Community Guidelines

1. Our Mission & Values

JudgeAccount.com is dedicated to promoting judicial accountability and transparency into the character and conduct of United States judges. Our platform serves as a critical resource for voters, litigants, attorneys, and citizens seeking verified information about judicial officers prior to elections, retention votes, and appointments.

We recognize that the integrity of our judicial system depends upon accountability, transparency, and public trust. Our mission aligns with the foundational principles of Western legal tradition, including the rule of law, judicial independence, impartiality, equality before the law, individual liberty, due process, and rationality. We are committed to upholding these values through rigorous standards and responsible stewardship of the information presented on our platform.

Our Core Values:

Transparency: Providing open access to information about judicial conduct and character
Accountability: Holding ourselves and our users to the highest standards of truthfulness and integrity
Fairness: Ensuring all content is evaluated impartially and consistently
Respect: Maintaining dignity and civility in all discourse
Integrity: Operating with unwavering honesty and ethical principles
Authenticity: Prioritizing genuine, firsthand experiences and verified information
Justice: Supporting the fair administration of law through informed civic participation
Courage: Facilitating difficult but necessary conversations about judicial conduct
Humility: Acknowledging that reviews reflect subjective personal experiences while striving for factual accuracy

These values guide our community standards and inform every decision we make in moderating content and enforcing our guidelines.

2. Community Standards & Prohibited Content

To maintain the integrity and utility of JudgeAccount.com, we prohibit content that violates the following standards. All users must adhere to these guidelines when submitting reviews, media links, or engaging with our platform.

Prohibited Content Categories:

Spam

Content that is repetitive, promotional, commercial in nature, or irrelevant to judicial review is strictly prohibited. This includes but is not limited to: duplicate submissions, automated or bot-generated content, unsolicited advertisements, irrelevant external links, or content designed to manipulate search rankings or visibility. Each submission must provide unique, substantive information relevant to the judicial officer under review.

Inappropriate Content

Content containing profanity, vulgarity, explicit sexual material, graphic violence, or subject matter wholly unrelated to judicial proceedings, court experiences, or professional conduct is prohibited. While we recognize that courtroom experiences may involve sensitive or emotionally charged situations, all descriptions must remain professional and germane to the evaluation of judicial character and conduct. Content must focus on the judge's professional performance, temperament, fairness, and adherence to legal and ethical standards.

Harassment

Personal attacks, threats, targeted abuse, doxxing (publishing private personal information), stalking behavior, or content intended to intimidate, humiliate, or harm any individual is strictly forbidden. Reviews and commentary must address professional conduct and courtroom behavior, not engage in character assassination or personal vendettas. Criticism of judicial decisions or conduct must be substantive and fact-based, not designed to harass or defame.

Off-Topic Content

Submissions must directly relate to the judge's conduct, demeanor, decision-making, courtroom management, temperament, or other professionally relevant characteristics. Content concerning matters unrelated to judicial performance—including personal life details irrelevant to professional conduct, political endorsements unrelated to judicial philosophy, or commentary on non-judicial matters—will be removed. Media links must document newsworthy events, court proceedings, disciplinary actions, or other matters of legitimate public concern regarding the judge's professional activities.

Misinformation

Deliberately false, fabricated, or materially misleading information is prohibited. While we acknowledge that reviews necessarily contain subjective assessments of personal courtroom experiences, factual assertions must be accurate and made in good faith. Users may not knowingly misrepresent dates, case outcomes, statements made in court, or other verifiable facts. Media links must direct to legitimate news sources or official court documents; fabricated articles or doctored documents will result in immediate account suspension.

Conflicts of Interest

Reviewing a judge before whom you never personally appeared, reviewing yourself (if you are a judicial officer or attorney), reviewing family members who are judges, or any submission where lack of personal experience or personal bias fundamentally compromises the credibility and objectivity required for legitimate judicial review. Users must have direct, firsthand courtroom experience with the judge to submit a review.

Other Violations

Additional prohibited content includes:

Confidentiality Violations: Posting sealed court documents, confidential settlement terms, grand jury materials, or other legally protected information
Duplicate Submissions: Submitting multiple reviews of the same judge or repeatedly posting identical or substantially similar media links
Vote Manipulation: Coordinated efforts to artificially inflate or deflate a judge's rating through organized mass submissions
Impersonation: Falsely representing yourself as another person, attorney, judicial officer, or court official

3. User Responsibilities

For Review Submitters:

Users submitting reviews bear responsibility for ensuring their submissions are truthful, accurate, and comply with these Community Guidelines. Reviews must reflect genuine, firsthand courtroom experiences and provide substantive information about the judge's conduct, temperament, fairness, and professionalism.

Eligibility Requirement: Direct Personal Experience

This is a bedrock principle of JudgeAccount.com: Only individuals who personally appeared before a judge in a legal proceeding may submit a review of that judge. This requirement is non-negotiable and directly reflects our core values of honesty, integrity, fairness, and accountability.

We recognize that judicial decisions affect not only parties to cases but also their families, friends, and communities. A loved one may feel aggrieved by a judge's ruling that impacted their family member. However, secondhand accounts, no matter how sincerely felt, constitute hearsay and cannot form the basis for a legitimate review on our platform.

Why This Matters:

Reviewing a judge you never appeared before is analogous to reviewing a restaurant you never visited or critiquing a film you never watched. Such reviews lack the foundation of lived experience necessary for credible assessment. They are inherently unreliable, susceptible to distortion through retelling, and often colored by resentment, conjecture, or incomplete information rather than direct observation.

Our mission of judicial accountability demands that we serve as a trusted, credible resource. We cannot fulfill this mission if we amplify hearsay, speculation, or secondhand grievances. Allowing reviews from non-parties would:

Undermine the integrity and trustworthiness of all reviews on our platform
Enable coordinated attacks based on rumors rather than facts
Compromise our commitment to fairness by platforming unverifiable claims
Violate our values of honesty and authenticity by presenting hearsay as firsthand experience
Destroy public confidence in our platform as a reliable information source

Verification of Standing:

While we do not require users to submit case numbers or documentary proof at the time of review submission, we reserve the right to request verification of a user's standing to review a particular judge. Users who submit reviews without having personally appeared before the judge will face immediate account suspension and permanent ban.

What Constitutes Personal Appearance:

Personal appearance means you were a named party (plaintiff, defendant, petitioner, respondent) or witness in a case before the judge. Attendance as a spectator, family member of a party, or media observer does not constitute personal appearance for purposes of review eligibility.

Reviewers must:

Base reviews exclusively on personal, direct experience in proceedings before the judge
Provide honest assessments of judicial conduct, temperament, and fairness based on firsthand observation
Distinguish between subjective impressions and objective facts
Refrain from making knowingly false statements
Avoid inappropriate language, personal attacks, or harassment
Respect legal confidentiality and sealed court proceedings

Our Ironclad Commitment to Truth:

False or malicious submissions are an affront to our mission and values. We maintain an ironclad policy against false information. Knowingly submitting false, fabricated, or materially misleading information is a bedrock principle violation that fundamentally undermines public trust and compromises our mission of judicial accountability.

Users who submit false information—whether in reviews, media links, or reports—will face immediate and severe consequences, up to and including permanent account termination without appeal. We do not tolerate, excuse, or provide second chances for deliberate falsehoods. The integrity of our platform depends absolutely on users' commitment to truthfulness, and we enforce this standard rigorously and without exception.

For Media Link Submitters:

Users submitting media links serve a critical function in documenting newsworthy information about judicial conduct. Media submissions must link to legitimate news sources, official court documents, bar disciplinary records, or other credible publications. All media links must include accurate headlines, publication dates, source attribution, and substantive summaries.

Media submitters must:

Verify the authenticity and accuracy of linked sources
Provide complete and accurate citation information
Write objective summaries that fairly represent the linked content
Avoid editorializing or mischaracterizing the source material
Submit only content of legitimate public interest regarding judicial conduct
Refrain from submitting duplicate or redundant links

General User Conduct:

All users must engage with the platform in good faith, with the understanding that JudgeAccount.com serves an important civic function. Users should approach the platform with seriousness, integrity, and respect for the judicial process.

4. Reporting Violations

Users who encounter content that violates these Community Guidelines are encouraged to report such content through our flagging system. Reports assist our moderation team in maintaining community standards and ensuring the integrity of information on our platform.

How to Report Content:

Each review and media link includes a "Report" button. When flagging content, users must select the appropriate violation category and may provide additional context explaining the nature of the violation. Reports are reviewed by our administrative team in a reasonable timeframe.

What to Report:

Users should report content that clearly violates the standards outlined in Section 2 of these guidelines. This includes spam, inappropriate content, harassment, off-topic submissions, misinformation, conflicts of interest, and other prohibited conduct. Users should exercise good judgment and report only genuine violations; the reporting system is not intended for disputes over subjective opinions or differences in personal experiences.

When Selecting "Other" Category:

If you select "Other" as the violation category, you must provide a detailed explanation of the specific guideline violation and context for your report. Generic or unexplained "Other" reports will not be considered by our moderation team. The explanation should clearly articulate:

What specific aspect of our Community Guidelines the content violates
Why the violation doesn't fit into the standard categories
Sufficient context for moderators to understand and evaluate the concern

Reports filed under "Other" without adequate explanation will be dismissed without review.

Reporting in Good Faith:

The integrity of our reporting system depends upon users exercising it responsibly and in good faith. Reports should be based on genuine concerns about guideline violations, not weaponized to silence viewpoints or suppress legitimate criticism. Abuse of the reporting system will result in consequences for the reporting user, as detailed in Section 8 below.

5. Review Process & Enforcement

All flagged content undergoes review by our administrative team. We are committed to fair, impartial, and consistent enforcement of our Community Guidelines.

Review Procedures:

When content is flagged, our moderation team:

Reviews the flagged content against our Community Guidelines
Examines the context and substance of the submission
Considers the reporter's explanation and concerns
Evaluates whether the content serves our mission of judicial accountability
Determines appropriate action based on the severity and nature of the violation

Timeframe for Review:

Flagged content is reviewed within a reasonable timeframe. While we strive for expeditious resolution, thorough and careful review takes precedence over speed. Users will not be notified of reports they submit unless action is taken that requires their input.

Administrative Discretion:

Our administrative team exercises discretion in evaluating content and determining appropriate responses. We recognize that some cases involve nuance, ambiguity, or competing considerations. In such instances, we err on the side of transparency and accountability, favoring the inclusion of substantive information that serves the public interest while maintaining rigorous standards for accuracy and civility.

Transparency in Moderation:

We are committed to transparent moderation practices. While individual moderation decisions are not publicly disclosed to protect user privacy, our general enforcement patterns and standards are reflected in these publicly available Community Guidelines.

6. Consequences for Violations

Violations of these Community Guidelines result in consequences proportionate to the severity and frequency of the violation.

Range of Consequences:

Content Removal: Violating content will be removed from the platform
Warning: First-time or minor violations may result in a formal warning
Temporary Suspension: Repeated violations or serious misconduct may result in temporary account suspension
Permanent Ban: Egregious violations, repeated offenses after suspension, or conduct that fundamentally undermines our mission will result in permanent account termination

Factors Considered:

In determining appropriate consequences, we consider:

The nature and severity of the violation
Whether the violation was intentional or inadvertent
The user's history of compliance or prior violations
The harm caused to other users or the integrity of the platform
Evidence of good faith and willingness to comply with guidelines

Multiple Violations:

Users who repeatedly violate Community Guidelines will face escalating consequences. A pattern of violations demonstrates unwillingness to operate within our community standards and may result in permanent removal from the platform regardless of the individual severity of each violation.

7. Appeals Process

Users who believe content was removed in error or that an account action was unjustified may appeal the decision.

How to Appeal:

Appeals must be submitted via email to Admin@JudgeAccount.com within a reasonable timeframe following the moderation action. The appeal should:

Identify the specific content or action being appealed
Explain why the user believes the decision was erroneous
Provide any additional context or evidence supporting the appeal
Demonstrate how the content complies with Community Guidelines

Appeals Review:

Appeals are reviewed by senior administrative staff who were not involved in the initial moderation decision. We conduct a fresh evaluation of the content and circumstances, considering both the original rationale and the user's appeal arguments.

Appeals Decisions:

Appeal decisions are rendered within a reasonable timeframe and are final. Users will be notified of the outcome via email. If an appeal is granted, content may be reinstated and account restrictions lifted. If an appeal is denied, the original decision stands.

Limitation on Appeals:

Users may appeal each individual moderation decision once. Repeated appeals of the same decision or frivolous appeals will not be entertained and may themselves constitute a violation of community standards.

8. False Reporting Policy

The integrity of our reporting system is essential to maintaining community standards. Users who abuse the reporting function undermine this system and compromise our ability to moderate effectively.

Prohibited Reporting Conduct:

Filing reports known to be false or baseless
Mass-flagging content to suppress legitimate information
Coordinating with others to target specific users or content
Using reports to harass or intimidate other users
Filing excessive or repetitive reports without legitimate basis

Consequences for False Reporting:

Users who engage in false or abusive reporting face the same range of consequences as other guideline violations, including warnings, suspension, or permanent ban. We take false reporting seriously, as it wastes administrative resources, suppresses legitimate content, and harms the user experience.

Determining False Reports:

We recognize that good-faith disagreements about guideline interpretation may occur. Not every unsuccessful report constitutes "false reporting." However, patterns of baseless reports, evidence of malicious intent, or flagrant abuse of the system will result in action against the reporting user's account.

9. Contact & Questions

We are committed to maintaining open communication with our user community regarding these guidelines and our moderation practices.

Questions About Guidelines:

Users with questions about these Community Guidelines, how they are interpreted, or how they apply to specific situations should contact us at Admin@JudgeAccount.com.

Reporting Technical Issues:

Technical problems with the reporting system or other platform functionality should also be directed to Admin@JudgeAccount.com.

Feedback and Suggestions:

We welcome constructive feedback about our Community Guidelines and moderation practices. While we cannot respond to every suggestion, we carefully consider user input in our ongoing efforts to improve the platform and serve our mission of judicial accountability.

Updates to Guidelines:

These Community Guidelines may be updated periodically to address emerging issues, clarify ambiguities, or reflect evolving community standards. Substantive changes will be announced to users through platform notifications. Continued use of JudgeAccount.com following such updates constitutes acceptance of the revised guidelines.

Table of Contents