A suggestion regarding naughty GUEST accounts
My concern
I think the 7 Cups vision of a GUEST account is a safe, anonymous way for a person seeking support to access 7 Cups resources.
Sadly I think the reality of a GUEST account has become at least a 50/50 (more likely 90/10) chance that it's someone avoiding a mute or a block.
As a group mod I know I am not alone in seeing so many cases of known mischief makers creating guest account after guest account, even now to the point of taunting moderators about how ineffectual we are at handling the situation.
My suggestion
The most effective ways to reduce unwanted anonymous accounts are to either require verification (email validation) or create a slower route to the desired endpoint. In this case I'll assume the endpoint is the group support rooms, since many of these questionable guest accounts explicitly refuse 1-on-1 listener support.
The importance of anonymity makes requiring a valid email address a less than desirable solution.
Therefore I suggest slowing access to the group support rooms by requiring all guest accounts to complete 3 1-on-1 conversations with a listener before access is granted to the support rooms. (3 is an arbitrary number, non-negligible but not overly imposing.)
I think it's worth noting that Listeners currently are required to complete 10 1-on-1 conversations before gaining access to the group support rooms ourselves.
Why this suggestion?
I believe the primary goal of many people who find 7 Cups is to talk to SOMEONE, not to talk to an entire group of someones, so I believe this requirement will not detract from the 7 Cups goal of providing a high level of online emotional support.
What I do believe is that it will slow the proliferation of guest accounts created by existing 7 Cups users to circumvent the current controls, and ultimately will help make the rooms become the calmer, more supportive environments they were in the past.
A major concern with this approach is that guests waiting in the queue with nothing to do may become bored or upset. I propose that this can be handled with one single room, "LOBBY".
The LOBBY will be accessible ONLY by guests who have not completed their 1-on-1 requirement and by specific listeners - perhaps GROUP MOD + MENTOR + a special LOBBY TEAM. It should be possible to differentiate these guests with a badge and restrict access based on that, and likewise listener access can be restricted in the same way that access is currently restricted to the New Listener Welcome Rooms.
The listener restriction requirement I think will deter guests from collaborating with their own listener accounts in this room.
A second concern is that guests can easily fulfil the 3 1-on-1 requirement by picking themselves out of the General Queue, and while this is inevitable, it does still meet the intended goal of slowing access to the group support rooms for mischief making purposes.
This requirement can perhaps also be bolstered by requiring the guest to connect with at least two different listeners.
An accompanying concern is what happens if a legitimately created guest account has an amazing connection with their first listener - is requiring them to connect with a second listener an unnecessary burden.
In response to this, I believe that if a guest has had such a positive first experience on 7 Cups it should be a minimal burden to create a member account and thus receive instant access to the group support rooms.
The end goal here is not to discriminate against any usertype, but to identify current patterns of behaviour that are creating disruption within 7 Cups - specifically the repeated use of guest accounts to circumvent mutes - and to address that behaviour while maintaining a supportive environment true to the 7 Cups ideals.
@Kallie112358 @PenguinPower31 @AdVictoriam
That is a really interesting idea. Have you submitted it to the listener suggestion box?
@Em have done :)
Good ideas!
Very novel idea!
Or 7 Cups could keep track of IP addresses and limit the amount of guest accounts you can make in a certain time frame. They'll eventually give up and end up waiting the 24 hour time frame.
This approach is no longer effective for various reasons.
Wow. This is amazing! @Laura @GlenM @ Sarah @lara
After a year moderating, it's only gotten tougher!
I'm in favor of a guest lobby or at least limiting guest rooms -- currently, there are around 8-10 that are joinable and it's hard to moderate all of these channels simultaneously (even through coordination).
If someone really needs assistance, they can connect via 1-on-1, which has always been our model, but to allow instant access to all of our member group rooms? I agree, it's not necessarily beneficial to our community given the amount of abuse that runs rampant.
This would allow more of an incentive if people become members and sign up. I would even be in favor of a 48-hour automated verification process before seeing said guest rooms and being limited to a select few (1-2).
I'm always in favor of open-dialogue in regards to policy, so kudos in posting this.
This is an AMAZING IDEA @RocketsMom
I've got some comments about this, and I'm not sure how well they'll be received.
1. I've already talked to admin about perhaps making an email verification for people to use this site, but the fact of the matter is, that's one small step that may cause people to stray from the site. While it's a common site function on many other websites, some people prefer their anonymity and feel safe registering under a fake email, or one they don't use anymore.
2. Most guests don't come here to troll or circumvent past bans. Most guests come for 1 on 1 conversation. To make things harder for them would be pointless.
3. If there is someone dangerous in the room, a troll or something, we have so many ways of getting group mods into a room, that you can't even so much as say a room name without like four mods going there. Members/guests also should know to use their mute/report button if they see anything going on.
4. An email verification isn't really going to stop a troll from coming back. They're going to do it and come back; if they're going through that much effort just to come back, a few steps more won't matter. IP bans don't even stop these people. Requirement changes probably won't either.
To be honest, the only way we're going to stop this problem is as a community; we all need to be on the lookout when we can be. If you're a listener or a mod and you see something going on that you can't control, tell someone. Go into the LSR and ask if anyone's a mod. Use your mute button, protect yourself, use self care, etc. If there's another way we could go about this, I'm down for it, but there's not much we can do to deter guests unless we also want to deter the guests who are coming here for pure and honest reasons.
A lot of great ideas here. @cadence I think you're right that there are relatively very few trolls coming onto the site. Maybe one thing that can be done though is if they can program that once someone has been reported either once or twice, they are muted automatically from everyone in the room until a moderator looks over the report and either accept or reject them. The plus of that is that sometimes it takes a moderator a little while to come around to the room, and while we are waiting for a moderator it prevents the troll from spreading his negativity and, or, triggering people. The good thing about meeting them from everyone in the room is that if indeed the person did nothing wrong, he / she won't be insulted because it's merely a mute and the person likely doesn't know that no one else could see their comments
@SethK
I vaguely remember hearing somewhere that if a certain number of listeners/members use their personal mute button on someone, it does do the same effect as a mod mute, however, I'm not sure whether this is still running or what... Maybe @Heather could give some insight on that!