Case Management & Investigation Policy

Not every reminder or minor interaction needs a formal case. A case should normally be opened when a matter requires investigation, formal sanction, significant evidence, continuing work, senior review, an appealable decision or a durable record for accountability.

A case may also be opened where an allegation concerns staff conduct, cross-team administration, serious community safety or another issue that should not be handled only through informal Discord messages.

Cases use stable references so players and staff can refer to the same record without ambiguity.

A case should identify people by their role in that matter rather than assuming everybody is an accused person. Roles may include Subject, Reporting Player, Affected Player, Witness, Investigator, Supporting Staff or another clearly described involvement.

Material case activity should appear in a chronological Case Log. Manual case notes are append-only: once a note has been created it should not be silently edited or deleted through the normal case interface.

If a mistake in a case note needs correcting, a further note should explain the correction. This protects the integrity of the chronology and prevents later uncertainty about what staff originally recorded.

• Investigation updates should record meaningful enquiries, evidence or changes in direction.
• Manager, Team Lead and Admin review notes should record what was reviewed and any decision or action requested.
• Outcome or resolution notes should explain how the case ended and the material rationale.
• Sanctions, review requests, enforcement results and other important system actions may generate automatic case-log entries.

Evidence may include server logs, Discord message links, screenshots, videos, witness accounts, player statements, audit records or other material relevant to the issues under review. Staff should seek context and authenticity rather than relying on isolated screenshots where additional context is reasonably available.

Evidence should be collected for a legitimate case purpose. Staff must not use case access as a reason to browse private or unrelated information out of curiosity.

Ordinary moderation cases should be accessible to the appropriate Moderation and Administration roles. A case can be restricted or highly restricted where wider visibility would create a genuine confidentiality, conflict-of-interest, staff-conduct or safety problem.

Linking a restricted case to another record must not automatically disclose its title, subject or contents to people who do not have permission to view it.

Where a case turns on a player's conduct, they should normally have a reasonable opportunity to give their account unless an urgent protective action has to be taken first or there is another legitimate reason not to contact them immediately.

For substantive conversations, Uros should aim for a lead staff member and a second supporting/observing staff member where reasonably practicable. Significant contacts can record who led, who supported, when the contact occurred and a fair summary of what was said.

A case may contain several separate issues and each can have its own finding. Uros should avoid reducing a multi-issue case to a vague overall guilty/not-guilty label.

• Substantiated — the available information supports that the issue occurred.
• Not Substantiated — the available information supports that the alleged breach did not occur or is not established.
• Insufficient Evidence — the available information does not allow a reliable conclusion either way.
• No Rule Breach — the conduct occurred but does not amount to a breach of the relevant Uros rule or policy.
• Withdrawn or Duplicate — the issue no longer requires a separate determination for the stated reason.

A player moderation profile may show previous cases, roles in those cases, findings and sanctions so authorised staff can understand relevant history. History must be interpreted accurately: being a witness or subject of an unsubstantiated report is not a misconduct finding.

Previous substantiated history may be relevant to proportionality only after the current matter is established. It should never substitute for evidence of the current allegation.

A case may be sent to a Manager, Team Lead, Section Admin or Owner/Lead Admin for review where the matter exceeds the investigator's authority, the evidence or policy is unclear, a high-impact sanction is proposed, there is a conflict of interest or an independent check is appropriate.

Reviews should be recorded. A reviewer may approve the proposed decision, request further work, return the case for amendment, vary the decision where they have authority or escalate it further.

Players involved in a case may be given a limited case view showing appropriate information such as their role, the matter under review, requests for information, disclosed evidence, outcome and available review route. Internal staff discussion, protected information and material relating to other people are not automatically disclosed.

The player view is normally read-only. An investigator may open a specific request for information or statement, after which the response becomes part of the case record.

Formal cases should be closed through an outcome process rather than silently changing a status field. The outcome should record the result, material reasoning and any player-facing explanation appropriate to the case.

A closed case may be reopened where genuinely new information, a successful review, an enforcement problem or another legitimate reason requires further work. Reopening does not delete the original outcome or chronology.

Staff-conduct matters may use restricted case visibility, specifically assigned investigators and senior review. A Team Lead or team member should not automatically gain access merely because the staff subject belongs to their team.

Temporary restriction of staff permissions may be used as a protective administrative measure where necessary while a serious matter is reviewed. It should not be presented as a finding before the investigation has concluded.

Case information is personal and sometimes sensitive community information. It must be handled under the Privacy & Data Policy, with access based on role and legitimate need. Important access and administrative actions should be auditable where the system supports it.

Records should be retained only for as long as they remain reasonably necessary for moderation, appeals, safety, accountability or other legitimate purposes.