Appeal a Community Moderation Decision
Design an appeal journey that explains a moderation decision, gathers relevant context, and reports an accountable review outcome.
The brief
Understand the problem
Background
A generic notice such as policy violation gives people little chance to understand or correct a mistake. Appeals also become harder to review when users submit long free-form arguments without knowing which evidence matters.
User context
Evan's neighborhood post was removed for sharing private information. He believes the address shown was a public venue, not a residence, and wants a review before a time-sensitive community event.
Product problem
People need a fair, bounded way to challenge a decision while reviewers need the original evidence, policy basis, and new context without harassment or repeated submissions.
Objective
Create decision explanation, appeal preparation, review tracking, and outcome states for one removed post.
What to design
Define the experience
Required experience
- Review the affected content, policy basis, consequence, and appeal window
- Select the disputed part of the decision and add relevant evidence
- Submit once with a clear receipt and expected review time
- Understand the outcome, correction, and any further permitted route
Screens and states
- Moderation decision
- Appeal builder
- Review status
- Appeal outcome
Core user flow
Follow the critical path
- 01
Evan opens the removal notice and sees the address passage connected to the privacy rule
- 02
He chooses incorrect context and provides a link showing that the venue address is public
- 03
He previews the appeal and confirms that no new personal information is included
- 04
An independent reviewer records the evidence considered
- 05
The post is restored with a concise outcome and corrected enforcement history
Product rules
Requirements and constraints
Requirements
- Connect the policy explanation to the exact content or behavior under review
- State what the appeal can change and which consequences remain active meanwhile
- Collect structured grounds before optional free-form context
- Prevent reviewers from seeing irrelevant protected profile details
- Explain the outcome, evidence considered, and whether another route exists
Constraints
- Some severe safety actions may require restricted evidence or delayed disclosure
- Appeal reviewers should not be evaluated solely on how often they uphold decisions
- Repeated submissions cannot restart a closed appeal window
Reality check
States worth considering
Finish line
What to deliver
- Four responsive screens covering an explainable decision, appeal, and overturned outcome
If you want more
Optional extensions
Optional direction
Visual resources
Use these as a starting constraint if you want one. They are not part of the required solution.
Oxygen & Source Sans Pro
Clear interface writing gives people the confidence to understand what changed and decide what to do next.
Oxygen & Source Sans Pro
Clear interface writing gives people the confidence to understand what changed and decide what to do next.