are documented
Active warnings affect escalation
Serious threats may bypass lower tiers