Moderation and appeals

Fair moderation, never paid removal

The same rules must apply to positive and negative submissions. A low score, a coach’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 parent’s answers.

Reports must identify a specific rule issue, such as ineligible experience, duplicate households, 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.

Parents and coaches must be able to report an issue and request reconsideration privately. The affected reviewer must receive a privacy-safe reason and an appeal route. A coach may challenge a rule violation but may not obtain reviewer identities or individual answers through the process. Appeals must be reviewed without personal or commercial conflicts; an alternative reviewer is needed if the original moderator is involved.

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.