7 Cups Behavior Reporting Process & Tracking - Updated Version

Hi thanks for this post!

I have a question: it is mentioned that feedback should be in a professional and unbiased way. This sounds a little vague to me - could you explain what exactly is expected from a professional and unbiased feedback? Thank you.

I am glad a tracking system is going through but I do think the details need a lot more thought.

Should listeners and members have the same point system?

Should the rules match up a bit better?

What's the overall purpose? If it truely is safety, 7 Cups needs to toughen up a bit more on critism offered, regardless of the form it comes in.

I do see a need to vary a bit from one area of the site to another, but not to the extent outlined here.

Some specifics:

- confidentiality, at least from the lsitener side should have points connected to it - forums, chat, 1-1s. I thought this was something that 7 Cups valued, and the system should reflect that. There is a safety aspect. Make first offense 0.5 if desired, but after the first offense make it higher. By having that 0.5 initially (and no other half points) it's clear when it's no longer a first offense. I don't trust the zero point for the first time thing to actually happen.

- tone - bringing down an idea is vastly different from a person

And really? Sarcastic humour for bringing an idea down is worth a point?

Feedback - sometimes someone saying I really hate this idea is good feedback. Learn to deal with it, we shouldn't be worried about hurting 7 Cups' feelings, it's not a person. With feedback don't allow for personal insults, that's more damaging to the people.

- inappropriate use of lead discussion - should be automatic loss of the privilege, along with other points (ie. racist content). Luckily I haven't seen this be an issue for a long time.

- Engaging in conflict should be a lesser offense than harassing someone.

- No problem about the points with a listener using their account for member type of purposes, but again, why would this be higher than someone sharing chat details? Values seem off IMO

- Hate speech has different meanings in different places (I think). Racist being listed is good, but what about ablelist, sexist, homophobic, etc. language?

- the comment about perpetuating the problem is based on a listener aspect, it's not worded to apply to members

- I don't understand the offsite group chat thing. I suspect this came from a specific scenario, but it's confusing as is when people are encouraged to promote 7 cups on social media.

- spamming doesn't seem to be mentioned ETA - it is, but way at the bottom, after all the offenses. I don't feel like this is laid out in a logical order.

Look at some of the wording in the community guidelines:

a total ban on stalking and harassment of any kind.

zero tolerance policy for these behaviors

Does the point system match up with "total ban" and "zero tolerance"? If not should they be in line with one another?

How does this work with the chatroom consequences? I do feel like these 2 systems should also align with each other.

@AffyAvo

thanks Affy! A part that I respectfully disagree on is this one "Feedback - sometimes someone saying I really hate this idea is good feedback.". I understand that you are saying 7cups doesn't have feelings, but I think the idea is not about hurting a website's feelings and more about just saying you hate something doesn't give the receiver of the message any additional context or details as to why.

@EvelyneRose I agree adding in why is better. Just knowing that people don't like an idea is helpful though, sometimes someone doesn't even know as to why.

Some ideas can be pretty simple, a colour change for example. If everything on the site that is blue was switched to green and people didn't like it I don't think a why really matters. If the large majority of the feedback was negative I think it would be a simple decision to switch back.

I think as a whole, 7 Cups is better off on being open to hear what people like and dislike, even if no explanation is given.

@AffyAvo

I think I'm just trying to say it's always more helpful to create a solution when you do get that additional contextual information, but yes if the majority doesn't like something, knowing they don't is still good even if every single one couldn't say why. I definitely get what you're saying :)

@AffyAvo Thank you. Those were my same thoughts. I wouldn't have dared post them, because... all that hassle with the sandwiches etc. - who knows, maybe even this is already considered sarcasm. Sarcasm is only what people resort to when open discussion is discouraged (which it seems to be here).

Oh, and I'd like to add that confidentiality breaking should have a much, much higher point number than letting others know one's opinion.

@cloudySummer I don't think I would last here if I had to sandwhich every negative. What a waste of time when it comes to something like a bug report or when there's a problem. And yes, agreed that it's odd when feedback is punished but a listener blabbing about a private chat isn't.

Oh, there also needs to be clarification on the wrong age community. We do have 35+ and 50+ communities. In the chatrooms, anyone 18+ can participate, in the forums/joining the subcommunity anyone with an account that is of age (ie. 13 for members) can.

This is an interesting update. So it would give people the chance to try again and not have it stay on their records ??

@ASilentObserver Does this mean that the points are decreasing over time when the person's behavior becomes appropriate?

@ASilentObserver

Okay so are you saying that 1-mark points earned are no longer considered by this time? Or that past earned points do not apply to this new update or...?

As member I have to say that I understand the need for rules for everyone's safety. In all honesty though all of this makes me nervous to be here. I already feel that there is so much censoring going on. There's already concerns about what to say and how to say it. There will be differences of opinions among such a large group of people. Are we not allowed to have those anymore? Who decides what is sarcastic? Who decides that the tone Is inappropriate? Because despite the best efforts and intentions sometimes there is a language barrier. It does cause ripples at times. Is it all inclusive site wide or are the diary and journal sections exempt? Are we allowed to speak our minds on our own threads at all? I'm worried that in the process of this some of us will slowly lose our ability to speak freely and openly. Especially with this looming in the back of our minds. I apologize, maybe I'm reading this all wrong and taking things out of context.

@ASilentObserver

Thank you for this post, Obs! We appreciate the updation and transparency, in letting us know what the guidelines and processes currently are!

I have some questions regarding the guidelines-mostly clarifications, and I would be greatly indebted if you, or anyone else could offer clarity on them.

I have stated the heading in bold, and a (maybe) hypothetical scenario/question, below it.

1.Making Generalizations:

Recently, we had a Safety Trial (I believe), wherein new members could not access the Browse Listeners page. In raising the issue in a forum post, one would have to make the generalization that "most new members (if not all) are not able to connect to a listener through the Browse Listeners page", especially as this was not a first-hand experience for many of us.

We had only heard about it from (a considerable number of) other members as to their experience and based the post off it.

(i)Would this count as a generalization, and

(ii)Was it not to be made?

2. Breaking Confidentiality:

References ... the specific content of a confidential 1-1 chat.

A considerable number of times, we receive information from an Ambassador or Community Manager through PMs, as a response to specific queries from our side.

For example, there is no official post (that I could find) actually stating that Wiki is outdated-but from a group chat with an Ambassador, I came to know that Wiki was not being updated regularly. Had this information been shared with me in a PM-Would my sharing of this information as, "As I heard from an Ambassador, 7Cups Wiki is not being updated" with another person, count as breaking confidentiality?

3. Spreading Gossip:

This post describes gossip as:

...information about specific people or groups, information about leaders...

(i)To clarify, would "information about specific people" include letting a user know that another user has gone on break/has returned from break, or sharing their post from the Farewell thread?

(Of course, there is no further conversation as to why they went on a break-just the passage of information that a user is no longer active on/has returned to 7Cups)

(ii)"information about leaders"-Does this include information that a leader is no longer heading a specific project, or similar information?

4. Using inappropriate Tone

"Sarcastic humour used in a way to bring...idea down"

I understand @AffyAvo already raised this- but does this apply even if the issue raised (while being sarcastic) is valid? I understand that sarcasm can be provoking at times and is not the best way to get a point across all the time, but if the point raised is valid, and the sarcastic statement does not oppose/hurt a specific individual/group of individuals, does it deserve a point? Anyway, that's only just my question.

5. Sharing Unconstructive Feedback

"Identify a problem using professional, unbiased language. From there present viable solutions to the problem"

If an individual does not agree with the specific objective of an initiative in itself, as they believe accomplishing that objective would create a larger problem-would not their solution essentially be "Don't implement the initiative"? Is this applicable for a point?

(I understand this is hypothetical, but if wished-I can provide some examples).

Thank you in advance, to anyone who could help clarify these questions

@bouncySalamander26 I agree with all of that. For the confdientially, it should be about personal issue related 1-1 chats only, and even then there are some exceptions.

@AffyAvo

Thank you! I found myself nodding along to a number of points you'd raised too!

Limiting confidentiality to personal issues, feels OK to me-but I feel a better way to word it would be that, information regarding roles, projects or functioning of 7Cups, shared in PMs, should be exempt from confidentiality, unless specifically stated otherwise?

I'm curious as to which exceptions you are referring to, though-I would be grateful if you could provide an example!

@bouncySalamander26

Some points that I was not going to post, as I did not feel they were as serious/were subject to differences in opinion:

1. Under "How does it work? "

"If no reports within three months from the date of action, an 80% reduction in the points."

Say, a user had gained 3 points on a single day, and did not receive any further reports for 3 months. Their points at the end of 3 months, would be 20% of 3=0.6.

Say, on the first day of the 4th month, the user gains 2 points. Their current point total is now, 2.6.

The table outlining the consequences has no reference to decimal points, at all! Are we rounding off?

[Significance: Rounding off can make the difference in severity of action]

2. Posting Sexual Content:

I entirely agree with the definition of the guideline, but the example has me a little confused.

"I love you so much & I cannot wait to meet you next week"

A reply to a post in the Farewell thread, indicating a break for a week, could be worded very similarly.

For example:

Love you! [Take care] Can't wait to see you at the end of the week.

(My point being that I have seen users use "love you", "hun", "darling"-with a non-romantic connotation too (I don't use them as much, so-I cannot explain why), and action (if any) should depend a lot on the context. I was assuming that the moderators and managers are aware of this, though-and did not initially raise it.)

3. Sharing Unconstructive feedback-(with a requirement for solutions to problems raised)

I would like to note that while I agree that the problems should be presented in a professional manner, I do not believe that the onus for a solution should fall on the person raising it, or that the post should focus mostly on solving it right away.

For example, with an idea that is implemented-the side effects of the idea should be discussed thoroughly in the thread, before the thread focuses on solutions. This could also help ensure that we have a more comprehensive solution (that could possibly address these side-effects too, rather than band-aids for each of the side-effects). Again, only just my opinion.

I could also-easily (I think), present an unviable solution, just so my post does not get taken down. This rule could be easily circumvented, in my opinion.

P.S: I have attempted my best in not repeating points that have already been raised. If I have, mistakenly, repeated a point-my sincere apologies for it Whoever is answering need not repeat their answer, I'll scroll through the thread anyway!

@bouncySalamander26

How many points do we get if we get censored in chat? I got a blue message saying something in my message violates 7cups policy but pertaining to the chat it wasn't anything that meant to be harmful or mean or anything. So I'm not sure how worried I should be.

@DansLeVide

Exact! Besides, 7cups seems not to be able to handle those things in a foreign language anyway.

@DansLeVide

I had a very similar experience, where I was trying to shorten the word "kilometres"-Alas, I recognized a little too late that the shortened form could mean something else that would violate 7Cups' crisis policy. I have faced the blue-screen censor atleast thrice in the past 2 months, and I haven't been aware as to whether I was awarded points for it. I am not aware of any action being taken against me, in that regard-and I surmised that no action was taken against me for it.

The censor in itself states:

...If I made a mistake, please rephrase your message to continue our conversation.

This suggests that admin/developers are aware that the censor can pop up even when the context does not intend for a word to be violating 7Cups policy.

I am inclined to believe that points aren't awarded simply because of the censor popping up, though I cannot say with certainty (as I am not admin). I would personally, not be too worried about it-though, agreed that it can be a bugger and halt conversation, especially when you do not know which word is causing it's invocation.

Here are some other instances, where the blue screen censor which prevents the message in itself from being sent, is known to pop-up-here and here (they're the same thread). I hope you have a wonderful day!

I notice this thread specifically requests:

Please share all constructive feedback, inputs, and ideas on what is missing or what does not make sense and what can be done.

So I am sharing a couple of ideas about what does not make sense to me, and what I think can be done.

1. I was pleased to see several very positive ideas mentioned at the start of the thread: warmth, expectations, second chances, inclusivity, accountability and transparency. I was confused to see that not one of these ideas made it into the description of the rating system itself. This does not make sense to me.

Suggestion: Redesign the rating system so that it is clear where it incorporates warmth, expectations, second chances, inclusivity, accountability and transparency.

2. There are several well known problems with the wording of the rules that make them very confusing. I notice that other people who have replied in this thread have mentioned some of them. (Oops, is that a generalization based on other people's experiences?)

Another example is that a forum post that "References another user by name" is not allowed. But every reply references another user by name—that's how our forums work. Rules like these do not make sense to me.

Suggestion: Create a short-term working group of members and listeners tasked with clarifying the text of the rules so that everyone can understand exactly what they mean. I volunteer to serve on it.

Charlie

@RarelyCharlie

I definitely like the suggestion! We could also, probably use a series similar to Expanded Forum Guidelines -for some of these guidelines. I believe some of the behaviours in the system are already defined by some posts from the forum guidelines series. However, we have some inclusions-which deserve discussion.

i'm thrilled to see a clarification on behavioral reports here on 7cups and i think this is a very important step! as several people have mentioned earlier, i think my biggest critique of the system as of right now is a lack of specificity on the various offenses. for example, what specifically constitutes an "unsupportive tone", as it's a very subjective criterion? what adjustments should be made to account for language barriers that could affect one's communication in a language they are not as familiar with? what about a miscommunication or misunderstanding? what constitutes "sarcasm" or an "unsupportive critique" when considering the possibility of people fundamentally disagreeing with each other on something, like perhaps the direction a project should take? i'm glad that racism specifically was called out, but what about ableism/sexism/homophobia/transphobia/etc? there are some rules that i would say are reasonable and do not need further clarification, e.g. initiating offsite contact, but a lot of the other less serious offenses are rather generic and i think that increasing the specificity would help clarify a lot of people's questions or concerns regarding this system. thank you so much!!

@aeris156

ooh i also wonder- what about false reports or issues? i've dealt with trolls or had harmful interactions with members in the past, and while i'm grateful that none of them have resulted in a report against me (to my knowledge, at least), what would happen if a report was falsified? are there opportunities for people to contest their report and explain their side of the issue in a constructive manner? otherwise, by not allowing an avenue through which people can express their concern for a problematic report, 7cups won't be able to foster a supportive and honest environment! of course, i don't know the statistics on what percentage of reports are falsified so perhaps this is a negligible or non-issue, however i still believe that it is worth clarifying in order to assuage potential anxiety within the 7cups community. thanks so much!

@aeris156

I believe the first 3 points under "How reports are filed?" address the issue you have raised, to some extent- letting us know that we would be asked for our side of the story.

• The incoming report will be reviewed by the concerned team. It will be reviewed for accuracy and if one of the below behaviors is clearly identified the following actions will be taken:
• Authority sends a warning message to the reported user letting them know about the report. If the user would like to provide their side of the story, they will be invited to do that.
• Point(s) will be assigned if the user assumes responsibility for the action and agrees that it happened. The authority will let the user know the point has been assigned.

However, below that we have a couple more points:

• • If the user does not accept responsibility for the behavior and the evidence that the behavior did occur is clear, point(s) will be assigned.
• It is requested of all reporters that they submit relevant screenshots to prove their accusations for a user.

I'm a little unclear as to what "clear evidence" is being referred to in this case. If it is screenshots, it would be wise for admin to remember that the text (in almost any website that allows a right click) can be manipulated very easily, for the purpose of a screenshot-and a better way to verify claims would be through server records. Addressing how claims are verified and defining "clear evidence", is definitely important.

@aeris156

I agree! Many among us are doing our best, volunteering with time, reliability and consideration. We then receive chastising emails about vague problems which cannot be fixed. I think that a better way to handle this would be that the emails be specific (so we understand) and that the person who complained be just removed from our discussion list.
*edited by forum mentor @rebecca947 to keep this message supportive to members and listeners alike*

@Fradiga Unhinged?

@mytwistedsoul

"Sometimes", I said.

@ASilentObserver

Thank you. The level of detailed thought in this update demonstrates an incredible amount of time, energy and effort spent towards making 7cups a more positive experience for us all. The driving license analogy was spot on and easy to understand. It's very encouraging that you've kept the doors open to communication from everyone as you iron out the kinks in this new approach. I hope it works exactly as intended and helps everyone feel safe and comfortable within a supportive space.

All the best!

Behavior Reporting Process & Tracking - I read this and cringe.

@endearingLion70 My first thought was that it sounds like something out of an Orwellian future.

I agree@cloudySummer

Thank you for the revision and invitation for feedback. My grain of input, may have little value or relevance. In either case, I may need more clarification about how are legitimately truthful concerns distinguished from illegitimate - purposely harmful concerns. For example, when a Member claims a concern about a Listener (or vise-versa,) when the claim is actually a fabrication to be harmful, by circumventing direct intentional hate by using an appearance as a legitimate concern. Is this possible? Additionally, who decides what is a legitimate concern and how is it investigated to arrive at that conclusion. Even driving records can have illegitimate marks removed as unlawful as well when contested. While it states that there are opportunities to remedy concerns for Listeners and Members, there may be areas that are confidential without disclosure of the details of the concern, rendering a less effective remedy for it. (Just a convoluted thought that may or may not have any relevance.)

@ASilentObserver

Thank you for this post, but I am surprised at the number of rules and all the complicated point system. I would have liked to see other improvements, such as:

a) Censorship applying to foreign languages (I use three here). Certain words spelled out in another language can be read as a dirty word in English when there is no intention to do so. For instance, the word "r e t a r d" in French only means "latedness", but it gets the *** instead. Wishing "Bon appétit" to someone who is going to break off to go eat becomes similar to a vulgar word for women's breasts and so on. Shower is "d o u c h e" in French.

B) Diacritics that are used in foreign languages are all jumbled by 7cups ASCII language. If 7cups truly wanted to be international, it ought to be less US-centric. Accented wovels (French and Spanish), apostrophes, a cedilla under the C, for instance, are constantly replaced by some combination of symbols and letters, which makes reeading difficult.

If anyone knows where I can direct these questions, I would be very thankful.

Thank you.

@Fradiga You can report these bugs in the Help Center: Submit a request

a) 7 Cups' attempts at censorship are consistently unhelpful, it seems to me. I suggest admitting that censorship has been a failed experiment, and abandoning it.

b) 7 Cups uses UTF-8, not ASCII, and I only see UTF-8 errors in a very few places myself. When reporting one of these errors, I think you would have to be specific about the device and the software you are using.

Charlie

@RarelyCharlie

Thanks a lot for your reply and the link! I will use it!

@RarelyCharlie

Did you notice that this post is from two years ago? Of course I wrote and nothing happened. Not an answer, ZIP !!

@ASilentObserver

I don't know if we're allowed to give suggestions but if I could give one it would be to be a little more lenient on censoring because I get censored for things that aren't meant to be mean or harmful in anyway yet I have to bare the consequences. I hope you will consider this. Thank you.

@DansLeVide Suggestions are usually allowed, but they are very rarely acted on, in my experience.

Yes, we all get censored for things that aren't meant to be mean or harmful. Somewhere 7 Cups says about itself, "We work hard to build a culture of trust", but that hard work hasn't yet resulted in trusting us when we express our own thoughts and feelings.

Charlie

@RarelyCharlie

I cannot agree more! Responders can be in trouble for a innocent sentence taken out of context. I have finally been told by another responder that I can send emails to community@7cups.com and I did (on another issue) a couple of days ago and so far only received an automatic answer.