Report a concern

Use this form to flag a verification record that looks wrong, suspicious, or broken. This submits a message to the Church admin inbox.

Your name (optional) Your email (optional)

Type of concern Message Timeline of events (optional) What resolution are you seeking? (optional) Policy citation (optional)

Use a policy key or slug when your report references a published rule.

Evidence screenshots (optional)

Up to 3 files, 5MB each. Screenshots are stored for admin review only.

Civility guardrails

Short pause + better framing helps us resolve issues faster and train better ambassadors.

Tone score 90

Looks constructive. Keep it specific and evidence-based.

tone: -- evidence: -- specificity: -- evidence quality: -- steelman: --

Claim strength confidence guide

Confidence means certainty, not truth. Use lower confidence when evidence is thin; increase confidence only with corroborated sources.

Audience focus for rewrite assist

Rewrite suggestions adapt to audience. Admin mode emphasizes evidence, peer mode emphasizes empathy, public mode emphasizes neutral framing.

Prompt reading level

Plain mode simplifies terms, standard keeps neutral language, formal mode adds review-ready structure.

Evidence notes or source links

When you choose “Evidence-backed claim,” include at least one source or concrete record reference.

Severity estimate (guidance)

Choose the lowest accurate severity. Over-escalation slows triage for genuinely urgent reports.

First-time pledge: I will submit this in good faith and avoid insults. I completed the before-you-post checklist (facts, relevance, respect). I fact-checked key claims or links. I might be wrong about parts of this, and I am open to correction. Family-safe mode: apply stricter language thresholds and cooldown rules.

Family-safe mode treats medium/high intensity wording more strictly to keep this space appropriate for younger audiences.

Tone detector may be missing context in this case (false-positive request). False-positive context (optional)

Route rubric

Evidence checklist

Precision mode: require at least one date or record ID before submit when severity is high/urgent or claim is evidence-backed.

Precision mode helps prevent vague escalation by enforcing concrete anchors (date, case ID, or record number).

Difficult disagreement simulator

Run a quick scenario before posting: choose a tense situation, then insert a structured response template.

Scenario

Guided apology wizard (accountability checkpoints)

Acknowledge specific wording harm State a concrete correction Commit to evidence-first follow-up Request a repair path instead of blame

Civility glossary

Steelman: restate the strongest fair version of the other side before disagreeing.
Corroboration: verify a claim with at least two independent sources.
Evidence-backed: claim includes concrete records, links, IDs, or dated references.
Over-escalation: severity is higher than current evidence quality supports.
Intent mismatch: what the sender meant differs from how the message landed.
Repair path: the concrete next action that closes the incident safely.

Intent vs impact examples

Intent: "I want this fixed fast." Impact: "You people are useless."
Intent: "I think this is fraud." Better framing: "This result conflicts with X evidence."
Intent: "I am angry." Better framing: "Here is the timeline and what appears incorrect."

Source credibility rubric

Signal	Low trust	High trust
Authorship	Anonymous / unverifiable	Named + accountable
Evidence	Claims only	Primary docs, dates, links
Recency	Stale/outdated	Current + timestamped
Corroboration	Single source	Multiple independent sources

Claim-strength examples

Evidence-backed: "Record ABC (dated 2026-02-20) shows status mismatch."
Mixed evidence + opinion: "The record is late, and I think the process needs review."
Personal view: "This feels unfair based on my experience."
Unsure: "I may be missing context. Please review this with me."

Ask better questions templates

"What evidence am I missing for this conclusion?"
"Which policy controls this decision, and where is it published?"
"What exact step should I take next to resolve this?"
"Can you show a timeline so I can verify each checkpoint?"

Disagree constructively presets

"I may be wrong, but this appears inconsistent with record X."
"I disagree with the result and would like to verify the criteria used."
"Can we compare my evidence with your source step-by-step?"
"I want resolution, not conflict. Here is the exact mismatch."

Steelman the other side prompts

"If their view were partly right, what fact would support it?"
"What is the strongest non-malicious explanation for this result?"
"Which assumption of mine could be wrong?"
"How would a fair critic describe their best case?"

Apology templates (accountability language)

"I was wrong to use that wording. I’m sorry. Here is the corrected claim."
"I overstated certainty without enough evidence. I’ll revise and cite sources."
"My tone made this harder. I apologize. Here are the concrete facts only."
"I reacted too fast. I’m open to correction and I want to resolve this productively."

Why content gets flagged

Personal attacks instead of evidence ("you are a liar" vs. record mismatch details).
Absolute claims with no sources ("always fraud", "never legitimate").
High-intensity wording that blocks review and resolution.
Missing context (no dates, IDs, links, or timeline).

Cancel