Moderation policy

Principles

1. Patterns, not individuals. Contributions that name specific agents, agencies, inspectors, or other service providers are anonymised before publication. Regional and role-level detail may remain (e.g., "Wellington vendor, April 2026").
2. Privacy first. Contributions containing personal information about third parties (other than the contributor) are reviewed against Privacy Act 2020 IPPs. Information that could identify a third party without their consent is removed or the submission is declined.
3. Accuracy is required. Contributions making factual claims that cannot be substantiated are declined. Contributions describing experiences are accepted in the contributor's voice, subject to anonymisation.
4. Legal-advice disclaimer in full. Contributed content is general information. Moderators will add or strengthen disclaimers if the contribution reads as advice rather than experience.
5. Defamation-safe framing. Statements about named parties that could be defamatory are rewritten structurally or removed. Anonymised analogues may remain.
6. Transparency of moderation. Significant moderation decisions (declines, substantial rewrites) are logged. Aggregated moderation statistics will be published periodically once contribution opens.

What goes through moderation

• Case submissions — structural pattern descriptions from members.
• Comments or feedback submitted via any channel.
• Translation contributions before they are published in non-English editions.
• Research data contributions.
• Images or documents uploaded with any submission.

The review process

1. Intake. Contribution received via designated channel. Automated acknowledgement sent.
2. Initial review. Moderator checks scope (is this material we handle?), privacy (any third-party information?), and basic plausibility. Typical timeframe: 3–5 working days.
3. Anonymisation. Identifying details removed or generalised. Draft returned to contributor for confirmation of factual accuracy.
4. Legal and editorial review. Defamation-safety check, editorial principles (patterns-not-people, motive calibration, NZ-specific language). Legal review for material claims.
5. Publication decision. Accept (published), accept-with-changes (contributor consulted), decline (reason given).
6. Appeal. Contributors can appeal decline decisions. Appeal reviewed by a different moderator.

Common reasons for decline

• Identifies a specific individual or agency in a way that cannot be adequately anonymised.
• Contains material that may be defamatory even after anonymisation (specific allegations that would be identifiable).
• Contains personal information about third parties (other than the contributor) without evidence of consent.
• Is primarily a complaint about a specific transaction rather than a describable structural pattern.
• Is factually unsubstantiated (claims that cannot be supported by documentation).
• Is outside NZ jurisdiction or the site's scope (the site is NZ-specific).

When contributors can expect a response

• Acknowledgement: Immediate (automated).
• Initial review outcome: 5–10 working days.
• If anonymisation proposed: Draft returned within 5 working days of review start.
• Final decision: 2–4 weeks from submission (depending on complexity).
• Appeal outcome: 2 weeks from appeal lodgement.

Updates to this policy

This is version 1.0. Substantive updates will be logged in the changelog. Contributors will be notified of changes that affect existing contributions.