Rupali Roy Choudhury the point is to hear the point from the other person otherwise I can have a mentoring session, bad mouth you and people only read that and see the story from one perspective. It could be as simple as this is not what happened as mentee said and ultimately ADPList can involve if needed. It’s like in Google Reviews. Does that make sense?

Example case can be seen in this thread: https://amazing-design-list.slack.com/archives/C05NR443TUN/p1737157194425589

Matt Karakilic i agree with your locus of hearing everyone's viewpoint.

I am afraid I am unable to access the link that you shared.

As for the examples like Google review, it is not an ideal one because there is only 1 level of reply (meaning the reviewed party can reply to the review and there is no way for the original reviewer to respond to the reviewed party's response). While it is true that it is important for reviewed party to respond to fake reviews, it is equally important for the original reviewer to respond to the reviewed party especially if the latter is in the wrong.

As long as there is a way for both the parties to continue to reply to each other's thread, it is fine. Moreover, when both parties are able to respond to each other, we can get a better perspective of the situation (assuming one can submit evidence as well)

If the above cannot be supported, then it is better not to implement the original poster's request.

Rupali Roy Choudhury I hear your point and, that’ll create an endless tag game between them. Hence, the Google’s approach. The idea of review is to give others an idea of the person on both sides who is reviewed (important) and who reviewed (less important). Sadly, with one review anyone’s reputation can be tarnished… and that’s a huge power. So, providing last word to the person who got reviewed somewhat balances out and shine a light on their end. If a review is entirely messed up like in the link I shared, then ADPList can involve or a way to involve ADPList.

Matt Karakilic i hear your point and i have a different perspective on your statement "an idea of the person on both sides who is reviewed (important) and who reviewed (less important)." There are cases where inspite of businesses receiving poor reviews are still thriving. And in case of adplist, do remember that the mentors, in this case, are usually more established in their career. Usually a mentee will not have enough networking power or career experience as compared to a mentor. So writing 1 poor review for a mentor will not really damage their reputation. Whereas someone who is fresh in an industry, is engaging with a mentor and unfortunately they did not gel well. A poor review from the mentee won't really hurt the mentor's reputation. Whereas if the mentor also writes a poor review for a mentee, that will hurt mentee's chance of securing their first job especially if they are totally new to this field. Speaking of power balance, i would argue that, in this case, mentors have more power than a person who is very new to the field.