Use of Conduct & Comparison Standards

1. Purpose of this Use of Conduct

Stattook is built around public comparison: two choices, a clear question, and participation from people who choose to vote or discuss. This Use of Conduct explains how comparisons and other public content are expected to work and what may happen when content is unclear, misleading, unsafe, sensitive, or inconsistent with the platform.

These standards work together with the Privacy Policy and Terms of Service. They are public guidance, not a promise that every comparison will receive the same reach, ranking, recommendation, or voting distribution.

2. Comparisons that are generally allowed

A comparison is generally suitable when both sides are understandable, relevant to the question, presented in good faith, and give participants enough context to make a reasonable choice.

• Two outfits, designs, photos, logos, edits, meals, destinations, gadgets, products, apps, sports moments, entertainment choices, or other comparable subjects.
• Opinion questions where the creator clearly states what is being compared and why the community is being asked to choose.
• Creator-led comparisons that are subjective and acknowledge that a community result represents participation, not objective truth.
• Business, product, or service comparisons when the comparison is reasonably framed and does not falsely imply an official relationship, endorsement, certification, or partnership.
• Comparisons that invite discussion without targeting people with harassment, threats, sexual content, private information, or deceptive claims.

3. Comparison quality and justification

A good comparison should make sense before someone votes. The question, the two sides, and the reason for comparing them should be reasonably understandable. A creator does not need to prove that two subjects are identical; however, the comparison should provide enough context for participants to understand what the choice means.

Stattook may consider the framing, context, category, subject matter, available information, participation pattern, and other signals when deciding how content should be displayed. A comparison can remain publicly available while receiving different distribution from another comparison.

• Explain the basis of the comparison when the relationship between the two choices is not obvious.
• Do not remove important context merely to make one side appear stronger.
• Do not present a personal opinion as a verified fact.
• Do not use a comparison format to disguise advertising, impersonation, manipulation, or a claim that cannot reasonably be supported.
• When the two sides operate at very different scales, make the purpose of the comparison clear.

4. Invalid or poorly framed comparisons

Some comparisons may be treated as invalid when the two sides are so mismatched, unrelated, misleadingly framed, or incomplete that the resulting vote would not provide a meaningful community signal. Invalid does not necessarily mean harmful; it can simply mean that the comparison does not fit the comparison model well enough to be useful.

For example, comparing a large global company with a very small local company can be valid when the question is specifically about a defined feature, product, experience, price, design, or other measurable or understandable point. It may be considered an invalid comparison when it is framed as a broad “which company is better?” question that ignores the enormous difference in size, resources, market, scope, or purpose.

Other examples include comparing unrelated subjects without explaining the connection, creating a choice where one side does not actually answer the question, or using a comparison to create a misleading impression about a person, organization, product, or event.

• Apples-to-oranges comparisons with no meaningful comparison basis.
• A broad winner/loser claim that hides major differences in scale, category, audience, or purpose.
• Comparisons that rely on a false premise or deliberately incomplete context.
• Duplicate, spam-like, automated, or repeatedly reposted comparisons intended mainly to manufacture activity.
• Comparisons that impersonate an official poll, announcement, review, ranking, or endorsement when they are not official.

5. Comparisons that may be flagged by the system

Stattook uses automated and human moderation processes to protect the quality and safety of the platform. A comparison may be flagged when signals suggest that it could be sensitive, misleading, abusive, manipulated, unsafe, or otherwise unsuitable for normal distribution.

A flag is not automatically a finding that the creator acted improperly. A flagged comparison may be reviewed, limited, placed behind an additional confirmation step, temporarily withheld, restored, edited where permitted, or removed depending on the circumstances.

• Sensitive or potentially disturbing subject matter.
• Claims that appear misleading, deceptive, impersonating, or materially incomplete.
• Unusual participation patterns or signals suggesting vote manipulation or coordinated activity.
• Comparisons involving private individuals or sensitive subjects where additional context or protection may be appropriate.
• Content that appears to exploit a sensitive event, person, group, or situation for engagement.
• Repeated attempts to publish content that has already been restricted or removed.

6. Sensitive information and sensitive comparisons

Some information can require additional care even when it is not automatically prohibited. Depending on the subject and the available signals, sensitive information or a sensitive comparison may receive reduced distribution, be temporarily withheld, be declined for public display, or be placed behind a confirmation or warning step so that a user can make an informed decision before viewing it.

Examples may include highly personal information, sensitive personal circumstances, traumatic events, allegations involving identifiable people, or material that could expose someone to unnecessary harm. The presence of a sensitive subject does not by itself establish that a claim is true or false.

Stattook may also remove sensitive information when it is not necessary for the comparison, appears to expose private information, or creates a meaningful safety, privacy, or abuse risk.

7. Adult and sexually explicit content

Stattook does not allow sexually explicit adult content, pornography, explicit sexual imagery, or comparisons created primarily to distribute such material. Content that violates this rule may be removed and may result in account restrictions.

Non-explicit discussion of mature subjects may still be subject to review depending on the context, presentation, age suitability, and surrounding content. The platform may apply additional visibility controls where appropriate.

8. Harassment, abuse, threats and targeting

A comparison should not be used as a tool for harassment, humiliation, threats, intimidation, or coordinated attacks against a person or group. The comparison format does not turn otherwise abusive conduct into acceptable content.

Content may be restricted or removed when the comparison is primarily being used to target an individual, encourage harassment, reveal private information, or mobilize others against someone.

9. Misleading claims, impersonation and false context

Creators are responsible for presenting comparisons honestly. Do not make a public comparison look like an official statement from a company, creator, government body, event organizer, or other organization when it is not.

Stattook may limit or remove comparisons that materially misrepresent facts, use deceptive captions or images, fabricate authority, or create a false impression about a person, organization, product, event, or relationship.

10. Voting integrity and manipulation

Community voting is intended to represent genuine participation. Attempts to artificially influence results can affect whether a comparison is distributed, ranked, or retained.

This may include bots, automated voting, coordinated fake accounts, repeated account creation, purchased or deceptive engagement, vote brigading, or other activity designed primarily to manufacture a result rather than express genuine participation.

11. Reach, ranking and the comparison algorithm

Being allowed on Stattook does not mean that every comparison will receive the same reach. The platform may use multiple signals to decide which content is shown, recommended, ranked, grouped, or surfaced to users.

A comparison that is technically allowed may receive less distribution than another comparison because of its category, context, participation quality, freshness, safety signals, user interests, or other platform signals. A flagged comparison may receive substantially reduced distribution while it is being assessed.

Stattook does not publish every internal ranking, recommendation, anti-abuse, or moderation signal. Public documentation explains the principles without exposing mechanisms that could be used to manipulate the system.

12. Review, warning, confirmation and removal

Depending on the circumstances, Stattook may take different actions. These can include allowing the comparison normally, reducing distribution, adding a warning, requiring a user confirmation before viewing sensitive material, temporarily withholding the comparison for review, removing specific material, or restricting the account.

The action taken can depend on severity, confidence in the moderation signal, repetition, context, account history, potential harm, and whether the issue can be resolved without removing the entire comparison.

• Visible warning or sensitivity notice.
• Additional user confirmation before viewing.
• Reduced recommendation or discovery distribution.
• Temporary hold while the content is reviewed.
• Removal of the comparison or specific media.
• Temporary or permanent account restrictions for serious or repeated violations.

13. Reporting and moderation decisions

Users can report content they believe violates the Terms or this Use of Conduct. Reports are signals for review, not automatic proof that a violation occurred.

Stattook may consider multiple signals when reviewing a report. A report can result in no action, a visibility adjustment, a warning, a removal, or an account action depending on the evidence and circumstances.

14. Account restrictions and review

An account may be restricted when its activity repeatedly violates platform rules, creates meaningful safety or integrity risks, or attempts to bypass previous moderation actions. Restrictions can apply to publishing, voting, discovery, messaging, or other platform capabilities.

Where an appeal or review process is available, users should provide relevant context rather than repeatedly reposting restricted material or creating replacement accounts to bypass an action.

15. Responsibility of creators

Creators control the comparisons they submit and are responsible for the context they provide. Before publishing, check that the choices are understandable, the question is honest, the media is appropriate, and the comparison does not expose unnecessary sensitive or private information.

Creators should also understand that a comparison may be treated differently after publication if new information, reports, participation patterns, or safety signals change the assessment.

16. Practical examples

Allowed example: “Which of these two phone designs do you prefer?” with two clearly presented phones and no deceptive claims.

Potentially invalid example: “Which company is better?” comparing a global corporation with a tiny local business without defining what “better” means. A narrower question such as price, customer service, design, or a specific product feature may make the comparison more meaningful.

Potentially flagged example: a comparison built around an unverified allegation about an identifiable person. The system may limit visibility or hold the content for review depending on the context.

Restricted example: a comparison whose primary purpose is to publish explicit sexual imagery. Such content is not allowed and may result in removal or account restriction.

Sensitive example: a comparison involving traumatic or highly personal information. The material may receive a warning, confirmation step, reduced distribution, or removal depending on the circumstances.

Manipulation example: repeatedly using automated or coordinated accounts to force one side of a comparison to win. This can lead to vote invalidation, reduced distribution, or account restrictions.

17. Changes to this Use of Conduct

Stattook may update these standards as the platform, community, safety requirements, and moderation systems evolve. When important changes are made, the public version will be updated so users can understand the current rules.

18. Contact

For legal or conduct questions, contact legal@stattook.com. For privacy questions, see the Privacy Policy and contact privacy@stattook.com.