Choose contribution and moderation rules
For review — no decision recorded
Prepared 5 October 2026.
Decision requested
Which contribution types and interactions should be selected first, what must a moderator review, and what exactly may a verification label claim?
Ownership is agreed. Participation, evidence and public-state policies still need decisions before the community design can become an accepted workflow.
Current agreement
Product accounts own user reviews and articles, their revisions and moderation history. Comments, helpful votes, likes/dislikes, follows and reports also belong to the product account system. Moderation applies to the exact reviewed revision; a later edit cannot silently inherit that decision.
A public nickname is required before contribution privileges. Editorial articles and catalogue publication remain separate from user contributions. Rewards and Casino scoring are deferred and are not prerequisites for community work.
Proposal for discussion
Select the first contribution type and define its submission, review, public visibility and edit behavior. Use a representative review or structured withdrawal report to agree the fields and evidence needed. Decide which interactions add useful feedback to that first flow.
The July 2026 discovery offers candidates: one primary review per person and Casino with retained edits; labels for unverified, registration-verified, activity-verified and evidence-reviewed contributions; partner notifications where available and an honest alternative where they are absent. These remain historical candidates, not current accepted policy.
Illustrative result
A person describes a withdrawal and supplies allowed evidence. A moderator accepts the exact revision under the selected policy. Any label states what was checked, such as the occurrence of an event, without implying that every opinion in the review is verified.
If the author later changes the amount, the product keeps the original decision bound to its original text. Stakeholders must choose what happens to the new revision and what readers see while it awaits a decision.
Choices and tradeoffs
- Choose first contribution types and whether the one-primary-review candidate fits. Define when edited or rejected content is visible and how disputes work.
- Select evidence and verification methods, including the case with no partner tracking. Decide privacy, retention and access limits before collecting proof.
- Define what a report does, which subjects comments and follows can target, and how helpful votes differ from likes or Casino ratings.
- Decide moderation reasons and escalation or appeal behavior. Automated flags may assist review but do not establish a human decision.
- Specify any notifications associated with following. The earlier idea of alerts about changing terms does not select a channel or frequency.
More contribution types or verification labels require more distinct policies; fewer labels must still describe their evidence honestly. A staff screen in the editorial admin does not give every editor moderation permission.
Response requested
Choose the first submission type and interactions. Walk through one acceptance, one requested correction or rejection, and one later author edit. State what readers see at each step and what any verification label actually establishes. Use articles and reviews, interactions and moderation and verification for the current explanation.
Recorded outcome
No decision recorded. This brief does not authorize implementation or change delivery timing. Share the specific page and version through the existing discussion channel. Respond with accept, requested changes or defer, identifying the question concerned. How to review explains how an actual agreement is recorded and reflected in the product documents.