The Standards Process

How the Code of Conduct is enforced. Written so that any member, any applicant, and any outside observer can see exactly how a complaint moves from filing to outcome. The process matters as much as the Code itself.

Why this exists

A code of conduct with no enforcement is decoration. A code with enforcement but no due process is tyranny. Lion.College takes both seriously.

The full process is set out in Article VII of the [Constitution](/constitution). This page explains it in plainer language so any man — including one who has been accused — can see what to expect.

Filing a complaint

Any member may file a Standards complaint in writing to the founder (or, after Phase IV, to the Standards Committee chair). Anonymous complaints are accepted only where the complainant fears retaliation — and the committee will require the complainant to identify themselves before any expulsion.

The complaint must include:

• The article or articles of the Code that were violated
• The factual basis for the claim
• The names of any witnesses (if known)
• Any documents or messages that support the claim
• Whether the complainant has discussed this directly with the accused

A complaint filed without effort to address the matter directly with the accused will usually be returned with a request to try a direct conversation first — unless the complaint involves safety, illegality, or a power imbalance that makes direct conversation unreasonable.

Triage — within seven days

The founder (or Standards Committee chair) triages every complaint within seven days. Triage produces one of four outcomes:

1. Frivolous — closed with a written explanation to the complainant. The complaint can be re-filed if new facts emerge.
2. Mediation — both parties are invited to a moderated conversation. Most low-stakes complaints end here.
3. Investigation — a three-Master committee is convened. The accused is informed within seven days of the triage decision.
4. Immediate suspension — for allegations involving violence, sexual misconduct, financial fraud, or harm to minors. The accused is suspended from the guild pending investigation. This is a protective measure, not a judgment.

Investigation

The investigation committee consists of three Masters with no personal or business relationship to either party. Where such impartial Masters cannot be assembled (a small early guild has this problem), the founder may appoint independent external counsel to chair.

The committee:

• Receives written submissions from the complainant and the accused
• Interviews witnesses where relevant
• Reviews documentary evidence
• Holds a verbal hearing where both parties present in turn

The accused has the right to:

• Written notice of the specific allegations and the articles invoked
• A reasonable time (no less than fourteen days) to prepare a response
• An external legal advisor at their own cost (silent counsel — the advisor may not address the committee directly, but may advise the accused)
• A verbal hearing, in person or by video
• Cross-examination of witnesses where the committee deems it appropriate

Investigations conclude within sixty days of the original triage decision. Extensions require committee chair approval and a written explanation to both parties.

Outcomes

The investigation committee may find:

• Cleared — no violation occurred. The complaint is closed; the file is sealed except to the committee and the founder.
• Cleared with note — no expulsion-worthy violation, but a written note is added to the accused's file regarding conduct that should not recur.
• Written reprimand — the accused is in violation but the offence is not expulsion-grade. A formal written reprimand is issued. The accused may continue as a member with no other consequences. Repeated reprimands within a three-year window escalate.
• Probation — the accused continues as a member under specified conditions (e.g., suspended from the Capital Syndicate; cannot mentor for a year; cannot attend the next Conclave). Duration is fixed by the committee.
• Expulsion — recommended by the committee, requiring confirmation by a supermajority of the Master Council.

The committee writes a brief opinion explaining its finding. The opinion is provided to both parties. A redacted summary may be added to the standards canon for the guild's learning.

Expulsion

Expulsion is the most serious outcome. It requires:

• A unanimous recommendation from the three-Master investigation committee
• A supermajority (two-thirds) vote of the full Master Council
• All Masters informed of the proceeding and invited to attend the vote
• The accused given written notice of the date of the council vote

The accused has the right to address the Master Council before the vote — in writing, in person, or by video.

If expelled:

• LionMail and Riverun stack access are revoked within fourteen days
• Pod memberships are closed
• The expulsion is recorded in the permanent guild archive
• Dues are not refunded (the expulsion concerns conduct, not value received)
• Capital Syndicate equity follows original investment terms; expulsion does not trigger redemption
• Anonymised summary of the case is added to the standards canon — only with consent of all parties for non-anonymised publication

Appeal

An expelled member may file a written appeal within thirty days of the expulsion vote. The appeal is heard by a separate three-Master panel — none of whom served on the original investigation or are personally connected to the accused or the complainant.

The appeal panel:

• Reviews the full written record
• Hears the accused in person if requested
• May overturn the expulsion only if it finds the original process was procedurally flawed or that material new evidence has emerged
• Concludes within thirty days

If the appeal panel overturns the expulsion: the member is reinstated. Dues for the suspended period are credited. Public communication is handled by the founder.

If the appeal upholds the expulsion: the matter is closed. The expelled member may apply for re-entry no sooner than three years from the original expulsion, requiring unanimous Master Council approval.

Confidentiality

All proceedings are confidential to the parties, the committee, the founder, and any external counsel.

The outcome may be referenced in summary form (e.g., "the council expelled three members this year for code violations") for the guild's transparency to its membership. The details remain sealed unless all parties consent to publication for the guild's learning.

Members who breach the confidentiality of a Standards proceeding are themselves subject to investigation. The seal is part of the protection — for the accused, for the complainant, for the witnesses.

What this process protects

The Standards process is structured to protect five things, in this order:

1. The safety of any victim or harmed party. Immediate suspension on serious allegations.
2. The due-process rights of the accused. Notice, time, advisor, hearing, appeal.
3. The credibility of the guild. Wealth and proximity do not protect the powerful. Founder-level proximity does not protect the founder.
4. The privacy of those involved. Sealed proceedings; redacted publication only with consent.
5. The integrity of the Code. Repeated reprimands escalate. Patterns are seen.

A man who knows this process exists, in detail, may file a complaint with confidence that it will be handled. A man who knows this process exists, in detail, may also accept correction or face expulsion with the knowledge that he was heard fairly.

The process is the protection. The Code is the standard. Together, they are how the guild keeps its character over decades.

Open questions and honest limitations

We are explicit about what this process is not yet:

• It has never been tested. The first Standards proceeding will be a precedent-setting case, and we will get parts of it wrong. The Constitution provides for amendment.
• The investigation committee in a small founding guild will struggle with impartiality. We will use external counsel as needed and document the conflict transparently.
• The process is faster than civil litigation but slower than social media. A founder of a movement that has been accused publicly cannot wait sixty days for the guild's process. We will not move faster than is fair; we will not move slower than the harm requires.
• Allegations involving crimes belong with civil authorities first. The guild cooperates with police and prosecutors. We do not run a parallel justice system.

The process is published openly so that no member is surprised by what happens when something goes wrong. If something goes wrong with the process itself, the published nature of the process is what allows us to be held to account.

Standards Process · Lion.College · Article VII of the Constitution, in plain language · Reviewed and re-ratified every three years by the Master Council.