The editorial armour of an Irish online-culture archive. What counts as a receipt, what doesn't, and what's a hard-no regardless of how strong the receipt looks. Published in public so disputes can be measured against it.
A claim about a named person on this site is a receipt if and only if it is anchored to one of the four sources below. Anything else — anonymous tips, third-party DM screenshots, "someone told me", forum gossip, a post that has since been deleted with no archive — is not a receipt and does not appear on a page.
Some categories of material are excluded from kino.ie even when receipts exist that would technically meet the standard. The cost of being wrong on these is too high relative to the editorial value.
Nothing about anyone under 18. If a subject was a minor at the time of an alleged incident, the claim is dropped. Family members of subjects who are minors, content featuring minors, anything tangentially involving minors — all dropped. There is no public-interest exception to this rule on this site.
Sexual claims about a named subject appear only when one of: the subject themselves has publicly confirmed it, a published court judgment establishes it, or a contemporaneous broadcast report attributes the claim with named sources. "People say", anonymous DMs, third-party allegations — none of these clear the bar.
Calling someone a criminal requires a public charge sheet, a published judgment, or a broadcast report citing police or court sources. A forum post claiming criminality, even one that "everyone knows is true", is not a receipt for a criminal claim.
Addiction is named on this site only where the subject has publicly spoken about their own addiction. Inference from a subject "looking off" on stream, "behaving erratically", or being absent for weeks — not a receipt. The cost of getting this wrong is high; the alternative phrasing is almost always better.
This is the hardest line on the site. Mental health framing is not used as a weapon. Where a subject has spoken publicly about their own mental health, that statement is citable as their own statement (with attribution). What we don't do is read mental health into behaviour. "X is clearly having a breakdown" is the kind of line that ends with a defamation letter and an apology, and rightly so. Drop it.
Self-evident, but worth saying. Any screenshot used on this site can be re-captured at its live URL or archive.org snapshot. If a screenshot can't be re-verified at source, it doesn't go on a page.
These don't auto-exclude, but they trigger a closer look before publication.
We don't ingest receipts that directly concern the matter being litigated. General profile material on a subject in active litigation is fine; the specific contested claim is not. If we get it wrong while the matter is live, both sides' arguments collapse into the noise of our page being wrong.
No new receipts, no new pages, on anyone deceased within the previous 30 days, regardless of prior conduct. Existing pages are paused for the same window. The archive can wait; the family cannot.
If a receipt casts the subject as a victim — of fraud, assault, public exposure to abuse — that's editorial judgment territory, not auto-ingest territory. Pages where a subject is the victim of conduct rather than the agent of it require a different framing and are flagged for slow-track review.
Political conduct (votes, public statements as elected officials, broadcast interviews on policy) is a different lane to pop-culture conduct. We cover political figures, but the receipts and the framing are distinct. Politics-specific pages are clearly labelled as such.
Every receipt on this site describes conduct — what a subject said or did on a recordable date in a recordable place. Receipts are not character reads. "X said Y on stream Z on date 2024-04-12" is a receipt. "X is a narcissist" is not. The distinction matters because a clean factual base is independently defensible: any third party can re-examine the same recordings, the same posts, the same court filings, and reach their own conclusions.
Where the prose layer reads character into the conduct — and it sometimes will — those reads are flagged with the standard hedges (seems to, reads as, comes across as) and labelled as the author's interpretation, not as findings. The receipts hold up the conduct claims. The hedges hold up the prose-layer reads.
Drop it. A dropped receipt costs nothing. A bad receipt on a named person costs a legal letter, a retraction, and the credibility of every other receipt on this site.
If you're a subject, a third party, or counsel for either, and you want to dispute a receipt on this site, the procedure is on the takedown page. 72-hour response, no paid takedowns, contestable receipts pulled pending review.