[Adrian]

My help and advice (that’s what the forum is) is that if anyone has a problem with an email sent by a member through TR then follow the instructions on the email and let an admin now – in private – because a public airing and banging of drums doesn’t actually help get to the root cause.

On the other hand if you have handed out your email address to people, and you get an email from a member sent directly to your email address, then TR would be very reluctant to intervene in what is a private conversation with no direct connection to TR.

To do so would be to ask us to mediate in any dispute in the community where the two parties happen to be TR members, and I hope everyone would understand that is completely unreasonable.

The terms and conditions of TR apply to how you use the web site and interact through it with our community. The conditions don’t and cannot apply to everyone’s everyday life.

[Adrian]

I think (correct me if I’m wrong Peta) that Peta’s post was broader in context than just noting that post-transition people don’t participate in these forums. She was also talking about stealth in the broader sense where people divorce themselves from the community and friends they have built up during their journey.

Personally, I have never been surprised that many who live as a woman in society find little of interest in these forums and less to post about. The content here is far more tuned to the journey than the destination.

But what I have a much stronger opinion about is the choice to purge one’s life at some point on the journey, throwing away friends, past experiences and most of the essence of “who you were”, in the hope that on a blank canvas you can redraw a new “who you are”. This is the Stealth that I openly tell people I have concerns about.

Firstly, can I qualify the opinion I have, by saying that “Stealth” is like “Life after Death”. Because, by definition, I loose all contact with those who have chosen to wipe me out of their life, I can’t ever have an objective opinion as to whether the strategy works. By definition, anyone who can answer my questions is not in ultimate stealth.

But as a “life after death” strategy I’m convinced that total stealth is pretty high risk – except perhaps for those who are in their teens or early twenties.
The rest of us have too much “life” that we have lived, and whether we have had pleasant or bad experiences in that life, it has shaped who we are.
I have an issue with what I see as a very ‘male’ characteristic to deal with problems by taking action – the rush to any type of surgery – and also this quick fix by throwing away past life.
I see it is just that – a quick fix – which must leave a big hole in ones psychological makeup having thrown out just about everything that underpins your personality and self concept of “who I am”.

So I want to talk people out of the idea that Stealth is an easy fix…
– Because many of your experiences are shared, and cannot be erased unilaterally
– Because good friends are hard to come by, and rejecting friends because they are “T” is just the sort of discrimination we all complain about in society!
– Because not having a past you can talk about will always be a void in your life – you need to be able to see it as a journey you are proud of, not a time to be forgotten.

All that said, I guess there are times when the past is so bad that a clean slate is perceived as the only viable way forward. But surely that should be a decision of last resort.

[Adrian]

Looks like this thread is going to be teleported… it isn’t much about fun now is it!!!

[Adrian]

Glebe night – February 2011
Clare, Davina, Christina, Kristen, Penny, Amanda, Lorraine

[Adrian]

Moderator

Quote:

This thread has had to be edited as somehow few people take the time to read what the thread is about – yes experiences of panic when shopping. Not “How I go shopping”. So lots of posts have gone form this thread. Some to a sister topic because they contain helpful hints about shopping – and the rest into the members section because the content was nothing more than “all about me”.

[Adrian]

Quote:

But I have a great liking for them and for TR and for all the hard work that goes into maintaining the site which come on girls costs us $10 a year!!!!

Collective blushes from the moderators….
…but actually just $10 for life (if you don’t let your membership lapse).
But if you feel like making donations later on..there is always a button to press..but there is no obligation or requirement to do so!

[Adrian]

Quote:

I have seen previous participants go silent and leave the room soon after, leaving me feeling even more guilty. Therefore I seldom enter.
Perhaps the “newby” mentioned feels the same way and chose to remain silent and observe for a while? I think that being able to just ” listen” to a conversation for a while and enter when you have something to add, may be a good thing?

I have also observed the difficulty of “getting started” Christina, both when I have actually been in the chat room , and also when I review the chat log for any issues. In the past I watched new members joining the room quite closely as we did have some issues back then with predatory behaviour by a minority of users.

I note that frequently the regular users feel quite guilty about their failure to engage new entrants in conversation – they feel they have been rude, yet when one looks at the log you can see that they made significant attempts to draw the new member into the conversation. On the other hand, you can also see members being quite overwhelmed by this sudden attention (hardly surprising when many have never had any form of prior communication with someone in their community).

What I do know is that many of the regulars choose to greet the new member by private chat and assure them that they are welcome. Of course other newer members don’t realise this is happening (they can’t see the private chat) and on this partial information may incorrectly judge what is happening.

There was once (briefly) a warning on the chat room about just listening. It was to avoid a problem we had in the past (with members like Tania) who would enter the chat with the intention of only talking in private – without even saying “hi” in the main room. This understandably spooked a number of people.

There hasn’t been any warning like that for a long time so I guess anyone posting here who thinks we still have some ban on listening haven’t been in the chat room recently!!
But I still think it is required etiquette to say “Hi” when you enter the room. After that you can stay and listen for as long as you like (and frequently people do) – well at least until your chat connection times-out!

[Adrian]

Tania,
Moderator

Quote:

I am getting quite tired of dealing with your recent posts in these forums.

There are no senior members in the chat room, and no one who sees themselves as senior. This term was invented (inappropriately) by someone recently and is by its use actually quite offensive (certainly to me). I suggest that everyone drops using it before it is interpreted as an attack on another member under the rules.

I also find it offensive to find you preaching to these people (who ever they are) how they should behave, when you have no track record of ever using the chat room in a constructive way. In fact I’m surprised that anyone who has not seen the long term workings of the chat room would feel the need to comment on how people behave. I know the other side of the story and it isn’t the picture people are trying to paint as black here.

Tania, your past behaviour has already created work for the moderators and, as you know, you have already been banned from the chat room.
If you don’t rethink how you can be constructive member of our community than it will be better that you hit the delete profile button and take your style of community contribution to some other forum.

This is your final and very public warning.

[Adrian]

As a “senior” (what’s that?) member who was in the chat room at the time I think the comments made by Lisa were completely unfounded.

There are many new members who, on entering the chat room for the first time, prefer just to stay a while and listen. Often what is discussed and the way it is discussed is unfamiliar.

To have a group of people offering copious amounts of virtual help as soon as you poke your head in the door the first time would be I imagine particularly daunting. Generally if someone is seeing immediate help (virtual or real) then they generally make the request.

So yes Lisa – I do think you “have the protocols all wrong”.

And so do you have the protocol for the forums wrong too – the post has nothing to do with “Serious Stuff – Gender & Sexuality” where it was posted – so I’ve moved it.

[Adrian]

I’m closing this discussion down, because, to be quite honest, I find it quite awkward and embarrassing to keep posting reminding members that the terms woman and GG are not generally regarded in this community as synonymous. Yet postings keep appearing which appear to re-enforce the narrow view that desirable women companions are GG. To re-enforce any idea that a gentically born girl is somehow preferable as a female to any other woman is probably offensive to some members of the TR.

So whilst I have no problem in members wanting or even desiring to meet with a female partner I have major issues with the implication that it is TR’s role to provide a forum for such a meet up.

Think it through…
a) Only some women can join TR at present (those who consider themselves gender diverse in some way)
b) If the goal is to provide a forum to meet all women, then TR would have to take membership applications from any woman (presumably what the posters mean by GGs).
c) But if we aren’t going to discriminate on the grounds of sexual attraction, what about all the members who are looking for a male friend.
That means we must allow any man to join as well (including GMs?).
d) The outcome is obvious – the end of TR as it currently exists.

The thread is closed. If you want to discuss how to meet up with the partner of your choice be free to do so in the appropriate forums – but as an issue for the TR Community it is now dead.

[Adrian]

Quote:

But I hope it doesnt preclude discussion about sexual preferences as the previous post discussed. It is an important part of transition for many. I dont see a problem with stating ones sexual preference so long as its not merely a come-on. If TR was to ban discussing sexual preference and changes during transition or living as TG thereof (especially in the forums) I think it would be poorer for it. But I think that that is what Amanda is saying (Amanda??).

To clarify, my comments were about profiles that solicit contacts of a presumably sexual nature.
I have absolutely no problem with the forum continuing the explore the relationship between gender and sexuality and allowing members to explore what this means in their particular context.
It is only the open advertising for “friends and fun” that I’m trying to discourage.

[Adrian]

Quote:

if more women join up wanting to make friendships with transgender girls

Without being overly politically correct – I think you will find that we have a fair number of members already who identify as being women. It isn’t something new to TR. But thanks for being accepting of diversity in our community.

[Adrian]

I also don’t want to see TR become yet-another dating site – but on the other hand I don’t want to stand in the way of members finding support and companionship in their journey from others.

The application process makes it clear that you need to be gender diverse to become a member – and just looking for a T-girl is not acceptable grounds to join. This makes it very unlikely that it will develop into a fully fledged meet-up site. There is only one member I can recall who proceeded to post openly looking for a sexual encounter – and that member is no longer with us. I should perhaps make it clearer that this is a gender support site and not a sexual one – and so references to sexuality in profiles are not particularly appropriate.

When Chris joined she was open about both her gender diversity and her reasons for joining. It would be inappropriate for me to repeat this in a public forum but suffice it to say I considered it appropriate that she be allowed to join. And it follows that I support her posting, in a discrete way, to seek companionship.

This is obviously something we need to monitor, and take appropriate action on a case-by-case basis. But there is a continuum between members posting in the meeting rooms that they are looking for places to go, then people to go with, then someone to support them on their journey. Chris’s post is just at one end of that continuum – but if you ban it where would you stop? (that’s a rhetorical question so please don’t discuss it here in this thread!!!!)

[Adrian]

Quote:

He has come up with a solution that he says has helped, if he feels the topic of the post might cause a problem or its of a nature he wants to send to the recycle bin, he sends it back, and asks if the original writer would like to alter it. He takes the time to explain why and where he fells it should be altered.

It has worked and not only has it kept the peace, it has kept the postings flowing.

Its a great suggestion Alison – if the forum has the code to suspend and send back a posting for change. On this forum the only way we could do that would be to moderate all the posts. And despite all those claiming the site is heading downhill because of the moderation there are currently 200-400 posts each month. I don’t think any group of moderators has the time to check that many posts without delaying the flow. If there is a delay then the flow of the thread is lost as new posters don’t know what the previous post is.

Secondly my experience to date, is that when I challenge anyone about their posts they are frequently aggressive back to me. This is certainly the case in the recent thread where Peta tried to stop the abusive postings. Those abusing in the forum were also abusive to me when I pointed it out by email.
You have also seen some of that sort of anger at the admin in this thread – and I’m not in this job for conflict. If people think they have a right to fight to post whatever and wherever they want I’d rather they just left TR.

That said, I’ll see if I can provide a less confusing way to moderate the posts, because Peta is right when she says that it is often unclear why the moderation occurred or who was involved. But any change to the forum involves many hours coding and testing…and with threads like this running I just don’t have the spare time to do enhancements.

[Adrian]

In a couple of posts earlier in this forum members claim they going are making their last post. Presumably in some over-dramatic way trying to give credibility to their personal position that it is the moderation of this site that results in lots of members not posting.

I make no apology for the moderation that occurs on these forums. In my opinion it has saved them from being hi-jacked by a few who have an over inflated view of their own opinions and a lack of empathy with the life choices of others.

Despite the image portrayed by some of an admin giving members “a small hiding” for transgressing innumerable minor rules, the reality is that the number of posts deleted and/or members expelled is very very low – it just attracts a high profile. Why? Because we have a very limited time to devote to ‘tidying-up’ the forums and there are lots of posts to read and categorise.

There are just two triggers for deleting posts – our zero tolerance for people criticising each other (because it destroys other forums), and multiple off-topic posts in a thread (because it essentially high-jacks what the original poster wanted to talk about.

If everyone took Peta’s excellent advice to “take a deep breath” before posting, and “think before they act or speak” there would never be any call to moderate other than moving posts between topics (which I regard as general housekeeping).

Generally those who transgress these simple guidelines find themselves being “punished” in ways that range from a harsh email to being thrown out. Many seem to think that the rules are only there for others, and feel indignant that after paying their $10 they are chastised. But I can assure everyone that the moderation, is as far, as possible carried out without fear or flavor.

So how does that leave the implication that it is moderation that results in people not posting?

Well firstly, as the moderators would never just delete someone’s first post, those 40% who have not posted could never have posted. I spend a lot of time on occasions coaching new members so they can understand the appropriate netiquette and avoid trouble. It is not the moderation that persuades them not post, as most of the moderation is invisible to them.

Secondly, having seen the damage that some people inflict on other unmoderated forums I think that the moderation encourages people to post their opinion – because they know that they are safe from being cut down by comments from a few. That I think helps achieve the “safe environment” Virginia refers to.

Finally on a personal note, I do wish people wouldn’t post saying “I am certainly not challenging admin or their decisions” and then challenge the admin by posting “I expect this post will be removed”.

So if moderation doesn’t discourage the 40% is it just being “shy/nervous” like Alison that holds the posters back?