Expanded Forum Guidelines: 1. Offensive Content
This post is a part of our series on expanded forum guidelines to help all users better understand the purpose of each guideline and for forum moderators to understand appropriate behavior and review examples of this rule in action.
My post was edited/deleted for offensive content. What does that mean?
1. Inflammatory, racist, sexist, offensive, homophobic, transphobic, etc. posts are not allowed. Posting about the impacts of abuse, racism, sexism, etc. or seeking support on these topics is allowed.
Purpose of rule: To create a supportive and safe environment for people to seek help and by preventing judgment, and unsupportive or invalidating comments.
Examples: your gender identity is not real; your struggles aren't as bad as others; you do not deserve help because you are x
Explanation: Posts that are edited or deleted or violating this guideline generally have a judgmental or discriminatory tone. On 7 Cups we try to support everyone in a kind and nonjudgmental manner. Things like invalidating someone else's feelings or experiences based on attributes such as sex, gender, religion, race, ethnicity, sexuality, etc. fall under this guideline. If you see something like this, please flag it!
Appropriate Action: If at all possible, the forum moderator should remove the offending content while retaining the post. All edits should include the forum moderator's name and the reason for editing (e.g. offensive content). In the event that the post cannot be retained, the forum moderator will delete the whole post. If you believe a forum moderator has edited or deleted your post in error, you can email forum@7cups.com and we will investigate.
For Forum Moderators:
Grey Areas:
I believe that men and women are inherently different when it comes to this stuff and women tend to be much more emotional
While this does present an argument that could feel sexist, it is also clear that it is presented as a belief, not as a fact. To some extent the context on this and the tone will matter significantly, in most cases this is likely fine and should not be edited.
I do not understand how you can say you are a boy if you were born a girl
This is a statement that could be read as very invalidating to a person who is transgender, but could in other contexts be actually seeking to understand as opposed to trying to invalidate. Again, context matters here! When in doubt, do not edit, but as a forum moderator, you can always seek a second opinion if you are unsure!
My Aunt always says that I am a no-good mixed race so I won't go anywhere
In this case, the poster is seeking support on this subject. We should not edit anything that would prevent the poster from conveying the full context of their situation.
Do you have questions about what is or is not okay or need further clarification on examples? Post below and we will problem solve together!
Removed special character "�" by DayDreamWithYou 9/3/2021
I'm pleased to see these expanded guidelines. I hope they will become widely known, even though there will be a lot for everyone to read.
Purpose of rule: I think there's a slight problem with this section, because preventing offence isn't mentioned! Judgemental, unsupportive and invalidating remarks are not quite the same as offensive remarks.
It really looks like the "Purpose of rule" section is describing a completely different rule.
It would make more sense, I think, to make the overall title here "Unsupportive Content". (I know the next one currently has that title, and I think it would make sense to change that too.) That's because a remark can be unsupportive by being invalidating (for example) without being explicitly offensive.
Another approach might be to split the rule in two: a rule for offensive content and a separate rule for unsupportive content.
I wonder if it might be sensible to include passive-aggressive content in the list, too. Maybe that's really covered by invalidating, but I'm not sure it's going to be obvious enough to everyone.
Explanation: The reference to "tone" here and later on could be a problem, I feel, because of the negativity around "tone policing" as a method of online harassment, which I feel sure we don't wish to legitimize at 7 Cups. Maybe this particular word is not needed.
Appropriate Action and Grey Areas: In these sections I wonder if it might be helpful to give some examples of valid edits, and an example of a post that would have to be deleted (explaining why).
On the subject of deleting posts, I often subscribe to a new thread, and maybe upvote it, when I don't have time to reply immediately. But sometimes when I return, the thread has been entirely deleted (except for the copy I archived). I think it would be helpful in these cases to delete the content as necessary, but to leave the thread so that anyone interested can see who deleted it and why.
And on the subject of deleting content, sometimes deleting content invalidates one or more replies, so the people who replied are left looking like they were just making stuff up. I think it would be helpful in these cases to edit the replies, too.
@RarelyCharlie
Charlie! I was hoping you would comment. We know from you and from others that at times the guidelines are murky at best and downright confusing / misleading / unevenly applied at times, so I'm really thankful to you for commenting to help us iron out all of these details (only took us 4 years to get there D:)
Re: Purpose, I will look into seeing how we can rephrase and reframe to be more clear. However, can you give an example of "passive-aggressive"? I think I know what you mean but don't want to assume when I can just ask :)
Re: Explanation, do you have a recommended substitute for tone? We definitely don't want to contribute to online harassment, but often times the particular word choices in combination do lead to an overall "tone" that leaves the post with a meaning that equates to invalidating, offensive, unsupportive, etc, that we are trying to avoid.
Re: Appropriate Action and Grey Areas, I agree! That is something we will look into adding.
Re: Deleting posts, we do try to encourage our moderators to err on the side of undercensoring rather than over (i.e. editing vs deletion), so i would also agree with this! In your ideal world, would threads not be deleted but the content emptied out instead?
When I wrote passive-aggressive I was thinking of something like this (fictitious, of course) that completely evades the issue:
Question: I've been trying mindfulness meditations for my anxiety, but most of the time they actually make me more anxious! Does anyone else find this?
Reply: I'm sorry you feel that way. There are some great meditations for anxiety here: 7cups.com/exercises/mindfulness/
(In fact I had in mind an real example I saw in our forums recently, but it would be unkind to quote it.)
I think simply invalidating is more direct. This reply does respond to the question directly, for example:
Reply: I never find that mindfulness meditations make me more anxious. That can simply never happen.
But I would not be too upset about the terminology one way or the other. There are bigger fish to fry.
Maybe this is actually the same as tone? The trouble is it easily gets too subjective.
@MonBon
@RarelyCharlie exactly both "offensive content" and "unsupportive content" is open to subjective personal interpretation about what each person considers to be offensive or unsupportive if there are no strict rules outlining exactly and speciafically what is offensive and what exactly is not offensive then it will all be left to subjective interpretation . Of course in the forums you dont want bullying and people being cruel to one another or personal insults and i dont know why it has to be more complicated than that - there should be no "grey areas" that are open to interpretation , its all very vague and confusing and unspecific and the only thing then that could possibly happen is to be subjective about it it even invites subjectivity with the "grey area " classification leaving an enormous amount of unchecked freedom and power to those censoring . We dont want people to feel abused or attacked or bullied but you want them to be able to give their honest opinions share their own experiences and respectfully debate about things just simply dont get abusive about it no personal attacks
it all needs clarified and simplified and detailed censorship should be simple and clear cut not complicated and vague , what it is and is not exactly it should be black and white with no confusing grey areas open to interpretation that is only going to lead to oppressive censorship and leave commentors so confused about what can and cannot be said exactly as sometimes they are allowed to say it and sometimes its deemed unsupportive or offensive
simplify and clarify
I agree, Jenny. I now realize I've been peering at this close up instead of stepping back and looking at the big picture.
The big picture is that people feel unsafe using our forums because of unpredictable censorship, and these expanded guidelines will simply provide a rich pick-n-mix selection of poorly defined excuses for essentially random interference with people's self expression.
From this perspective what's really needed is a small set of very clear black-and-white rules that can be enforced strictly and consistently. And then, additionally, there can be any amount of advisory guidance on forum etiquette covering some of the common matters of personal interpretation such as "offensive" and "unsupportive".
One of the strict rules, I think, should be that moderators are forbidden from enforcing advisory etiquette.
I've been thinking about an example I saw very recently in another thread, where, according to my personal interpretation of it, a listener trolled a less experienced listener by making several outrageous accusations. I thought this was shameful. It would be easy to imagine censorship is the answer. But someone else's personal interpretation of it might be different.
In fact it turned out the listener who I felt had been targeted didn't seem to feel that way about it at all. The whole point of forums is to air differing opinions. Censorship only causes harm.
I'm also trying to make sense of another very recent example when thousands of posts were deleted without leaving any trace, invalidating at least hundreds, more likely thousands, of replies.
Another strict rule, I think, should be that a post that has replies cannot be deleted or rewritten without the consent of the people who took the trouble to reply to it.
In the light of all this, I should clarify that my previous contributions to these threads about the guidelines should be taken as commentary on advisory etiquette. I think censorship based on some moderator's personal interpretation is potentially abusive, and I do not wish to be an enabler.
@jennysunrise8
@RarelyCharlie
hey charlie! Let me just make sure I'm reading you correctly - Are you of the mind that the expanded guidelines are harmful?
We have a rule set of 10 that I personally feel are very clear, but I've discovered that they are not as clear to everyone else, so we are creating these expanded guidelines to answer any questions about them that pop up. You can think of the grey areas as a living example of "But does fall under this guideline?" and a Yes/No answer. The "grey areas" are not meant to be up to people's interpretations, but are us clarifying based on actual questions we've been asked. The purpose of these are to leave less up to interpretation and make them even more clear cut than I already feel they are.
Let me know if I misunderstood you and if you have any suggestions on how we should move forward given the above goal. Thanks!
It's more that I've realized the term "guidelines" is ambiguous. It covers some things that are clear and enforceable, and it covers some things that are a matter of opinion. So I'm now thinking of them as a set of clear black-and-white rules, together with a set of advisory guidelines. That distinction is my suggestion for moving forward.
The problem with allowing guidelines that are a matter of opinion to be enforced is that people cannot reliably predict what will be censored. It's the apparently random censorship that I think is harmful.
For example, if you say "Do not use the names of drugs" then everyone knows that if they name a drug it will be censored.
But if you say, "Do not name harmful substances" then no one really knows what some moderator will one day consider to be a harmful substance.
If all the rules could be expressed in black-and-white terms, that would be OK. But I don't think that's possible. I think things like "invalidating", for example, will always be a matter of opinion. When I scroll up and re-read my example of an invalidating reply, above, I can see that it could be considered to be a plain statement of someone's valid opinion.
@MonBon
@RarelyCharlie
I see! Well, I'll be honest, I'm not sure where that leaves us D:
I'll continue trying to make the guidelines as clear as possible, but as you mentioned there is always going to be some things "up to judgment" due to nature of support on our site. Thank you for sharing!
@MonBon i think where it would leave everyone is being involved in a community where people have freedom of speech thats guaranteed except under certain clearly defined black and white circumstances that everyone understands ( you do not have the right to run into a theatre and scream that there is a fire and panic everyone ) and many other clearly defined limitations on free speech but besides those black and white limitations people should be able to freely express their viewpoints and it should be allowed and not subject to judgement based on an individuals personal opinion on what they think is offensive or unsupportive
imagine what would happen if each individual judge independently did such a thing - defined for themselves vague laws and vague wording and make judgements based on what they personally think is offensive and shouldnt be allowed their opinion. Everyone should be bound by black and white rules even the president of the US is bound and limited . Its just a good policy there are many examples of the other way not working out so well
@jennysunrise8
I understood that part, but as I said to Charlie before, I feel the guidelines are already clear. These expanded guidelines came about as we see inconsistency in interpretation and application, so we are trying eliminate those inconsistencies. I hope that makes sense, but you are more than welcome to continue sharing feedback!
I think you have summarized where that leaves us very well! The guidelines should be as clear as possible, but some things are always going to be matters of judgement. I completely agree, as far as that goes.
I started to write more, but I'm going to wait a while and see how these expanded guidelines develop. I fear that more examples in the grey areas might only create more confusion, but maybe I am wrong to think that.
@MonBon
@RarelyCharlie I hear you. I know it is not easy and I feel some of the same frustration that you do.
I wish the world was black and white but I just had an incident where it appeared to me someone was flaming the whole community. My impulse was to delete their post but others responded and talked them down. Sometimes talking to people can feel more humane and supportive than just enforcing #1 through #10. And that is what I think angers some people is that we enforce the letter of the law in small cases that really do not require a heavy hand.
In group support chats I sometimes have to talk around people that are mildly disruptive because giving out warnings for minor things can actually kill a discussion and start an argument over was a warning justified.
There are no easy answers. I think compassion comes first before enforcing guidelines then when we step away and cool down from our initial reactions we may see things with a bigger picture. This is my hope for myself. We are all still learning.
@soulsings i thnk what you said is a good example of the problems of simply having too many black and white rules that dont need to exist or should be clarified with exceptions if they do exist too many rules are not productive and can be harmful and disruptive and crippling
Yes, I agree with much of what you say. Talking to people is a better way, and initial reactions are often too heated, obscuring the bigger picture.
That's what happened to me in this thread. My initial reaction was, "Great, more guidelines!" but now with Jenny's help I see the bigger picture more clearly.
I do not wish the world was black and white, however. I think some things are sufficiently black and white so that pretty much everyone can agree on them, and we can codify those things in rules, while some things are matters of personal opinion that we should not impose on people who come here to talk about the situations they find most difficult.
@soulsings
@RarelyCharlie
@RarelyCharlie it would make sense to wait and see first if people actually are upset or harmed or triggered by one thing or another before making a rule that it shouldnt be allowed someones personal opinion that it might possibly trigger some people when noone has even actually complained about it yet let alone assuming that most people in that group would think its offensive to warrant a law against it . Laws should be based on fact that it causes harm not based on assumptions . Allowing what one person worries will trigger someone might not upset anyone at all . obvious insults and personal attacks that everyone can agree shouldnt be allowed but if a person has to sit and think about it (grey area) then its not obvious and if noone has complained about it why make a decision based on your own personal assumtion and impose it on other people ?
I agree. I came here this morning intending to make a couple of suggestions, and that was essentially one of them. I've already suggested that more examples would be helpful. Let's have real examples with links to old posts in our forums , examples that say:
"This rule is needed because otherwise this happens (click here to see what we could have avoided if only we had this rule back then)."
My other suggestion has to do with the strategic thinking behind these expanded guidelines. The thinking seems to be that if we have a big pile of poorly defined rules, we can avoid some problems in our forums by censoring more stuff.
That may be true, for all I know. It will annoy some troubled people who are trying to express themselves. Maybe they'll decide to pay a 7 Cups therapist instead. Maybe 7 Cups will gain some revenue as a result. Maybe that's the strategic goal here.
But there are two downsides. The first is that it only works in the short term. In the longer term, more and more people will come to our forums with something in mind that they want to express, and they'll look around, and they'll see that no one seems to be saying that kind of thing at 7 Cups (because, unknown to them, it was censored). And they'll go somewhere else to express themselves. So in the long term this strangles our forums, together with the search engine hits that the business needs to bring people to our paid therapy.
The second downside is that a big pile of poorly defined rules will also annoy some very articulate people who are serious about mental health. In the long term that can only corrode 7 Cups' reputation and prevent the growth of the business. No therapist, for example, has a big pile of rules about what people can say, not even in group therapy.
So my suggestion is that a big pile of poorly defined rules is a terrible long term strategy for the business, and this logic can be used to push back against whoever is driving this expansion of the guidelines.
@jennysunrise8
@MonBon you could provide real examples linking to real commentors who have actually been harmed it would show that people actually are being hurt/offended by certain wording so people can see for themselves why its necessary and why it shouldnt be allowed
@jennysunrise8
Well I can definitely tell you that this rule has in fact been requested. Additionally, these guidelines are not new... They or some iteration of them have been in place at least as long as I have been a user of the site. In terms of real examples -- That is more difficult, since I can't think of a way to do it without singling someone out to make an example of them, which would in fact go against another guideline referencing targeting. I do see the benefit of real-life examples and will continue brainstorming how to make it more effective.
@MonBon real life examples of people being hurt by different collections of wording could be found in forums outside of 7cups to explain why that wording shouldnt be allowed . Obvious insults and attacks are self explanatory to everyone everyone knows theyre hurtful , its the wording in the grey areas
@jennysunrise8
We did take the grey areas from examples we have seen. These were examples brought to us from forum moderators who weren't sure if they should edit or not
@MonBon i just think if its not an obvious attack on someone or some group if it causes confusion about whether it should be allowed or not then it should just be allowed . something thats obvious is a commonly held belief that is known to cause harmto people if theres confusion about it then its left to an individuals assumption that it could possibly maybe cause harm not based on fact but on assumptions - unless there is evidence that it has caused harm using those words in other forums somewhere ( if so then it wouldnt be a grey area ) i guess im kind of saying lets get rid of the grey area where people struggle to decide if it should go or stay if its that hard to decide if theres something wrong with it it can only mean that there is no evidence in human society that it is harmful that they are aware of which says a lot about whether it should be accepted or rejected based on harmfulness to people . Just something to think about .
@jennysunrise8
I guess to play devil's advocate -- forum moderators ask if something should be edited or not for two reasons:
1) they find it offensive / harmful. I feel like this falls into the category of "someone feels it is harmful"
2) someone in the community has flagged it (generally not a forum moderator, but sometimes). People usually flag posts because they are worried it is harmful. I feel like this also falls into the category of "someone feels it is harmful"
Emotional / Verbal harm is inherently subjective. These guidelines are in place to create more objectivity wherever possible.
Edit: I feel the term "grey area" might be contributing the problem. We are calling them grey areas because they are examples of content that people have asked us to clarify, thus they were grey and are now not.
When I find material that triggers me I refrain from immediate action and get others opinions on the forum team. As I understand it, the forum team is not censoring for any reason other than people posting outside the guidelines. The guidelines are here to make this a safe community for all. It is not to say they are absolutely right, but they are the guidelines for 7cups so people who want this type of community that offers safety and stability can feel comfortable here.
I also agree that these guidelines or their use have been here as long as I have been at 7cups. In fact, if anything I hear that there is a greater effort to have compassion for people on the forums and the group support rooms. I know I try to see the spirit of the guidelines and not be nitpicking the letter of the guidelines.
Moderating is the most difficult task I have done in the rooms and the forums. I think it is amazing that we have millions of posts and often the outcome is beneficial to all.
@MonBon @jennysunrise8 @RarelyCharlie
@soulsings the problem with " offensive content " is that it could potentially include just about anything and everything unless its detailed exactly what it does include and does not include and is limited and very clearly defined exactly what it includes and does not include ( this is what we mean by black and white not that our thinking is black and white or that the world should be or anything else only that the category is so broad and all encompassing that unless it is explained exactly whats included and whats not included it really could include everything if left up to personal interpretation ) the word offensive includes triggering content as that is offensive and triggering content is completely subjective . what one person considers triggering another person doesnt theres no universality one person might consider a conversation about football triggering if they were on a football team in highschool and were bullied for example or really anything so where do you draw the line? You could draw the limits by clearly defining in black and white what it means and does not mean OR simplify this category to just include personal insults still possibly subjective but not nearly so all encompassing as the word "offensive" - but still with that you need to set clear limits what it means and does not mean exactly .
@jennysunrise8
I have a question for you! If you had to judge their performance, how would you say forum moderator's are currently doing with regards to moderating this type of content? This guideline has been in effect for a little over 3 months, not including its previous iteration which was less specific. I think when judging how subjective or objective the guideline is and if it needs to be changed, we need to consider how it is currently being interpreted and applied.
I guess my specific question is: Do you currently think that forum moderators are over-moderating based on what they interpret as offensive content?
@MonBon right now its still new and i dont see any excessive censorship because of it but once guidelines or laws are set its not easy to undo them and everything has a tendency to evolve to its full potential unless its contained and limited by examples or the word itself has a limited definition . the word confidentiality is very specific it includes very specific things but for example if it was instead called "discretion" instead of "confidentiality" its a much broader word that includes confidentiality but also includes other behavior its not limited ( unless you limit it with many many examples it can include a lot of things that word ) . The simplest thing to do is to just use a more specific word that is self limiting .
@jennysunrise8
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by new? We have had forum guidelines for years. Can you clarify what you mean for me?
@MonBon this particular guideline has been in effect for a little over 3 months right ?
@jennysunrise8 i just think it needs to be limited "offensive" is very broad and very subjective so many different things could be considered offensive and different people find different things offensive i hope a more specific word is used . I have a lot of respect for all the work everyone does and i think your all doing a great job as far as ive seen i just think laws/rules need to be specific and limited so they dont evolve and are not misused in the future offensive can mean a lot of different things just give it some thought everyone i think ive said everything i have to say about it i was just trying to explain the same concept in different ways i just think limited by examples or limited by a more specific word that has a limited definition offensive is everything but limited same with unsupportive .
@jennysunrise8
Sort of -- this particular phrasing is a little over 3 months old, but to my knowledge there has always been some iteration of "posts cannot be offensive."
@MonBon @jennysunrise8
When I find something offensive it is usually what appears as bullying, demeaning other people, inappropriate sex talk. If I am not sure something is offensive I get other opinions from moderators.
I may not be hearing you right, but it almost sounds like you might be suggesting not censoring means total freedom of speech. If that is so then hate speech and other types of what many people call abuse or bullying would be allowed. To me that is just not an option in a community of people that face the stigma of mental illness plus a history of abuse or bullying or lack of understanding.
I think having no monitoring is not a realistic expectation for keeping people safe. To me the problem is not censorship but people saying things they know may bother other people but they do not self edit themselves. I self edit what I write and so I do not usually get censored. If everyone would consider how their posts would affect others and self edit, then there would be moderators in the forum who would be bored from nothing to do. Right now we have the opposite problem. There are so many people who need a reply but there are only so many people looking at that. In fact supporting other people is probably the biggest part of forum moderators. That is what I feel is fulfilling. Enforcing guidelines I do just to make this site safe. Helping support people is what I am most grateful for.
@soulsings no of course i think there should be limits to what people can say noone should attack or bully anyone so much better if this category was just called " personal attacks/bullying " offensive content can be so so much more and could include personal triggers or a person who is pro life could consider discussion of abortion or issues of abortion " offensive " , discussion of homosexuality is offensive to some people and so on and so on and so on .... so its really important to limit it and detail what exactly is meant whats included or not included and not leave that vague door open for each person to define for themselves what subjectively they consider offensive
