Introducing the @7CORE Account!!
Hi everyone, I hope you’re all well.
I am excited to inform you that we launched the @7CORE Account!
7CORE stands for 7Cups Outreach: Reviews and Education!
As you all know, members submit feedback for their experiences with listeners in a 1-1 chat. This feedback (also known as reviews) categorized into positive reviews, constructive and non-constructive reviews.
Positive reviews get approved and appear on listeners’ profile,
Constructive reviews trigger a coaching email that a listener receives as a gentle reminder to improve specific active listening skills.
Non-constructive feedback, no action is taken because the feedback is not complete.
But, we understand that the community might be unaware of the best tips and practices to give better feedback. So here comes 7CORE into the picture!
The goal is to try and streamline the communication and information about reviews, reports, blocking, best practices for leaving reviews as well as other topics to spread awareness about it in the community. On the other side of the account will be rotating members of the admin team.
This account will also be utilized for issuing warnings to the users who are found to be violating the community guidelines as per the Behavioral Rating System. It will be an additional way to communicate about the violations one may have committed apart from the warning emails (regular mode of communication).
7CORE will also post informational content in the forums to share different scenarios of reporting, blocking, reviews and the best course of action to be considered by the community users.
It is recommended not to send a 1-1 message to 7CORE for your specific account queries as you may not receive a timely response from it. It is recommended to write to community@7cups.com for your account. For community-related queries, you can tag the @7CupsCommunity account too.
If you have any feedback or concerns about 7CORE, please reach out to our Quality Specialist, @EvelyneRose. We would be happy to hear from you.
1/29/21- Edit: This is an edit from Evelynerose. I'm going to keep the original post up for transparency so that the replies below make sense in context for anyone reading, but I'm going to edit this post for clarity below. As anyone responding after I write this will be responding to a new set of information, the replies may vary below.
The account isn't really for members education too much, at least at the moment. In the future, it will be used to make forum posts on blocking/reporting best practices for both sides, and maybe best practices for reviewing, so that part is correct, but the problem that is trying to be solved currently at this moment is blocking/reporting by a listener.
Problem: Listeners are blocking or reporting and not explaining why, leading to frustration. Listeners end up feeling they are not being heard, but really it's akin to submitting a report to authorities without sufficient information. Are they just blocking? Are they trying to report? While we don't have a separate button to separate the two, this is the interim solution. The other part of it is educating people on not blocking members for no reason as that is hurtful to a member. For example, a good reason to block is a member being abusive. A misuse of block is because you don't like the topic.
Solution: This account is to help combat inappropriate blocking and reporting by hopefully educating listeners on how to better use these tools to be more fair. They may not even know that there's correct ways and incorrect ways, so we're hoping education helps. This will be both in 1 on 1 msgs and community outreach via discussions or forum posts.
We are not saying that listeners cannot block if they are uncomfortable, etc. I think the key point is if you are just blocking and don't have a reason to report, it doesn't matter if it's blank, but if you have an actual report where you want something done, then writing a description yields a better outcome than not writing anything. Listeners are not being asked to take chats they are not comfortable with, but rather being asked to communicate. They can have boundaries and not want to take a chat if it's an uncomfortable topic, but they should be able to indicate that they need to end the chat so the member gets a better fit. Ghosting can be hurtful to members when they are vulnerable and feel they did something wrong to make that happen. Let members know that they are ending the chat and maybe need to refer to another listener or have to leave, not just disappear. A polite exit is fine. What we are trying to reduce is the amount of ghosting chats that end up with the listener being reviewed poorly and the member upset that the person is just gone.
It will also be used for Behavioral Points as stated, but that is separate from this part.
Awesome post!! Thanks for the info
@ASilentObserver Thank you for sharing. Looking forward for a better 7cups experience.
Apologise in advance if these have been explained in the original post but I don't get it...
1) So to my best understanding, 7CORE is like an account responsible for "teaching" some guidelines by posting these materials in forums. 7CORE is not like a page we use to report members or listeners who violate 7Cups rules. Am I correct?
2) 7CORE is an account that will PM those who violate rules and give them behaviour points. 7CORE will not influence those who neither violate guidelines nor provide feedbacks for their listeners based on their 1-on-1 experience. Did I get it right?
Thank you in advance and once again, sorry if these are actually clear points already made in the original post!
@11820Read
Hello! Sorry for the confusion.
1) So to my best understanding, 7CORE is like an account responsible for "teaching" some guidelines by posting these materials in forums. 7CORE is not like a page we use to report members or listeners who violate 7Cups rules. Am I correct?
Right! It's basically an educational resource. If you need to report a member or listener, we have report forms for that.
2) 7CORE is an account that will PM those who violate rules and give them behaviour points. 7CORE will not influence those who neither violate guidelines nor provide feedbacks for their listeners based on their 1-on-1 experience. Did I get it right?
I'm not sure what you're asking here. Can you rephrase?
@EvelyneRose
Hi and thanks for taking time for answering my questions!
What I meant by the 2nd question is basically, who will get involved with 7CORE? Is it only people who have violated 7Cups guidelines and thus will get behaviour points? Is it only people who need more clues in how to leave a constructive feedbacks for listeners?
I've just seen some other comments below mine, and I regretfully agree that I cannot really get a grasp about what 7CORE is going to do on the long run. If it's just a set of guidelines/educational instructions, why not just posting these through an existing admin? Or if it's for the purpose of separating the blocking and reporting listeners, why don't we just separate these functions into two buttons?
Basically that's what I was trying to ask... how will 7CORE involve us in the long run? What makes it different from other existing accounts? Why do exactly we need 7CORE?
I'm sorry if this only complicates things! But thank you anyway for taking time to read my question. :-)
@11820Read
What I meant by the 2nd question is basically, who will get involved with 7CORE? Is it only people who have violated 7Cups guidelines and thus will get behaviour points? Is it only people who need more clues in how to leave a constructive feedbacks for listeners?
It's being used for both, but they are separate things, so some people will get feedback (and right now it's listeners, not members). People meant to get behavioral warnings will get them too, but they are totally separate things. They want to use the same account to streamline and have less accounts that reach out to people so as to not be confusing.
I've just seen some other comments below mine, and I regretfully agree that I cannot really get a grasp about what 7CORE is going to do on the long run. If it's just a set of guidelines/educational instructions, why not just posting these through an existing admin? Or if it's for the purpose of separating the blocking and reporting listeners, why don't we just separate these functions into two buttons?
We have posted guidelines, but not everyone reads forum posts, so we're hoping one on ones will help spread education a little further. As for the separation of the buttons, I'd love that, but in the meantime without that, this was the solution I could think of. If you have other thoughts though, please feel free to suggest! More brains are better than one.
Basically that's what I was trying to ask... how will 7CORE involve us in the long run? What makes it different from other existing accounts? Why do exactly we need 7CORE?
The only other account in existance is the 7cupscommunity account which they use to post general announcements and reply to posts as an admin entity. For members, it will involve you by informing you of good practices for leaving reviews and other information we find you might think is helpful. Otherwise, it's not going to too much honestly. We may try using it for discussions. It's really a pilot work in progress. Can't know if it'll work till we try it, you know?
@EvelyneRose
I see. Looks clearer now!
@ASilentObserver, this seems like more complication to an already complicated website. Do members need to know this information? I know you mean well and are trying to improve the website. In that respect it's good.
@purpleTree4652 I agree.
It's not clear to me what problem this is trying to solve.
And if there is a problem of some kind that needs to be solved, it's not clear to me that more bureaucracy of this kind will help solve it.
Special accounts like this have been tried in the past, and they have never worked reliably for the community. I think the most recent attempt was @7CupsCommunity. It's not clear to me that this latest special account will be any different, and so the signs are that this one will turn out to be unreliable too.
A better approach to problem-solving, it seems to me, is to be open about what problems there are, and to find solutions by streamlining existing processes, not by making them more complicated.
Charlie
@RarelyCharlie The 7CupsCommunity account was the first thing that came to mind when I read this. Didn't it sort of fade out before and then they reintroduced it again? It proved to be just as unreliable the second time too I believe.
@TheFisherKing
It did sort of fade out, but hopefully it will be more inuse now.
@RarelyCharlie
1000% agreed, although your post will likely be deleted within 24 hours...
With all of these improvement initiatives being put into place, we have the right (and should) post critiques for improvement and to hold people accountable.
@tealPark1424
If it's deleted, it won't be from me. They made a good point and I have responded hopefully clarifying.
@RarelyCharlie
Hi Charlie! I will edit it to reflect the purpose, sorry for the confusion. The account isn't really for members education too much. It will be used to make forum posts on blocking/reporting best practices for both sides, and maybe best practices for reviewing, but the problem that is trying to be solved currently is blocking/reporting by a listener.
Problem: Listeners are blocking or reporting and not explaining why, leading to frustration. Listeners end up feeling they are not being heard, but really it's akin to submitting a report to authorities without sufficient information. Are they just blocking? Are they trying to report? While we don't have a separate button to separate the two, this is the interim solution. The other part of it is educating people on not blocking members for no reason as that is hurtful to a member. For example, a good reason to block is a member being abusive. A misuse of block is because you don't like the topic.
Solution: This account is to help combat inappropriate blocking and reporting by hopefully educating listeners on how to better use these tools to be more fair. They may not even know that there's correct ways and incorrect ways, so we're hoping education helps.
I hope this answers your questions! Feel free to ask more, I'm going to go fix this now in the main post.
@EvelyneRose
Thank you for acknowledging that Charlie made a good point. Also, thank you for being transparent.
I'm pretty sure we're all talking about the same thing in this comment thread so I think we're all on the same page. :)
This account will address issues with both listeners and members, right? So I think it goes both ways!
At least as a member, I thought that when I "block" a listener, it is reviewed and registered as either a block or report. For instance, if I need to block a listener, I select "other" on the drop-down list and quickly write "just a block" in the pop-up and move on. If I report, I choose the appropriate option and describe the issue. And I can't leave the boxes blank. Is this not the same for listeners? Perhaps a character/word count in the text box is required?
I feel that listeners should also have the right to end a conversation. If they don't feel comfortable, don't like where the conversation is going, etc. Just like I as a member would say "yeah I'm tired, gonna go sleep, thanks for listening" when I really just didn't like talking with a listener for whatever reason. Listeners are people too, they're volunteers, and I think they have the right to boundaries as well. I think listeners should be able to just say "hey sorry I'm going to head out now, gonna go feed my cat, take care". I know I've been ghosted or brushed off, and that's OK.
This, however, is not applicable to listeners who do this on purpose for fun. You know, the listeners who just take whatever request in the queue to get their quotas up or whatever. While it is good that becoming a listener is accessible, the training is "ehhhhhhh" so I think initiatives that monitor and review listeners are key.
@tealPark1424
Nope! That's why we're hoping to use this account to educate since there's so much that isn't knowable right off the bat. It is the same thing, it comes in as one report. I believe it is required to write text, however, i think on the old app the text box didn't show up sometimes. I appreciate you writing just a block! I think the key point is if you are just blocking and don't have a reason to report, it doesn't matter if it's blank, but if you have an actual report where you want something done, then writing a description yields a better outcome than not writing anything.
Oh they absolutely do! I'm not saying they can't block, I think the idea is as stated above. I'll add that in the post, thank you! But as for ghosting, yes they can have boundaries and not want to take a chat if it's an uncomfortable topic, but they should be able to indicate that they need to end the chat so the member gets a better fit. Ghosting can be hurtful to members when they are vulnerable and feel they did something wrong to make that happen. Basically, communication is what is being asked of listeners. Let members know that they are ending the chat and maybe need to refer or have to leave, not just disappear. It can even be as simple as what you said, that they have to feed their pet or they just have to go.
@EvelyneRose Thank you for clarifying 
"Listeners are blocking or reporting and not explaining why, leading to frustration." Who is getting frustrated? I've just posted another reply that goes into this in more detail. Listener training doesn't say that a specific reason is required, and no reason is better than a false reason (which is what we would risk if we require a reason).
"While we don't have a separate button to separate the two, this is the interim solution." Ah yes, a separate button. That reminds me of the discussion a year ago, when I actually coded a new design (although the working demo has since been deleted): Reporting Effectively The underlying problem, that 7 Cups resists using its technology effectively to support its community, still needs work, it seems to me.
"Ghosting can be hurtful to members…" I completely agree. A good solution would be to swap in another listener seamlessly and without delay, to continue the ghosted chat. I've always found there are many more listeners available than requests in the queue. But again, I fear this solution would run up against 7 Cups' resistance to using its technology effectively.
Charlie
Hi,
I wish I could say that it is a great idea but the problem is that I did not understand what 7CORE's actual aim is? What will be the 7CORE account's function for both listeners/members? And do we all have to have a 7 CORE account or is it only for members or listeners or both?
I am so sorry but this post sounds chaotic to me. I request you to take out time to make things clear for me. I am sure that with this new change the only intention is towards the betterment of 7 Cups & everything that you guys do is highly appreciated. ❤
Thank you so much!
-Angel
Hi! Please see my other coents above, but the account is an educational acct that admin will be using as an educational outreach resource. It is an acct members or listeners need to log into or anything like that.
@ASilentObserver
I am so glad, that everything is trying to improve so much! 
Interesting idea in theory, but does adding another account in help when
Problem - There are long delays with communitication. The 7CupsCommunity account hasn't responded to tags that have been sitting for months. Emails sent to the community email go without responses too.
Solution - respond
Method 1 - The 7cupscommunity account should get notifications, use those and respond within the timeframe we were told earlier. If there will be a break, state so.
Method 2 - Reply to the emails. RIght now there are 2 auto emails one says to expect a reply within 3-5 business days the other 48 hours. For weeks these are the only 'responses' I have received.
I 100% get what you’re saying. I can let them know that responses are needed!
I'm really happy to hear that more is being done to deal with the blocking that listeners do when a member hasn't done anything wrong.
I'm confused though why listeners have the capability to block without a report. Members should be able to block for whatever reason, as we are the ones sharing personal details. If someone doesn't feel safe with a listener, they should be able to block for whatever reason. Listeners are not in the same position though. I don't see a need for the 'other' option (I think they still have this, please correct me if I'm mistaken). They should also have to provide a minimum character length just as members are required in order to rate a listener.
They generally have to write something, but i think (think meaning as far as I know) with the old app it sometimes made it so it was blank.
@AffyAvo It seems to me that this is related to the two different theories about what listeners do.
One theory is that listeners are here to so that members can "feel heard, valued and understood" (to quote our training). For listeners who subscribe to this theory, there's no reason to block anyone if they haven't done anything wrong, ideally.
However, even for these listeners there might be members who have done nothing wrong but whom the listener feels they must block. For example, the listener might feel triggered by the member's story, or the listener might feel out of their depth because of cultural differences.
The other very common theory is that listeners are here to help members solve their problems, and that each listener's problem-solving abilities are limited to certain subject areas (which are therefore listed in their profile). A listener who subscribes to this theory might block a member because the member's problems are beyond the listener's area of expertise. Again, the member has done nothing wrong.
There's still an argument for making listeners report their reason when they block, even if the reason does not imply the member has done anything wrong. However, sometimes a listener who feels shame about their true reason for blocking might conceal it by falsely reporting the member. On balance, I feel that allowing listeners to block without giving a reason is slightly better.
Current listener training just says:
Here are some tips for staying safe on 7 Cups:
- Block users who you do not wish to hear from
Charlie
They absolutely can block without giving a reason, but if they want to report, it’s helpful to give one.
@RarelyCharlie That's a good point that if a listener is going to do it anyway it's best it's not a report. Still I would rather see something like a reason being "I told the member I was uncomfortable and clearly asked them not to send me more messages and they continued".
@AffyAvo
Right, which is basically the goal. If they do not want to leave a reason for blocking, and they aren't trying to report, they can just write "just want to block". What I think is trying to be reduced are unconstructive reports.
@ASilentObserver
Thank you Obs. Good method, though I don't fully understand yet.
I believe that members should also be able to justify why they are blocking the student, why they are giving a negative opinion, and the students need to be aware of this as well.
Initially, I received a negative opinion from a member and received an email about it. However, to this day I don’t know what the member’s problem was with me. And if I don’t know what the problem is with me, I can’t change it.
I don't know if it makes sense.
@Mankka Yes, that does make sense.
When a member has a problem with a listener, 7 Cups does not tell the listener what the problem is, so the listener doesn't know what to change. Listeners who are being told they're not good enough, but who are not being allowed to improve, feel inadequate and unsupported, and are likely to leave 7 Cups.
This is probably one reason listener retention is so bad. The solution is obvious, of course.
Charlie
The coaching emails list out the issue, although not super specifically. What would you propose?
@EvelyneRose Well, for the problem, "7 Cups does not tell the listener what the problem is", I suppose the obvious solution is, "7 Cups should tell the listener what the problem is".
Charlie
@RarelyCharlie
I understand that part, but how would you do that is more what I was asking.
@EvelyneRose
When a member represents the listener, I think the member should justify it. The student should not only be told that he or she received a negative opinion, but also what that negative opinion was. and I think in such cases the listener should not be left alone, but should be offered help
@Mankka
it's a tricky balance due To the fact chats are anonymous and therefore telling exactly what happened would give away the members identity. This could lead to retaliation etc. That being said, I understand the desire to know whats wrong. If the listener emails community@7cups.com, they can get some more details on the matter. And yes, I fully agree that listeners often feel down after a bad review, and there are many supports in place such as peer support or care team etc they can go to to not be alone.
@EvelyneRose
During one of the conversations, a member asked me if I was a man or a woman? I said I was a woman. This member interrupted the conversation with me without a word. What if this member said negative criticism because my gender identity doesn’t match it? It wasn’t about which member he was talking about, but about what the problem was according to the label: The listener was impatient, they didn’t communicate properly, and so on. And we know that it is certainly a disadvantage for a listener to receive negative criticism. Whether there was a mild or severe reason for the criticism, the listener is equally labeled.
@EvelyneRose
Without tech support:
- Report somehow goes to an evaluator.
- Evaluator checks the report and the screenshot, adds a conclusion, e-mails a mentor with the name of the listener and exact details of what (if anything) happened, but not the member's name.
- Mentor messages the listener—if the report is valid and verifiable from the screenshot, quoting the exact words the listener wrote in the chat, or the exact timing of the ghosting. If the report is not valid, mentor still contacts the listener for their information. Mentor supports the listener in making any plan of action necessary.
In a fantasy alternate universe where 7 Cups is a tech company:
- Report goes to an evaluator along with the text of the chat. Screenshots are banned because confidentiality. Evaluator cannot see any names or profile pictures.
- Evaluator validates or clarifies the report and adds it to a queue.
- A mentor takes the report from the queue and communicates details to the listener. The mentor doesn't know the names of the member or the evaluator. Mentor supports the listener in making any plan of action necessary.
Note that in both versions of this process it is not possible for the listener to learn the member's name. The listener can sometimes guess, of course, but no process can prevent that.
Charlie
Right, but in both processes for number 3 the member is exposed due to the exact details being relayed, which means the listener can easily put together who they talked to and the member no longer has the safety of reporting without consequences
@EvelyneRose
The listener can always make a guess. It's a no-win situation. We're anonymous on 7cups, and people can always set up a new account. Of course, I would imagine that listeners are not "re-educated" after a single notice, but after several, which should help slightly with anonymity.
For instance, a listener could be reported for inappropriate content, and the reason why is obvious ("oh yeah I asked [member] if they were single"). People aren't stupid, they just try to see what they can get away with.
I think the rules are common sense, no?
I think there's a very simple solution. If a listener is found being inappropriate or breaking a serious rule, this whole "re-education" nonsense goes out the window. Ban them. For other issues (say a member dares to leave criticism or a negative review, and a listener guesses who it was), it may also be obvious. If someone dares to go after a member, boot them. I think you can trust members to help, as long as an example is made that 7cups will act and this will not be tolerated.
As for this whole report vs. block situation, I really don't understand why this is an issue. Can't some technical wizard update this so there are two separate buttons, for instance? The site is old, it has always been an issue as far as I know, and it seems simple. Make a distinguishing note between the two and set a word/character limit. If a reporter is found to be suspicious, investigate.
@tealPark1424
It is common sense! In fact, we already follow the procedure you outlined. That being said, some things are personally out of my hands to an extent. I do what I can with what I have, which is why the original post was made.
@tealPark1424 "Ban them." Unfortunately it's not possible to ban anyone. They can sign up again with a different e-mail address and be back in half an hour. And 7 Cups likes these multiple sign-ups, because they mean we can pretend we have half a million listeners.
"Can't some technical wizard update this so there are two separate buttons, for instance?" They could, and you're correct that it is simple, but for reasons of their own the wizards resist making any improvements suggested by the community. That's why so many of the new initiatives that we see at 7 Cups are implemented offsite, using Google forms and e-mail communications behind the scenes.
Charlie
@RarelyCharlie
That's true, even if people are banned they can evade it [do whatever strategies, redacted]. I'd hope they tire themselves out and find something better to do with their time.
@RarelyCharlie
Well, they can be banned, they just may not be banned forever. Hopefully our tweaks we've been working on continue to advance and we can implement techniques in the future.
This is a really good idea
@ASilentObserver
