A switchboard runs at one event at a time, and this page points at whichever node is configured for this site. The design is that anyone in the building offers a stream from their phone and the switchboard measures every one against the published standard, putting the best qualifying one to air or showing a blue slate when none qualify. It is a prototype: one phone has published to it and reached air, and it has not run at a real venue yet.
Watch
You are watching 60 seconds behind
Deliberately, and it is the whole design. Two of the four gates rule on the picture and the speech AFTER a window has been captured, so the public output is held back far enough that a verdict about a moment lands before that moment is shown. Without the hold those gates would be commentary on material the audience had already seen.
The number is derived rather than chosen: it has to clear the oldest a usable verdict can be, and sit under what the media plane can buffer. How it got there.
Why the slate does not always tell you which rule
When a hold happens you get the blue screen and a plain sentence. Sometimes that sentence can name the rule; often it deliberately cannot, and the reason is the same reason the rule exists.
7 of the 15 rules that can hold a stream are safe to name in
public: the camera is not showing the event, a slur is on screen, betting is being
promoted. The other 8 are not. Saying held under: an identifiable child in evident distress
would tell several hundred people that a child is in distress, which is precisely the
disclosure that clause exists to prevent. The same is true of a medical emergency, of
somebody's personal information, and of a minor being named.
So the public sentence is drawn from a fixed list rather than passed through from the reviewer. A page that repeated the reviewer's own words would republish the thing the gate refused. Every rule is published and every one of them is readable in full; what is withheld is only which one fired, in the cases where naming it does the harm again.
What you will see when nothing qualifies
The blue screen above, full width, until a stream meets the standard again. Going dark is a normal outcome here and carries no penalty: putting something unacceptable to air is the only real failure.
A hold can take the sound and leave the picture
The picture and the sound are checked separately, by two reviewers that never see each other's material, so they can be refused separately too. Three things can happen to a stream, and only one of them is the blue screen.
- Both cleared. You see and hear that stream.
- The picture cleared and the sound did not. You see it and hear nothing. The sound is not muted in your player, it is not sent: what the standard refused does not leave the building.
- Neither cleared. The blue screen.
There is a fourth, and it is the reason the split exists. If somebody else in the room is streaming the same moment and their sound cleared, you may see one phone's picture with another phone's sound. The page will say so.
Why this is not just leniency: before it, one person saying something the standard refuses took the only good camera off air and gave everybody the blue screen. The refusal is the same; what changed is that it removes the thing it was about.
Consent, and what the standard actually says about minors
The gap here is consent, not minors. The standard already carries a clause protecting a minor from being named in a negative, accusatory, mocking or sexualised way, and nothing in it refuses a school game. What is missing is a consent flow for anybody who ends up on camera, which is as true of an adult rec league as of a school one, and until it exists this should not be pointed at an event where the people in frame have not agreed to be broadcast.
The footage the picture gate was measured on is a different matter and is why the figure can be published at all: it is public-access archive that already aired, licensed to permit adaptation, so testing against it points a camera at nobody.