Moderation feedback

Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts both. We know that Adrian has already answered @MW123  question about the email they sent in June. 

To answer your questions @chiarieds

1 - Members should always report anything they see that concerns them or if they think somebody has breached the house rules. 
2 - We don’t expect members to defend themselves or others so the best thing to do is report the issue so we can handle it and ask members to keep in mind the house rules when posting on the forum as this would avoid conflict.
3 - It’s never acceptable for anyone to feel pushed away due to abusive comments. We do not tolerate abuse on the community of any kind. We take all reports seriously and aim to act quickly to keep the community safe.  We welcome and take on board feedback from members about why they have left.

We’re glad to have been able to help and we really appreciate your continued support for both the community and the team @chiarieds. Like you, we’re committed to moving forward together and doing all we can to keep the forum safe, supportive and welcoming for everyone.

As mentioned in the above, we do intend to arrange an opportunity for feedback across the community as a whole in the future but would appreciate individual feedback being sent to community@scope.org.uk this makes it easier to keep track off.

Thanks all 

(edited to include tag)

We’re sorry you feel this way @Wheeled_Weapon and we understand how upsetting this experience has been for you.

 To be clear, we take all reports seriously and apply the same standards to everyone, regardless of who they are. No one gets special treatment on the community. Sometimes posts/comments are removed or retained based on whether they break house rules. It is not based on who wrote them.

 Your thread was removed because, as we explained in the screenshot you received, it was becoming uncivil and therefore breached our house rules. This was due to the behaviour of other members, not yourself. We want to be clear that the removal was not about silencing your voice or your experience. Our aim is always to maintain a safe and respectful space for everyone, and sometimes that means removing threads where conversations start to escalate, regardless of who is involved.

That said, if anything has been left up that clearly breaks the rules then we will absolutely review it again. As a small team, we review every report thoroughly but the subjective nature of certain content means that sometimes our decisions may vary depending on who is moderating at the time. While we address all concerns seriously, there may be instances where a comment does not break our house rules, even if it feels upsetting to the person reporting.

We are committed to maintaining a respectful and safe community for everyone and appreciate your understanding and patience. We want every member to feel safe and respected here and we’re sorry that hasn’t been your experience recently.

Thank you for taking the time to share your feedback and we want to acknowledge the importance of what you've raised @MW123.

We will be reviewing and editing @Charlie_Alumni's comment in the mentioned thread to ensure clarity and prevent any potential confusion. We agree that discussions around such sensitive topics require careful framing and we’re grateful for your attention to detail.

At the same time, we gently ask for understanding that the online community team( just like our members) are all real people with different communication styles. While we always aim to ensure our posts are clear and not open to misinterpretation, it’s not always possible to predict every way a sentence may be interpreted. 

As people share openly and in the moment in spaces like this, it’s really important that we all keep intent and human context in mind. We’d also like to reassure you that your feedback (both here and previously with Adrian) has been compiled and will be discussed. 

If you have further concerns or feedback you'd like to share formally, you’re very welcome to do so via our Online Community Moderation Feedback Form.

We have also created a post announcing our new feedback process.

(edit - included the link to the forum post)

Good afternoon @MW123,

Thank you for continuing to engage on these issues. We understand there is a strong interest in how moderation decisions are made, particularly when sensitive topics arise. Below are direct answers to your three questions, with the aim of providing final clarity.

To summarise, our moderation approach is guided by established community best practice. It’s important to recognise that while themes, trends, and general responses can be anticipated, individual interpretations, responses and emotional reactions are not always predictable and can not be pre-empted in every situation.

• What explicit guidance exists for addressing foreseeable distress linked to policy speculation?

Moderators operate under Scope’s general principles of safeguarding, inclusion, and respectful discourse. There is no separate or explicit rule prohibiting speculative policy discussions, nor is there a requirement to frame such posts with warnings unless they breach community house rules.

Instead, moderation considers the overall impact and tone of a discussion, guided by core community principles:

• Keeping the forum supportive, inclusive, and safe
• Intervening where posts risk escalating tension or harm
• Applying the house rules consistently

In this instance, the original post introduced a policy idea (means testing PIP). It was relevant, clearly worded, and did not break any house rules. Community members were free to express disagreement, which many did, robustly and without moderation. Moderation only became necessary when responses moved away from the idea itself and began targeting posters more personally.

We believe this approach was in line with our guidelines, community values, and best practice.

• Are moderators currently encouraged to acknowledge impact or provide context when sensitive proposals are raised?

Moderators are encouraged to exercise judgment and ensure that discussions remain constructive, especially on topics are likely to generate strong opinions. Such discussions are raised internally amongst the team in order for us to monitor it more closely. However, we are not expected to pre-emptively intervene in every case where impact is possible, especially when the topic is relevant, calmly and respectfully expressed and appears to be asked in good faith as a sincere and genuine question.

In this case, the post posed a valid (if controversial) policy question. The space remained open for disagreement, and members were free to challenge the idea, as many did effectively, without needing moderator intervention.

The primary concern arose not from the topic itself, but from some of the personal and critical language directed at the original poster.

• How is neutrality operationalised at the intersection of lived experience and speculative debate?

Neutrality in our current framework means:

• Not privileging any particular view, and
• Applying the same behavioural standards to all users regardless of opinion.

Moderation neutrality means ensuring all users can contribute without facing personal attacks, regardless of whether they are proposing a policy idea or sharing lived experience, or sharing an idea or view that is not held by the majority.

We strongly support members drawing on lived experience to inform debate and we balance this with the right of others to introduce challenging or unpopular ideas without being treated as bad-faith actors.

To reiterate, we are committed to keeping the community safe and inclusive, and also open to diverse, even difficult, conversations when raised respectfully and in good faith.

We hope this has answered your questions and provided the clarity sought. If you have any further feedback you’d like us to consider, please use our feedback form which can be found here: Help us improve the community

Good afternoon @mrsBB and @luvpink

Thank you both for sharing how that thread made you feel, we really do appreciate your honesty.

We absolutely understand that for many people in the community (and the community team!), PIP isn’t just a topic of conversation, it’s a vital part of daily life. Discussions that question or speculate about changes to financial support can understandably feel deeply personal and upsetting. We're sorry that the thread title felt hurtful to you, and that it led you to step back from the conversation.

That said, part of our role as moderators is to allow space for a wide range of views and questions, provided they’re expressed respectfully or our own personal opinions on the subject. We recognise that what’s permissible under the rules and what feels supportive in the moment can sometimes feel at odds, especially in a diverse community like this one, where experiences and opinions vary so widely.

We hear your concerns about safety and tone, and we take that seriously. While the original post didn’t break house rules, the emotional impact it had on some members, including you, is real, and we will be reflecting on how best to support respectful but sensitive discussion, alongside all of the other feedback received

Thank you again for taking the time to explain how the post affected you.