Something needs to be done about the member chatrooms
Hey everyone!
I am very concerned about the member and guest chat-rooms. This post is intended to apply to all chat rooms but in reality I know some are more problematic than others. I do not want this to come solely from the perspective of an occasional moderator so please feel free to share your view. These are my main concerns though.
Having large group of people who are feeling emotionally vulnerable can have a negative effect on individuals.
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. Self destructive actions can also be intensified with secret desires to compete and to some extent spending too long around others who also struggle creates a false sense of normality and increases social isolation as members retreat into a digital world and are in the roomsall day
PSS: If someone logs in as, for example, "Pickle68_Mod" they would be, each time, assigned a generic user name much like the guests are now. "OmnipotentPopcicle" and that's that. The next time I log in, the system sees I am a mod and assigns the name "RetroBananna" and so forth. The system in the background is logging who I actuallyt am but to the member or whoever, they are none the wiser.
Oh my god!!! @Pickle68 I love this idea so so much!!!!
Moderators must be accountable for their own actions.
The very thought of logging in to a generic Mod account makes me feel very uneasy. I admire your intentions behind this @Pickle68 but there are many things about it that would make the chatrooms chaotic and hostile:
__________
1. Us Moderators are here to provide a safe and supportive environment, we do so bycombining a welcoming personality with positive leadership skills.
__________
2. Members can't suddenly log into a Member02 generic account to further the anonymity, why should Moderators have this special privilege of having no accountability whatsoever for their actions when it has no relevance whatsoever to giving out warnings?
__________
3. The anonymity will only create a further mistrust, insecurity, and sense of hostility between Members and Moderators. We need to make this place as safe and supportive as possible, not creating any ways for them to feel unsafe. With your proposed answer, how will people be able to trust Moderators?
__________
4. It is totally unfair on the Moderators who have worked incrediblyhard to build up a supportive, positive, and resilient reputation in order to benefit the wellbeing of all of those in the chatroom. Over the past couple of months that I have Moderated the chatrooms I feel I have learned a great deal and somewhat excelled in my personal growth.
_________________________
I am, as a Moderator, relatively content with the system as it is. I would be incredibly upset and unhappy if this idea goes forth as it wouldwastethe efforts of the current Moderators, createextreme mistrust between Members and Moderators, and creates an unnecessary load of work for the Admins.
Please, I urge you to reconsider advocating this approachfor the welfare of the community.
I commend your search for solutions though, very admirable.
I personally agree with Zedda. I know many members fear the wrath of an unknown, lurker mod, and feel that warnings and such are handed out without cause or explanation. I personally have never encountered it, but it's a commonly expressed sentiment.
I only spend time in one chat room, and I honestly have seen very little trouble in that chatroom.The biggest struggle I've encountered is the occasional fight between members, and muting the involved parties works for me.
I think that eliminating the chatroomsentirely is a terrible idea. In my experience, the vast majority of the time it is a warm and supportive environment that has helped myself and many other people. I think that this might have been a direct result of the dedicated efforts Zedda has put into it, but my experience has been almost entirely positive.
I think the group chats are an important part of the site. Both offline and online they can fill a need that cannot be done in another way.
I would really like to see more consistent moderation. I've seen really minor stuff being deleted and people stating it has lead to warnings. Then I will see a mod be guilty of the exact same thing or break the same rule more blatantly. Other times entire conversations where the majority of the comments break rules occur with no consequences.
I would like to see comment reporting to actually be useful, often mods are around and it doesn't seem to do anything. For the emergency reports, could they work like the bat signal if no mod appears in a reasonable time frame?
I think mods should be identifiable, it helps to create a community. Also, what if a mod report is done a bit later because someone needed some time for self-care first? I can understand mods having a separate user name from their listener name, but every time they are modding their name should be the same and unique from the other mods. This would give someone the option of entering the room as a listener instead of as a mod.
I think the concensus was my idea sucked. Not the first bad idea I have had. I have a long list. But some of the feedback does kind of suck, it does indicate we have an environment of mods vs members and that the concern is that it will be added to. Personally, and this may be just me, but I think you get a chat room, especially one dedicated to a theraputic issue such as anxiety, and you get much more than about 7 people in there, you have a mess. If you have a moderator, it seems you have a moderated mess. That's my observation, and maybe I have just visited the wrong rooms.
Edit: I meant while some of the feedback saying that my idea sucks, not that the feedback sucked. I found all of the feedback constructive and very respectful. Thank you
@Pickle68, thanks for taking the risk and sharing your ideas. I have bunch of ideas that get voted down pretty regularly :).
I'm a big fan of brainstorming. There are hundreds of options out there but without investigating them, how do we know what works and what doesn't? Keep the ideas coming @Pickle68
I thought the whole idea behind 7 cups was to encourage one another whether an individual is having a good or bad day. If I want to be in a hostile environment I would stay at work or get on FB.
I'm just going to have my little say here. I've been a mod for ages and ever since, my star reviews have been coming down since angry people and trolls have messaged me from group chats. I am so againstthe idea of making mods anonymous though. I bearly ever give warnings, I will say in a group chat to stop and that is normally fine. Sure you are going to get trolls, its the internet. If you are worried about that, don't become a mod, simple. I am for the idea of actually having the mod name on the warning to stop mod lurking. A mod being worried about that either warns too much or is affaid of trolls. Which is perfectly fine, don't become a mod though! Mods areoverprotected on this site, thats me saying that after trolls have been rating me down for ages. It happens, it is to be expected and that should bemade clear when applying for a mod badge. Any mod with the argument that they should be anonymous should not be a mod in my opinion. That is not at all what being a mod is about.
@kdog334, your solution is acceptable but it doesn't address the real issue. The issue is we don't have enough mods. You are saying if we, as listeners, don't like opening ourselves up to trolls, don't become a mod. I think that solution has become the default one for the majority of seasoned listeners out here. This is volunteer work. For me, it is a sanctuary of sorts for me where I get to leave the world of heartless hustle, career, bills, and other daily stresses and come here to just feel the love. Moderating, to me, compromises that experience. To have a bad moderating experience as Pickle68 puts my whole existance on 7cups at risk. You are right, I agree, moderating as Pickle68 is not for me. Got it.
BUT.....we do not have enough mods. That's the problem. I appreciate your observation but what's the solution. How do you get ME, and other seasoned listeners like me, to want to be a moderator? You basically have stated the truth, one bad night as a mod and my squeaky clean experience as a listener is in the trash bin. So what's the solution?
Very true indeed. I knew of the issue of not having enough mods, but never saw it from that perspective. Right now the only motivation to become a mod for listeners is those who onlywantto help moderate, and for sure that is not everyone. I personally don'tsee a easy solution because if we say, decrease minimum requirements. We would get more mods, but some who may not truly understand the responsibilitytherefor decreasing the quality of mods overall. I could think of a solution that could involve listeners who are interested in being a mod to actually contact a mod, ask questions, ask what they think. Get more of an idea from somebody who has been a mod for a while. Maybe this could increase the confidence of someone who may be willing to be a mod? I know people can do that now but maybe a system where someone submits a form or something, a mod reaches out to them and the listener can come into a chatroom with a mod and see what its like, then have a chat after, this could also improve quality of mods overall? From where you sit, do you think that would help you and other listeners in becoming mods?
I would be comfortable managing a chat room with 5 dedicated members and maybe the odd troll. But I have seen the communityrooms at their worst and it's no picnic to say the least. What @mobbsy tolerates and has to deal with in an active teen community room is not something I want any listner to have to deal with. The guy's a saint! The issue, by and large, isn't with the dedicated rooms with small numbers, especially if we get those rooms to be tightly dedicated and scheduled (see my most recent post lower in the thread.). The community rooms, that's where the real issues are, at least my limited experience seems to indicate this.
Am I wrong? Please, folks, I can take being wrong. Let me know.
Pickle I personally feel what is stopping you from becoming a moderator, is simply fear. However your fear of the members is equally as strong as their fear of moderators. Show love, show that you have positive intentions and I assure you, that you'll have a much better chance of becoming a good moderator than trying to hide behind an anonymous name.
My solution: be in the chatroom a lot more, shadow moderators and observe what you think works.
An Egalitarian Approach.
The only Moderator vs Members situations I have ever seen are when Moderators respond disproportionately to a member. Whilst the attitude of a Moderator may be intended to bepunctilious, how the rest of the room may perceive the attitude may be along the lines of aggressive, and antagonistic.
From experience, what makes a room work is when the room has a clear perception that the Moderator has good intentions, and this happens when Moderators explore various approaches other than simply muting/warning the members, before resorting to that approach.
What doesn't work, is when Moderators feel intimidated or anxious by the room, and head straight to muting, trying to feel "in control". It makes people feel panicked, and then makes a target out of the Moderator due to having lost respect.In order to Moderate you have to be thick skinned and resilient.
A good Moderator needs to show:
-Empathy
-Understanding
-Positive Leadership Skills
-The ability to Negotiate
-The ability to Reason
-They can be calm
If you show that you can be calm, rational, and empathic, the room will have confidence in you and they will follow your example. That's essentially what we're doing, leading by example.
Crucially, Moderators also need to be able to take criticism. It shows a mature level of confidence. Moderating can be incredibly rewarding but we also need to be open to criticism, in order to make the community as democratic as possible.It creates a lot of tension in the room when the Moderator is unwilling to accept the experiences, points of view, and emotions of the members in the room.
If a member constructively criticises you, then take it as a good sign. They trust you enough to open up to you and tell you how they feel. This is completely different to someone being rude. If someone does this please do not say something like
"No I'm the Moderator here, I make the decisions. Do as I say".
Be calm and rational with them, you may not disagree but at least negotiate with them and treat them with dignity and respect. Unless you treat them with dignity and respect, they won't reciprocate such wishes.
We must emulate the approach of 7 Cups in our Moderating. We must show the same skills that we develop through Listening 1-1 in our Moderating.
We must show compassion, warmth, and positive leadership skills. We're setting an example to all around us.
Yes we are constantly being watched, and I think with any sort of power, we ought to demonstrate responsibility with accountability. Not everyone will have a positive opinion of us, but do we step back because of that? No, we take responsibility for our actions whether positive or negative. It's what makes us grow.
You have to show confidence and trust in yourself in order to become a Moderator, but primarily, strong communication skills as rhetoric is far more powerful than the mute button.
As a blanket response, let me say this, just in an attempt to gain consensus.
First, there is a fundamental difference between the depression room with 5 members having a heartfelt conversation and the Saturday Evening community member/guest room with 25 people, 5 of which are at a minimum unfamiliar with the rules and at worst are trolls looking for a female to abuse verbally. Subsequently the requirement of a moderator in each of those chatoomsis quite different. If we can agree on that one item, then the rest of it can be sorted out.
Second, as the site grows, the idea that the current position of moderator is going to be able to handle both the rules enforcement and the empathetic discussion manager is unrealistic. The moderator simply is not going to have the time to do both.
POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS:
-Have given chat rooms open at given times, scheduled with a given "group discussion leader." For that function, eliminate the title of moderator, instead having the chat room with a given time of opening, closing, and a specified purpose. If one does not sign up, find a way to either integrate them into the discussion or lock the room. The discussion leader will be basically a listener for all members in the room and the environment is quite therapy related. Limit the number of participants in each "session." Management nightmare, I know. But it's a thought.
-Community chat rooms and other chat rooms as appropriate will have group discussion leaders if we feel it needs them.
-All chat rooms will have a moderator. The moderator is at a console, monitoring numerous chat rooms at the same time and is NOT LISTED as a member of the discussion. NOTE: This sounds ridiculous, but please understand that this idea will make a lot more sense in a year when we have 10x or more participants and requirements for moderation. If you hate it, fine, but then, propose another solution on how to moderate these rooms when we don't even have enough moeration now.
Back to the "multi room, non identifiable mod. Their only task is to, at the request of any member in the room or the group discussion leader, investigate violations and issue the appropriate "red banner" warning to the offending member. No moderator name will be attached to that banner. The banner can be issued to all members of a room if needbe and if the room gets totally out of control, the room can be shut down completely by the mod. These mods will NOT be off the street and inexperience people like me. @Zedda would be a great person as they have the feel for the chat room and experienced.
Please understand the difference between the crowded community room on a Sat. night and a theraputic room of 5 dedicated members. It's different, like comparing the police requirements of Mayberry and NYC. And again, I don't expect ANYONE to read my ramblings and go "Wow, this person is brilliant!" Far from it. I just want you all to consider that the way we mod now isn't feasible with the projected growth and isn't really feasible now, thus the limited number of mods and the abuses the mods are taking under the current system.
Thanks for reading.
Ok, so whilst your last idea (as cool as it was ;)) was never going to take off, I actually genuinely think this kind of thing is good - even if it's not implemented exactly as you say it, I think having an option to view the multiple rooms in a console style situation and to be able to issue whole room warnings, is a really good idea... Technically, will we get this anytime soon? Doubt it...
In anticipation of comments about anonymity etc... as it is, warnings and message removals are logged to your account anyway, and there's no reason that any of these actions wouldn't be logged... I actually think that more of the group chats should be recorded securely on the servers, for evidential sake...
I think you've raised a very important point with the opening and closing of rooms. At peak times, rooms can get very crowded and this influences behaviour and anxiety levels of those in the room.
What if depending on how busy the chatrooms are, we have designated Chatroom Monitorsthat have the flexibility to open extra roomsand to then close them when they are no longer required? This could be combined with the use of a short term Mod Calendar, so that Mods can put on a short term basis when they'll be Moddinga room.
I remember we tried out a Community Room 3. It was removed, but @Heather, @Laura @Carissa and @Jake is it possible for extra rooms to be opened and closed flexibly?
With this approach, the rooms will be more balanced, and also there will be more consistency and structure to Moderating.
As for Moderators viewing multiple rooms at once, if you're on a computer simply open up a tab per chatroom. This does to some extent limit your concentration level of each room though.
Regarding when the 20-25 member full rooms when arechaotic, I think preventative measures are our best defense.
Install some measure to ensure that guests/members will take being in chatrooms seriously by only allowing them to enter chatrooms after a certain amount of chats with Listeners.
This will do2 things:
1) Prevent trolls from entering the chatroomsand disrupting the safe environment.
2) Allow Members to take mutes more seriously, as they won't just be able to come back on another member account straight away
3) Gain higher status and respect for Moderators
I definitely think we need to focus more on preventative measures.
As for the Discussion Leader, although I was hesitant at first, I think that the idea from @EmpatheticDude of having Peer Mod to sway and influence the behaviourdirected by the Moderators can be a good way of dealing with things. I'd rather this be used as a badge, just like Moderators have a Moderator badge, and for it to be openly used alongside Moderators, it could work.
I do think we need to be aware of how the site's growth can affect us, and we need to have an equal growth of Listeners in chatrooms as we do members.
I think setting a requirement for listener chats to enter a member chatroom could be very effective. I think it might be better to require chats with, say, 3 different listeners, than to make it say, 3 listener chats with just one listener, as some of the more persistent and technically proficient trolls would need to work harder to do chats with multiple listeners than to do multiple chats with one listener.
The system is good as it is. I think you're all looking for perfection when some things are just out of control. There is no such thing as a perfect system, and I think this one is as good as it is going to get. Just take a step back and appreciate it for all it's benefits (:
Agreed!
What you have now, a small issue, maybe a few less mods than what you desire, and the odd troll, is going to be much different when, not if, but when the number of participants and the % of trolls per members goes up. I wonder if that fact is being lost in all of this. I agree, my comparatively impersonal and almost iron fisted approach is not ideal. I understand that. But unless you are going to limit access to the chat rooms, we need something. The current method, which is manpower intensive and risky to the mods, is going to be impossible to sustain. Am I right on that?
I feel you are anticipating problems before they're actually happeneing, which simply causes an unnecessary amount of stress. Let the Mods do their job and just worry about yourself, I'm sure they'll speak out if they feel they have an issue.
Most people on this site are wonderful, caring, and supportive and it's just a few individuals that let them down. Let's not forget this.
"I'm very sensitive, but that's why I'm so harsh because I'm so sensitive"- 2pac
We have a tendency to lable anyone who ishurt and lashes out as "trolls". We need to look for more insightful approaches to address these people.
Quick note: here is our member oath!
Please share this with your members :)