Something needs to be done about the member chatrooms

In addition to this.

Cliques make people newer to the community feel out of place and unable to fit in.

I don't know quite how to say this but I do believe that some members for reasons which only they can tell us, feel drawn to the attention of making dramaticstatements or dominating the room.

Further to this conflict often arises when groups start to gang up on each other, honestly it reminds me of 'The hunger games' at times, especially when we involve thefrequentsuicide at self harmthreats.

I also feel that we are not willing to accept all viewpoints when the discussion is more light hearted and personalinsults regularly fly around. Very few people seem to remember that anonymity does not give them a reason to act without discretion.

@EmpatheticDude@Cadence @Lyra @Honestyismyweakness@Mobbsey @Sarah @Rocketsmom@SpencerT @Swordsandpens

Thanks for tagging! I'm going to reply to each post separately (hope you don't mind!)

I agree so much with this point - I see people who're in the chatrooms literally for 6 hours, even 12 hours at once. Now, I may be being hypocritical, as I spend a lot of time there as well, I think there is a difference by the point that when I'm in there, it's because I'm in a stable frame of mind as a listener, and know I can leave and do other things - not that members can't, but they might not have the right awareness, especially the younger teens of this, and it sometimes does feel as though, yes, we're being supportive, but in the long run, we're maybecausing more problems for members...

Hi there @Miracle!

I hear what you're saying and as a frequent moderator (I come on here more or less daily) I have witnessed the very things you have described. I am more than happy to discuss with you my perspective, experience, and opinions on these matters. I'll just cherry pick a few defining quotes and then relay my thoughts (:

1) "For example people can feel that their problem is 'minor' in compared to someone else's and feel guilty or unable to reach out to listeners."

I think it's very common for there to be some sort of unwrittenqueue in the chatrooms in terms of people prioritising, for example people stepping back because someone else's situation seems to be more drastic, or demanding of attention in their opinion.It will happen naturally, we as humans are very hierarchal and like to know where we stand. In most cases, people will wait until they feel ready, and then share their piece when they feel is appropriate.

An approach I like to take, is toencourage there to be multiple conversations in the chatroom so that it significantly reduces one person having the limelight and allows more people to feel included. Not only that, but if you have 5-6 people responding to one person it can potentially be quite overwhelming if their intention isn't to simply vent. This approach is usually successful in my experience, as it allows people to feel equally valued and not leave them in the dark whilst one person has the full limelight of the room.

I think what people would also benefit is knowing that the site's primary function is to have Listener and Member 1-1 conversations. Many people who will have instantly joined the site will perceive the Chatrooms to be the main function of the site, unaware of the aim of guiding people towards 1-1 chats, if necessary. Depending on the situation, it can be difficult at times to do this without seeming or appearing dismissive of people's needs.

As 7 Cups of tea is a unique site, few people come here knowing what to expect, and I think this needs to be recognised.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

2) "Cliques make people newer to the community feel out of place and unable to fit in."

I think the problem with this statement is simply the perception of this statement. Yes, cliques will make newer people to the community feel out of place and unable to fit in, but the crux of the matter is how does everyone in this supposed clique view everyone else.

In my opinion it is reasonable to asser that often with people who frequently use this site, there is an element of low self-worth or low self-esteem. From having observed what is often perceived to be a clique for a long time, I am confident in saying that each individual feels they are the "odd one out" in some sense.

I'll demonstrate this mathmatically:

You have a group or clique consisting of the numbers: 1, 3, 5, 7 , and 9.Let's assume you are number 5. Your perception of the room will be:1 + 3 + 7 + 9 = 20. This will be different to my perception of the room if I were to be number 9 in the supposed clique; 1 + 3 + 5 + 7 = 16.My perception of the cliqueis 16 whilst yours is 20. Hypothetically, we both feel that our value of the room isn't added to the equation.

Essentially, what I'm trying to emphasise is that those in the clique may feel equally disvalued as those who are outside of it in accordance to their perception of it. This is something I have openly discussed with various members in chatrooms, and I strongly believe my demonstration is representative of how they feel.

Another note to mention, is that we will never truly be rid of this matter. People arrive at this site on different times, bond with certain people and will speak to certain people differently to others based on how they converse. I feel this is only natural. The best we can do in my opinion is assist people to find their own feet. Discouraging certain behaviour will only make members feel defensive of their actions, whereas encouraging people to find the help they deserve is the best bet we have to tackling the clique issue.

I personally don't believe there are any cliques, but many people perceieve there to be.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

3) "As a last point, moderators are so often treated as a threat."

I feel this also to be true. In my opinion, the Group Moderator training could improve in order to make new moderators feel much more comfortable and confident dealing with various Members. Each Moderator has their own unique style, and unique approach and whilst I believe this to be natural I do feel strongly that all moderators ought to have more unity as it is the flexibility of Moderator behaviour that makes people feel uneasy, not knowing what to expect.

Another perhaps separate issue is that many people do not like authority.

But in terms of reaching a solution with this, I would encourage many many discussions like these in order for Moderators (especially new ones) to come to a mutual understanding and agreement with one another. Until then, the best we can all do is focus reflectively on ourselves appreciating our successes but also striving for improvement.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

4) "the only way I see it moving currently is towards getting rid of them totally"

I assume you mean the member chatrooms. I strongly disagree with this on the basis that whilst the member chatrooms have their ups and downs, itprovides a place for people to meet people with similar experiences, to feel understood by those who can say "Yeah, I'm the same" or "Yeah that happened to me too", it can be of great comfort.

Anothergreat importance to the member chatrooms is that it provides asense of belonging. Much like the Listener only rooms, you can talk to people who have similar experiences, and we can share them to feel mutually understood.I strongly feel there is an importance to maintain these chatrooms, but also strongly consider various options on how to improve them.

A major concern of mine is when they get overcrowded, that can be of severe detriment to the welfare of members during hectic times.I wonder whether an option could be that we provide quite a few more rooms, however decide on a certain limit of members on them. Behaviour and anxieity levels fluctuate based on how many people there are in the room.

______________

I hope I've given you some food for thought here, and perhaps some encouragement that things aren't necessarily as grave as they may appear to be so. Thank you!

Zedda

I have no clue what the solution is but I am in agreement with @Miracle that we do have a problem. Yesterday, on a goof, I dropped into one of the teen support rooms and what was being discussed in a room with 10 participants and no moderation to be seenwas not anywhere close to therapeutic or appropriate. I went to two other rooms and observed the same thing and not a mod to be found in any of these rooms. The question I have is if you have a room where, without moderation, an inappropriatediscussion can take place and we have an obligation for that room to be moderated, the question is, without a moderator to man the room, should the room be open?

Now I appreciate the idea that by just stating this and observing that one would logically think myself becoming a mod would be a great step forward. I will tell you, with all due respect, I wouldn't touch moderating a chat room with a 10 foot pole. At their best, chat rooms are incredibly beneficial to the members therein that have a common goal and respect the rules and objective of 7cups. However, throwing that much emotion into a room without proper controls in place and even one participant that is not a team player, you have a mess. It's a mess I don't care to be a part of. That's awful to say, I feel guilty saying it, but my contribution to the site is focused on 1 on 1 and the support of the listeners that do 1 on 1. I would make a mess of being a moderator for a chat room, of that I am confident.

Wish you all luck with this.

@Laura yes more moderators would be great. I also think that moderators need to have a calendar system and agree to a certain amount of hours and this should be quite strict. I also think members need to be made aware that the choice of a moderator in blocking them is final and that abuse will not be tolerated. Maybe a clear set of guidelines before entering the chat rooms and a 24 hour block from the member accounts? So such members do not go around telling other listeners that we are 'abusive' and trying to get our accounts banned, while meaning other listeners cannot take chats from people seekingemotional support.

I do know what you mean, I went into one of the rooms last night and winced at certain things, eg

"I have an eating disorder, I weigh xx, I still feel fat"

"You'resoolucky, I wish I was thin"

But the more I thought about it, the more I thought most people were focused on using thechatroomsas platform for people to pour their feelings out and find common ground with people they might not come across in everyday life. In the example I used, two people with two related problems might've gained more insight into the other end of their spectrum. Of course, there's a fine line between exchanging experiences and perhaps being inconsiderate.

There's never been muchof a conversational direction/flow whenever I've been in chatrooms, more an outpouring of emotion. I'm not a mod so don't know the ins and outs completely, but I think getting rid of them would take away the human interaction that many benefit from. I'd sooner see a more structured facilitated system (however that may be) than see them removed.

In every unstructured group process where people are free to socialize it's very unpredictable and hard to control. Compare the chat rooms to the guided discussions and you'll see what I mean. Add faceless anonymity to that and suddenly there is very little accountability.

I noticed in the Share Your Story group it says "listen and take turns." This sounds cheesy but I've facilitated groups where no one talks except whoever is "holding the stick"...or hat...or insert name of object here. Maybe there's a way to encourage turn-taking and increase accountability with a process by which one person has a time limited or content limited chance to "hold the stick" (i.e. be on stage) while everyone else listens.

That could give everyone else the chance to practice patience and really think before they speak. Another possible suggestion corollary to this is to encourage participants to say at least one thing in response to the person who went before them before saying what's on their own mind, so it doesn't just turn into one monologue after another.

Another running theme is that mods have their hands full and are sometimes resented as rule enforcers.

Take it from me, rules are meant to be broken and authority is meant to be rebelled against; it's human nature so...why not create a corps of assistant mods who are more like member/guest peers that hang out in the chats rooms at the same time as the mods. These roles can be doled out as rewards for playing nice in the chatrooms. If a chatroom as one mod and 3,4, or 5 assistant mods who just regular participants the day before, it will encourage better behavior and reduce the mob rule and us-versus-you mentality that mods face. Also, redirection from peers is more democratizing and because of similarity in social status, it creates less of a perceived threat or need to save face.

None of these observations aremeant to disparage the mods, but simply to acknowlege the impossible task they face and give them some addition tools for bringing some order to the chaos.

I have your answer, folks!

In a member to listener chat, if I enter the wrong word or phrase, the power from the heavens comes out and tells me NO!!!!! in a red warning banner. I have no idea who this big giant head is, but I accept their intervention and I go on ahead and rephrase.

Meanwhile, we have a moderator for a chat room. They are unlike the big giant head in that they are identifiable, they are obviously a human, and they are interactive. Maybe you can make some changes to have the moderator be a bit more like the big giant head that polices the one on one:

-Dedicated moderator account to log in under IE "Mod1, Mod2, Mod3" and these can be a general use non personal sort of account, with the passwords issued to the various moderators.
-Zero interaction from the moderator, letting the moderator be a one way slap of the hand or more severe disciplinary action to the offending listener or member. The Moderator does not act as a mentor or even a participant in the chat and all interaction is a one way to the member or listener via a big red banner that says "DON'T DO THAT" and that's it, and the banner is triggered not by the big giant head of a computer, but by Mod1, Mod2, etc.

-Any grievences made against a moderator can be voiced against the moderator via an email or form to community, but that's it.

You make the moderator like this, where I, Pickle68, are not acting in a compassion role but a role more closely identified with who I am outside this website and I am a moderator, no problem. I'll do my 2 hours a week as a mod, no worries.

PS: If the member wants to get midevil and trash the reputation of Mod23, by all means let em have at it. The listener's account will be uneffected. Nice, eh?