Incentivize your moderators. Only pay for results.

That question is real and it belongs with your employment counsel, not with us. What we can tell you is what you control: you set what a reward is, what it is worth, and what triggers it, and Jolly campaigns are always upside with nothing withheld or deducted. Design the program inside whatever boundaries your counsel sets. We do not advise on classification and you should not treat this page as guidance on it.

Read your own rule closely first, because rules like that are usually written against one specific risk: an outside party paying a moderator to make a particular call. That is why they are normally scoped to third parties, and this is not one. It is your program, run by you for your own moderators, funded by you, on targets you set. Jolly is the infrastructure you run it on, never a party with an interest in any decision. Where your rule is broader than that, start with the campaigns that never attach a reward to an individual moderation decision: continuity, calibration and recruiting all reward showing up and staying sharp rather than a call on a report. That is the order they appear in above.

That is the risk worth pricing, because it does not arrive gradually. Coverage on a volunteer mod team concentrates in a small number of people, and when they go, the communities they held go with them, usually without notice and often together. Continuity campaigns are the hedge. They reward weeks active and completed handoffs, so participation falling in a community is visible weeks before it empties, and someone stepping back has a reason to hand over rather than disappear. You get warning and a handoff instead of a gap.

It is a program that rewards moderators for outcomes your communities actually need, like a report cleared that also held up on review, a policy calibration passed, or a weekend queue that stayed covered. Jolly runs these as campaigns tied to the data your moderation tooling already produces, so spend maps to accurate decisions and real coverage rather than to raw activity.

No, and it should not be pitched that way. Your moderators are not short on willingness, they are short on cover: the overnight queue nobody is awake for, the policy change nobody caught, the person who quietly stopped and left a community uncovered. Campaigns are built on those gaps, so what you are backing is coverage and continuity rather than more output from people already donating their time. Rewards are additional and nothing is expected in return from anyone who wants no part of it.

It would, which is why Jolly does not pay on throughput alone and never counts actions taken. Productivity campaigns count reports resolved that also held up on review, so a removal that gets overturned earns nothing and the cheapest path to the reward is a correct decision. Over-enforcement against your own members is a worse outcome than a slow queue, and the campaign has to be built so the incentive agrees with that.

It is the right thing to worry about, most of all where people moderate because they care about the community and can resent being managed. Two things keep it honest. Rewards are always additional, so nothing is taken from someone who wants no part of it, and the targets are outcomes the queue already values, like a cleared backlog and consistent calls, rather than metrics invented for the program.

Policy changes are where accuracy drops, so that is where the campaign sits. Jolly rewards calibrations passed and guideline updates acknowledged before they take effect, which turns the rollout itself into something moderators earn on rather than an announcement they find later.

Not the way these campaigns are built. Jolly never rewards a low escalation count, a low appeal count or a low error rate, because paying for fewer escalations pays a moderator to stop escalating. Campaigns reward escalations resolved and calibrations passed, so raising a genuinely hard case is rewarded rather than penalized.

Most moderators stop quietly, and the queue only notices afterward, which is costly either way because policy judgment takes months to build and leaves in a day. Jolly runs continuity campaigns on weeks active and on completed handoffs, so staying is rewarded and stepping back cleanly is rewarded too. You get warning before coverage disappears, and you only pay when continuity actually improves.

No, and they should not be sold as one. Incentives can reward moderators for taking the check-ins and breaks your support resources already offer, which is a real problem when a queue spikes and they get skipped. What the content of the queue does to people is a duty-of-care question you owe your moderators, not a campaign.

This is the gap community moderation leaves most often, because the hardest windows are the ones nobody wants and nobody can be assigned to them. Jolly rewards moderators for clearing the windows your queue is thinnest, including overnight across time zones and weekend surges after something goes viral. Nobody commits to a window in advance, and nothing is owed when a window goes uncovered. You only pay for the ones that get covered.

The people already doing the work know who else is good at it, and they know what the work actually involves. Jolly rewards them when someone they put forward comes on and is still moderating ninety days later, not just when a name is submitted, so the reward tracks a moderator who stayed rather than a referral that did not.

Consistency is the thing moderators cannot solve on their own, because every community learns its own habits and every mod team writes its own unwritten rules. You do not configure this community by community. Campaigns run across the whole portfolio at once with targets set by tier, so a large community with a deep mod bench and one run by two people can sit on different targets under one program without either being hand-built. You see where accuracy is holding and where a policy area is drifting.

Badges and points programs both pay out for showing up, and flair is recognition inside one community that stops there. Jolly campaigns attach real, chosen rewards to defined outcomes, reach every moderator rather than the visible few, and report what each campaign returned. The badge still matters. This gives you something to put behind it.

Most likely, yes. Jolly's Data Agent connects to the systems you already run, including moderation queues, report and case tooling, quality and audit platforms, and whatever you use to plan coverage, and reads live activity from them. Campaigns run on your real queue data, not on numbers a moderator reports about themselves.

Yes. Each campaign has defined targets. When a moderator hits theirs, points dispatch automatically. When they do not, nothing is paid, so your spend always maps to a report actually cleared and agreed on review, or a window actually covered.

Nothing is deducted, and nothing changes about their standing. Incentives are always upside. That matters more here than in most operations, for two reasons: any downside would give someone a reason to quietly decide a hard case rather than escalate it, and someone who feels penalized by a program does not push harder, they stop moderating.