Issues that allow users to continue to harass
1) No good way to report multiple accounts
I have reported users using multiple accounts, but the response is often lacking. Once again, I got told what I could do as a listener in a 1-1 situation. I'm not using a listener account when seeing a few people who keep coming back and I'm not in 1-1 situations. Please give us a better reporting option.
2) Forum team has no way to distribute behaviour points
Spammers get to continue spamming - not too long ago I emailed about a member and listener account working together to spam. I had to explain better (despite already having shared multiple examples). The listener account was ultimately removed, but the member account is still there. In general, any rules that are violated only results in moderation of the posts unless we escalate to admins. We don't get a muting system like the group chats.
3) In 1-1s it becomes a case of who blocks first when a chat goes badly
Members have no way to rate or directly report a listener if they are blocked. I have experienced horrible listeners who say some really awful things who have 5 star ratings - probably because they are quick to block anyone whenever a chat starts to go downhill. These listeners really shouldn't have the ratings that they do. Members should be able to give feedback on listeners who block without having to email/fill out a support ticket. We shouldn't have to remember the listener's name either - this disappears once we are blocked.
4) Lack of flagging options for profiles.
I think everyone should be able to flag. Why can't we have the safety patrol team be the ones who filter out flags as worth acting on or not? I emailed about a bio and got no response. Once I saw someone on the safety patrol team the account got removed, but I had to seek out someone and they aren't always online.
@7cupsCommunity @Heather225 @Laura @Jill7Cups
@AffyAvo All very good points.
Charlie
It seems to me that 1) and 2) only need the capability to deal with the problem to be available to more people. I see no reason why anyone who has correctly reported a certain number of multiple accounts or spam accounts, and has hardly ever misreported, should not be allowed simply to deal with them directly in future. If that seems too scary, add a rapid review process for correcting any faulty decisions.
3) and 4) are a software problems (design faults, not just coding errors). We recently learned from @Ece7Cups that the main 7 Cups home page was completely rebuilt to fix a problem that I've never seen mentioned in the community. I think the community deserves more consideration when priorities for software projects are assigned, but I know this reflects a long-standing tradition at 7 Cups.
Charlie
@AffyAvo
I'll try to address each the best I can from what I have experienced.
1) No good way to report multiple accounts
I'd definitely say this would be a good feature to look into.
2) Forum team has no way to distribute behaviour points
I'll defer to admin or forum ambs for this one
3) In 1-1s it becomes a case of who blocks first when a chat goes badly
maybe a way to keep the blocked ones still there so that screenshots can be taken?
4) Lack of flagging options for profiles.
I understand what you are saying, but when anyone could flag profiles, many were misflagged. It would take the team much longer to sort thru whats right and what was a mis-flagged profile. That being said, having more people join the Safety Patrol Team would help get things flagged faster. Also, if a safety patrol team member isn't around, you can always PM me and I'll flag it. I'm on every day.
@EvelyneRose For 4 - was that option ever even open to anyone?
Often times it is the members who have interactions with listeners, and there is no option for us to join.
If we can 'flag' them by PMing someone on the safety team, why no make it a bit simplier and make it so the entire safety team has access?
@AffyAvo
I believe so. They changed it to Verified Listeners only because people were flagging things that were in the guidelines as okay. That is a good perspective about members. I'll tag @Heather225 since she runs safety patrol team :) As for that third point, I'm not sure what you mean. Can you rephrase? Thank you!
@EvelyneRose Currently, as a member the way to get attention to an inappropriate profile is to PM someone from the safety patrol team.
So currently 1 report by a member - 1 person on the safety patrol team takes action.
If we could flag, it means the first person on the team to deal with the flags would get to it. The latter seems to make more sense.
I'm also confused as to why profile flagging is the 1 we do not open to everyone. We can report any post in group chat, we can report from a 1-1. We can flag a forum post, we can flag a feed post. Why is it that profiles are the thing where suddenly it becomes too big in number?
@AffyAvo
So basically you'd like members to be able to flag profiles also? Re: second point, I think it's like I said before, it is just because when they were open to everyone, people didn't follow the rules, but maybe a good idea is to give members that option too, or maybe certain members? I don't know, but it's worth asking I think, so good idea :)
@AffyAvo
im confused about this policy of only verified listeners being able to flag profiles also a verified listener has no training or knowledge about what a profile should or should not contain a verified listener is only a listener who agrees to complete an additional mock chat what has that got to do with being more knowledgeable about the rules about profiles ? verified listeners are no more knowledgeable about profile rules than the average member (and have far less natural interaction with listener profiles than a member does who searches for listeners to talk to) it would make more sense to have a profile flagging team made up of members and listeners who are knowledgeable about what should and should not be on a profile
@jennysunrise8
They get trained before they are allowed to join Safety Patrol. Being a VL doesn't make them automatically on Safety Patrol. Many listeners are also members and could have just as much natural interaction, but ultimately as I said above, they changed the rules because people were unable to follow the guidelines. There's nothing wrong with having both members and listeners flagging, I like the idea, but if literally anyone is allowed to flag, then it will clog up the system with a lot of flags that aren't necessary. Also, there is a team set up that is trained- the Safety Patrol Team :) So what you're really asking is if there could be members added?
@EvelyneRose
right members and non verified listeners should be able to join the safety patrol team as well it should just include anyone who wants to help and not only be limited to verified listeners and anyone who has the safety patrol badge (listeners or members who have training or show that they understand what needs flagged and what shouldnt be) should be able to flag profiles - it should be limited to people who understand but it shouldnt only be limited to verified listeners so yes basically what im saying is that the safety patrol should be more inclusive and theres no reason why it souldnt be more inclusive to anyone who wants to help and be involved in making the site safer its a big job the safety patrol team should be more welcoming to people who are interested in helping i think
@jennysunrise8
Verified listener is a requirement for almost all if not all listener leadership positions as it is an important milestone for proving dedication to the site and serves as a reminder that active listening is the core principle in all of our roles.
@MonBon
i think involvement in the safety patrol should not be considered a listener leadership position it should include any listener or member who is interested in doing it and is qualified (who has learned what the guidelines are and what should and should not be flagged) making the safety patrol team so exclusive is only preventing 7cups from being safer
@jennysunrise8 the verified listener badge shows that the listener has been through the mock chat training, which is an important milestone for those who are working toward leadership positions, as well as showing that the listener is highly skilled. Like @EvelyneRose said above, the reason the safety patrol is limited to people who have the verified listener badge, as well as making them go through a training before becoming part of the team, is so that they are flagging profiles accurately, know the site and profile rules, and we can see that they are able to follow instructions and have enough time to dedicate to the team. These are the team requirements, just like any other team on the site has certain criteria that listeners need to meet. its to make sure that the listener has the skill level required, and the time necessary, to contribute to the team.
@MidnightRaven999
i do agree that every team needs to.set certain requirements im just challenging the requirements that exist for this team i dont think they are necessary and only leads to the site not being as safe as it could be if more people were involved :)
@jennysunrise8 i dont really agree with this, because like @evelynerose said before, people have made mistakes in the past because they didnt know how to properly flag profiles, so having the additional requirements and training is helpful to make sure everyone knows the correct protocol and have a high skill level
@MidnightRaven999
i completely agree that everyone who flags should have the training to understand what should be flagged and what should not be flagged but a member or non verified listener has just as much mental capacity to learn what should and should not be flagged as a verified listener does if there is a problem and not enough people are working to solve the problem or people want to but cant i think its time to take a look at what roadblocks are preventing it from happening if there is interest in helping just my thoughts on it and i respect yours and everyone elses whether we agree or disagree
@jennysunrise8
Since it requires additional training, I would disagree that it shouldn't be a leadership position.
Regardless, I agree with both you and @affyavo that improvements can be made to our current safety structures. I don't quite know the specifics of what is feasible or possible, but I'm confident they are listening to our feedback and working on it
@AffyAvo A very good point, again.
The rules about profiles should be clear enough for everyone to understand, because everyone has a profile. If the rules are that clear, then everyone can see when a rule has been broken. It does not require additional training.
In a sense, saying that flagging profiles requires additional training is equivalent to admitting that the rules are unclear.
I still think it's a software problem. A flagging process that's available to everyone could do a lot to ensure that profiles are only flagged for legitimate reasons, and it could also block people who are known to have abused the process. We're having this discussion because the software we use doesn't support the processes we need.
Charlie
@RarelyCharlie most of the rules (like not sharing social media, having an appropriate profile picture, etc) are clear. however there are always some grey areas and areas that could be confusing to people, as well as recent rule changes that might need updating. not everyone reads the profile rules either (just like not everyone reads the site rules). so unfortuantely, a lot of the time, its not clear what the rules are. now of course, people who sign up to be part of the safety patrol get access to our profile guide, which has all the rules clearly stated, recent rule changes modified, etc. but the training could still be useful for people who have questions about those grey areas i mentioned above. An example of a grey area, in case you want one, would be a youtube video link. now, links are fine, as long as they're appropriate, but if that youtube link has cursing, nudity (anything that violates the site rules) then the profile would need to be flagged. but it would be very situational, it would depend a lot on what the youtube video is about, and sometimes those things arent that clear.
@AffyAvo
Thank you for the feedback! You have pointed out areas of improvement when it comes to site safety. We hear you and are making efforts to improve chat quality and safety.
Yep. I got into an argument here with a user who then switched to their listener account to PM me so we could discuss the issue "privately". This is not okay as I never asked for such a conversation and even told the person I wanted everything to stay on the forum so it would be in the public eye.
I reported the accounts to 7cups but never heard back. This person may still be active here and it makes me uncomfortable.
