Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 108 references

Mapping Community Appeals Systems: Lessons for Community-led Moderation in Multi-Level Governance

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Community-run appeals systems on Discord show that volunteer moderators can build structured appeals processes that balance fairness, accountability, and rehabilitation without losing scalability.

desk verdict A solid, honest qualitative mapping of Discord appeals systems—but the 'balanced scale and fairness' headline claim outruns the self-report evidence; it deserves a serious referee, not a desk reject. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.06557 v1 pith:53SHSU4D submitted 2025-09-08 cs.HC

Juhoon Lee , Bich Ngoc Doan , Jonghyun Jee , Joseph Seering This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HC
keywords contentmoderationcommunityappealssystemsmulti-levelgovernanceDiscordrestorativejusticeproceduralfairnessrehabilitationmoderatorinterviews
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that Discord servers' volunteer-run appeals systems are a working model of community-led governance, a middle path between rigid platform moderation and purely informal community self-moderation. Drawing on focus groups and individual interviews with 17 moderators, it maps a structured appeals workflow, from a user's request for review, through context gathering with moderation bots, to collaborative moderator deliberation and a final decision. The central claim is that these systems balance scale with fairness: bots and dedicated appeals servers handle volume, while guidelines, staff-wide transparency, and group discussion keep decisions consistent and accountable. Crucially, the appeals process is designed to rehabilitate rather than merely correct: users are asked to show understanding and remorse, and successful appeals reintegrate them into the community. If true, this shows that context-sensitive, human-driven moderation can be institutionalized, and that platforms have concrete lessons to borrow.

What carries the argument

The central object is the appeals process itself, captured as a sequential process map with five phases: initiating an appeal, gathering context, evaluating, collaborating, and deciding. Two design layers carry the argument. The judicial layer consists of documented internal guidelines, group discussion of cases, transparency of all case records to the whole moderator team, exclusion of moderators with conflicts of interest or who issued the original penalty, and final authority reserved to server administrators. The technical layer consists of dedicated appeals servers, form or ticket systems, and moderation bots that consolidate evidence, standardize intake, and buffer moderators from hara

What would settle it

Pull the actual appeals records from several of the studied servers, or any comparable set, and code outcomes: acceptance rates, time-to-decision, across-moderator consistency on similar cases, and recidivism of reinstated users. If reinstated users re-offend at rates close to first-time offenders, or if the same case gets opposite rulings from different moderators, the rehabilitation and fairness claims would not survive; conversely, if moderators can no longer distinguish user-written from AI-written appeals, the effort-based evaluation signals would stop functioning.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's discovery is a documented, repeatable structure underneath what might look like ad hoc volunteer moderation. Across servers of very different sizes and topics, appeals follow the same arc: the punished user is told how to appeal; a bot, form, or dedicated appeals server collects their answers to two standard questions (why were you penalized, why should you return) plus a forward-looking commitment; moderators pull infraction logs and context; and evaluation combines objective signals, such as time since the infraction, severity of harm, and length and effort of the appeal, with trained subjective judgment about sincerity and remorse. Decisions default to group deliberation with

Load-bearing premise

The findings rest on what 17 moderators said about their own appeals systems; with no direct observation of appeals in progress and no testimony from users who appeal, the claimed balance of fairness, accountability, and rehabilitation could be an idealized self-portrait of successful volunteer systems.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the claim holds, the binary choice between industrial and community-driven moderation is false; middle-level communities can institutionalize context-sensitive judgment without abandoning consistency.
  • Communities can adopt restorative justice partially: appeals deliver education and reintegration effects at lower resource cost than full restorative processes, making rehabilitation a feasible first step.
  • Platforms gain a concrete agenda: provide better appeals tooling, moderator education, and legitimacy-supporting features rather than replacing local processes.
  • Appeals systems double as retention and trust infrastructure, aligning community values with platforms' own interests in keeping users engaged.
  • The friction-and-form design seen here, structured intake questions handled through tickets or dedicated servers, is a transferable pattern for reducing moderator workload and exposure to abuse.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The rehabilitative claim makes a testable prediction the paper does not check: if reinstated users recidivate at rates no better than first-time violators, or if appeals mostly rubber-stamp bans, the 'second chance' function is not doing what moderators believe it does; a transcript-level outcome study could settle it.
  • The objective signals the paper documents, cool-down periods, appeal length, and perceived sincerity, are proxies for remorse that are vulnerable to gaming; as AI-written appeals improve, these proxies may stop separating sincere from insincere appellants, a risk the paper only touches on through moderators' impressions.
  • A user-side companion study, what appellants actually experience, whether they feel heard, and whether they trust the community more afterward, is the natural next probe, since the paper's own limitation statement concedes its moderator-centric view.
  • The process map invites a design experiment: platforms could offer standardized appeals-server templates to communities and measure whether formalized appeals reduce repeat enforcement or increase retention, testing whether the structure itself, rather than the specific moderators, carries the benefit.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper presents a qualitative interview study of community appeals systems on Discord. The authors conducted three focus groups and eight individual interviews with a total of 17 moderators, then performed inductive thematic analysis and constructed a sequential process map of the appeals workflow (Figure 1). The findings describe how servers initiate appeals (forms, appeals servers, ModMail), gather context, evaluate appeals using objective and subjective signals, collaborate in group decision-making, and enact rehabilitative values such as second chances and reintegration. The paper argues that Discord appeals systems demonstrate that community-led moderation can be structured and scalable while preserving fairness, accountability, and rehabilitation, and it draws implications for multi-level governance and platform policy. The study is framed around three research questions on design, procedural fairness at scale, and values.

Significance. The manuscript addresses an important and under-studied mechanism in community moderation: the community-level appeals process. The sequential process map is a useful synthesis, and the design details (e.g., appeals servers, bot-based forms, cooldown periods, multi-moderator deliberation) are valuable for practitioners and for platform designers. Methodological strengths include the transparent use of Braun and Clarke thematic analysis, multi-author coding, an appendix with the interview protocol, a positionality statement, and an explicit acknowledgment of the moderator-centric lens. The framing within multi-level governance and restorative justice connects the empirical findings to broader theoretical debates. If read as a descriptive mapping of moderators' reported practices and values, the contribution is solid and publishable. The paper is less convincing as an evaluation of achieved outcomes, and some headline claims are worded more strongly than the evidence supports, but this can be addressed through scope and wording revisions rather than new data.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and §4 (also §6)] The abstract and conclusion state that appeals systems 'balance scalability, fairness, and accountability while upholding rehabilitative principles' and that it is 'possible to achieve rehabilitative principles at scale.' The supporting evidence, however, consists entirely of moderators' self-reports. Scalability is inferred from design features (appeals servers, bots, standardized forms) rather than from caseload, throughput, or consistency data, and fairness/rehabilitation are described from the moderator's perspective. Section 5.3 already concedes this moderator-centric lens, but the central claims are not qualified in the abstract or conclusion. Please rephrase the headline claims as 'moderators describe systems that...' or as a design-oriented claim such as 'can be designed to balance.' This is a scope/wording fix rather than a call for new data.
  2. [§3.1] Recruitment through moderator community servers and snowball sampling, combined with the inclusion criterion of servers with more than 1,000 members, likely oversamples well-resourced, active teams that have chosen to invest in appeals systems; no failed, abandoned, or minimal systems appear in the sample. The paper does not discuss this selection effect. Add a limitation paragraph on transferability, and temper the phrase 'successful community-led governance' (Introduction, Abstract) unless 'success' is explicitly defined in terms of the studied moderators' own criteria.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§5.4] Typo: 'Hoogeh and Marks' should be 'Hooghe and Marks'.
  2. [§5.2 / reference [12]] The text says 'Wohn et al.,' but the cited paper is by Jie Cai and Donghee Yvette Wohn. Please correct the citation style.
  3. [Table 1] Include server size information (e.g., membership range) or explicitly note in the caption that all servers had more than 1,000 members, as stated in §3.1. This would help readers interpret the 'scale' claims throughout the paper.
  4. [§4.2.1] The paragraph on LLM-written appeals is somewhat tangential to the process mapping. Consider moving it to a dedicated 'novel challenges' subsection or trimming it.
  5. [§3.1] The phrase 'randomly assigned focus groups' is ambiguous. It should say 'participants were randomly assigned to one of three focus groups' to distinguish random assignment from random recruitment.
  6. [Figure 1] Add a sentence to the caption noting that the process map is the authors' synthesis of participants' descriptions, not an observationally verified workflow.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: findings are induced from new interview data; cited frameworks and prior work are framing, not load-bearing inputs.

full rationale

Walking the paper's argument chain, the central claims—that Discord appeals systems have a structured workflow and balance scalability, fairness, accountability, and rehabilitation—are derived from semi-structured focus groups and individual interviews with 17 moderators (Sections 3.1–3.4) and presented as an inductively developed process map (Section 3.4.1, Figure 1). There is no equation, fitted parameter, or 'prediction' that reduces to an input by construction. The multi-level governance framework (Jhaver et al.) and restorative justice literature are used as analytical lenses in Sections 2 and 5, not as premises that logically entail the empirical findings. Co-authored self-citations (e.g., Seering 2020 [85]; Seering et al. 2022 [86]; Doan & Seering 2025 [22]) are related-work anchors and interpretive references; none is load-bearing in the sense that the reported appeals process would collapse without them. The paper itself flags the main evidentiary limitation in Section 5.3: 'our work provides a moderator-centric perspective on governance, limiting our understanding of how these systems may impact users,' and in Section 5.1 notes that most users do not partake in appeals. This is a validity/evidentiary weakness (self-reported accounts versus outcome data), not a circularity. No self-definitional reduction, no fitted-input-called-prediction, no uniqueness imported from the authors, and no ansatz smuggled via citation were found. Score 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The study is empirical and qualitative; no numeric parameters or new theoretical entities are introduced. The central claims rest on methodological assumptions: that moderator self-reports accurately reflect appeals practices, that the recruited sample is informative about Discord appeals systems, and that thematic analysis produces faithful themes.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Interviewees accurately and truthfully describe their servers' appeals processes and their own decision-making.
    The central findings are built on self-reported accounts from 17 moderators; there is no observational or log-based validation of these descriptions (Methodology, Sections 3.1 and 4).
  • domain assumption The sample of 17 moderators from servers with more than 1,000 members is informative about Discord appeals systems.
    Recruitment via moderator community servers and snowball sampling; no demographic data collected; generalizability to smaller or non-English servers is unexamined (Section 3.1).
  • domain assumption Braun and Clarke's thematic analysis, as applied by the authors, yields faithful themes from the interview data.
    The paper follows the Braun and Clarke method with multi-author coding, but the final interpretation is qualitative and not independently verifiable (Section 3.4).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Mapping Community Appeals Systems: Lessons for Community-led Moderation in Multi-Level Governance." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/53SHSU4D

@misc{pith2026250906557,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Mapping Community Appeals Systems: Lessons for Community-led Moderation in Multi-Level Governance},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/53SHSU4D}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.06557}
}
read the original abstract

Platforms are increasingly adopting industrial models of moderation that prioritize scalability and consistency, frequently at the expense of context-sensitive and user-centered values. Building on the multi-level governance framework that examines the interdependent relationship between platforms and middle-level communities, we investigate community appeals systems on Discord as a model for successful community-led governance. We investigate how Discord servers operationalize appeal systems through a qualitative interview study with focus groups and individual interviews with 17 community moderators. Our findings reveal a structured appeals process that balances scalability, fairness, and accountability while upholding community-centered values of growth and rehabilitation. Communities design these processes to empower users, ensuring their voices are heard in moderation decisions and fostering a sense of belonging. This research provides insights into the practical implementation of community-led governance in a multi-level governance framework, illustrating how communities can maintain their core principles while integrating procedural fairness and tool-based design. We discuss how platforms can gain insights from community-led moderation work to motivate governance structures that effectively balance and align the interests of multiple stakeholders.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.06557 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The sequential process map of the community appeals process in Discord servers by community mod [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

108 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Grazia Antonacci, Laura Lennox, James Barlow, Liz Evans, and Julie Reed. 2021. Process mapping in healthcare: a systematic review.BMC Health Services Research21 (2021), 1–15

    2021

  2. [2]

    Rowland Atkinson and John Flint. 2001. Accessing hidden and hard-to-reach populations: Snowball research strategies. Social research update33, 1 (2001), 1–4

    2001

  3. [3]

    Shubham Atreja, Jane Im, Paul Resnick, and Libby Hemphill. 2024. AppealMod: Inducing Friction to Reduce Moderator Workload of Handling User Appeals.Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact.8, CSCW1, Article 19 (April 2024), 35 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3637296

    work page doi:10.1145/3637296 2024

  4. [4]

    Ian Bache, Ian Bartle, and Matthew Flinders. 2016. Multi-level governance. InHandbook on theories of governance. Edward Elgar Publishing, 486–498

    2016

  5. [5]

    Victor Bekkers and Arthur Edwards. 2016. Legitimacy and democracy: A conceptual framework for assessing governance practices. InGovernance and the democratic deficit. Routledge, 35–60

    2016

  6. [6]

    Reuben Binns, Michael Veale, Max Van Kleek, and Nigel Shadbolt. 2017. Like Trainer, Like Bot? Inheritance of Bias in Algorithmic Content Moderation. InSocial Informatics, Giovanni Luca Ciampaglia, Afra Mashhadi, and Taha Yasseri (Eds.). Springer International Publishing, Cham, 405–415

    2017

  7. [7]

    Lindsay Blackwell, Jill Dimond, Sarita Schoenebeck, and Cliff Lampe. 2017. Classification and Its Consequences for Online Harassment: Design Insights from HeartMob.Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact.1, CSCW, Article 24 (dec 2017), 19 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3134659

    doi:10.1145/3134659 2017

  8. [8]

    Discord Blog. 2023. https://discord.com/blog/announcing-the-discord-moderator-academy-exam

    2023

Show all 108 references
  1. [9]

    Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology.Quali- tative Research in Psychology3, 2 (2006), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa arXiv:https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

    2006 doi

  2. [10]

    Cai, Emily Reif, Narayan Hegde, Jason Hipp, Been Kim, Daniel Smilkov, Martin Wattenberg, Fernanda Viegas, Greg S

    Carrie J. Cai, Emily Reif, Narayan Hegde, Jason Hipp, Been Kim, Daniel Smilkov, Martin Wattenberg, Fernanda Viegas, Greg S. Corrado, Martin C. Stumpe, and Michael Terry. 2019. Human-Centered Tools for Coping with Imperfect Algorithms During Medical Decision-Making. InProceedin...

    2019

  3. [11]

    Jie Cai, Ya-Fang Lin, He Zhang, and John M. Carroll. 2024. Third-Party Developers and Tool Development For Community Management on Live Streaming Platform Twitch(CHI ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact., Vol. 9, No. 7, Article CSCW446...

    2024

  4. [12]

    Jie Cai and Donghee Yvette Wohn. 2021. After Violation But Before Sanction: Understanding Volunteer Moderators’ Profiling Processes Toward Violators in Live Streaming Communities.Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact.5, CSCW2, Article 410 (Oct. 2021), 25 pages. https://doi.org/10.11...

    2021 doi

  5. [13]

    Robyn Caplan. 2018. Content or context moderation.Data & Society(2018). https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305120936636

    2018 doi

  6. [14]

    Robyn Caplan and Tarleton Gillespie. 2020. Tiered Governance and Demonetization: The Shifting Terms of Labor and Compensation in the Platform Economy.Social Media + Society6, 2 (2020), 2056305120936636. https://doi.org/10. 1177/2056305120936636

    2020

  7. [15]

    Eshwar Chandrasekharan, Chaitrali Gandhi, Matthew Wortley Mustelier, and Eric Gilbert. 2019. Crossmod: A Cross-Community Learning-Based System to Assist Reddit Moderators.Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact.3, CSCW, Article 174 (Nov. 2019), 30 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3359276

    2019 doi

  8. [16]

    Richter, and Pankaj C

    Yan Chen, Jack I. Richter, and Pankaj C. Patel. 2021. Decentralized Governance of Digital Plat- forms.Journal of Management47, 5 (2021), 1305–1337. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206320916755 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206320916755

    2021 doi

  9. [17]

    Frederick Choi, Tanvi Bajpai, Sowmya Pratipati, and Eshwar Chandrasekharan. 2023. ConvEx: A Visual Conversation Exploration System for Discord Moderators.Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact.7, CSCW2, Article 262 (oct 2023), 30 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3610053

    2023 doi

  10. [18]

    Lacey Colligan, Janet E Anderson, Henry WW Potts, and Jonathan Berman. 2010. Does the process map influence the outcome of quality improvement work? A comparison of a sequential flow diagram and a hierarchical task analysis diagram.BMC Health Services Research10 (2010), 1–9

    2010

  11. [19]

    Cullen and K.E

    F.T. Cullen and K.E. Gilbert. 2013.Reaffirming Rehabilitation. Anderson. https://books.google.co.kr/books?id= OWwOhfPBoT8C

    2013

  12. [20]

    Dipto Das. 2023. Studying Multi-dimensional Marginalization of Identity from Decolonial and Postcolonial Perspec- tives. InCompanion Publication of the 2023 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing (Minneapolis, MN, USA)(CSCW ’23 Companion). Assoc...

    2023

  13. [21]

    B. Denters. 2010.The SAGE Handbook of Governance. SAGE Publications. 252–270 pages. https://books.google.co.kr/ books?id=dU8BNNYnZesC

    2010

  14. [22]

    Bich Ngoc (Rubi) Doan and Joseph Seering. 2025. The Design Space for Online Restorative Justice Tools: A Case Study with ApoloBot. InProceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’25). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, ...

    2025

  15. [23]

    Bryan Dosono and Bryan Semaan. 2019. Moderation Practices as Emotional Labor in Sustaining Online Communities: The Case of AAPI Identity Work on Reddit. InProceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(Glasgow, Scotland Uk)(CHI ’19). Association f...

    2019

  16. [24]

    John S. Ehrett. 2016. E-judiciaries: a model for community policing in cyberspace.Inf. Commun. Technol. Law25, 3 (Sept. 2016), 272–291. https://doi.org/10.1080/13600834.2016.1236428

    2016

  17. [25]

    Jenny Fan and Amy X. Zhang. 2020. Digital Juries: A Civics-Oriented Approach to Platform Governance. InProceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(Honolulu, HI, USA)(CHI ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–14. https:...

    2020

  18. [26]

    Casey Fiesler, Jialun Jiang, Joshua McCann, Kyle Frye, and Jed Brubaker. 2018. Reddit Rules! Characterizing an Ecosystem of Governance. InProceedings of the Twelfth International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media (ICWSM 2018). AAAI, Menlo Park, CA, USA, 72–81

    2018

  19. [27]

    Andrea Forte, Vanesa Larco, and Amy Bruckman. 2009. Decentralization in Wikipedia Governance.J. Manage. Inf. Syst.26, 1 (July 2009), 49–72. https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222260103

    2009 doi

  20. [28]

    Kiran Garimella. 2022. Community-Driven Fact-Checking on WhatsApp: Who Fact-Checks Whom, Why, and With What Effect?

    2022

  21. [29]

    Stuart Geiger and David Ribes

    R. Stuart Geiger and David Ribes. 2010. The Work of Sustaining Order in Wikipedia: The Banning of a Vandal. In Proceedings of the 2010 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work(Savannah, Georgia, USA)(CSCW ’10). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 117–126. https://doi.org/10.1...

    2010

  22. [30]

    I Run the World’s Largest Historical Outreach Project and It’s on a Cesspool of a Website

    Sarah A. Gilbert. 2020. "I Run the World’s Largest Historical Outreach Project and It’s on a Cesspool of a Website. " Moderating a Public Scholarship Site on Reddit: A Case Study of r/AskHistorians.Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 4, CSCW1, Article 019 (May 2020), 27 pages. ht...

    2020 doi

  23. [31]

    2018.Custodians of the Internet: Platforms, Content Moderation, and the Hidden Decisions that Shape Social Media

    Tarleton Gillespie. 2018.Custodians of the Internet: Platforms, Content Moderation, and the Hidden Decisions that Shape Social Media. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT, USA

    2018

  24. [32]

    Juan Felipe Gomez, Caio Machado, Lucas Monteiro Paes, and Flavio Calmon. 2024. Algorithmic Arbitrariness in Content Moderation. InProceedings of the 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact., Vol. 9, No. 7, Article CSCW4...

    2024

  25. [33]

    2021.The dawn of everything: A new history of humanity

    David Graeber and David Wengrow. 2021.The dawn of everything: A new history of humanity. Penguin UK

    2021

  26. [34]

    James Grimmelmann. 2015. The Virtues of Moderation.Yale J.L. & Tech17 (2015), 42–109

    2015

  27. [35]

    Gregory Guest, Emily Namey, Amy O’Regan, Chrissy Godwin, and Jamilah Taylor. 2020. Comparing Interview and Focus Group Data Collected in Person and Online. http://europepmc.org/books/NBK588708

    2020

  28. [36]

    Uma Gunturi, Xiaohan Ding, and Eugenia H. Rho. 2023. ToxVis: Enabling Interpretability of Implicit vs. Explicit Toxicity Detection Models with Interactive Visualization. arXiv:2303.09402 [cs.CL] https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.09402

    2023 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Tessa Haesevoets, Arne Roets, Kristof Steyvers, Bram Verschuere, and Bram Wauters. 2024. Towards a multifaceted measure of perceived legitimacy of participatory governance.Governance37, 3 (2024), 711–728

    2024

  30. [38]

    Ishita Haque, Rudaiba Adnin, Sadia Afroz, Faria Huq, Sazan Mahbub, Sami Azam, and A. B. M. Alim Al Islam

  31. [39]

    Amy A Hasinoff, Anna D Gibson, and Niloufar Salehi. 2020. The promise of restorative justice in addressing online harm. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-promise-of-restorative-justice-in-addressing-online-harm/

    2020

  32. [40]

    Hasinoff and Nathan Schneider

    Amy A. Hasinoff and Nathan Schneider. 2022. From Scalability to Subsidiarity in Addressing Online Harm.Social Media + Society8, 3 (2022), 20563051221126041. https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051221126041 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051221126041

    2022 doi

  33. [41]

    Ming Shan Hee, Karandeep Singh, Charlotte Ng Si Min, Kenny Tsu Wei Choo, and Roy Ka-Wei Lee. 2024. Brinjal: A Web-Plugin for Collaborative Hate Speech Detection. InCompanion Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2024(Singapore, Singapore)(WWW ’24). Association for Computing Ma...

    2024

  34. [42]

    Jeffrey Heer. 2019. Agency plus automation: Designing artificial intelligence into interactive systems.Pro- ceedings of the National Academy of Sciences116, 6 (2019), 1844–1850. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1807184115 arXiv:https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.1807184115

    2019 doi

  35. [43]

    Liesbet Hooghe and Gary Marks. 2010. Types of multi-level governance. InHandbook on multi-level governance. Edward Elgar Publishing

    2010

  36. [44]

    Nip it in the Bud

    Jane Hsieh, Joselyn Kim, Laura Dabbish, and Haiyi Zhu. 2023. "Nip it in the Bud": Moderation Strategies in Open Source Software Projects and the Role of Bots.Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact.7, CSCW2, Article 301 (Oct. 2023), 29 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3610092

    2023 doi

  37. [45]

    Sohyeon Hwang, Charles Kiene, Serene Ong, and Aaron Shaw. 2024. Adopting Third-party Bots for Managing Online Communities.Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact.8, CSCW1, Article 216 (April 2024), 26 pages. https: //doi.org/10.1145/3653707

    2024 doi

  38. [46]

    Did you suspect the post would be removed?

    Shagun Jhaver, Darren Scott Appling, Eric Gilbert, and Amy Bruckman. 2019. “Did you suspect the post would be removed?” Understanding user reactions to content removals on Reddit.Proceedings of the ACM on human-computer interaction3, CSCW (2019), 1–33

    2019

  39. [47]

    Shagun Jhaver, Iris Birman, Eric Gilbert, and Amy Bruckman. 2019. Human-Machine Collaboration for Content Regulation: The Case of Reddit Automoderator.ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact.26, 5, Article 31 (July 2019), 35 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3338243

    2019 doi

  40. [48]

    Shagun Jhaver, Quan Ze Chen, Detlef Knauss, and Amy X. Zhang. 2022. Designing Word Filter Tools for Creator-Led Comment Moderation. InProceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(New Orleans, LA, USA)(CHI ’22). Association for Computing Machiner...

    2022

  41. [49]

    Shagun Jhaver, Seth Frey, and Amy X. Zhang. 2023. Decentralizing Platform Power: A Design Space of Multi-Level Governance in Online Social Platforms.Social Media + Society9, 4 (2023), 20563051231207857. https://doi.org/10. 1177/20563051231207857 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1177/2...

    2023 doi

  42. [50]

    Shagun Jhaver, Sucheta Ghoshal, Amy Bruckman, and Eric Gilbert. 2018. Online Harassment and Content Moderation: The Case of Blocklists.ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact.25, 2, Article 12 (March 2018), 33 pages. https://doi.org/ 10.1145/3185593

    2018 doi

  43. [51]

    Chenyan Jia, Alexander Boltz, Angie Zhang, Anqing Chen, and Min Kyung Lee. 2022. Understanding Effects of Algorithmic vs. Community Label on Perceived Accuracy of Hyper-partisan Misinformation.Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact.6, CSCW2, Article 371 (Nov. 2022), 27 pages. https:/...

    2022 doi

  44. [52]

    Brubaker, and Casey Fiesler

    Jialun Aaron Jiang, Peipei Nie, Jed R. Brubaker, and Casey Fiesler. 2023. A Trade-off-centered Framework of Content Moderation.ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact.30, 1, Article 3 (March 2023), 34 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/ 3534929 Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact., Vol. 9, N...

    2023

  45. [53]

    Janet E Jones, Laura L Jones, Melanie J Calvert, Sarah L Damery, and Jonathan M Mathers. 2022. A Liter- ature Review of Studies that Have Compared the Use of Face-To-Face and Online Focus Groups.Interna- tional Journal of Qualitative Methods21 (2022), 16094069221142406. https:...

    2022 doi

  46. [54]

    Varol Onur Kayhan and Anol Bhattacherjee. 2013. Content Use from Websites: Effects of Governance Mecha- nisms.Journal of Computer Information Systems53, 4 (2013), 68–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/08874417.2013.11645652 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1080/08874417.2013.11645652

    2013

  47. [55]

    Daphne Keller. 2024. The rise of the compliant speech platform. https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/the-rise-of- the-compliant-speech-platform

    2024

  48. [56]

    Charles kiene, Jialun Aaron Jiang, and Benjamin Mako Hill. 2019. Technological Frames and User Innovation: Exploring Technological Change in Community Moderation Teams.Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact.3, CSCW, Article 44 (Nov. 2019), 23 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3359146

    2019 doi

  49. [57]

    Haesoo Kim, Juhoon Lee, Jeong-Woo Jang, and Juho Kim. 2024. ReSPect: Enabling Active and Scalable Responses to Networked Online Harassment.Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact.8, CSCW1, Article 117 (April 2024), 30 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3637394

    2024 doi

  50. [58]

    Yubo Kou. 2021. Punishment and Its Discontents: An Analysis of Permanent Ban in an Online Game Community. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact.5, CSCW2, Article 334 (oct 2021), 21 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3476075

    2021 doi

  51. [59]

    Yubo Kou, Renkai Ma, Zinan Zhang, Yingfan Zhou, and Xinning Gui. 2024. Community Begins Where Moderation Ends: Peer Support and Its Implications for Community-Based Rehabilitation. InProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(Honolulu, HI, USA...

    2024

  52. [60]

    Travis Kriplean, Jonathan Morgan, Deen Freelon, Alan Borning, and Lance Bennett. 2012. Supporting reflective public thought with considerit. InProceedings of the ACM 2012 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work(Seattle, Washington, USA)(CSCW ’12). Association for Com...

    2012

  53. [61]

    Travis Kriplean, Michael Toomim, Jonathan Morgan, Alan Borning, and Amy J. Ko. 2012. Is this what you meant? promoting listening on the web with reflect. InProceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(Austin, Texas, USA)(CHI ’12). Association for ...

    2012

  54. [62]

    Cliff Lampe and Paul Resnick. 2004. Slash(Dot) and Burn: Distributed Moderation in a Large Online Conversation Space. InProceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(Vienna, Austria)(CHI ’04). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 543–550. https://doi.org/10.114...

    2004

  55. [63]

    Airi Lampinen, Vilma Lehtinen, Asko Lehmuskallio, and Sakari Tamminen. 2011. We’re in it together: interpersonal management of disclosure in social network services. InProceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(Vancouver, BC, Canada)(CHI ’11). A...

    2011

  56. [64]

    Jeff Latimer, Craig Dowden, and Danielle Muise. 2005. The Effectiveness of Restorative Justice Practices: A Meta-Analysis.The Prison Journal85, 2 (2005), 127–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885505276969 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885505276969

    2005 doi

  57. [66]

    Renkai Ma, Yue You, Xinning Gui, and Yubo Kou. 2023. How Do Users Experience Moderation?: A Systematic Literature Review.Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact.7, CSCW2, Article 278 (Oct. 2023), 30 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3610069

    2023 doi

  58. [67]

    Zhang, and David Karger

    Kaitlin Mahar, Amy X. Zhang, and David Karger. 2018. Squadbox: A Tool to Combat Email Harassment Using Friendsourced Moderation. InProceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(Montreal QC, Canada)(CHI ’18). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 586, 1...

    2018

  59. [68]

    Monika Malinova Mandelburger and Jan Mendling. 2013. The Effect of Process Map Design Quality on Process Management Success.ECIS 2013 - Proceedings of the 21st European Conference on Information Systems

    2013

  60. [69]

    Nathan Matias

    J. Nathan Matias. 2019. The Civic Labor of Volunteer Moderators Online.Social Media + Society5, 2 (2019), 2056305119836778. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305119836778 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305119836778

    2019 doi

  61. [70]

    Paul McCold. 2000. Toward a holistic vision of restorative juvenile justice: A reply to the maximalist model. Contemporary Justice Review3, 4 (2000), 357–414

    2000

  62. [71]

    David Melamed. 2012. The effects of legitimacy and power on perceptions of fairness.Sociological Focus45, 2 (2012), 125–142. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact., Vol. 9, No. 7, Article CSCW446. Publication date: November 2025. CSCW446:26 Juhoon Lee, Bich Ngoc Doan, Jonghyun Jee, ...

    2012

  63. [72]

    Jo Pierson Natali Helberger and Thomas Poell. 2018. Governing online platforms: From contested to coopera- tive responsibility.The Information Society34, 1 (2018), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/01972243.2017.1391913 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1080/01972243.2017.1391913

    2018

  64. [73]

    2011.Quality by design: a clinical microsystems approach

    Eugene C Nelson, Paul B Batalden, and Marjorie M Godfrey. 2011.Quality by design: a clinical microsystems approach. John Wiley & Sons

    2011

  65. [74]

    Elinor Ostrom. 2017. Polycentric systems for coping with collective action and global environmental change. In Global justice. Routledge, 423–430

    2017

  66. [75]

    Christina A Pan, Sahil Yakhmi, Tara P Iyer, Evan Strasnick, Amy X Zhang, and Michael S Bernstein. 2022. Comparing the perceived legitimacy of content moderation processes: Contractors, algorithms, expert panels, and digital juries. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Inte...

    2022

  67. [76]

    Deokgun Park, Simranjit Sachar, Nicholas Diakopoulos, and Niklas Elmqvist. 2016. Supporting Comment Moderators in Identifying High Quality Online News Comments. InProceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(San Jose, California, USA)(CHI ’16). ...

    2016

  68. [77]

    Chelsea Peterson-Salahuddin. 2024. Repairing the harm: Toward an algorithmic reparations approach to hate speech content moderation.Big Data & Society11, 2 (2024), 20539517241245333. https://doi.org/10.1177/20539517241245333 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1177/20539517241245333

    2024 doi

  69. [78]

    William M. M. Levack Richard J. Siegert, Tony Ward and Kathryn M. Mcpherson. 2007. A Good Lives Model of clinical and community rehabilitation.Disability and Rehabilitation29, 20-21 (2007), 1604–1615. https://doi.org/10. 1080/09638280701618794 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1080/096...

    2007 doi

  70. [79]

    Mohammad Rashidujjaman Rifat, Ashratuz Zavin Asha, Shivesh Jadon, Xinyi Yan, Shion Guha, and Syed Ishtiaque Ahmed. 2024. Combating Islamophobia: Compromise, Community, and Harmony in Mitigating Harmful Online Content.Trans. Soc. Comput.7, 1–4, Article 2 (April 2024), 32 pages....

    2024 doi

  71. [80]

    Sarah T. Roberts. 2016. Commercial Content Moderation: Digital Laborers’ Dirty Work. InThe Intersectional Internet: Race, Sex, Class and Culture Online, Safiya Umoja Noble and Brendesha M. Tynes (Eds.). Peter Lang Digital Formations series, New York, NY, USA, 147–160

    2016

  72. [81]

    santaclaraprinciples.org. [n. d.]. https://santaclaraprinciples.org

  73. [82]

    Chang, Cristian Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil, and Karen Levy

    Charlotte Schluger, Jonathan P. Chang, Cristian Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil, and Karen Levy. 2022. Proactive Moderation of Online Discussions: Existing Practices and the Potential for Algorithmic Support.Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 6, CSCW2, Article 370 (Nov. 2022), 27 pages....

    2022 doi

  74. [83]

    Sarita Schoenebeck, Oliver L Haimson, and Lisa Nakamura. 2021. Drawing from justice theories to support targets of online harassment.New Media & Society23, 5 (2021), 1278–1300. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444820913122 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444820913122

    2021 doi

  75. [84]

    Schöpke-Gonzalez, Shubham Atreja, Han Na Shin, Najmin Ahmed, and Libby Hemphill

    Angela M. Schöpke-Gonzalez, Shubham Atreja, Han Na Shin, Najmin Ahmed, and Libby Hemphill. 2024. Why do volunteer content moderators quit? Burnout, conflict, and harmful behaviors.New Media & Society26, 10 (2024), 5677–5701. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448221138529 arXiv:http...

    2024 doi

  76. [85]

    Joseph Seering. 2020. Reconsidering Self-Moderation: The Role of Research in Supporting Community-Based Models for Online Content Moderation.Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact.4, CSCW2, Article 107 (Oct. 2020), 28 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3415178

    2020 doi

  77. [86]

    Joseph Seering, Brianna Dym, Geoff Kaufman, and Michael Bernstein. 2022. Pride and Professionalization in Volunteer Moderation: Lessons for Effective Platform-User Collaboration.Journal of Online Trust and Safety1, 2 (Feb 2022). https://doi.org/10.54501/jots.v1i2.34

    2022 doi

  78. [87]

    Joseph Seering, Manas Khadka, Nava Haghighi, Tanya Yang, Xi Zachary, and Michael Bernstein. 2024. Chillbot: Content Moderation in the Backchannel. CSCW (2024)

    2024

  79. [88]

    Joseph Seering, Tony Wang, Jina Yoon, and Geoff Kaufman. 2019. Moderator engagement and community development in the age of algorithms.New Media & Society21, 7 (2019), 1417–1443. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444818821316

    2019 doi

  80. [89]

    Farhana Shahid and Aditya Vashistha. 2023. Decolonizing Content Moderation: Does Uniform Global Community Standard Resemble Utopian Equality or Western Power Hegemony?. InProceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(Hamburg, Germany)(CHI ’23). A...

    2023

  81. [90]

    They basically like destroyed the school one day

    Vivek K. Singh, Marie L. Radford, Qianjia Huang, and Susan Furrer. 2017. "They basically like destroyed the school one day": On Newer App Features and Cyberbullying in Schools. InProceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing...

    2017

  82. [91]

    Ciske Smit and Jeremy Pitt. 2024. Digital polycentricity and value-sensitive operationalization.IEEE Technology and Society Magazine42, 4 (2024), 107–118. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact., Vol. 9, No. 7, Article CSCW446. Publication date: November 2025. Mapping Community Appea...

    2024

  83. [92]

    Song, Sangwook Lee, Jisoo Lee, Mina Kim, and Juho Kim

    Jean Y. Song, Sangwook Lee, Jisoo Lee, Mina Kim, and Juho Kim. 2023. ModSandbox: Facilitating Online Community Moderation Through Error Prediction and Improvement of Automated Rules. InProceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(Hamburg, German...

    2023

  84. [93]

    Riedl, and Matthew Lease

    Miriah Steiger, Timir J Bharucha, Sukrit Venkatagiri, Martin J. Riedl, and Matthew Lease. 2021. The Psychological Well-Being of Content Moderators: The Emotional Labor of Commercial Moderation and Avenues for Improving Support. InProceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human...

    2021

  85. [94]

    Nicolas Suzor. 2018. Digital constitutionalism: Using the rule of law to evaluate the legitimacy of governance by platforms.Social Media+ Society4, 3 (2018), 2056305118787812

    2018

  86. [95]

    Nicolas P Suzor, Sarah Myers West, Andrew Quodling, and Jillian York. 2019. What Do We Mean When We Talk About Transparency? Toward Meaningful Transparency in Commercial Content Moderation.International Journal of Communication13 (2019), 1526–1543

    2019

  87. [96]

    Dias Oliva Thiago, Antonialli Dennys Marcelo, and Alessandra Gomes. 2021. Fighting hate speech, silencing drag queens? artificial intelligence in content moderation and risks to lgbtq voices online.Sexuality & culture25, 2 (2021), 700–732

    2021

  88. [97]

    TikTok. [n. d.]. Content violations and bans | tiktok help center. https://support.tiktok.com/en/safety-hc/account- and-user-safety/content-violations-and-bans

  89. [98]

    At the End of the Day Facebook Does What It Wants

    Kristen Vaccaro, Christian Sandvig, and Karrie Karahalios. 2020. "At the End of the Day Facebook Does What It Wants": How Users Experience Contesting Algorithmic Content Moderation.Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact.4, CSCW2, Article 167 (Oct. 2020), 22 pages. https://doi.org/10....

    2020 doi

  90. [99]

    Kristen Vaccaro, Ziang Xiao, Kevin Hamilton, and Karrie Karahalios. 2021. Contestability For Content Moderation. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact.5, CSCW2, Article 318 (Oct. 2021), 28 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3476059

    2021 doi

  91. [100]

    Chenlong Wang and Pablo Lucas. 2024. Efficiency of Community-Based Content Moderation Mechanisms: A Discussion Focused on Birdwatch.Group Decision and Negotiation33, 3 (2024), 673–709

    2024

  92. [101]

    Michael Wenzel, Tyler G Okimoto, Norman T Feather, and Michael J Platow. 2008. Retributive and restorative justice. Law and human behavior32, 5 (2008), 375

    2008

  93. [102]

    Pamela Wisniewski, Heather Lipford, and David Wilson. 2012. Fighting for my space: coping mechanisms for sns boundary regulation. InProceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(Austin, Texas, USA)(CHI ’12). Association for Computing Machinery, New...

    2012 doi

  94. [103]

    How Do You Quantify How Racist Something Is?

    Qunfang Wu and Bryan Semaan. 2023. "How Do You Quantify How Racist Something Is?": Color-Blind Moderation in Decentralized Governance.Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact.7, CSCW2, Article 239 (Oct. 2023), 27 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3610030

    2023 doi

  95. [104]

    Sijia Xiao, Shagun Jhaver, and Niloufar Salehi. 2023. Addressing Interpersonal Harm in Online Gaming Communities: The Opportunities and Challenges for a Restorative Justice Approach.ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact.30, 6, Article 83 (sep 2023), 36 pages. https://doi.org/10.114...

    2023 doi

  96. [105]

    Dawei Yin, Zhenzhen Xue, Liangjie Hong, Brian Davison, April Edwards, and Lynne Edwards. 2009. Detection of harassment on Web 2.0. (01 2009)

    2009

  97. [106]

    Taking Care of a Fruit Tree

    Bingjie Yu, Joseph Seering, Katta Spiel, and Leon Watts. 2020. "Taking Care of a Fruit Tree": Nurturing as a Layer of Concern in Online Community Moderation(CHI EA ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1145/3334480.3383009

    2020

  98. [107]

    2015.The little book of restorative justice: Revised and updated

    Howard Zehr. 2015.The little book of restorative justice: Revised and updated. Simon and Schuster

    2015

  99. [108]

    Morris Zelditch. 2001. Processes of legitimation: Recent developments and new directions.Social psychology quarterly 64, 1 (2001), 4–17. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact., Vol. 9, No. 7, Article CSCW446. Publication date: November 2025. CSCW446:28 Juhoon Lee, Bich Ngoc Doan, Jo...

    2001

  100. [2022]

    In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Networking, Systems and Security(Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh)(NSysS ’22)

    Citadel: An Automated Abuse Detection System to Detect And Prevent Abusive Behaviors over Emails. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Networking, Systems and Security(Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh)(NSysS ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA,...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.