SYN-022
Reporting channels
The community maintains clear channels for raising concerns and asking questions — a contact email, identified volunteer go-to contacts, and structured reporting — designed to protect privacy, permit anonymity, and still encourage the specifics that make right action possible. Anonymous leads remain useful for spotting trends even when they cannot be acted on individually. If members are not reporting, the safety programme is broken or the culture lives elsewhere — channel health is itself a safety measure.
Deliberately left open
CF-003 — the tool's specified login requirement for filing (F4) narrows the "anonymity permitted" the sources ask for; partially reconcilable via anonymous-to-admins filing (OD-009). OD-001 — which admins receive reports is TBD. OPIN-082 — how anonymity and actionability trade off is an open question from the sources.
CF-003 — login-required filing vs the anonymity the sources ask for
The tool requires login to file an incident (F4), but the sources ask for anonymity to be permitted. This is partly reconcilable via anonymous-to-admins filing (OD-009), where the filer is authenticated but not identified to the accused or wider community.
If left open If login is a hard gate with no anonymity path, the members most at risk — those who fear being identified — are the least able to report, weakening the very channel this guideline calls a safety measure.
OD-001 — which admins receive reports
Who actually receives and can read incident reports is TBD (OD-001), and is blocked by the admin-vs-committee question (OD-015).
If left open Reporters are being asked to trust a channel whose recipients are undefined. Until named, the community cannot honestly promise who will (and won't) see a sensitive disclosure.
OPIN-082 — the anonymity vs actionability trade-off
OPIN-082 raises the underlying tension: more anonymity protects reporters but reduces the specifics that make individual action possible.
If left open There is no free lunch here — every point on the dial trades reporter safety against the community's ability to act. Leaving it implicit means the tool picks a point by default rather than by decision.
Where this comes from · 6 source items
This draft merges what the community actually said across 6 source items — every source ID is permanent and traceable.
- GTC-026 Create clear channels for reporting or questions/concerns, ensuring privacy, and anonymity permitted, however specifics helpful (email? Online form? List of people to contact?) or “I did this and I’m not certain”
- OPIN-082 Conversation re: anonymity in reporting?, one is empowered to take the right action when you have context or specifics.
- OPIN-083 For the most part the anonymous leads are still useful for trending/triangulating behavior of someone who is not complying with community standards
- OPIN-085 Have an email address for people to contact?
- OPIN-116 Members put up their hands so community knows who they can go to – their own or for others behaviour
- OPIN-135 If community members aren't reaching out or reporting incidents then we can probably conclude that the community safety program is broken or that the culture is elsewhere.
Themes · reporting and channels · anonymity and privacy · reporter support
Your signal on this draft
Sentiment only — no action is taken from these tallies. You can change it any time.
Log in to comment or signal on this draft.
Comments · members only
Comments and tallies are visible to registered members. Log in.