Forum Guidelines Expanded: 3. Unsupportive Content

@MelAllyouneedislove

thanks

Hi forum moderators! Post number two of this series! Remember we will be posting one of these (and tagging you) over the next 8 weeks (one a week) until we've gotten through all 10! Please feel free to ask any question you may have.

#forumlove

Global category leaders: @AffyAvo @AiluraBlaze @Alex @Anomalia @ASilentObserver @BeyondTheInvisible @bunnypants @CountryGirl1231 @Emily619 @emsworld @EvelyneRose @fluffyUnicorns84 @Hope @HopefulSprings @Ila @InspiringLee @InvaderStitch @ItsPreeti @JaydenIsHere @Jenna @Keanan @LadyLazarus1971 @LunaHecate @MelAllyouneedislove @MistyMagic @MonBon @PhoenixAsh @PoliteOcean @Power @RaCat @Rain45 @RideaRainbow @Rose @RumpleSteeleSkin @sailorelix @SilentSerenityy @SouthernFlame @tazcares @TortueDesBois

Community centered moderation category leaders: @AffyAvo @Alex @AnnaKateMillerLCSW @Anomalia @ArwaS @ASilentObserver @BeyondTheInvisible @bunnypants @countrygirl1231 @DaveMcGrath @Emily619 @emsworld @Erato @fluffyUnicorns84 @Hope @HopefulSprings @InvaderStitch @InspiringLee @ItsPreeti @JaydenIsHere @Jenna @Kate @Keanan @KimsonTheSteveFundYPOC @ladylazarus1971 @Laura @Lilium17 @LunaHecate @Mango3 @MelAllyouneedislove @MistyMagic @MonBon @PalmTreesNRainbows @PhoenixAsh @piercetheaiden @PoliteOcean @Power @RaCat @Rain45 @redmark @RideaRainbow @River @Rose @RumpleSteeleSkin @sailorelix @soulsings @SouthernFlame @summertimeSamness @tazcares @windflowers @YourFriendforever @Zammn

Awesome explanations, thanksies for posting it!

@MelAllyouneedislove Do people get a notice about their post having been edited? I mean, if that happened to me, I would like to know

1. that someone has changed what I wrote, so that means it does no longer represent what I said, but has my pseudonym on it, and I might not be okay with someone warping my meaning - they may have misinterpreted it (may happen, not a native speaker). In some cases, I might prefer deletion over editing - but we cannot delete our own posts.

2. what the problem was, so I can avoid it in future

Without getting some kind of notice about this, I may never know that there was a problem...

@cloudySummer ... and also wouldn't be able to tell someone that there was a mistake - because I wouldn't even notice.

@cloudySummer as a Forum Member Leader of an SC myelf we are thought to always leave a note at the end of the post such as:
[This post has been edited by Forum Member Leader @redmark to - let's just say for now - remove unsupprotive content]

As well as I always do leave a reply alerting the individual with their handle in there that their pors has been altered and as far as I know this is the general routine followed by everyone - or at least this is how we learn in our training.

I hope this clarifies how generally moderating in the forums go as per the training we are provided. :)

@redmark Thank you for explaining. That sounds like a reasonable way to deal with the issue.

@cloudySummer thats an awesome point to point out and would be super helpful to be told this i agree with cloudy

@cloudySummer

as @redmark mentioned, our forum moderators are supposed to leave their name and the reason for editing :) Right now we don't require moderators to reply when a post has been edited, but depending on the type of edit some do. Additionally, edits are supposed to be made in a way that don't change the meaning of the original post / retain as much of the original post as possible. Hope that helps, and thanks for commenting!

@MelAllyouneedislove

Very Helpful Post, Thank You

Thanks for the clarification, Mel! <3

As I remarked in another thread, I think "Unsupportive Content" isn't a very appropriate title for this rule. "Personal Criticism" might be a better title.

Purpose of rule: This section could clarify "personal criticism" as meaning critcism of identifiable individuals or groups within the 7 Cups community.

Examples: I might write, It seems to me this decision was made with no forethought and this statement is not unsupportive or critical of anyone in particular. On the contrary, it's supportive because it's pointing out a possible error in the decision-making process that can be corrected in future. Therefore I disagree with this example.

I might also write, Ive spoken to several individuals who think this and in fact I have written very similar things in these forums, and no one has ever objected to them. I have experience in the real world and in other Internet forums of a wide range of opinions, which I sometimes share here. It is not unsupportive or critical of anyone in particular to share what others have said to me. It's supportive because it helps to explain my reasons for holding certain opinions. For example, many of my opinions about mental illnesses are based on things real people who suffer from those illnesses have told me. Therefore I disagree with this example, too.

Explanation: As before, the reference to "tone" is a potential problem because "tone policing" is a method of online harassment.

The generalization part doesn't make any sense to me. For example, if there's a discussion in a chatroom, and everyone there agrees on something, reporting that agreement in a forum is apparently forbidden now!

And if I once wrote something in a forum about an experience I had, quoting me in another thread is apparently forbidden now!

I can see that there are some situations where speaking for other people could be problematic, but I do think the explanation here needs more work. And generalization is surely not the right word. Maybe something like:

Speculation: When speaking about experiences, you should never speak for other people unless you have personal knowledge of their experiences, either directly or from what they said in your presence. They told me they felt unwelcome is acceptable. I am sure they must have felt unwelcome is not, because you are speculating about their experience.

Appropriate Action and Grey Areas: As before, in these sections it might be helpful to give some examples of valid edits, and an example of a post that would have to be deleted.

@RarelyCharlie I wholeheartedly agree with you, but didn't have the nerve (or time) to try and phrase my thoughts in an acceptable way. Thank you for doing this.

While 7cups is understandably very strict, some of these suggested edits could cause more harm than they prevent, if adhered to literally, in my opinion.

@cloudySummer " unsupportive content " is sooo terrifyingly vague and just like any vague terminology or vague laws online or offline it can be and usually does become misused ALL criticism all protest and complaint could be considered " unsupportive content " so what does it mean exactly and what exactly it extends to and limited to is very very important and to help clarify and prevent it from evolving into something not intended and misused and affect a lot of things that can have a very negatice unsupportive impact on people in the future - wording this as " personal insults " or criticism is much much better because its very specific even the use of the word " criticism " part of the forums is to give suggestions and suggesting new things involves criticisng old/current things and people involved so thats not a great thing to outlaw in any way

maybe just edit out specific names if given and editors can take note of it if someone had done something wrong and report it to whomever so the problem can be fixed and allow the unsupportive complaint/criticism ..... and use more specific wording

@RarelyCharlie

Hi Charlie ^^

Re: Purpose, noted!

Re: Examples, I will let you know we were specifically told to include "several individuals" due to people taking an experience from one chat or person and inflating it to make it seem like it is a mass majority experiencing it. You, for example, I believe do try your best to take experiences at face value and not artifically inflate your points, but the purpose of that example is to prevent this occurrence from others who might take an approach different from yours. Any feedback or recommendation for how to rephrase while maintaining that original purpose would be greatly appreciated. Maybe speculation as you mentioned below?

Re: tone, have asked for clarification / assistance on previous post.

Re: generalization, see above re: examples.

Re: quoting in another thread, single quotes by themselves are generally acceptable. What we are trying to avoid there is people quoting entire threads / intentionally posting duplicates and encouraging people to go directly to the sources. If the thread or post is still up, we prefer the conversation to occur there, and if the thread or post is not still up, there is usually a reason for it ranging from author requests to guideline violations, so the same conversation shouldn't be happening elsewhere either. And slightly off topic, @Anomala, @MelAllyouneedislove and I will investigate any posts / threads that anyone believe shouldn't have been edited / deleted. You can email forum@7cups.com for this (easiest / fastest way to contact all of us) or pm one of us (may be slower depending on who is online at the time).

Let me know if I missed anything, and thanks again for posting! I hope to see you on these as they're posted in the upcoming weeks :)

Yes, I tried to convey that we should be able to report our personal knowledge, but we should not speculate. That's why Ive spoken to several individuals who think this seems OK to me, because it's my personal knowledge, but The majority of 7 Cups members think this is not, because it's beyond my personal knowledge.

I'm not sure I'm happy to ban all speculation, though. Maybe it's OK if it's not claiming knowledge: "It's entirely possible that the majority of 7 Cups members think this"

@MonBon

@RarelyCharlie

Thanks for the clarification charlie!

@MelAllyouneedislove @RarelyCharlie I think this category should be renamed . Instead use the word " Unproductive " (it already includes the word unproductive in the description along with unsupportive , but someone chose to title it "unsupportive") and give more examples of exact wording thats not allowed so its not all left to personal opinion and personal interpretation about what unproductive means . " unsupportive " is not really the correct word for this category additionally its much broader than the word unproductive and can potentially lead to abusive and oppressive censorship of new ideas and criticism of old and the word unproductive cannot . Changing 10 little letters now can make a world of difference for the future of the forums .

@jennysunrise8

We'll keep that in mind! Thank you for sharing. These are definitely open to discussion and can be adjusted

@MonBon ..... or maybe the word is unconstructive lol but either one is better than the word " unsupportive "

@jennysunrise8

Noted!

I think I see where you're coming from, but I do think the issue goes deeper than the choice of title. There's an insidious falsehood lurking within it that can't be fixed by changing the title—the idea that you can have light without darkness, yang without yin, electric power when you only connect the positive terminal.

In more practical terms, in order to solve a problem you first have to recognize that there is a problem. You don't have to say any more. It's the recognition that's the first step. But this rule can so easily be used to kill the recognition of genuine problems.

In real life, particularly with a competent therapist, or manager, or coach, or parent, or anyone else who has "people skills", that never happens. In real life you can say (taking the first example from above) all admins are heartless and your therapist will accept that as a valid starting point. You don't just get shut down. From there you can explore and discover, and eventually make things better.

@jennysunrise8

@RarelyCharlie lol I should have read bottom up last paragraph first then second then first ( and encourage everyone to do that so they dont become immediately confused and assume they cant understand it and not continue reading ) its a very good point good can come from naturally debating and having conversations between people, incorrect thinking if left unchallenged will only continue and people can change their minds when presented by a convincing argument . But if the incorrect thinking a person has is not allowed to be shared and challenged that cannot happen at all ( which is both unproductive and unsupportive ha ) . If it is a genuine opinion that the person is expressing and not just an obvious attack i think it should probabally be naturally discussed and debated . I think its all way too complicated and not at all sure why 2 new categories of new censorship had to be created at all , like i said before it needs simplified and clarified and i cant help having the nagging feeling that unless there is an effort to simpliy it we are only seeing the beginning of it and it will continue expanding and getting more complex and unnecessary . Less is more when it comes to censorship in my opinion .

Very helpful as I have recieved help and response quickly with problem chats

Life is full of ups and downs, but as long as you chose to live your are guaranteed to stay on top and not at the bottom.

@MelAllyouneedislove why not narrow this down and call this " targeting an individual " ? its very specific and limited and is not left up in the air for each person to interpret differently and cant include everything under the sun as it does now

@jennysunrise8 Your thought makes sense but I think it's extended not only to an individual but also a group of people or done with the purpose of "hurting" someone -- does it make sense?

@MelAllyouneedislove could be " targeting an individual or group " with some examples of what that means and doesnt mean

That nicely illustrates two fundamental problems, though.

You now say, "done with the purpose of "hurting" someone" but hurting isn't actually mentioned in the rule. You can't tell people "this is the rule" and then just make up more stuff afterwards. You have to write the rule in a meaningful way in the first place. Otherwise moderators will just censor things apparently at random and make up excuses when they're caught.

And the other problem is no one can ever say for sure what "the purpose" is. So if you put a thing like that in the rules, moderators will just use that to make up excuses, too.

What we're aiming at is:

To facilitate constructive criticism and feedback and maintain a safe and supportive environment for all user[s].

Sloppy rules that facilitate random censorship impede constructive criticism and feedback, create an unsafe environment, and undermine users who come here to share genuine troubles.

@MelAllyouneedislove

@RarelyCharlie I

Great! Let's have more examples

Here's an example. A person who is very upset for some unknown reason posts:

"@RarelyCharlie is a terrible listener"

We are here to provide emotional support. How do we ensure that no moderator shuts down this very upset person's attempt to communicate, thereby preventing anyone from providing emotional support?

@MelAllyouneedislove

@RarelyCharlie

If that was a public forum post it would be breaking many rules

1. Triangulation

2. Could add conflict because it's calling someone out directly

3. Just because a member or listener needs emotional support doesn't mean a person can't make a commitment to follow the rules.

Calling people out directly in the forums doesn't benefit anyone. It's not an appropriate way to solve a conflict. I'm sure I've had members think I'm a bad listener but that's also their perspective and they are entitled to it but I'm entitled to be protected from hurtful gossip and rumor spreading by 7cups keeping my personal feedback private. They can review me through the appropriate procedure. That same rule also protects members because I can't go post in the forums "hey, don't take blah blah's chat they're super weird"

They could post something "I just had a bad chat experience with a listener and I need emotional support on how to deal with it. Can someone please pm me to discuss this further?"

Even if a person is upset or needs support they agree to be mindful of the guidelines while using 7cups

I understand that, but it conflicts with the stated purpose "...maintain a safe and supportive environment for all user[s]" because it creates an environment that's not safe for some users.

What I'm trying to do here is encourage resolution of the conflict, because I believe that having conflict embodied in the rules in this way is bad for 7 Cups.

One way to resolve the conflict would be to change the stated purpose. Another way to resolve it would be to create an environment that's actually safe.

@summertimeSamness

@RarelyCharlie

I don't understand it. Like I don't understand the point you're making because of my processing disorder. Not because I'm trying to be rude

In my opinion, if people can call people out publicly then 7cups is not safe for anyone. That's a community culture I wouldn't want to be apart of

It's OK. I had no sense at all that you might be trying to be rude.

I just don't know the best way to explain. The book 7 Cups for the Searching Soul explains it all, in a roundabout way. To me the key chapters are maybe:

Chapter 4: Problems (because these rules are intended to avoid problems)

Chapter 10: Cup 5: Accept what life brings you (because moderation is about deleting stuff)

Chapter 11: Cup 6: Care for others that need support (because there are people who post in our forums needing support)

Today I notice another thread has just gone missing, invalidating all the replies. I have my own copy, because I'm used to this, and I PMed the original poster to continue the discussion.

Here, though, I feel I've run out of things to say that might help.

@summertimeSamness

@RarelyCharlie

Can you pm me any details about the thread in question? I can investigate in the queue to see what happened

@RarelyCharlie saying someone is a terrible listener while it shows they are upset it's not the same that saying to a fellow listener/member "you're an awful human being and shouldn't be here" or "you don't belong here".

I would adress it differently if it's a member giving out feedback (even if it's harsh) than if it's someone against the other. Context has a huge role on this too. Was it a single post? A whole thread? Was there any other significant feedback other than saying someone is terrible? If they explain they had a bad chat, I would say it's okay, even if forums aren't the places to say this. (The appropiate way for members to leave feedback is through the ratings, if it happened on 1-on-1, through the mod review form if done in a room or talking to the subcommunity leader/ flagging their post if it was in the forums!).

Very nice and helpful. Everyone need to understand the rules of a group they chose to belong and follow them if success must be collectively achieved. However everyone may not accept all the rules, but anyone can express their grievances over any rule(s) so the rule maker(s) can either understand and change any that needs to be changed, amended or explain the benefit of such rule to the agreived party as the case may demand.

Hello, I know this post is old, but I was referred to this forum because I made a post asking people if anyone else has a saviour complex and I think I asked how they get through it because I have one and I don’t want to have it and I want to find ways to try not to feel the need to always “ save “ people and it was removed from the forum and I can’t figure out how it violated guidelines

@embraeycingme1

You will want to contact forum@7cups.com if you have questions