Last updated: August 2025
These protocols guide Loop Moderators in their decision-making process for approving, rejecting or referring feedback on the Loop platform.
The protocols have a global scope and may require adaptation to specific country contexts but should be maintained in their original form where practicable to enable global consistency of the platform.
The protocols are in a document that is accessible to the public via the Loop website and updated and improved with experience. Feedback on the protocols is encouraged by anyone, at any time to ensure measured and fair decisions are made about what should be posted on the Open Platform for anyone to see and what is better managed through the ‘Closed’ Loop platform; i.e via our Sensitive Feedback team. The right balance of transparency, duty of care and accountability needs to be found.
You can give your feedback by writing to info@talktoloop.org stating your recommendations.
Introduction
Table of Contents
Introduction to Loop Moderators
The role of the Loop Moderator
Guiding principles
Practicalities of Moderation
Moderator’s Decision Flow
Sensitive vs Open Loop
Open Loop
Posting Feedback
Direct Messages
Getting Organisations to Reply
Moderating replies from organisations
Translations
Approving/Rejecting Feedback and Replies
Edit Function
Pinning Feedback
Sensitive Feedback on Talk to Loop
Working with Sensitive Feedback Leads on Sensitive Feedback
Data Protection and Confidentiality
Use of Phones for Sensitive Feedback Handling
Urgent vs. Non-Urgent Sensitive Feedback
Appendix 1: Examples of rejection texts
Appendix 2: Informed Consent conversation
Loop Moderators are individuals who have been selected at country or regional level to facilitate the implementation of the Loop platform. They have been trained by Loop in assessing feedback for safety and appropriateness and have signed Codes of Conduct and confidentiality agreements to ensure no personal identifying information is shared without consent.
Moderators are well networked into the national sector, aware of key actors and come from the local community. Moderators are adept in their allocated languages and local context to be able to review the machine transcriptions and translations and interpret implications of information with regards to safety.
A Loop Moderator’s primary responsibility is to process feedback coming into the platform in a timely manner (within 48 hours). This requires:
N.b: Loop Moderators should not contact authors of feedback to find out additional information. If contacting the author is necessary, the feedback should be tagged as sensitive and it is the task for the Sensitive Feedback Lead to assess what is required to handle the feedback in accordance with Loop’s Framework for Handling Sensitive Feedback. In keeping with the principle of do-no-harm, this is especially important in sensitive cases where we must avoid potentially re-traumatising the author or survivor and to prevent harm to them.
In carrying out their functions, the Moderators shall observe the following principles:
Tip: Always remember to check both the Inbox and Replies boxes!
If you are a moderator and need support, please refer to the Senior Moderator in country or the UX QA Lead
Tip: Make sure to look at the English language as well! Highlight to the User Experience and Quality Assurance (UX QA) Lead if you notice feedback sitting in the inbox for more than 48 hours.
The below flow diagram shows visually the key decisions for a Moderator to take with each item of feedback and reply:
The Open Loop platform is where feedback is published and is visible to anyone globally.
If a piece of feedback received is considered “sensitive” then it is referred to the Sensitive Feedback team, is not published on the website and instead goes into the “Closed Loop” which is Loop’s sensitive feedback handling system “Airtable”.
Feedback related to the following is considered sensitive, please refer to Loop’s Framework for Handling Sensitive Feedback for definitions:
All sensitive feedback must be referred to the Sensitive Feedback team. This includes any cases where the Moderator thinks the feedback relates to the above categories, even if:
It is always better to refer to the Sensitive Feedback team than to cause harm by assuming that the information is incomplete, vague or lacking evidence.
Once feedback has been approved for posting on the Open Loop platform (i.e, it is not sensitive in nature and it does not breach Loop’s Community Guidelines; more on those below), the Moderator should then action the following checks:
Once tagging is completed, the feedback will be posted on the Open Loop platform with no changes to the text or information.
The Loop platform has a function to enable a direct message between Moderator and author for non-voice based messages. Direct messaging to the author should be used as little as possible (for WhatsApp within 24 hours of receipt as per WhatsApp’s rules). It is there in case there is some specific information required before posting the feedback onto the open platform. We have learnt that people often do not respond to these direct messages so best practice, where possible, is to post the feedback as usual and to reply to them as a Loop staff member, publicly asking for the additional information.
In order for Loop to provide an effective service, Moderators should maintain awareness of the author’s experience of using the platform, intending their work to generate the outcome that the author feels their voice has been heard. Therefore, Moderators and Country Leads should work with tagged organisations to (wherever possible) get them to reply to feedback in which they have been tagged.
Loop’s goal is to have organisations reply to authors of feedback directly through the platform. Moderators should discuss with their teams and Country Leads the best way to approach organisations that have been tagged to sensitise and support them to use Loop to reply. Organisations may need to be mentored for some time before they are familiar with the functionality.
Replies to a post can be from anyone. Moderators must ensure, when checking the “Moderators’ Inbox” for feedback to moderate, that they also check the replies inbox for any replies to moderate.
Replies should be moderated in the same way; with consideration about whether the community guidelines are being followed; whether additional tags need to be added and whether additional organisations need to be contacted.
NOTE for IVRR: Because the author who receives a reply might not know which organisations were tagged in the post and which organisation is replying, you can add this sentence to each recording before the reply is read out:
"This reply is from [name of person] from [name of organisation] replying to your message you left on (Talk to) Loop."
Loop commits to translate the static and user-generated content of everything on the platform and the Loop website, through machine translation, into at least English, Spanish, French and Arabic.
If the feedback is posted in English, French, Spanish or Arabic (or any other enabled machine translated language on Loop), then no translation by the Moderator is required, it will be machine-translated automatically when posted.
For any other languages which Loop commits to enable, we will translate the static and user-generated content of the platform. For specific pre-approved/defined languages, when funding permits, in contexts where Loop has been rolled out, Loop will:
This may be delivered through machine and then human-verified translation or human first translation, depending on the quality of machine translation which is available.
Loop will post the feedback only when it has been translated into one of the original languages of the specific thread. Some other translations may occur after the original feedback has been posted.
In summary, for posts in a specific country: if an author of feedback/reply engages in a pre-approved language then Loop will ensure that that person can participate and understand the full conversation thread.
Anyone can request a translation of a specific feedback or reply and they can also propose an improved translation. The Moderator will need to review and process each of these checks for accuracy.
If people write in a hybrid of languages the Moderators will always consider accessibility first. So, if I only speak one of the languages how much of the feedback will I understand? If it is everything then it is possible to tag it as that language. However if the majority of readers who only speak one language will not understand it then it should not be tagged as that language.
For example: If there is a phrase with 80% of the words in English but the remaining key words are in Tagalog. If this feedback is not fully understood without understanding of those key words then it cannot be tagged as being in English. If the majority of Tagalog speakers would however understand the full feedback then it would need to be tagged as being posted in Tagalog.
For all non-sensitive feedback, the Moderator is to approve a feedback to be posted on the Open Loop platform, or to reject the feedback. A feedback may be only rejected for the reasons stipulated in the Community Guidelines or if there is little or no substantive content (for example, poor audio quality, numbers or single words submitted as a test or due to failure to enter the full information). All rejected feedback is kept in a separate database and periodically checked for adherence to the reasons stipulated in community guidelines and other Loop SOPs.
If feedback is rejected and the author has shared their contact details, the Moderator must politely send a message back to the author explaining the reason why the decision was made to reject the feedback/reply and encourage them to edit the post (e.g. by taking out offensive information) and re-submit the feedback/reply if they wish to. See examples of rejection text in Appendix 1.
There is an option to state a different reason so that Loop can learn about possible reasons not to post things on the open platform.
(for information that might identify a person)
No personal identifying information (‘PII’) should be posted on the platform. This includes full names and details such as phone numbers, email addresses or exact locations (e.g. IDP or refugee camp name). If these details are provided and the feedback is not sensitive, the Moderator can use the ‘feedback edit’ function and hide the PII before it is published.
For example:
*N.B. For Philippines and Indonesia, can leave a full name unless it is a vulnerable person that could be identified.
The original feedback will still be visible to the Moderator but the information replaced with ‘XX’ will not be visible on the Open platform. If there is doubt, the feedback should be marked as sensitive & referred to the Sensitive Feedback team.
For Voice recordings, those remain available for 3 months only.
Limits to the feedback edit function
In order to respect the integrity of the feedback, Moderators should NOT correct any spelling mistakes, capitalisation, grammar or punctuation of feedback posted via the text-enabling channels. The reason for this is that there may be unintended changes to the meaning of the original feedback that the author might not want. Moderators are therefore limited to editing out only PII in order to safely post the feedback publicly. For Voice channel, the transcription of the feedback should be as close to the original recording as possible while ensuring that the transcription preserves the intended message, avoids repetitions and presents meaningful feedback.
Some feedback may be submitted with little or no substantive content, but there may be additional content in other fields. Where this occurs, Moderators can use the ‘Pin’ function to pin these additional details to the feedback.
For example, if someone sends a WhatsApp message and starts part of their feedback then later when asked about their gender, they add in additional information about the school etc. Where this information does not personally identify the author in an unsafe manner, if it is pinned to the original message then all of the information will be available for people to read on the open platform.
Loop appoints one or two Country Sensitive Feedback Leads and Moderators and trains them in handling sensitive information, child protection, PSEA, GBV, etc. cases and in Loop’s Sensitive Feedback Handling package. However, all Moderators should familiarise themselves with this section as it will guide them in moderating feedback correctly and in ensuring Loop does not do or contribute to harm.
Once a feedback is deemed sensitive and referred to the Global Sensitive Feedback Lead, it is the responsibility of the latter to apply Loop’s Framework for Handling Sensitive Feedback to process the feedback and refer sensitive information to the appropriate organisations and to track the progress of cases.
Moderators who are focal points for sensitive feedback “Sensitive Feedback Moderators” should discuss with the Sensitive Feedback Lead the action plan as soon as each case is received, discussing what services might be required and which organisations are best placed to provide those services based on Loop's service mapping.
If the complainant/survivor is a child and it is safe to involve their parent or guardian, it is important to do so.
If consent is given for a referral to be made, the Sensitive Feedback Moderator should first make the referral on the phone and the Sensitive Feedback Lead (national or global) follows that with a confirmation via email. If the referral is to an organisation such as an INGO or UN agency that requires written referral or an online submission through a complaints portal, the Sensitive Feedback Lead (national or global) will make the referral. In some cases, Loop might counsel the complainant/survivor about how to access the services without making a formal referral to the organisation “signposting”. This will be documented under referral notes; however, no referral record will be created so as to not conflict in data for referral records and follow up with organisations.
The complainant/survivor should also be informed at key steps, such as when the referral has been made, following up to see if they received the service or not, and their level of satisfaction with the service provided. After the complainant/survivor is informed of the outcome of the case, the case can be closed.
For many cases, and where Loop does not have a local Sensitive Feedback Lead, the Global Sensitive Feedback Lead will need to work through the Sensitive Feedback Moderator in order to communicate with the complainant/survivor in the local language. Information about the case should never be stored on paper or on local computers or phones; Airtable should be used to store all details.
The Sensitive Feedback Moderators and Sensitive Feedback Leads must use Two-Factor Authentication when setting up their Airtable account and manually sign out at the end of each session.
For email referrals, the Sensitive Feedback Lead shares password protected documents via email and sends the passwords via WhatsApp, to ensure additional security of the data only reaching the intended recipient.
Moderators should never communicate with complainants/survivors using their personal phone numbers, they should always use the Loop phone/sim card.
Moderators should not save the name of the complainant/survivors with the phone number on their phone. If it is absolutely necessary to store the number (in case the person might call them,) they should use Airtable’s report ID as the name. When the case is closed, any stored phone number must be deleted.
Additionally, Moderators should always call from a private location, whether they work from the office and especially if they work from home.
Note: It is advisable to attempt to contact the complainant/survivor at different times of the day as different people may have access to the phone or the electricity may come on at different times in the area.
Where sensitive feedback has been identified, an ‘urgent’ tag should be given to all feedback where there is a risk of imminent harm to a person. Examples of such feedback could be:
When tagging an urgent feedback, Moderators must also send a Whatsapp message to their Sensitive Feedback Lead to notify them of the urgent case. After discussing with the Sensitive Feedback Lead, the Moderator will call the complainant/survivor to inform them of their options in terms of referrals to services and investigation, and to seek informed consent for each service separately. See script below for example Informed Consent conversation.
If Moderators are unsure of what action to take, they should always elevate the feedback to their Sensitive Feedback Lead.
Thank you for submitting your feedback to Loop. Unfortunately, your feedback does not contain enough information to understand any meaning. Could you please expand on your feedback so we can post it onto the Loop platform?
Thank you for submitting your feedback to Loop. Unfortunately, your feedback does not adhere to our community guidelines because it contains discriminatory language. Could you please remove this type of language and re-submit your feedback to allow us to post it onto the Loop platform?
Thank you for submitting your feedback to Loop. Unfortunately, we cannot post your feedback as you have marked it as “sensitive”. Sensitive feedback is feedback that is related to sexual exploitation and abuse, sexual and gender-based violence, child protection, corruption, extortion, fraud, abuse of power, bullying, harassment, discrimination or other unprofessional or unethical behaviour or anything where there could be potential harm to an individual. If you do not consider your feedback to contain one of these, please could you re-submit your feedback without the “sensitive” tag? If you do believe your feedback to be of a sensitive nature, please resubmit with additional comments to help us understand the nature of the feedback.
How might this conversation go?
This is an excerpt from Loop’s informed consent form:
(The below sample script is provided as a guide only. The script can be adapted for conversations over the phone or through email or SMS.)
Remember that any written script may be used and shared with others in any capacity, therefore it is important to be careful and professional about what is shared with whom. If in doubt, ask!
Thank you for sharing your feedback through Loop. It is not always easy.
As a Sensitive Feedback Lead, it's my responsibility to refer your feedback on to another organisation to make sure you/the survivor can get help.
It seems your feedback is about XXXX [insert allegation type here: fraud/corruption/other misconduct/PSEAH/other protection].
Before we take any action with the information you have shared with us, we want to give you information about the option(s) we have available and give you the opportunity to decide whether this is right for you at this time. We will not take these actions without your consent.
I would like to share your information with XX within XX organisation because I believe they can support you because XX.
How do you feel about sharing your name and contact details with XX in this organisation? How do you feel about sharing all of the information in your post? Is there any information you would prefer me not to share? Do you give consent for them to contact you and if so what is the best way for them to contact you?
If you have any further questions or concerns please do not hesitate to contact me to discuss things further or to explain the recommended actions and next steps.