Win the point honestly.

1. The fair-play standard

Submit your own work, play under your own permitted identity, use only the help allowed by the activity or organizer, and do not manipulate the Service or another participant's access. If a rule is unclear, ask the coach, host, or organizer before the activity begins.

An organizer may apply a stricter published competition rule. Memr.is safety, privacy, security, and account rules still apply while using the Service.

2. Prohibited conduct

• Using answer keys, notes, another screen, search, AI, outside communication, or another source when the assignment or competition requires unaided work.
• Sharing answers, buzz signals, or private competition information with another participant outside the allowed team format.
• Using bots, macros, scripts, automated input, OCR, screen readers for answer extraction, or other automation to answer, buzz, grade, or complete an activity, except approved assistive technology.
• Inspecting, extracting, intercepting, or exposing answers or hidden competition material from the client, network traffic, API, local storage, source, or a defect before the activity permits it.
• Manipulating timestamps, device clocks, clock offsets, network conditions, reconnect behavior, request order, or latency signals to change buzz order or eligibility.
• Submitting a client-calculated score, forged proof, altered event, false verdict, or tampered snapshot, or trying to overwrite a server-authoritative result.
• Sharing accounts, impersonating another person, using multiple accounts or guest identities to gain an advantage, or falsifying age, roster, team, eligibility, or guardian information.
• Colluding with a host, coach, participant, or spectator to predetermine rulings, leak content, manipulate a roster, or manufacture a result.
• Exploiting a bug, rate-limit gap, reconnect path, guest path, or permission error instead of reporting it.
• Disrupting a match, harassing another participant, evading a restriction, or retaliating against a good-faith report or appeal.

3. What is allowed

Accessibility support is not cheating. An accommodation should be evaluated by what it enables the person to access, not by whether it uses technology.

• Ordinary study aids, coaching, and collaboration outside a closed or unaided activity.
• Materials and team communication expressly allowed by the ruleset or organizer.
• Accessibility accommodations and assistive technology approved for the activity, including extra time or an alternate input method where appropriate.
• Organizer-approved substitutions, score corrections, replay procedures, or connection accommodations.
• Good-faith security testing that Memr.is has authorized in writing and that follows the stated scope.

4. How the current system supports integrity

• Live-match state and ruleset scoring are server-authoritative; a client does not get to declare its own points.
• The match service rejects answers sent outside the answer phase and answers from participants who are not eligible for that round.
• Buzz order can use the input timestamp, clock-offset estimate, server-receive time, grace window, and a fallback indicator when a usable client timestamp is unavailable.
• The authenticated host rules an answer correct or incorrect, and the service records question, buzz, answer, verdict, phase, and score events.
• A completed result can include a signed score snapshot, which helps detect later alteration of that snapshot but does not prove that every participant behaved honestly.

5. Evidence and review

For a fair-play review, Memr.is or an authorized organizer may examine the relevant account or guest identity, roster, ruleset, answer and grade events, buzz timing, network-quality indicators, host verdicts, score changes, session and security metadata, audit history, and reports from participants or officials. Access must stay within the reviewer's role and event scope.

A fast answer, unusual timing, connection problem, fallback timestamp, high score, or single report is not by itself proof of cheating. Reviews should consider the rules, technical quality, repeated patterns, corroborating events, accessibility accommodations, and the participant's explanation. Current beta systems do not provide comprehensive automated cheating detection.

6. Technical and officiating limitations

• Software buzzing reduces some network unfairness but cannot match a certified wired buzzer or eliminate every latency difference.
• Client timestamps and network estimates can be imperfect, and degraded connections may require a host ruling, replay, wider grace window, or an official external record.
• The current beta is not certified for high-integrity play and may receive match material before the interface reveals it. Inspecting or extracting that material is prohibited, and organizers must use an independent official record for high-stakes events.
• Host judgment remains part of answer adjudication. A signed result proves only the integrity of the signed snapshot, not the truth of every underlying event.
• The current guest path has limited identity and account enforcement, so organizers should use authenticated, rostered participants for any event where identity matters.

7. Possible responses

The response should fit the evidence, risk, age, history, and event rules. Memr.is or an authorized organizer may take one or more of these actions:

We do not publicly shame minors or publish a minor's private enforcement details. A result correction may still be visible where necessary to keep a competition record accurate.

• Explain the rule, warn the participant, or require the activity to be repeated.
• Invalidate an answer, round, assignment, score, match, leaderboard entry, achievement, or result.
• Remove a participant or host from the current event or restrict a feature.
• Correct a roster or score and preserve a private dispute note or event record.
• Notify an authorized organization operator and, for a minor, the verified parent or legal guardian where appropriate.
• Temporarily restrict or suspend an account after review, or terminate access for serious or repeated violations.
• Refer safety, security, fraud, or legal concerns to the appropriate authority when necessary.

8. Host and organizer duties

• Publish the applicable rules, allowed aids, accommodations, identity requirements, appeal route, and official record before a high-stakes event.
• Use the same rules consistently and disclose known degraded timing or technical limitations.
• Do not pre-share answers, manipulate verdicts, alter eligibility, or use administrative access to favor a participant.
• Keep review material private, especially when it concerns a minor, and access only the event and people within your scope.
• Preserve the relevant event record and avoid announcing a cheating conclusion before a reasonable review.
• Use an independent official record for sanctioned events until Memr.is expressly certifies the applicable match tools.

9. Reporting and appeals

Report a suspected violation to the event organizer first when the issue is limited to that event. For platform manipulation, account abuse, safety concerns, or a conflict involving the organizer, contact hello@memr.is. Include the match or activity context and the rule at issue, but do not send passwords, tokens, or unnecessary information about a minor.

A participant or guardian may ask for review of a Memr.is platform action by explaining the decision being challenged and any relevant context or accommodation. An organizer controls appeals under independent program rules; Memr.is can review platform records and actions but cannot overrule an outside organization's independent competition decision unless it affects use of the Service.

• Email a fair-play report →

10. Changes to this policy

We will update this policy as the match system, integrity controls, and competition use mature. A stricter technical control does not make previously prohibited manipulation acceptable; material policy changes will be dated and presented for renewed acceptance where required.