Moderation Guidelines & Escalation

What it is

A comprehensive framework for managing community content—defining what’s acceptable, what’s not, and how to handle grey areas. This template provides moderators with clear rules, decision trees, and escalation paths so they can enforce standards consistently without requiring senior leadership approval for every decision.

Moderation isn’t about suppressing conversation; it’s about creating the conditions for healthy discourse. This framework helps you protect your community from harm (harassment, misinformation, spam) whilst allowing honest disagreement and critique. It’s the difference between a thriving community and one that collapses into chaos or toxicity.

The template includes both immediate actions (delete, hide, warn) and longer-term protocols (escalation, appeals, policy review).

When to use it

Use this template when:

• You have an active community with multiple channels (forums, comments, Discord, etc.)
• You employ or volunteer multiple moderators
• You’ve experienced moderation challenges or inconsistent enforcement
• You want to formalise standards that currently exist only in people’s heads
• You’re expanding your community and need to scale moderation
• You need legal and compliance documentation for your moderation approach

Do NOT use this template if:

• Your community is small (under 1,000 members) and you handle all moderation personally
• You haven’t defined your community values yet (start there first)
• Your space is fully unmoderated by design (e.g., anonymous forums with no rules)
• You need crisis moderation protocols only (use separate crisis docs instead)

Inputs needed

Before building your guidelines, gather:

• Your community values: What is your community fundamentally about? What behaviours align with or contradict those values?
• Existing issues: What types of content have caused problems or complaints? Spam, harassment, hate speech, misinformation, commercial spam?
• Legal requirements: Do you have compliance obligations (GDPR, CCPA, industry regulations)? Any specific content you must remove by law?
• Escalation authority: Who makes final decisions? Is it you, a leadership team, or external advisors?
• Appeal process: Can users contest moderation decisions? If so, how and to whom?
• Team size and time: How many moderators, and how much time do they have? This affects complexity of guidelines.

---

The template

Moderation Framework Structure

Tier 1: Clear Violations (Remove Immediately)

These require no discussion. Remove, note the reason, and escalate if needed.

Content Type	Definition	Action	Notification	Escalation
Illegal content	Child exploitation, direct incitement to violence, illegal commercial activity	Remove immediately. Escalate to legal and law enforcement if necessary.	None (do not notify user).	Immediately to legal team and law enforcement if applicable.
Spam and commercial promotion	Repeated unsolicited marketing, affiliate links, MLM recruitment, off-topic sales pitches	Remove post/comment. Limit account posting frequency.	”Your post was removed for violating our commercial promotion policy.”	If pattern: temporary mute (24-48h). If repeated: account suspension.
Harassment and targeted attacks	Attacks on individuals (not ideas) including slurs, threats, doxxing, sexual harassment	Remove content. Issue formal warning to user. Preserve evidence.	”Your post was removed. Continued harassment may result in account suspension.”	If severe or repeated: escalate to leadership for potential ban.
Hate speech	Content promoting hatred or violence against protected groups (based on identity, belief, etc.)	Remove immediately. Issue formal warning. Consider account suspension.	”Your post was removed for violating our community standards on hate speech.”	Escalate to leadership. Consider law enforcement referral if threatening violence.

Tier 2: Likely Violations (Contextual Review Required)

These need evaluation because context matters. Review before removing.

Content Type	Definition	When it crosses the line	Action	Escalation
Misinformation	False factual claims presented as truth	Claims about health, safety, or elections that could cause harm; repeated despite correction	Add context/fact-check label; flag for review; consider removal if dangerous health misinformation	If widespread: escalate to comms team for public response
Disagreement & critique	Expressing different opinions or criticising the company/product	Respectful disagreement is allowed; aggressive personal attacks on individuals are not	Do not remove. Allow respectful debate. Only act if becomes harassment.	If legitimate concern: escalate to relevant team (product, leadership)
Off-topic content	Posts unrelated to the community’s purpose	Spam vs. occasional tangent; established community norms matter	Warning for repeated off-topic posts; remove after warning if persistent	Escalate for repeated behaviour with same user
Controversial but allowed topics	Legitimate discussion of politics, religion, ethics that doesn’t violate other rules	Stays within bounds of respectful discourse; doesn’t attack individuals or groups	Allow with active monitoring. Remove if turns to harassment.	Monitor threads; escalate if community norms being pushed

Tier 3: Edge Cases & Context-Dependent Content

These require human judgment and conversation.

Content Type	Definition	Evaluation criteria	Possible actions
Satire and humour	Jokes or parody that could be misinterpreted as promoting harm	Is the intent clearly satirical to the community? Could someone new mistake this for a genuine threat or promotion?	If clear: allow with note if needed. If ambiguous: hide and ask user for clarification.
Sensitive personal stories	Users sharing experiences with trauma, mental health, grief	Are they seeking support or spreading harm? Could trigger warnings be helpful?	Allow with optional content warning. Do not remove unless explicitly harmful. Monitor for predatory responses.
Political or social discussion	Users engaging with current events or social issues	Does it follow community norms? Is it respectful? Is it spam-like repetition?	Allow if respectful. Remove if spam or harassment. Add context if factually disputed.
Self-promotion	Users sharing their own work, business, or content	Is this their primary activity? Does the community benefit? Is it transparent?	Allow occasional self-promotion. Flag pattern promoters. Require disclosure of affiliation.

Decision Tree for Moderators

Content flagged for review
│
├─ Is it illegal or an immediate safety risk?
│  ├─ YES → Remove immediately. Escalate. (Tier 1)
│  └─ NO → Continue
│
├─ Is it clearly against community standards?
│  ├─ YES → Remove. Notify user. (Tier 1)
│  └─ NO → Continue
│
├─ Is it likely a violation but context-dependent?
│  ├─ YES → Review context, tone, history with user. Decide based on criteria. (Tier 2)
│  └─ NO → Continue
│
├─ Is it an edge case or unclear?
│  ├─ YES → Request clarification from user, consult with senior mod, escalate if needed. (Tier 3)
│  └─ NO → Allow content. No action needed.
│
└─ Document decision and action taken.

Escalation Paths

Path A: Urgent/Safety Issues

1. Remove content immediately (do not wait for approval)
2. Notify moderation lead within 1 hour
3. Preserve evidence (screenshots)
4. Escalate to legal if illegal
5. Escalate to law enforcement if threatening violence

Path B: Repeat Violations by Same User

1. First violation: warning and explanation
2. Second violation within 30 days: temporary mute (24-48 hours)
3. Third violation within 30 days: temporary suspension (7 days)
4. Fourth violation: escalate to leadership for potential permanent ban

Path C: Edge Case or Ambiguous Content

1. Do not remove; instead, hide from public view
2. Request clarification from user within 24 hours
3. Consult with moderation team or escalation contact
4. Make decision and notify user of outcome
5. Document reasoning for future reference

Path D: Policy Questions

1. If moderator unsure whether content violates policy → escalate to lead
2. If policy itself seems unclear or needs updating → escalate to leadership
3. Collect questions quarterly for policy review

User Warnings & Consequences

Warning Template:

Hi [User],

Your [post/comment] was removed because it violated our community standards.

Specifically: [Reason - cite which rule]

To help you understand: [Explanation of why this matters]

Our community thrives when [Core value].

This is a friendly reminder. Your account is still in good standing.
If you have questions, reply here or contact us at [moderation contact].

Best,
[Moderator/Team name]

Consequence Progression:

Violation Count (30-day window)	Action	Duration	User notification
1st	Formal warning	No restriction	Yes, with explanation
2nd	Temporary mute	24-48 hours	Yes, with appeal option
3rd	Temporary suspension	7 days	Yes, with appeal window
4th+	Escalate for permanent ban consideration	Pending review	Yes, with appeal process

Appeal Process

If a user contests a moderation decision:

1. User initiates appeal via email or moderation contact form
2. Within 48 hours: Senior moderator or leadership reviews the decision (not the same person who made original decision)
3. Review includes: Original content/context, moderation reasoning, community standards, whether decision was consistent with past actions
4. Decision: Uphold original decision, reverse it, or modify it (e.g., reduce suspension length)
5. Notify user with outcome and reasoning (within 24 hours of decision)
6. Document all appeals for pattern analysis and policy refinement

Appeals should be taken seriously—they’re how you catch moderator mistakes and inconsistency.

---

AI prompt

Base prompt

You are a community governance expert. I'm building moderation guidelines for [COMMUNITY TYPE].

Our community values: [List 3-5 core values]
Our biggest moderation challenges: [Describe 3-4 types of problem content]
Our team size: [Number of moderators]
Legal context: [Any compliance requirements]

Create moderation guidelines that:
1. Define what content is unacceptable and why
2. Provide a decision tree so moderators don't need approval for every call
3. Set clear escalation paths for grey areas and violations
4. Include warning and consequence progression
5. Create an appeal process for disputed decisions

Requirements:
- Guidelines should be clear enough that a new moderator can apply them fairly
- Include Tier 1 (remove immediately) and Tier 2 (review context) categories
- Provide specific language for warning users
- Address edge cases like satire, critique, and controversial-but-allowed topics
- Make escalation paths unambiguous (who decides what, when)

Format as a decision framework with clear rules, not vague principles.

Prompt variations

Variation 1: Social media platform (Twitter, Instagram, TikTok)

Design moderation guidelines for a brand's social media community. Focus on:
- Spam and bot detection
- Competitor attacks and commercial spam
- Off-brand content and trolling
- Misinformation about our products
- Handling influencers and press engagement

Include specific guidance on reply-rate expectations and response times for different content types.

Variation 2: Niche community or forum

Create moderation rules for a specialist community (e.g., gaming, photography, tech). Address:
- Gatekeeping and elitism
- Low-effort or repetitive content
- Self-promotion and shameless plugging
- Disagreements between established members
- Newcomer onboarding and expectations-setting

Make clear what "passionate debate" looks like vs. harassment.

Variation 3: Workplace or internal community

Build guidelines for internal team or employee communities. Include:
- Confidentiality and NDA violations
- Appropriate workplace conduct
- Off-topic content boundaries
- Handling conflicts between departments
- Policy on executive participation and transparency

Add specific role-based expectations (executives, managers, individual contributors).

Variation 4: Global/international community

Develop moderation guidelines for a global community across multiple languages/cultures. Address:
- Cultural context differences (what's offensive varies by region)
- Language moderation across non-English speakers
- Regional legal compliance (GDPR, local hate speech laws)
- Managing translation and misunderstandings
- Recruiting and training multi-lingual moderators

Include guidance on cultural sensitivity without relativising actual harms.

Variation 5: Creator/fan community

Design guidelines for creator fanbases or artist communities. Focus on:
- Shipping wars and fan discourse
- Harassment of creators or fellow fans
- Copyright and intellectual property
- Spoiler policies
- Parasocial behaviour boundaries

Address the emotionality inherent in fan spaces without dismissing genuine concerns.

---

Human review checklist

• Legal compliance: Has your legal/compliance team reviewed these guidelines? Do they cover your regulatory requirements and jurisdiction-specific laws?
• Clarity for moderators: Read the decision tree as a new moderator. Would you know what to do for each type of content? Are there any “if complicated” situations left undefined?
• Consistency with values: Do these guidelines enforce your stated community values? If you say you value “respectful debate,” are you actually protecting that?
• Proportionality: Are consequences proportionate to violations? Is permanent ban reserved for the worst cases, or are you banning people for first offences?
• Transparency: Could you explain these guidelines to a user whose content was removed? Would they understand why?
• Precedent review: Do these guidelines match how you’ve actually moderated in the past? Or are you changing approach? If changing, have you communicated this?
• Moderator workload: Are these guidelines realistic for the moderation team’s capacity? If they require 5 hours daily and you have one part-time mod, it won’t work.
• Appeal fairness: Is the appeal process genuinely independent (different person reviewing), or is it just rubber-stamping? Would a user trust it?
• Cultural sensitivity: Do these guidelines account for different communication styles, languages, and cultural norms? Are you accidentally banning regional communication styles as “rude”?
• Regular review schedule: When will you revisit these guidelines? Quarterly? Annually? Have you scheduled it and assigned responsibility?

---

Example output

Moderation Guidelines: OpenCode Community Forum

Community values: Open to all skill levels, respectful of different opinions, focused on learning not gatekeeping

Tier 1: Immediate Removal

Violation	Example	Action
Harassment	”You’re too stupid to code; quit”	Remove. Warn user: “Our community values learning, not attacks.”
Spam	”BUY CHEAP CODE GENERATOR—CLICK HERE”	Remove. Mute user for 48 hours.
Hate speech	Slurs or attacks based on identity	Remove. Escalate to leadership for potential ban.

Tier 2: Contextual Review

Disagreement about best practices: Allowed. “Python is rubbish” → Context: Is this respectful debate about language trade-offs, or a personal attack? If former, allow. If latter, remove.

Self-promotion: “I built a tool that does X. Here’s the code.” → Allowed if code is freely available and user participates in community. Removed if user only posts promotional links.

Decision Tree:

1. Is it illegal or attacking a person? → Remove immediately
2. Is it spam/commercial spam? → Remove and mute
3. Is it respectful debate? → Allow
4. Is it an edge case? → Hide and ask for clarification

Escalation: First warning → 24h mute → 7d suspension → permanent ban (leadership decision)

---

Related templates

• Community Response Library – Use alongside moderation guidelines; some violations need response templates
• Partner Amplification Plan – Partner communities have moderation standards too; align them
• Event Communications Pack – Live events have unique moderation needs (real-time chat, etc.)
• Crisis Communication Protocol – For when moderation becomes a public issue
• Community Health Metrics – Track whether your moderation is working (is toxicity down? User retention up?)

---

Tips for success

Start with clarity on values Don’t moderate against arbitrary rules. Root every rule in your community values. If your value is “respectful debate,” that’s different from “avoiding all controversy.” Be explicit about what you’re protecting and why.

Empower your moderators The goal of clear guidelines is to let moderators make decisions without running to leadership for approval. Give them authority and decision-making responsibility within defined bounds. A mod who has to ask permission for every removal becomes a bottleneck.

Document everything Every moderation decision should be logged: what content, why it was removed/allowed, who decided, when. This creates accountability, enables pattern detection, and protects you legally. It also shows users that moderation isn’t arbitrary.

Test with edge cases Don’t wait until a crisis to discover your guidelines don’t handle edge cases. Walk through your team with hypotheticals: “A user posts this. What do we do?” Refine guidelines based on scenarios that trip you up.

Make appeals genuinely independent If the person reviewing an appeal is the one who made the original decision, it’s not really an appeal—it’s just confirmation bias. Have a truly independent person (not their direct report, not their friend) review contested decisions.

---

Common pitfalls

Over-moderation kills community The urge to “keep things professional” can push you to remove anything slightly edgy, controversial, or passionate. This creates a sterile, dull community where everyone self-censors. Allow robust discourse; only remove actual harms.

Vague rules breed inconsistency “Keep comments civil” or “no negativity” is too subjective. One moderator removes a sarcastic comment; another doesn’t. Users perceive this as arbitrary bias. Use concrete criteria: if someone’s attacked personally (vs. idea critiqued), it’s harassment.

Ignoring cultural and linguistic differences What reads as rude in one culture is normal in another. Directness isn’t always rudeness. Banter isn’t always hostility. If your community is global, train moderators to recognise context, not just tone.

Escalation paralysis Defining escalation but making it take 3 days kills responsiveness. A user gets harassed, reports it, and then waits a week while you internally debate. Set clear timeframes: urgent (24h), standard (48h), non-urgent (1 week).

Changing rules without warning If you suddenly start enforcing against self-promotion or off-topic chat when you previously allowed it, users will perceive this as unfair. When policy changes, announce it and give a grace period for adjustment.

---

Last updated: 2026-01-30