# Community moderation appeal scope survey

Find missing explanations of the reason, evidence scope and possible outcomes before a community member decides whether to appeal moderation.

If nothing was unclear or difficult, say so. Skip questions about steps you did not experience; use not applicable where appropriate.

## 1. Which part of the moderation reason did you need explained before deciding whether to appeal?

Answer: ____________________

## 2. How clear was what new context the reviewer could consider?

Answer: ____________________

## 3. Which possible appeal outcome or review limitation was unclear?

Answer: ____________________

## Author notes / illustrative keys where applicable

1. Identify the missing rule or explanation needed to understand the decision, without collecting the disputed post or personal case details. This directs a policy-communication repair rather than judging the case.
2. Check whether members understand the permitted review material and its limits. Preserve their interpretation of the instructions without asking them to submit actual appeal evidence through this feedback survey.
3. Find assumptions about what the appeal can change or leave unchanged, then compare them with the actual policy. Clear limits matter before submission; they do not promise a favorable decision.

Interpretation caution: Do not collect disputed posts or identifying case details. Feedback does not determine fairness, replace the appeal process or guarantee an appeal outcome.


## Illustrative finding and follow-up

Observation: In a synthetic community guide, appeal instructions emphasize the deadline but readers cannot tell whether new context will be considered or which outcomes are possible.

Action to test: Explain the actual review scope, permitted context and available outcomes before the submission step, with links to the governing policy.

Follow-up: Show the revised instructions with a fictional case and ask members to explain what the reviewer can consider and what the appeal cannot promise. Record remaining misunderstandings without evaluating a real moderation decision.