I'm really mixed about this. One the one hand, it provides some quality assurance and a way for people to choose empathy with those who have given quality empathy to others. On the other hand, is it a reliable or valid measurement? For example, someone may be very dissatisfied with not getting advice and only having someone provide empathy with feelings/needs. One solution to that is to give more weight to more senior members or those with greater experience - but who decides that?

If you are keen on some rating system, is there a system whereby a person can indicate the type of empathy received rather than its perceived value? For example, 'gave unsolicited advice', 'appeared to be multi-tasking', 'honored my request for how to give empathy', or 'followed NVC empathy buddy handbook format', and so forth.

Another concern is, how will the knowledge that someone will be rated after the session impact the ability of that person to be fully present and responsive in giving empathy?

If this is a feature, I'd just suggest you're really clear on the purpose it would serve in order to let that dictate the best strategy.

Yeah, one idea I've had as an alternative is to provide a LinkedIn-like skill-endorsement system. Like you could list 'honors requests for how to give empathy' on someone's profile, with your name by it.

I have wondered how can a self governing system deal with empathy quality control. Some websites have the service provider and customer rate each other. I feel unsure about this. So, this is me wondering about them moment. At the end of an empathy session, people are offered the opportunity to receive feedback. Maybe both sides are required to give feedback before it is shared publicly. Maybe there could a very general feedback that is shared publicly and a more detailed that is private.

The general question could be "How was did the session work for you ? The options are "no comment" or "okay" or "great". There could be a point system included, each options equals x points. The number of points / stars is an attempt to communicate how people are experiencing receiving and or giving empathy.

A person could have the option to receive more detailed feedback that may or may not be shared publicly. A list of possibilities could be offered to help keep the feedback focus on observations to help create effective feedback. This is to reduce or prevent people talking in terms of what he/she/they are.

These are my current ideas. As I discuss and think about this. My ideas could change allot.

Here are some examples. A person may click as many or as few as he/she/they want.

** While receiving empathy, these things worked for me during the session I am giving feedback on.

I was the speaker, receiving empathy. The other person was the listener, giving empathy.

I experienced the other person:

(A space is given for person to give examples of what I heard/remember the other person said during the empathy session. The goal is to quote or paraphrase the words the person said that is relevant)

-- arrived at agreed upon time

– ended session at agreed upon time

-- person's balance of silent listening and asking questions worked for me

– person was silent, said nothing

– person asked very few questions

– person asked many questions

-- number of words in empathy guess worked for me

-- person asked questions phrased in classical nvc "Are you feeling x ?", Are you needing x ?"

-- person asked questions in more "normal" language

-- person asked questions in terms of metaphors

– person’s questions were in the present tense, not past or future

– I sensed the person was present, in the moment with me.

** These aspects of receiving empathy did not work for me.

-- person did not arrived at the agreed upon time

– the call went longer than planned

-- person gave advice

-- person talked about himself/herself

-- person spent time comforting me, telling me it will be okay

-- person talked about how bad or wrong the person I am upset with was

-- person expressed agreement with my judgments about the person and or situation

-- person expressed disagreement with my judgments about the person and or situation

– person made statements, instead of asking questions

-- person asked too few questions

– person asked too many questions

-- number of words in empathy guess were too few

– number of words in empathy guess were too many

-- person asked questions, using classical nvc "Are you feeling x ?", Are you needing x ?"

-- person asked questions, using "normal" language

-- person asked questions, using metaphors that worked for me

– If person had used classical nvc or normal language or metaphors less often, could they have worked for you during this session ?

And, the rating could go the other way

*** While giving empathy, these aspects worked for me

I was the person listening. The other person was the speaker.

I experienced the other person:

(a space is given for person to give examples of what I heard/remember the other person said during the empathy session)

– arrived at agreed upon time

– ended session at agreed upon time

– treated me respectfully, did not insult or mock me

*** While giving empathy, these aspects did not work for me

I was the person listening. The other person was the speaker.

(a space is given for person to give examples of what I heard/remember the other person said during the empathy session)

I experienced the other person:

– did not arrive at agreed upon time

– did not ended session at agreed upon time

– treated me dis-respectfully, mock/insulted me

Does adding “did not work for me” to feedback options work and is it needed ?

A possible a way to identify someone not doing empathy effectively for this site. As far as one on one, it is not an accurate indicator. Certain personalities don’t go well together. Maybe they had different approaches or understanding. Maybe someone is having an off day or bad day. Maybe, there was some misunderstanding even though both were acting with good will and intent.

When this happens repeatedly, that can indicates there is more than the occasionally misunderstanding.

This can a ground for suspending or terminating a membership.

Does this open the site to be sued for slander ? The key is probably how it is asked and intent in sharing. Our intent would be to share effectiveness of giving empathy on this site. Outside this site, we have no knowledge or experience of the person’s effectiveness or skill in doing nvc or any other of form of empathy.

A benefit of assigning a numeric value to the options are "no comment" or "okay" or "great" is that provides another way to search. A person could say I want to do empathy with a person, whose average score is above X.

My concern is any numeric system can be manipulated.

A small group can handle the question of quality and appropriate themselves directly and informally

But, this really limits the number of people who can be involved. People have only so much time in a day.

Can a larger group have some form of quality control ? A numeric might be one of the best non-perfect ways of doing this.

Maybe, social media thru structured feedback can do that most of this work, leaving the unusual or rare occurrence for a committee to handle.

I have been posting much these last few days. There are a few other things I have written. I like to write them up, then wait a day or two to edit and review before posting. I intend to switch my focus on over the next couple of days to reading what others wrote.

I really appreciate your thoughtful and deliberate approach to this discussion.

As I think about it, my hope is to avoid making any feedback ratings public, to avoid providing any kind of ratings for the purpose of assessing other users' skills. At this point, I'm inclined to keep any feedback we solicit private. (Private feedback is invaluable for helping people improve.)
Public ratings raise the issues you both describe: inaccurate ratings, ratings manipulation, the potential for people to take offense (even to the point of suing, potentially), and knowing you will be rated may impact your ability to be fully present and authentic.
More broadly, I really hope to avoid the need for administrators to make decisions about suspending or terminating memberships. Instead, such decisions are delegated to group hosts with regard to their group members.
With regard to the core network of connected buddies, my plan is to delegate decisions to individual Members, who can in the first place opt to disconnect from a buddy they are directly connected to. I also am planning to enable Members to publicly "block" others--which I'll start a new thread to explain more fully.