No Public Naming or Campaign Without Future Independent Review
Question
May the founder or community publish a verified-looking campaign when an allegation appears urgent?
Problem
Public naming can endanger a family, damage legal proceedings, expose private information, create defamation risk, and wrongly target a person or institution.
Decision
OPCA will not publish a named case or campaign during Stage One. No future naming may occur without consent, evidence standards, safety review, qualified legal review, conflict review, right of reply where safe, independent approval, and a correction process.
Rationale
Community attention must be governed so it protects rather than becomes an online mob or a founder-controlled weapon.
Alternatives considered
Founder approval alone; majority community vote; publication after one lawyer review; anonymous publication followed by names.
Risks
A slower process may frustrate people. The safeguard protects both affected families and people who may be wrongly accused.
Scope impact
No case campaigns, accusation feed, blacklist, petition, or public naming feature exists.
Privacy and safeguarding impact
Private case data is not collected during Stage One.
Owner and review
Owner: Founder. Review date: December 7, 2026.
Reconsideration trigger
A future publication panel, written standard, counsel, safeguarding, appeal, and corrections process are operational.
Reversal path
A future adopted decision may authorize one tested public-accountability process without weakening the minimum safeguards.
History
Stage One baseline decision.