OASIS contains its own Courts system, a community-driven process to resolve conflicts and promote restorative justice inside the social network.

Instead of automatic punishments, Courts prioritise dialogue, clear evidence, and proportional remedies.

The Courts module lets people open cases, choose different decision methods (judge, popular vote, mediation, etc.), and keep a transparent record of everything that happens: evidence, hearings, verdict, and possible appeals.

A case in Courts usually moves through several phases, with statuses and optional deadlines:

• Open case: Someone creates a new case describing the conflict and who is involved.

• Select method: The community (or the accuser) chooses the resolution method (for example, Judge, Popular, Mediation, Karmatocracy…).

• Answer and evidence window:
  • The respondent can submit an answer before the “Answer by” deadline.
  • Both sides and their witnesses can submit evidence before the “Evidence by” deadline.

• Hearing and deliberation: A hearing (public or private) is held to discuss the case. Judges, mediators or voters read the evidence, ask questions and deliberate.

• Verdict and remedy: The chosen method issues a decision and a proportional remedy before the “Decision by” deadline.

• Enforcement and closure: The agreed measures are applied and the case is closed as:
  • SOLVED (restorative outcome achieved),
  • UNSOLVED (no agreement or inconclusive), or
  • DISCARDED (abusive, invalid or withdrawn case).

• Appeal (if applicable): In justified situations (new evidence or clear procedural error), a review of the verdict can be requested, usually within 7 days unless the community decides otherwise.

When opening a case, you can choose a Case type. These presets help others quickly understand the nature and severity of the situation. They do not automatically change powers or sanctions, but they provide useful context.

Small misunderstandings, tone issues, or low-impact frictions between people or tribes. Use this when the main goal is to clarify intentions, apologise if needed, and restore normal collaboration.

Repeated tension, unmet expectations or behaviour that has some impact on trust or collaboration, but is still manageable.

Use this when the situation is more than a one-off incident and needs a structured conversation and clear agreements.

Conflicts with strong impact on safety, trust or the functioning of a project or community. Use this for serious breaches of norms that may require firm remedies, long-term agreements or restrictions.

Targeted behaviour that makes someone feel unsafe, degraded or constantly attacked (for example, stalking, repeated insults, threats, or coercion). Use this when the main concern is the protection and wellbeing of one or more people.

Disputes focused on specific pieces of content (posts, images, comments, links, etc.) that may be harmful, illegal, misleading or against community rules. Use this when the core question is whether content should be removed, edited, contextualised or kept as is.

Cases about whether someone should be temporarily or permanently limited in their participation (for example, muting, access restrictions, or bans). Use this when previous conflicts or behaviours raise the question of restricting someone’s actions in OASIS.

Conflicts about rules, procedures, roles or decisions inside OASIS, tribes or other governance structures. Use this when the disagreement is less about personal behaviour and more about how decisions are made or how power is used in the community.

Courts uses a small set of explicit statuses you can see on each case:

• OPEN – The case has been created and is active. Answers and evidence can still be submitted, and no verdict has been issued yet.
• IN_PROGRESS – The case is active and in a more advanced stage (for example, during hearings, voting, or mediation).
• SOLVED – The case has a final restorative outcome and the agreed orders/remedies have been issued.
• UNSOLVED – The case is closed without a clear agreement or restorative solution.
• DISCARDED – The case has been rejected as abusive, invalid, spammy, or has been withdrawn by the parties.

Closed cases (SOLVED, UNSOLVED, DISCARDED) can have their public visibility configured by accuser and respondent, to balance transparency with privacy and safety.

Each case may show several timestamps:

• Created at – When the case was opened.
• Answer by – Recommended latest time for the respondent to submit their answer.
• Evidence by – Recommended latest time to submit or update evidence.
• Decision by – Target time for judges, mediators or voters to issue a verdict.

Communities can treat these as soft deadlines (guidelines) or hard deadlines (no more changes accepted after that time), depending on their norms. The UI makes timing visible so participants know when each phase is expected to end.

Several roles can appear in a Courts case:

The person or tribe who opens the case and describes the harm or complaint.

They are responsible for:

• Stating what happened.
• Providing initial evidence.
• Proposing, if they wish, a preferred remedy.

The person or tribe accused. They have the right to:

• Be heard and tell their version of events.
• Submit evidence and context.
• Propose remedies or counter-proposals.

The mechanism chosen by the community to:

• Facilitate the process.
• Evaluate the evidence.
• Issue the verdict.

Different methods (Judge, Dictator, Popular, Mediation, Karmatocracy) change who decides and how.

Someone who provides testimony or evidence relevant to the case.

Witnesses can:

• Clarify facts.
• Add context.
• Support or contradict claims from either side.

Neutral people invited by the prosecution and/or the defence.

They have access to all details of the case and help to:

• De-escalate the conflict.
• Facilitate dialogue between the parties.
• Co-create restorative agreements that both sides can accept.

Courts supports different methods to decide how a case is resolved:

• One person or a small group (tribe) acts as judge.
• Listens to all parties.
• Reviews the evidence.
• Issues a reasoned verdict and orders.

A single person has the explicit final say.

This is usually used only in very specific contexts (for example, a project founder who takes final responsibility or a dictatoship choosen at the parliament) and is not recommended as a default method.

The community decides by voting.

• A vote is opened for the case.
• Voters can support or reject the proposed verdict.
• Courts can show how many votes are needed and the current count.

The focus is on reaching a mutual agreement with the help of neutral mediators.

Ideal for conflicts where both sides want to:

• Repair the relationship.
• Co-create the remedy instead of having it imposed.

Decisions are weighted by a karma or reputation scoring system.

• People with more karma may have more weight in deliberation or voting.
• This can reward long-term contributors without giving absolute power to anyone.

When opening or responding to a case, parties can attach evidence.

Evidence descriptions are usually limited to up to 1000 characters, so it’s best to be clear and concise.

You can attach:

• Images
• Links (to documents, audio, video or external proofs)

All materials must be relevant and legal. Do not share sensitive personal data about other people without their consent.

Evidence should ideally be submitted before the “Evidence by” deadline so that judges, mediators or voters have enough time to review it.

Courts is inspired by restorative justice. This means the primary goal is to repair harm, not just to punish.

Common remedies include:

• Sincere apologies (public or private).
• Mediation agreements (commitments from both sides).
• Content moderation or corrections.
• Temporary restrictions on certain actions.
• Other proportional measures decided by the community.

The reasoning behind the verdict should be recorded so the community can understand why that decision was made and learn from it.

Throughout the Courts process, everyone must respect privacy and safety:

• Doxing, hate speech, threats and incitement to violence are removed.
• Judges may edit or seal parts of the record to protect people at risk.
• Abusive, spammy or bad-faith cases can be marked as DISCARDED.

Misusing Courts (for example, harassment through fake cases, manipulation of the process, or fabricated evidence) can lead to:

• Immediate negative outcomes in the case.
• Additional measures or restrictions against misuse.

The Courts system of OASIS is not merely a moderation tool — it is an experiment in digital restorative justice and collective conflict resolution.

By turning disputes into structured cases, Courts make harm visible, discussable and repairable. It allows the community to observe how different decision methods (judge, popular vote, mediation, karmatocracy) shape outcomes, trust and long-term cooperation.

Ultimately, its purpose is to:

• Transform conflict into repair, learning and accountability.
• Protect participants from abuse while avoiding blind, automatic punishments.
• Help communities self-organise fair and transparent responses to harm, without relying on a single central authority.

Courts exist so that OASIS can stay safe, fair and humane as it grows — resolving conflicts together instead of ignoring them or leaving them to algorithms alone.