Public Trust Center & Transparency Reporting

Every project has a public, no-login-required Transparency section on its player-facing site, alongside a separate public status page. Together they give participants, spectators, and press a view into how fairly your competitions are run and how reliable the platform is — without exposing the internal detail of individual moderation cases. Understanding what's shown here helps you answer participant questions about fairness and trust, and helps you point people to the right public record instead of re-explaining it yourself.

Where to find it

Player-facing site → Transparency (public)

(transparency/)

Platform status: player-facing site → Status (public)

(status/)

What's in the Transparency section

The Transparency section is a set of public pages, all reachable from the Trust Center:

• Transparency Center (transparency/) — the overview page: your current policy document, your latest published transparency report, public trust indicators, and a feed of recent highlights (policy revisions, rulings, appeal updates, disclosures).
• Trust Center (transparency/trust-center) — your fair play, certification, and platform integrity commitments, plus a grid of compliance and certification badges (for example Verified Identity, Anti-Cheat Compliant, Tournament Eligible, Good Standing, Safe Play, Scholastic Compliant), each shown with its status (active, pending, suspended, revoked, or expired), issuer, and grant date. This page is also the hub linking to every other Transparency page below.
• Public Integrity Index (transparency/integrity-index) — a live, audited count of verified enforcement actions taken against cheating, harassment, and other policy violations, broken down by category, game, and region, with a rolling 30-day count and an average platform trust score. The figure is also available as an embeddable badge for press and partner organizer sites.
• Sanctions Registry (transparency/sanctions) — a public, filterable, paginated record of enforcement actions (warning, timeout, temporary ban, suspension, permanent ban) by category (cheating, harassment, inappropriate conduct, other), status, and whether each action is currently active or appealable.
• Dispute Resolution Ledger (transparency/disputes) — a public, filterable record of dispute cases (moderation or verification) and their outcome (upheld, modified, or overturned), along with resolution time.
• Officiating Outcomes (transparency/officiating) — a public record of officiating decisions and rulings tied to matches and tournaments: evidence reviewed, score corrections proposed or approved, forfeits recommended, technical pauses, and final rulings, each with its outcome (upheld, modified, overturned, rematch ordered, escalated, no action, or pending review).
• Rulebook (transparency/rulebook) and Rulebook Version History (transparency/rulebook/history) — the current published rulebook (printable, with collapsible sections) and every prior version, with a version picker and a line-level diff view to compare any two versions.
• Transparency Reports (transparency/reports) — periodic published reports summarizing platform integrity, appeals, and governance activity for a reporting period, each with case metrics (total reports and enforcement actions), appeal metrics (total appeals and average resolution time), and detection metrics (flags raised and confirmation rate).
• Transparency Metrics (transparency/metrics) — aggregate transparency, moderation, and appeal metrics.
• Transparency Feed (transparency/feed) — a running feed of the most recent policy revisions, rulings, appeal updates, sanctions, and disclosures.
• Transparency Policies (transparency/policies) — your published transparency, moderation, and accountability policy documents, each with a version number, effective date, and change summary; the currently effective version is flagged.

None of these pages require the visitor to be logged in, and none expose the identity-level detail behind an individual moderation case — only the aggregate and case-level records your project has published.

Public Integrity Index vs. Rating Methodology

The player-facing site also publishes a Rating Methodology page (transparency/rating-methodology) alongside the Transparency section. It explains, in plain terms, how competitive ratings are calculated (a modified ELO system with a 1,200-point baseline), the anti-smurf measures applied during placement matches, the rating decay schedule for inactive accounts, and the seasonal soft-reset formula. It's a companion to the Trust Center for participants asking about competitive fairness rather than moderation fairness.

Platform status page

The public status page (status/) shows the current operational state of the platform — grouped by infrastructure, platform services, game integrations, and communication — along with a 90-day uptime history per component and a list of recent incidents (investigating, identified, monitoring, or resolved). It refreshes automatically and is the page to point participants to during a suspected outage, instead of manually confirming status yourself in a ticket.

How this connects to appeal escalation

When staff escalate a participant's ban appeal instead of deciding it directly, they route it to one of three queues: Moderator (a senior or different moderator re-reviews it), Officiating (the appeal is tied to a match ruling, so officiating owns the authoritative call), or Governance (a policy-level escalation requiring admin sign-off). Once resolved, the outcome of that appeal — along with every other appeal your organization has decided — rolls up into the aggregate figures shown on the public Transparency Reports and Public Integrity Index pages, so participants can see how appeals have generally been resolved without needing access to the individual case. See Appeals for the full staff-side review and escalation workflow.

White-label branding

If your project runs on its own custom domain, the Trust Center's headline and subheadline reflect your project's own branding rather than the shared platform-wide default copy. The rest of the Transparency section's structure and data are the same across every project — only the Trust Center's top messaging is brand-overridable.

What happens next

• Every sanction, dispute, officiating ruling, or rulebook change your staff publish becomes visible on the corresponding Transparency page automatically — there's no separate publishing step.
• The Public Integrity Index and Transparency Reports update as new enforcement actions and appeal decisions are recorded.
• The status page reflects platform health in near real time and needs no manual update from your team.

To manage how staff review and escalate participant appeals, see Appeals. To control which staff can access governance and moderation tooling, see Permissions and admins.