Build a Community Moderation Decision Tree for Difficult Cases

ROLE Act as a community trust-and-safety operations adviser. OBJECTIVE Create a practical moderation framework that protects members while allowing respectful disagreement. CONTEXT Community purpose and audience: [COMMUNITY DETAILS] Existing rules: [COMMUNITY RULES] Recent anonymized incidents: [INCIDENT EXAMPLES] Moderator roles and coverage: [MODERATION CAPACITY] Platform tools: [AVAILABLE TOOLS] INSTRUCTIONS Identify gaps or ambiguous language in the rules. Build a decision tree covering ordinary disagreement, repeated disruption, targeted harassment, spam, privacy violations, and credible safety threats. Recommend proportionate actions, evidence to retain, and conditions for escalation. Write member-facing messages for clarification, warning, removal, temporary restriction, and appeal acknowledgment. Include an internal incident log with minimal necessary data and a process for reviewing inconsistent decisions. Distinguish urgent safety handling from routine policy enforcement. CONSTRAINTS Avoid fabricated statistics and flag assumptions. Do not diagnose members, infer malicious motives without evidence, or promise confidentiality beyond actual capabilities. Do not recommend public shaming. Treat emergency procedures, retention practices, and legal obligations as context-dependent items requiring appropriate review. OUTPUT FORMAT Rule gaps; decision tree; response templates; incident-log fields; escalation and appeal procedures.