Levels of Moderating Participation in Chatrooms

I really appreciate you reaching out and giving us this gentle reminder. I feel like there is always the temptation of just using the system, but it is the compassion behind human beings that gets the best reaction.

Thanks so much, Zedda! I'll be sure to keep this in mind.

Thank you for your post @Zedda. While I agree with you in a lot of ways, I also think that one of the reasons for the new warning system was to avoid having constant discussions about the rules in the chatrooms because they tend to disrupt the flow of the conversation. People start questioning the rules and we wanted to move the moderating more to a level of active listening and encouraging again, instead of needing tousepublic conflict resolution. I always try to have the whole room in mind, everyone, not only that one person that is breaking the rules.

Yes, some people who are breaking the rules are new and are in a very agitated state, and sending them a warning couldmake them feel worse. But can we really make exceptions, shouldn't everyone be treated the same way, long term members or new guests? I think so because in a group situation I have the whole group in mind, not that just one person. Also, bear in mind, if someone is not in a state to be supportive or respectful towards others, then it would be a better idea for them to connect to a listener for a 1 on 1. I do not warn for someone's first message containing a long paragraph and one swear word, but still, I remind them of the rules. But a warning would do just the same, it would remind them to check out the rules. Because if you want to participate in a chatroom, you need to follow the chatroom-rules. Saying something like "HI xxx, welcome to 7 Cups of Tea! Thank your for sharing! Please be mindful of your language and review the chatroomrules" might be a good idea. But won't I warn them in front of the whole room? Again, maybe even causing conflict? The warning system has been amazing at keeping that kind of conflict out of the room.

The third, final warning, the mute, actually says to not contact a moderator after a mute because we can not do anything if someone is muted anyway. Again, to protect moderators from abuse and discussions on end. The chatroom rules are straightforward and honestly, if someone still breaks the rules a third timealthough they have been asked to look at the chatroom rules, they should be muted. Our main focus should be to keep the chatroomssafe and compassionate and inclusive.

I think one thing to remember with the new warning system is that the moderator role has changed. We can do more active listening, or just watch how others are being supportive, welcoming new participants, making sure everyone gets attention. That is absolutely fantastic, we do not have to spend a lot of time solving conflicts anymore, we warn when appropriate, and can actually focus on creating a positive enviroment.

I agree that lurking moderators sending out warnings could be a problem, we should at least greet everyone when we enter a room. But again, just not showing which moderator sent someone a warning might just keep mod hate and constant discussions about rules out of the room, which in the end leads to a more positive flow in the conversation for the whole room, for everyone. So there are advantages and disadvantages with lurking moderators.

Thanks for the tag. (:

I completely agree with you @Zedda. I haven't been a mod for very long (as I'm on a break now), but it would seem as if all those tools would make it much easier for me to manage issues in the chatroom. I'd also like to add to your post : I find the Chatroom room window to be exceptionally small, considering how fast conversations move. I think it would be wise to allow users to expend the size of the chatroom to their liking, or to simply make it bigger for everyone. It would make it much easier for mods to follow along busy chats, and would be less scary to new users who can't keep up with the pace of some chatrooms.

Another thing I have noticed is to change the topic, listeners begin to talk amongthemselves. The member support rooms are for members and this behaviour comes off as being arrogant and domineering.

And at a moment having more than 3 listeners in a room too is not at all good.
At times, when a particular guest is being rude, you need to warn them in public instead of requesting them to PM you. If someone feels that a wrong decsion was taken by a mod, or there is an argument between members it is better to ask them about the issue in PM.

The chatroom is not a place to discuss conflicts especially is it is between 2 members or about a chat with a mod or listener. Since it can be accessed by anyone at any point of time, it is better to discuss it in PMs, where it can be resolved with lesser chaos. Chatrooms work best when there are more than 1 listener in the room. It is gets difficult to handle 10people alone.

Another thing is when you leave the chatroom, please inform another listener or member about it. Leaving a chatroom unattended will lead to more confusion.

It's very important for us, group mods and listeners who participate in group support to be aware of how to best manage triggers. Ultimately, the focus should be on directing the conversation in an appropriate way and encouraging self-care. If someone is triggered, they need to be proactive to remove themselves from the chat.So, in conclusion, the member/guest rooms are the most successful innovation to the site that I have seen in thepast several months but we need to keep our time in those rooms within our professionalboundaries.

Honestly, the troll spam reports are crazy, and flat out discussing a rule in the room creates this huge battle that we are trying to avoid.

The whole point of the new system is to avoid elongated discussion regarding the rules, the warning system is a gentle reminder - a verbal warning is no longer allowed as per Heather's email - i do not lurk mod, but i understand when the appeal when people go insane over a warning, which with the 3 warning system really is just a quick gentle reminder of the rule, and expires pretty quickly if the don't break said rule.

The other day on my member account someone was continuously insulting me, a mod rightfully warned them, and i saw you asking the mod to pm you...that creates a massively hostile environment, especially when you know i do not ever insult anyone, and i received no warnings due to not saying anything mean ever.

Yes, I absolutely agree! I was just speaking earlier about how I'd prefer to try and resolve it between them and myself before resorting to muting/reporting them.I've come to find the energy either settles down, or the person causing the issue voluntarily excuses themselves.Though, not every attempt at being the peace keeper is steady and simple to resolve- I will definitely keep everything you've said, and I've witnessed/experienced, in mind.

Thank you kindly for sharing your knowledge. Much love, ✌

Another awesome post from you man, the effort you put in!! Thank you so much for your contribution!

Thank you for your contribution Zedda!I know where you are trying to point out! Thanks!

It's interesting and useful hearing everyone's points of view!

What I shall say is this;

Muting doesn't dissipate tension, it only delays and increases it.

I feel the need to elaborate with this point. We think okay the disruption is ceased, the member doesn't know who to hate, it's all calm now, job done! No not quite. The member will most likely come back after the mute and then spread the news of their experiences publicly, increasing the stigma surrounding Moderators.

Respecting that discussing the rules publicly has the potential to further continue any tension in the room, I propose this solution;

Create an "additional comments" section in the private warning

This will allow opportunity for Moderators to explain to the Member how they can correct their behaviour without it being a PM or without discussing it publicly. What needs to be considered is that while we know what we're warning them for exactly, it might not necessarily occur to them equally. They only see what rule they've broken, not what they've done to break it.

Either way, I feel we need to find a compromise between publicly discussing rules and sending generic warnings which alienate members.

We need to find a balance, because I strongly feel simply relying on the system alone and not acting pragmatically as human beings with rhetoricdoes nothing to resolve any tension/conflict.

Just throwing in my 2 cents here but why don't we update the new warning system? We could reword it so that they understand this isn't a bad thing it's just reminding them of the rules so that they can continue participating and that we appreciate them coming here to help support others whilst seeking support.On top of that, I think we should have an FAQ about getting warned and what to do once warned, what you can do if you were wrongly warned, etc. and that can be included in the pop up once someone gets a warning. I don't know if this makes sense to anyone but me LOL

That makes sense to me @Lynnie, great idea :)