Loomio
Wed 24 Nov 2021 6:17PM

"Roles" (users gain privileges as they connect and verify their identity)

TH Tim Huegerich Public Seen by 6

As outlined in the Aims and Means, the goal here is to foster trust and satisfaction with empathy chats. We want to discourage non-empathy uses of the platform but help the empathy community thrive, being as open and welcoming as possible. And we aim to strike that balance in a decentralized, self-governing way.

Principles

  • Non-anonymity: Users may only participate in chats once they have established their identity in some way.

  • Membership means something: Full Membership requires at least one empathy chat with an existing Member they are meaningfully connected to.

  • Distributed accountability: Blind chats only allowed between users with one or more third-party Members connecting them, whether that's a group host or mutual connections.

  • Inclusion: Otherwise empathy.chat should be available to as many people as possible.

Roles

Note: Italicized features are not yet available, still under construction.

  • Guest - has confirmed an email address

    • can have empathy chats with fellow group members (if allowed by group host)

  • Confirmed (phone number) - Guest who has confirmed a phone number

    • can accept "close"[1] connection requests

    • can form "acquaintance"[2] connections with other Confirmeds (or Identifieds) with whom they have had an empathy chat

    • can have empathy chats with fellow group members or users they are directly connected to (at least 2nd degree)

  • Identified - Guest who uses their real first and last names and has demonstrated ownership of an online profile (Note: Becoming a Member does not require being Identified.)

    • can form "acquaintance"[2] connections with other Identifieds (or Confirmeds) with whom they have had an empathy chat

    • can have empathy chats with fellow group members or users they are directly connected to (at least 2nd degree)

  • Member (of the core network) - Identified (or Confirmed) who has completed a chat with an existing Member who knows them[3]

    • can have empathy chats with up to 3rd degree connections (or in a triad with up to 6th degree)

    • can invite new close connections to join empathy.chat

    • view the online profiles of Identifieds with whom they are at least 2nd degree connections

    • can publicly block users they observe to be violating the site Agreement

  • Partner - Identified Member who has contributed in some way to empathy.chat

    • create and host groups (members of which can all message or have empathy chats with each other)

    • invite new users (who need not be close connections) to empathy.chat to join these groups

    • verify online profile ownership of guests in their groups

[1] Someone with whom you have exchanged personal phone numbers (and with whom you have or would be willing to exchange empathy).

[2]

  • After completing an empathy chat, they may opt to form an "acquaintance" connection equivalent to a 3rd degree connection (enabling Members to participate in a triad chat with each other's network).

  • After two chats--with a total chat time of an hour and at least one week between first and last chats--they may upgrade to "repeat buddies," equivalent to 2nd degree connections (enabling Members to pair-chat with each other's close connections--and potentially enabling Confirmeds to become Members).

  • After three chats--and a total chat time of two hours, with two weeks between first and last chats--they may upgrade to 1.5 degree-equivalent "solid buddies" (enabling Members to pair-chat with any other 1.5 degree-equivalent connections either of them has).

[3] Specifically, someone "who knows them" means someone with whom they are at least 2nd degree connections (e.g. a close connection of a close connection). Membership in the core network can be lost if all connections to the core network of Members are lost via disconnection or blocks.

This is the current design, but it is subject to change and suggestions are welcome!

J

James Thu 31 Mar 2022 10:52PM

I like the idea of requiring doing x empathy chats with a member and or someone vouch for their ability to do NVC empathy before becoming a member.

I have experienced when running nvc empathy groups open to the public that some people follow the nvc approach and some don't.

This has created awkward and challenging moments for me. What helped was to talk in terms of what is and isn't working for the group at this time to the best of my ability. I talked about how saying X works with or does not work with the group purpose.

J

James Thu 31 Mar 2022 10:58PM

I have wondered how can a self governing system deal with empathy quality control. Do sites like Airbnb and Uber, who have the service provider and customer rate each other off a possible way ? I feel unsure about this. So, it is me wondering at them moment. I will write more soon. I want time to clarify my thoughts to provide them with as much clarity and efficiency as possible.

TH

Tim Huegerich Mon 4 Apr 2022 5:02PM

[I moved your further thoughts on this to the Solicit empathy feedback? discussion.]

J

James Wed 6 Apr 2022 2:21AM

A way to measure the effectiveness of people letting people join, the gatekeepers.

When the site is small enough that everyone knows everyone, this is easy to handle.

When the site has hundreds or thousands of members, how to identify who is helping the site grow and who is bringing in problems.

We can track what are the results of empathy feedback for each person the gatekeeper admits over time. What percentage of those admitted by that person has positive ratings ?

As we use feedback to attempt quality control for individual effectiveness at giving nvc empathy, we can do the same for those who take on the role of accepting people into the group.

I do not seeing this shared publicly. This is for site administrators. If a person brings in more than X people or X percentage of people with negative ratings. We can suspend or permanently block them adding people due to demonstrated inability to bring in people that work out.

This a possible strategy or is an attempt to find a way to determine effectiveness.

TH

Tim Huegerich Wed 6 Apr 2022 4:31PM

I've been hoping build the platform in such a way that administrators are not responsible for gatekeeping the gatekeepers. Instead, there are built-in checks on group hosts of a few different kinds:

  1. In order to host a group you need to be a Member, which requires being linked to a pre-existing Member, who is thereby vouching for your apparent good faith. (Linking should not be done too lightly because it puts your new link in contact with your other links, enabling them to participate in a video chat with them--and your link to them is public.)

  2. Hosting a group, moreover, requires being a Partner, which means you have confirmed ownership of a public profile revealing your real-world identity.

  3. If you allow members into your group who are not able to give empathy in a satisfactory way, other users who chat with them will discover that and either leave your group or, at least, stop inviting your group members to exchange empathy.

  4. Moreover, problematic group members will be less likely to be invited to link with the core network. That should tend to keep problems quarantined within poorly gatekept groups.

  5. Groups will be suspended if the group host is absent from the platform for more than 30 days.

None of this is guaranteed to prevent a sufficiently determined person from disrupting the site. But the hope is to give Members the tools to respond to any such episodes. Hmm, to the extent any group members are integrated with the wider core network, we should probably give them an expedited way to send an SOS via the Members linking them to the group host--some equivalent of a public block, but for group members to use against hosts as a last resort. I'd like them to be able to appeal to the group host's direct links (rather than to administrators) to remove their access to the platform by unlinking.

TH

Tim Huegerich Fri 9 Sep 2022 6:40PM

Following up on the last paragraph, one recourse group members have is just leaving the group. Otherwise, it can be as simple as publicly blocking the group host, which would notify the host's direct connections of their claim.

J

James Sat 16 Apr 2022 12:42AM

I see #1 – 5 as effective ways to deal with gatekeeping.

I like there to be a way for a person to let a group leader they had trouble with a person in the group. This is not public. It is shared between the upset person, group host and person who the complaint is about. Is this your idea of the SOS ?

I see the ability of a person to block an individual or entire group as effective at containing a problem.

I wonder if these is helpful for quality control and containing a problem ?

– when a person is blocked.

Does the person receiving block, list on his/her/their profile publicly the name of the person doing the block or just the number of people blocking him/her/them ?

Does the person initiating the block, list on his/her/their profile publicly the name of who he/she/they blocked or the number of people he/she/they blocked ?

Does the group profile publicly list who is blocked by whom or the number of blocks ?

Does the group profile publicly list who has initiated blocks and with whom by name or just the number of blocks initiated ?

TH

Tim Huegerich Wed 7 Sep 2022 8:06PM

That is not the same as my SOS idea, but I like it as a way to request the group host to mediate or intervene.

I wasn't thinking the group profile would list any user-specific block information, but I like the idea of providing some information about the number of group members blocked.

I've tried to address your other questions in the block discussion I linked to.