Moderation
Part of Handling community conflict and incidents
Explaining a moderation decision without exposing private details
Explain a moderation action to authors, reporters and readers while protecting private case details and giving an available review route.
Explain a moderation decision by stating the action, the relevant rule and what the recipient can do next. Send that explanation to the person who needs it. Readers of a thread rarely need the reporter’s identity, private evidence or another member’s account history.
Confirm the decision first
Check what was reviewed and done. Was one reply removed, were further replies paused, or was an account restricted? Which rule or safety concern supported it? Who can review the decision if challenged?
Do not describe an action that has not happened or present an allegation as a finding.
Separate observed conduct from guessed intent. “We removed your reply because it included another member’s account details” identifies an action and reason. “You meant to harm them” claims knowledge the team may not have. If an investigation remains open, say which measure is temporary and when it will be reconsidered only if a reliable review time is available.
Give each audience what it needs
| Audience | Useful information | Keep private |
|---|---|---|
| Author of affected content | Action, applicable rule, practical correction and available review route | Reporter’s identity and another member’s private account |
| Person who reported it | Confirmation of review and an appropriate outcome or next step | Private warnings, account history and unrelated evidence |
| Readers of the thread | Reason for a visible removal or pause and what discussion may continue | Case evidence, private messages and speculation about a member |
Check the whole message for identifying clues. A distinctive quotation or the timing of a decision may reveal who reported a concern even when no name appears.
Say enough to be useful
“Guidelines violation” alone may leave a member unable to correct the conduct. Name the rule in ordinary words and describe the behaviour at the level that recipient needs. Do not repeat a threat, private detail or slur merely to justify its removal.
For a fictional removal, a public note could say: “We removed a reply that included another person’s private details. Please continue without sharing account information.”
The author’s private notice could add: “You may repost your question without those details. If you believe we misunderstood the context, use the review route in this notice.” Adapt both to the action taken and the route actually offered.
Where even the specific rule would identify someone in a small group, use a broader but accurate public description and explain the detail privately. Do not promise secrecy beyond the team’s control.
Moderation Transparency Best Practices (Australia)
- ATO & eSafety.gov.au Guidance
- Prioritise user safety and transparency while protecting personal data.
- Privacy-Preserving Moderation Research
- Studies show that public justification without detail improves trust.
- Community Platform Standards
- Clear, consistent explanations reduce appeals and improve engagement.
Allow correction
Tell the affected member how to request review if the community offers it, and what context would help. Arrange an appropriate reviewer for a disputed restriction.
If the decision changes, correct a misleading public note where practical without publishing the private case. A reporter can receive an appropriate update without being given the member’s correspondence.
Keep a restricted record of the rule applied, action, notices and review result so the team can explain and correct its decision.
