diff --git a/docs/about/handbook/community.md b/docs/about/handbook/community.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000..7953a3c025
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/about/handbook/community.md
@@ -0,0 +1,130 @@
+---
+title: Community Basics
+---
+
+Everything within our community must adhere to our conduct policies. This document deals with some trickier moderation decisions you may be wondering about.
+
+[:material-book: Read our Code of Conduct](../../CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md){ .md-button .md-button--primary }
+
+## Keep a Light Touch
+
+In many situations, our community can be trusted to self-moderate. If you have been granted moderation privileges, you are empowered to make any moderation decisions you deem necessary.
+
+However, it is better in many situations to enter a conversation and "cool down" the discussion taking place, or steer it towards a more constructive topic.
+
+This is better than ending conversations, deleting posts, or locking threads in many situations. People can feel very passionate about some of the issues we discuss in our community, and this can lead to heated discussions, but in the end many such people only want to be a vocal advocate for their position, and can be guided to do so in a constructive manner.
+
+Of course, conversations that devolve into harassment or other violations of our strict code of conduct should be ended immediately and reported.
+
+## Identifying "Bad Faith" Comments
+
+We should always strive to enter discussions in good faith. Likewise, we expect participants in our communities to engage in good faith as well. When reading comments in our community, comments which meet the following definition of "bad faith" should be removed:
+
+1. The poster fails to provide reasoning for their criticism, and is unwilling to engage in a meaningful discussion.
+2. The poster presents their criticism as factual, when it's really a matter of opinion.
+3. The poster presents their critisicm as factual, when it's actually false or misinformation.
+4. The poster is not looking for anything to be improved, they are simply spreading negativity.
+5. The poster is speculating, but presenting their conjectures as informed or factual.
+6. The poster engages in ad hominem attacks against us, community members, or other communities.
+
+You should **never** close topics or remove comments simply because you personally disagree with the topic or direction of the conversation.
+
+## Forum Organization
+
+Generally speaking, this is what's most important in order for readers to comfortably read our forum:
+
+1. Clear, concise topic titles
+2. Thoughtful discussions
+
+What is *less* important:
+
+1. Proper categorization and tagging
+2. Every post being perfectly on-topic
+3. Removal of duplicate posts
+
+These things are *good*, but they are not critical for our forum to function effectively. You are empowered to fix these things, but if you have any doubt that you are making the right changes it may be better if you hold off on doing so, or get a second opinion.
+
+Generally speaking, the forum is divided into two overarching sections:
+
+- **General Privacy Discussions:** Where privacy-related topics and news are discussed, where people ask questions
+- **Site Development Discussions:** Where we talk about making changes to this website and our organization
+
+A good rule of thumb when deciding where a post should go is whether the post would really benefit from or require a response from the Privacy Guides team specifically. We treat [site development](https://discuss.privacyguides.net/c/site-development/7) posts as an issue tracker, and strive to respond to and eventually answer/resolve every post in those categories.
+
+General [privacy](https://discuss.privacyguides.net/c/privacy/4) discussions on the other hand can be responded to by *any* experts within the community, and may be more open-ended.
+
+### Low Effort Posts
+
+Posts which...
+
+- Duplicate an existing topic
+- Ask a vague, open-ended question without adding their own opinion to the discussion
+- Don't provide enough information to have a meaningful conversation
+- Discuss something completely off-topic for our community
+
+...can generally be [unlisted](#locking--unlisting-topics).
+
+### Where Should Tool Discussions Go?
+
+This is a tricky subject which essentially requires you to use your best judgement. At the end of the day, the [tool suggestion](https://discuss.privacyguides.net/c/site-development/suggestions/6) category is for discussing tools which someone might legitimately argue should be added to the website. Even if the community disagrees and we mark the tool as a "rejected" addition, it serves as a valuable reference point in the future and allows us to re-open discussions if circumstances change.
+
+For example, a post evaluating [*CalyxOS*](https://discuss.privacyguides.net/t/calyxos-android-rom/11614) would be posted to the Tool Discussions page even though it does not *currently* fit our [Android ROM](../../android/distributions.md) criteria. This is because it is frequently recommended in various privacy groups, and the discussion is relevant to our other Android ROM and criteria discussions.
+
+On the other hand, it is more appropriate to have general discussions about some tools in the privacy discussions section, especially if those tools are not widely recommended for their privacy-protections or are highly unlikely to be included in the site.
+
+For example, a post discussing the privacy problems and benefits of *Google Chrome* would not warrant a *Google Chrome* tool suggestion topic being made to fully evaluate it. Discussing privacy-relevant topics in non-private tools is on-topic for our general community, but does not necessitate any team feedback.
+
+Posts that ask open-ended questions about a tool without adding any opinions of their own, like simply "what do you think about the privacy of *x*?" can usually be closed as low-effort, but consider our guidelines on [closing topics](#locking--unlisting-topics) below first. Particularly, keep in mind that if a significant discussion has already occurred, it may be best to leave it as-is. Oftentimes, you should ask the poster to consider posting it to tool suggestions alongside an explanation of why they're personally considering it in the first place, so that it can be properly evaluated by the community.
+
+### Question Posts
+
+Whether a post belongs in the questions category comes down to whether the question is specific, that is, whether the question in theory has a "correct" answer that can be selected. Open-ended questions that are only intended to spur discussion likely belong in the general discussions category instead.
+
+**Specific questions** about tools can be asked in our questions category, but you should consider the following:
+
+1. Specific questions about tools we recommend are allowed
+2. Specific questions about tools we don't recommend *because there is no category for them on the site* are allowed
+3. Specific questions about tools we don't recommend might be off-topic for our community.
+
+This last point requires you to use your best judgement. For example, a question asking how to set a new tab page in Google Chrome is clearly off-topic, because we are not a tech support community.
+
+### Duplicate Topics
+
+It is very easy to find whether a post is a duplicate in most cases if you select the **Related** tab below the post, instead of the default **Suggested** tab.
+
+Posts which are exact duplicates can usually be [unlisted](#locking--unlisting-topics), with a link to the topic that it duplicates.
+
+One exception includes if the post already has significant discussion in the replies. In this case, read the discussion and decide whether it would still make sense if the entire discussion was appended to the existing discussion.
+
+- If it would make sense, it's probably acceptable to merge the topics and unlist the new one.
+- If it would be confusing, it's probably best to leave both discussions as-is.
+
+Posts which are merely similar can be merged, but only do so if the resulting single topic would make sense. If the conversations have diverged enough, it is okay to leave both discussions as-is.
+
+### Splitting Topics
+
+Try to avoid splitting topics, unless you can do so in a way where the resulting topic both makes sense as a standalone discussion, and is clearly distinct from the original post.
+
+Oftentimes this is most appropriate for splitting off *specific questions* (see above) from larger discussions. Doing this is beneficial to the forum and for readers, because topics posted as questions are in a special Q&A format where an answer can be selected for easy future reference.
+
+If you're only splitting off a handful of posts, consider whether the split would actually improve the reading experience. It is usually acceptable to let discussion topics veer off-course occasionally, as long as those comments don't commandeer the topic entirely.
+
+### Locking & Unlisting Topics
+
+Tool Suggestions, Guide Suggestions, and general Site Development posts should **always** be locked when they are tagged as "completed." This is because they use a voting system, where each user has a limited number of votes they can use at once, and locking the post returns any votes to readers.
+
+Otherwise, these posts should almost never be locked or unlisted.
+
+General discussion posts should usually be **unlisted** if they are duplicates. However, if significant discussion has already occurred, consider [merging](#duplicate-topics) them or keeping them both listed. They can also be unlisted if they are low-effort posts, but it is usually better to [flag](#flagging-posts) those posts instead of directly using the unlist method.
+
+Posts should be **locked** if conversations are occurring that violate our code of conduct. Generally, posts don't need to be locked if there isn't a clear reason to immediately stop the conversation that is taking place. Unlisting is adequate in most cases.
+
+### Flagging Posts
+
+Even moderators are strongly encouraged to use the flagging system instead of directly taking action on off-topic or low-effort posts, or posts which violate our standards on civility, conduct, and spam.
+
+Users who have Trust Level 4 (all team members) will have their flags take effect to hide the target post immediately. We have specific team members dedicated to *resolving* community issues on a permanent basis, who will be able to take action based on those flags.
+
+The flagging system also allows us to directly communicate the poster via the forum system to let them know why their post was flagged, and how they can potentially resolve the issue. When you take direct action on a post, it can sometimes be unclear why that action occurred.
+
+People with elevated moderator access will be able to take action on a flag directly during the flagging process by using the *Take Action* button while reporting. If you do not have this access, your flag will still act to hide the post in question for later triage.
diff --git a/docs/about/handbook/guidelines.md b/docs/about/handbook/guidelines.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000..c660a01a8e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/about/handbook/guidelines.md
@@ -0,0 +1,128 @@
+---
+title: Volunteer Guidelines
+---
+
+We are committed to ensuring that Privacy Guides is and always will be a welcoming destination for people from all walks of life to learn, discuss, and connect with one another.
+
+The Privacy Guides Community is first and foremost a place for learning. Volunteers and community members who give advice or join conversations in bad faith, purposefully misinform others, or otherwise engage in poor conduct according to these guidelines run the risk of being permanently removed from our community.
+
+If you notice anyone not following these guidelines, you may have a private and respectful discussion with them about it, or you may notify the project director of the situation. You should not publicly accuse any of your fellow volunteers of misbehavior. This does not mean to keep violations "under wraps," you may always involve the project director or executive committee in any situation, and very serious violations such as a violation of our [harassment](#anti-racism-harassment-and-bullying) policy will be dealt with immediately.
+
+## Basics
+
+1. Foster constructive discussions: You should **never** use your status as a trusted volunteer team member to shut down discussions or assert "superiority" over other community members in our spaces. Our role is to act as stewards of discussion and knowledge-sharing, not to impose our own ideals or opinions.
+
+2. Do not speak on behalf of Privacy Guides, or present your opinions as the opinions of Privacy Guides. The only opinions of Privacy Guides are those expressed on this website, which have been subject to our [review process](reviews.md) and community consensus. Postings by team members on our forum or other spaces are the opinions of that individual team member, and should always be expressed as such.
+
+3. Do not use your status (GitHub org membership, forum flair, etc.) or resources (email account, etc.) at Privacy Guides to request complimentary goods or services from companies. If you require any software/hardware/materials for a review, please [request resources](resources.md) from the executive committee.
+
+4. Always identify yourself as an individual working with Privacy Guides. You could begin an email similarly to: "Hello, my name is [name] and I am a [writer/volunteer/journalist/contributor] with Privacy Guides."
+
+## Code of Ethics
+
+As a volunteer with Privacy Guides, you are expected to maintain ethics and professional conduct within our communities, during volunteer activities, and/or when representing this project. We expect our volunteers to act respectfully, honestly, and ethically while fulfilling their responsibilities, and in their interactions with our staff, fellow volunteers, and community members.
+
+### Writing & Engagement
+
+In all of your volunteer work, you must respect legitimate intellectual property rights, do not plagiarize work, and give credit to the originators of ideas.
+
+Don’t share the posts of others without permission.
+
+### Anti-Racism, Harassment, and Bullying
+
+Privacy Guides has a zero-tolerance policy for racism, discrimination, sexual harassment, and bullying of any kind.
+
+These behaviors include but are not limited to: statements meant to humiliate a person publicly or individually; the use of racial slurs or “jokes”; sexually explicit communication; any unwanted sexual attention; harassment due to a person’s race, color, gender, identity, religion, language, medical condition, age, culture, national origin, gender expression, disability, marital status, or sexual orientation.
+
+If you witness these behaviors, you are required to notify Jonah Aragon (Project Director) immediately. If you engage in any of these behaviors, you will receive prompt disciplinary action and/or termination without notice.
+
+### Confidentiality
+
+During the course of their duties, volunteers will likely have access to, deal with, or become aware of confidential information and circumstances surrounding those we work with or serve. This information must be kept strictly confidential. Any breach of confidentiality will result in disciplinary action up to and including the termination of volunteer services.
+
+## Conflicts of Interest
+
+It is likely a conflict of interest when a contribution you are making involves yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships. **Any** external relationship can trigger a conflict of interest.
+
+Having a conflict of interest is a description of a situation, not a judgment about that person's opinions or integrity. Conflict of interest is not the same as bias, and can still exist in the absence of bias. Likewise, there are many situations where one may be biased without a conflict of interest. Contributions which are merely biased by personal beliefs or desires are discouraged, but not subject to this specific conflict of interest policy.
+
+Making contributions where you have a conflict of interest is highly discouraged. This undermines trust in Privacy Guides, and risks eventually causing embarrassment to yourself and the companies, tools, or individuals being promoted. If you have a conflict of interest, you are not able to judge how much that conflict of interest has influenced your editing.
+
+**Anyone** with a conflict of interest **must** disclose this status whenever you seek to change content which affects that interest, or provide advice to users within our communities.
+
+### Tool Developers
+
+Occasionally the developers or authors of a tool will create a Pull Request to add their own work. This is discouraged, but technically acceptable because they will not be involved with the review process. We treat these submissions as we do [self-submissions](https://discuss.privacyguides.net/t/about-the-project-showcase-category/114) on our forum.
+
+In virtually all cases, the entire Pull Request will be entirely re-written by our writing and review team. This leads to the Pull Request being left open for much longer than our standard proposals, and creates duplicate work for all involved.
+
+We strongly encourage developers to use our forum to highlight their own work instead.
+
+### Website Reviewers
+
+==If you have a conflict of interest, you may not mark Pull Requests related to that interest as *Approved*.==
+
+You may leave comments if needed, but ideally you should have no involvement with the Pull Request at all. If you leave a comment or request changes, you must disclose your conflict of interest as usual. Please respect other reviewers by keeping your comments concise.
+
+### Paid Contributions
+
+Paid work of great concern to the community involves attempting to use Privacy Guides for public relations or marketing purposes.
+
+If you receive or expect to receive any form of compensation for your contributions to Privacy Guides, you must disclose who is paying you and any other relevant affiliations.
+
+People who are paid by Privacy Guides directly for work approved by the executive committee are exempt from this rule.
+
+## Behavior
+
+1. **Mistakes are allowed.** We do not expect perfection from our volunteers and community members, and generally if you have the power to do something you should feel empowered to do it without worrying about consequences or criticism.
+
+ - Mistakes may not be acceptable if: They are purposeful (therefore they aren't mistakes), or they continue to reoccur after one has been warned that similar actions were mistakes.
+ - Mistakes will be met with counsel from the project director or another team member, so that we can learn from them.
+
+2. **Questions are allowed,** and not only that, but they are strongly encouraged and considered productive.
+
+ - If you have a question about *anything at all*, you should always ask the project director, an executive committee member, or another team member for advice. We are all here to help each other.
+ - Asking questions indicates that you're acting in good faith, you're eager to collaborate, and you're concerned with improving Privacy Guides as a whole.
+
+3. **Bias is allowed.** In fact, all contributors *will* have bias, as is usually the case when people volunteer to help something they're passionate about.
+
+ - Bias becomes a problem when you see your own biases as neutral, or when you assume that resistance to approve your contributions is founded in bias to an opposing point of view.
+ - Always allow for the possibility that you are wrong, and never attribute motive to the actions of other contributors.
+ - *Repeatedly pushing* for biased edits is unwelcome and may see you removed from trusted positions or from making contributions in certain topic areas.
+
+## Consensus & Disputes
+
+Our administrative process is geared towards protecting the stability and trust of Privacy Guides. It is not a democracy, and it's not geared towards "justice" or "definitively proving who's in the right." It is designed around the principle that the needs of the many—our team and our overall readership as a whole—outweigh the desires of the one.
+
+Our expectation when it comes to disputes is that they are quickly resolved with a result that's acceptable to the consensus of our team and community, so that we can get back to the work that actually matters.
+
+We've learned valuable lessons over the past 5 years that have shaped this policy. You may be warned for acting disagreeable, nit-picking, finger-pointing, clearly just trying to "win" arguments at all costs, dragging out conflicts, being excessively individualistic, or stubbornly "not getting it."
+
+Every once in a while this behavior has led some contributors to dramatically leave the project in the hopes of attracting "please don't go" messages and support for their high-maintenance demands, and to use their past contributions to establish some reputational capital for whatever new project they're working on. We wish them well, and are okay with seeing these contributors be replaced with new contributors who don't have a constant need for self-promotion and personal validation.
+
+While we expect disputes to resolve collaboratively, if a dispute cannot be resolved quickly, it will be decided by the project director (staff). If the dispute continues further, action will be taken by the executive committee.
+
+Enforcement by the executive committee will virtually never favor *arguments ad nauseum* to defy the general community's consensus, regardless of whether the arguer is "technically correct," because the very act is highly disruptive in and of itself. If you are temperamental and uncollaborative you will likely be asked to leave the team.
+
+If this might be you, walking away from Privacy Guides for a little while is an option that's available to you, and it's probably not a bad one.
+
+## Other Communities
+
+Generally, we prefer to be "blind" to other privacy communities, rather than endorsing or criticizing others. As a rule of thumb, if a community isn't notable enough to have a Wikipedia page, we should not engage with them.
+
+These rules are **critical** to follow if you are trusted with a forum flair, mod/admin label, or email account. These statuses intertwine your behavior with the reputation of our project, and should be handled with the utmost respect.
+
+1. Do not share negative personal opinions of other communities, content creators, or companies in our official spaces. Avoid criticism of others in the privacy space in general, unless you are refuting a specific point being made, and are providing evidence to back up your correction. If you see these discussions occurring, gently try to steer the topic towards something more constructive.
+
+ - Occasionally, lesser-known creators attempt to discredit Privacy Guides to boost their own popularity. Responding to false "allegations" only serves to boost the visibility of people acting in bad faith. We would much prefer to boost the excellent efforts of everyone acting in good faith within our communities!
+ - It is our job to make sure Privacy Guides is the best and most trustworthy source of knowledge in the privacy space. It is **not** our job to bring attention to or discredit other creators in the privacy space.
+ - Avoiding "in-fighting" and "drama" allows us to focus our efforts on the actual privacy offenders: governments, large corporations, etc.
+
+2. Members of other privacy communities *are* allowed to promote their own work on Matrix. They may promote their own work on the forum, provided that they follow our [self-promotional guidelines](https://discuss.privacyguides.net/t/about-the-project-showcase-category/114) beforehand.
+
+ - Of course, the work they are sharing must follow our [community guidelines](community.md). If it's something that wouldn't be appropriate to post on our forum on its own, then a link to it isn't acceptable either.
+
+3. **Never** engage with [these entities](https://discuss.privacyguides.net/t/blacklisted-communities/19915).
+
+ - If you are a staff member, team member, volunteer, moderator, or otherwise are officially associated with these entities in any capacity, you are ineligible to make contributions to Privacy Guides. You may still participate in our communities in good faith.
+ - Unfortunately, some entities are responsible for inordinate amounts of abuse, harassment, and other negative behavior. Such is life on the internet! To avoid unnecessary drama, this list of blacklisted communities is only viewable by the current volunteer team.
diff --git a/docs/about/handbook/intro.md b/docs/about/handbook/intro.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000..1e077cc58f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/about/handbook/intro.md
@@ -0,0 +1,55 @@
+---
+title: Volunteer's Handbook
+---
+
+Thank you for choosing to spend your time contributing to Privacy Guides. Founded in 2021, our 501(c)(3) non-profit operates several staff-led but **volunteer- and community-powered** initiatives, including our educational resources and online communities. As a volunteer with Privacy Guides, you are contributing to improving the digital privacy & security of countless readers, and to ending the modern state of surveillance capitalism.
+
+As a trusted volunteer, you are taking on a great responsibility to act as stewards of the community and to work dilligently to improve our resources, communities, and projects.
+
+We strive for everybody within our community to hold themselves to the highest standards, but as a community member with a trusted role—whether as an approved reviewer, community moderator, writer, or some other role—we expect that you familiarize yourself with this handbook and act as role models for others.
+
+[:material-book: Read our Volunteer Guidelines](guidelines.md){ .md-button .md-button--primary }
+
+## Mission Statement
+
+**Our purpose**
+
+: To improve digital privacy and security
+
+**Our mission**
+
+: To provide educational resources which are easily accessible, and to foster constructive and helpful discussions within our online communities
+
+**Our culture**
+
+: Cultivating an atmosphere of welcoming, knowledge, and excellence
+
+Our *values* include ensuring everyone feels welcomed, encouraged and heard; leading with kindness by choosing compassion over judgment and assuming good faith; continuously learning and improving ourselves; collaborating together to achieve our goals; and serving, solving problems, and celebrating together as a single team.
+
+
+
+
+
+Privacy Guides is...
+
+:material-check-bold:{ .pg-green } Friendly
+
+:material-check-bold:{ .pg-green } Knowledgable
+
+:material-check-bold:{ .pg-green } Helpful
+
+
+
+
+
+Privacy Guides is **not**...
+
+:material-close-thick:{ .pg-red } Judgemental
+
+:material-close-thick:{ .pg-red } Fearmongering
+
+:material-close-thick:{ .pg-red } Toxic
+
+
+
+
+
+- :material-check-all:{ .lg .middle } **Review Team**
+
+ ---
+
+ One of our most critical tasks is reviewing and approving proposed changes to this website. We are always in need of reviewers/editors, especially those with English experience.
+
+ [:octicons-arrow-right-24: Get Started](handbook/reviews.md)
+
+- :material-pencil-box:{ .lg .middle } **Blog Writer**
+
+ ---
+
+ We are looking for insightful and experienced writers who can share stories, advice, and news about privacy and security on our [blog](https://blog.privacyguides.org).
+
+ Estimated commitment: ~2 hours / week
+
+ [:octicons-arrow-right-24: Apply](#)
+
+- :material-newspaper:{ .lg .middle } **Press Team**
+
+ ---
+
+ We want to build relationships with press organizations, if you have any public relations or press experience, this would be an excellent area to help out in.
+
+ Estimated commitment: ~2 hours / week
+
+ [:octicons-arrow-right-24: Apply](#)
+
+- :material-post:{ .lg .middle } **Social Media Director**
+
+ ---
+
+ We are looking for an excellent communicator experienced in social media strategy and trends to review posts and help develop our social media strategy.
+
+ Estimated commitment: ~4 hours / week
+
+ [:octicons-arrow-right-24: Apply](#)
+
+- :material-help-circle:{ .lg .middle } **Advisory Team**
+
+ ---
+
+ If you are a subject matter expert in a specific field of privacy or technology, you can join our list of contacts we can reach out to when we are in need of expert advice to write an article or post a recommendation.
+
+ [:octicons-arrow-right-24: Join](#)
+
+
diff --git a/mkdocs.yml b/mkdocs.yml
index 5634364b5c..fff4e69291 100644
--- a/mkdocs.yml
+++ b/mkdocs.yml
@@ -445,6 +445,13 @@ nav:
- "about/criteria.md"
- "about/notices.md"
- "about/privacy-policy.md"
+ - "about/volunteer.md"
+ - !ENV [NAV_HANDBOOK, "Handbook"]:
+ - "about/handbook/intro.md"
+ - "about/handbook/guidelines.md"
+ - "about/handbook/community.md"
+ - "about/handbook/reviews.md"
+ - "about/handbook/resources.md"
- !ENV [NAV_COMMUNITY, "Community"]:
- !ENV [NAV_ONLINE_SERVICES, "Online Services"]: "about/services.md"
- !ENV [NAV_CODE_OF_CONDUCT, "Code of Conduct"]: "CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md"
diff --git a/run.sh b/run.sh
index 2598837674..ed11059b18 100755
--- a/run.sh
+++ b/run.sh
@@ -131,6 +131,7 @@ markdown_extensions:
exclude:
- index.md
- tools.md
+ - about/handbook/*
targets:
exclude:
- about/contributors.md