Moderation and appeals

Fair moderation, never paid removal

The same rules must apply to positive and negative submissions. A low score, a coach’s or club’s disagreement, commercial pressure, sponsorship, or payment is not a reason to remove or hide a rating. Payment cannot buy removal, better scores, or favorable treatment. Moderators do not rewrite a reviewer’s structured answers.

Reports must identify a specific rule issue, such as ineligible experience, duplicate household, family, or profile submissions, conflicts, manipulation, or privacy violations. A report alone does not establish a violation. Moderators must assess relevant evidence, document the applicable rule and decision, and record removals and restorations. Moderation is not a determination of every disputed fact.

Authenticity checks must continue after publication, with investigation of suspicious activity and reports. Positive and negative submissions must face the same checks and processing standards. Corrections must flow through to affected aggregates. Review practices and any changes to calculation or eligibility rules must be explained where results appear.

An affected reviewer will receive a privacy-safe decision notice and may request reconsideration by the sole administrator, including the same person who made the original decision. This is not an independent appeal. A coach or club representative may report a specific rule violation but may not obtain reviewer identities or individual answers through the process.

Reconsideration must apply the same published rules to favorable and unfavorable feedback. The administrator must record the reason for keeping or changing the decision and cannot rewrite submitted answers. Personal or commercial conflicts must be disclosed and must not be used to influence decisions; known club conflicts restrict moderation access. There is no separate appeals reviewer. The private request channel will provide administrator contact once its security and delivery checks are complete. Requests are not yet being accepted.

Participation terms must not prohibit honest reviews elsewhere, impose penalties for them, or require reviewers to transfer ownership of their feedback. Intimidation, false accusations made knowingly or with reckless disregard for the truth, and groundless legal threats must not be used to prevent or suppress feedback. These rules do not prevent legitimate legal claims.