Expanded Forum Guidelines Masterpost

@MonBon

YESSSS we really need this! Thank you!!!!

@Heather225

Hooray! Approved by both safety coordinators *puts on sunglasses*

This is going to make things much more easier and clear for everyone! Thank you Mon for posting this and always working for the forum team! I

Thanks for the updated version!

@MonBon Thank you for this!

@MonBon thanks for the update

@Avaray - Great question! There is no warning or anything for flagging things that you think could be problematic and turn out not to be.

If we see someone flagging a ton of things that feel like they aren't needing to be flagged, we may reach out to check to see if a ) there is context we're missing (e.g., maybe an author flagged their own posts to ask them to be deleted; maybe posts are inappropriate in context even if seem fine isolated; maybe duplicate posts), b ) there may have been a mistake (it's not uncommon for someone to accidentally flag when trying to upvote, or c ) there may have been misunderstanding on what is acceptable in our forums and we can clarify what the policies are.

If someone were deliberatly misflagging a ton of stuff, that could result in a warning, but that would never be the ingoing assumption even if things are flagged that don't need to be, and we would discuss with you first to try to figure out what was going on.

Hope that answers your question!

@Avaray

@Anomalia covered it pretty well, but just wanted to add: if you are ever in doubt if a post is okay or would like a mentor to take a second look at it, flagging is appropriate. This does include the "spam" type posts as well, and you don't need to click the link to make sure it's spam or not before flagging. It is better to err on the safe side instead of accidentally installing a virus :(

My personal motto is: When in doubt, flag it out!

Yay, thanks for the update Mon! This really clears up a lot. :) Keep up the excellent work!

Forum Guidelines Expanded: 2. Unsupportive Content has been posted! Link added to the main post

Thank you for explaining those guidelines and expectations in such detailed and understandable ways. I am new to 7cuos and I look forward to learning how to better navigate the site and how to continue advancing my skills in communicating in a productive, compassionate way. I appreciate the dillegnce and thought that is behind this beautiful site and It brings me great joy and hope to have found this goodness amongst the turbulence of the world.

@Kdlove Welcome to 7Cups! We are happy to have you here with us. I'm glad you found this post useful. If you have any questions/concerns, feel free to reach out. Thanks for all your hard work and support! :)

@lovelyWhisper66

@Anomalia, @MelAllyouneedislove @MonBon

These are great, and no pressure but I do look forward to the update to rule 6 now that the guideline has officially been changed!

@Mel Sometimes I see listeners sharing sexual preferences/fetishes not as a way to support members, and I find it inappropriate. It does appear they could be fishing to have an inappropriate chat in private. Members could share similar posts (without being excessively detailed) and I would say it's ok. I'm unsure of what rule this would fall under though. 5? 7?
Note - I do think it's appropriate for listeners to share an identity or even community. Stating something like I am gay is
different than describing a body type that someone finds attractive.

@Asher since you're working on community guidelines in one place I'm tagging you too.This may be useful to just clarify professionalism rules for listeners overall?

@AffyAvo if they're using that to vent about their own experience going further than using it to relate to a member's comment then it'd have to be rule #7 and they need to log back in as a member for support

@Mel Thanks Mel!

@AffyAvo I don't think I've ever noticed this kind of thing myself, but to conclude that a listener's disclosure of their lived experience is "not as a way to support members" seems like it could be a difficult judgement to make. If it's clearly unsupportive, then that's Rule 2, of course, "Unsupportive content…is not allowed."

Fetishistic disorder (DSM-5) or Fetishism (ICD-10) is a real disorder, and it seems to me that even listeners whose lived experience fails to meet the full criteria for diagnosis might reasonably expect to be able to mention it.

Deciding what kind of chat is "an inappropriate chat" would be another difficult judgement, I think. If a member feels concerned about some harmless habit or preference, and a listener with appropriate lived experience is able to be supportive, I'm not sure we should think of this differently depending on what the harmless habit or preference happens to be.

Charlie

@RarelyCharlie I think overall though going into specific preferences blurs professionalism boundaries. Perhaps it becomes relevant for very specific support, but then there's no need to share that when it's not in response to a member. Even then, I don't think a listener needs to share specifics on what turns them on. A lived experience can be shared without adding in how horny it gets someone.

The inappropriate chat aspect is entirely speculation, but I think reasonable speculation based on the number of chats I have had with listeners where they tried to make it into a sext chat or asked for pictures.
I certainly don't think every instance is the listener doing this, I just see potential for some listeners to try to get members who would fit into their sexual preferences to chat. I wouldn't have brought that part up if I didn't see it as a safety problem.

@MonBon

Really good, and thank you

@MonBon hi, how can I edit or delete my posts?

@CaringHeart123 You can message a forum mentor or use this form - https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSePF0i2FXJndT8X0SlZAzqaTawHaBvc_H8yUGeoH4chbm5tPg/viewform

Uh oh! An error was encountered saving your post. (Code 064) @MonBon I need help, I am having an error when trying to post a longer comment

@MonBon Thank you for providing a clarification of the rules. However, I think I would like to disgress about the expression "offensive content" due to ambiguity, as many have mentioned, and the suggested appropiate action for the 

Firstly, what a member considers supportive or helpful ("Cheer up, it is not that bad. Think about that many people have it worse than you". In fact, maybe there can be some people who do want this response) can be completely disheartening and condescending for another person. By removing such comments, especially if no explanation is given or if only a word like "unsupportive" is mentioned, the person who made the comment will be either:
- confused, because perhaps they had no bad intentions
- regretful but worried about ever saying that again even in a more considerate manner, so they might not be able to learn to rethink or rephrase the weel-intended idea behind what they said in a more appropiate manner for a more adequate context.
- angry, because if the person wholeheartedly perceives their comment as inoffensive even after clarification, they will be resentful against moderators regardless of how offensive the comment really was for the receptor. We don't like being told what to do, so censoring only reiforces whatever preexisting negative beliefs the person has.

Sorry, I have a bug and can't keep writing. Basically, I think that the best solution is that comments discussing opinions in a rude, uninterested, ignorant or unsupportive manner should instead be flagged either by moderators or members, so that they can be properply discussed among the members involved, perhaps with someone as a mediator. This helps people learn and analyse their own behaviour. The reason why this is my stance is that this is a community for self-help. Shouldn't your psychologist invite you to rethink and analyse your thoughts instead of suppressing them? Why shouldn't we try to do the same in cases of controversy?

@courageousDreamer1588 Obviously, explicit incitations to (self-)harm, (self-) neglect and discrimination should be banned, but not all "unsupportive" or "ignorant" content will be necessarily harmful, much less meant to cause harm.

These guidelines are so important.