Reviewing the Forum rules at all?

CrowJake · Forum Addict

Reviewing the Forum rules at all?

miserablizm · Forum Addict

I'm aware I'm only extremely new at this, but have a response from what I've gathered so far:

- I can see your concern about offense and agree that the wording isn't particularly friendly. However, I think the basic message that it is attempting to convey, however charmlessly, is sound: it's just trying to respect people's rights to take the piss out of each other. I know in-jokes aren't categorically inclusive, but I don't think it's feasible to expect them to be fazed out of inter-society conversation just to make sure nobody at all gets offended. That's just my view, however; if you want I could bring this up at the next committee meeting and we'll discuss making changes.

- As for the welfare boards, the anonymity is only compulsory to a point. If someone who has posted a question wishes to follow it up by private message or in person they are not prohibited from doing so; the rules are there to make sure people feel safe, not tie everyone up in beaurocratic tape. There are many reasons people other than welfare officers aren't allowed to pitch in with solutions for people's problems, including the following:
> most importantly - welfare officers have access to the correct information! This is more relevant to sexual health issues, but in all cases we need to make sure that the information we give, where necessary, is accurate and will not compromise those asking for help.
> an open forum to respond to welfare issues sort of negates the fact that these officers were voted in by the society. Of course they have other responsibilities, but this is one way that we can make sure that a) the officers are doing their jobs properly and b) the roles of the society are performed by those who were fairly elected to do so.
> the strict regulations applied to the welfare boards also ensure that the discussions remain focussed and no unnecessary comments are made. People contribute to those boards because they have specific concerns that they wish to be taken seriously and receive some advice about; if they wanted a set of general responses they'd use another section of the forum.

Final points:
- as far as I know, any threads that do not fit into a certain section are [meant to be] moved by a moderator to where they are more appropriate; at least, that's the rule.
- if there is ever a particular concern you come across on the welfare boards that you feel you can positively contribute to, by all means message the relevant officer with your response, and if they deem it relevant/useful they can edit it and post it as part of their own response.

-- Edited by miserablizm at 15:55, 2008-03-19

CrowJake · Forum Addict

I know in-jokes aren't categorically inclusive, but I don't think it's feasible to expect them to be fazed out of inter-society conversation just to make sure nobody at all gets offended. That's just my view, however; if you want I could bring this up at the next committee meeting and we'll discuss making changes.

By all means do. I didn't comment on feasibility and wasn't advocating there be any rule aiming to "phase out" any behaviour, but, by the same token, I don't think there should be one, in effect, supporting it. Many members complain of cliquishness; committee endeavoured in the AGM to change that, and here is a rule outlawing "jumping to conclusions" when someone is offended (ie feeling excluded), when actually that's not something they can help. It'd be awesome if you could bring that up, and it'd be something good to improve.

In regards to having committee only replies on welfare threads... I do think that's ok, you make good points, which I'm sure are the worries the rules initially respond to. But I do reckon it may be better otherwise... I don't think it would devalue officers or make anyone disgruntled that responses were being being seconded by extra participation... after all there may be future officers around that could do with practice. Also, seeing as officers have the info, as you say... I'd hope they'd discredit any bad advice, as I stated before, I don't think that detracts from the role. Like if a non-committee member was providing any extra help in any other aspect of the society, i don't think they'd be accused of undermining the elected roles.

I still don't see how forced anonymity would make anyone feel any safer than choosing anonymity. I don't know if the only threads allowed on there are "I have a personal problem with..." types, but there is often more, and it is irritating to see people's valid comments deleted because they weren't anonymous (just thinking about some past threads)

In any case, if you brought it up that'd be really really good, thanks!

Rt hon NickyDyke85 · Lord of the Rings

The forum rules do need reviewing and overhauling, they are 4years outta date now.

As for the welfare threads, they were only made totally anonymous and for committee posting only last year, which is more of an ego thing. Personally I'm against that way of operating. Prior to last year you were allowed to post on the welfare threads under ur sign in name to post questions or advice, these posts were then checked by the committee and innacuracies were removed... there were no problems with it and no complaints were raised by members.

Now I don't mean this as a dig at anyone, but no committee member can know everything & no committee can know everything about every LGBT issue. There are alot of members in the society, quite a few have voluntary positions on sexual health charities or are doing medical courses which therefore makes them better placed to give in depth advice/information about STI's, there are other members who have previously being on committee and/or had involvement in LGBT campaigns and have an understanding of issues which a welfare officer may not have encountered. As well as our members who have diverse experiences of being LGBT and issues they've encountered, they can all provide advice and mutual support to anyone in need regarding personal situations, this always has and always will be good for any member in need as they can find someone to relate to, share experiences with and learn from each other, such as coming out, any problems arising from it and how someone else coped with a similar situation.

Obviously yes there is a duty to ensure that the correct information is given, but it is best done by allowing ppl to post under their usernames as that gives a heads up on whether or not the info is from someone who knows their stuff, rather than someone having a stab at it with the 2 seconds of research they've done/stuff they've heard. And ensuring the correct info is out there, simply checking the posted items and removing not so good ones is sufficient. Especially when theres time constraints in areas such as "oh **** unprotected sex, might get preggers, what do I do?" where there's a 72 hour window in which 2 take immediate action, as it can take committee a couple of days to get to it and whoops its 2 late.

If you want an example of how the current welfare thread system completely failed members last year just look at what happened with the trans thread... a member asked a question about a certain item and if there were any other trans members in the society - the trans officer didn't know the answer to either - a trans member who knew about that item posted and said that they were trans too & had thier post removed as it wern't anon, so they had to repost it as anon - thus the person who'd asked the original question knew there was another trans member but didn't know who they were and therefore couldn't get the relevant support for them - this lead to the committee opening up a thread pressuring trans members to out themselves, followed by completely tearing into the trans members who raised concerns and complaints about it, funnily enough when it wer pointed out that the committee were breaking the constitution with wot they were doing the whole thread got deleted but there was no apology made to the trans members.

Also funnily enough anon is abused alot to make bitchy comments and digs at people, including dodgy questions on welfare threads trying to catch committee members out, its absolutly insane to even think that having a moderated thread full of anon posts where everything has to be checked for info, is better than a thread where known ppl are posting and u know 99% of the time if the info is decent leaving a few items to be checked.

miserablizm · Forum Addict

... that said, use of the welfare threads is not compulsory. If members want to open their issues up to everyone on the forum then they can post in another section. I understand the system is far from flawless, but I think it's an important feature to keep, even if only for the potential that someone somewhere might just feel more comfortable raising concerns in that kind of highly regulated environment.

Rt hon NickyDyke85 · Lord of the Rings

In the welfare threads.. which are relevent to that gender/sexual orientation issue are the most relevant places to raise them, they are there for that minority. How many people read all of the welfare threads just for kicks? It's usually the people who fit in that category who read that thread. Rather than announcing the whole issue to every forum member by putting it in chat.

As for the concerns about people wanting to raise concerns in a highly regulated environment and feeling comfortable doing so, why do you think the anon posting was made available in the first place? It was so people could post on the welfare threads without having 2 tell everyone who they were or that that problem was thiers, but benefit from having support and advice given to them from others in the same boat, where the info was checked and that person had the option of PM-ing someone who they could relate to about the same situation. Not everyones been kicked outta their home for being who they are and its hard to empathise & give advice about it unless it something you've gone through as well, sometime thats all ppl need, just to be able to go "yeah they got thru it, so can I"

The decision to remove 'a friendly face & name' from responses that was made last year was an unfounded one, made by the committee without consulting members beforehand, as no issues had been raised about that way of operating the welfare threads.

It was also dodgy how ppl were made to anonly post their contributions or PM them to the welfare officers, who deleted all trace of someone else posting it & put it up as thier own advice without giving anyone else credit for it.

I'm sayin this as someone who has been in & around this LGBT for 4years now... I've been on committee before & covered the work of womens & trans officer. So I can see your point about confidentiality, but thats already been considered years ago and dealt with by the anon option.

This society is meant 2b ran by the committee on behalf of the members, in accordance with thier wants & needs, not by the committee without consulting members and doing things for their own ends which is what happened last year, when the society fell in2 the hands of power mad & inexperienced cliques.

The best thing to do with this whole welfare thread issue is actually ask all of the members what they want and provide that for them. After all they pay a joining fee to the society which keeps it up & running, without them the soc would have bugger all.

-- Edited by Rt hon NickyDyke85 at 06:56, 2008-03-21

Jeni Jeni Jen Jen

Nic, I'm too too tired to argue.
You tired us out last year.
Good luck to the new committee.

CrowJake · Forum Addict

STOP (in the name of love) I started this thread because the current way of things is such that here is where I'm supposed to post suggestions. That's all they are, suggestions, and I'm extremely happy that liz has said she'll take it to committee, and I'm quite aware that other committee members will read this too about which I'm also over the moon. Whether or not they accept my suggestions is their decision.

Please, i most definitely don't think I could bare a tit-for-tat snide-fest. *Pulls up riot shield*

In summary to Person A : Blaming individual ex-committee is going to stir up trouble when it's the individual rules that I'm addressing not the people. Your actual points are valid but the judgments are not going to help. I also think it can be quite hurtful to call anyone powermad as I can imagine any committee would do their best and that can still be assumed no matter what decisions they've taken, and what you think of those decisions.

Person B: Any suggestion should be counted, not discarded as some personal vendetta. The validity of the points made (excluding personal judgments), highlights that the points are not the result of any compulsion to tire anyone out. You make the voicing of genuine dissatisfaction sound like a tantrum. I wholly understand that you disagree with statements regarding the past running of the site and any points you'd like to address on the rules definitely should be welcome, it's why i started the thread, eh!

Jacob Ghandi x x

end thy off-topic sinful ways! (i humbly suggest)

-- Edited by CrowJake at 02:44, 2008-03-21

CrowJake · Forum Addict

[ignore - i somehow double posted]

-- Edited by CrowJake at 22:32, 2008-03-20

Rt hon NickyDyke85 · Lord of the Rings

Thats fair enough Jake :o)

It's a discussion/debate about the forum rules, not an argument. I'm not posting rubbish for the sake of an argument. I have every faith that the committee can see this and take the points into consideration.

-- Edited by Rt hon NickyDyke85 at 07:03, 2008-03-21

Ditzy_fck · Dame Poofy

Jeni Jeni Jen Jen wrote:

Good luck to the new committee.

good luck indeed, as u shall soon find some ppl just like arguing for the sake of it

Rt hon NickyDyke85 · Lord of the Rings

Yeah, the ones with nothing constructive to say generally just slag people off using anon as a cover, however u get exceptions.

At least if people can post info and under their sign in names u know who's been posting what and its worth.

hannahb87 · Man Down! Sexy dyke!

to nic (anyone else feel free to read it but i think it is going to end up pretty long, and i dont feel i am going to add very much to the debate lol so if you get bored its not my fault as i have added a disclaimer

)

firstly thank god im not on the commitee any more so i can tell you that your stupid arguementativeness is really getting annoying. Secondly it is really sad for me that you struggle so much to understand the concept of the welfare thread, i mean it isnt about who gets the credit for the advice, (i personally never thought of it that way, our plan was to make the most correct advise for the members, you know the ones that our committee apparently didnt really care about) although you seemed pretty desperate to keep your name in the welfare threads when you should have spent less time trying to piss the committee off and more time obeying the rules that were there for a reason, and actually made a difference to someone. and as for your no one can know everything, you are totally right, which is why we asked for your opinions and comments so we could check em and send em out, to flip side it though how do you know everthing a member says is going to be correct, if you have one of the 72 hour issues and a member posts omething wrong and it is read before we can remove it it could cause issues which are unneccesary.

And as for your comments on the trans thread that i set up, as there was someone on the welfare thread that wanted to know it there were anyother trans people, therefore to keep within the rules of the thread but to give the members what they waqnted i made a trans introduce yourself thread which people could use it they wanted too, so as for all this rubbish about pressured outing, i dont see how giving people a place to learn of each other without doing it in a space for advice, is pressure but thats fine, and as for the deletion but no apology, it got deleted cos the complaining got out of hand, and became over the top, and i will not apologise for trying to do something right by the society and its members and trying to make their time at uni more fun and informative, if it was a mistake fine but i cant really see why it turned out the way it did,

Our committee worked hard last year in order to keep the society going, not everything worked out exactly right. And yes we were egotistical if by that you mean trying to do the best for you all, otherwise your wrong. To be honest i got fed up to the back teeth of your complaining last year, and then to complain about us once we have finished is just back stabbing, we tried our hardest and hopefully some of you had fun at the events and learnt stuff at the fairs and stuff,

Good luck to the new committee you guys will do ace

and if you need anything you know where i am x x x

hannahb87 · Man Down! Sexy dyke!

ps sorry crow jake that nic boycotted your thread and i possibly have made it worse lol i will quickly start a new thread for people to put their ideas in lol and paste your first post into it lol that way people can make constructive ideas and see what the committee can do x x

CrowJake · Forum Addict

oh lordie. i think you mean hijack haha.

In honesty however, I'll make no secret that i think nic made a lot of sense in contributions to the thread, but personalising her genuine points and directly accusing ex-committee of personal faults really were going to cause this reaction. I don't think nic is argumentative for it's sake, rather i think she's just has strong feelings, and will continue to state them whether they want to be heard or not. I further don't think any of her protests are "stupid", and resent her points being called moaning whether you agree or not.

And just as much as she has made personal accusations of character which are unknowable, members of the ex committee here have similarly insinuated that she "just like[s] arguing for the sake of it" and is some sort of absent force for which constant "Good luck" must be wished to anyone so that they may survive it. She has been condescended to with back-handed sympathy for how she "struggles to understand" things, where in fact they are clear differences of opinion, and informed opinion at that. Although i don't agree with her protest to a trans thread, her objection was that it outed people, which was the very same defense for opposition by much of the ex committee to introduction of a bi officer... I see them as equally problematic arguments, and think you both have as much right to those opinions. This adds to this entire paragraph which aims to highlight the absence of as much of a moral high ground that you imply.

Further to nic's favour, I did try to nip this in the bud to which nic posted a short acknowledgment of that; leaving retaliation right alone, only for that to be followed by a further off-topic back-hander to which she again resisted retaliation or accusation... and then yet ANOTHER post comes up telling her she's being argumentative!

These issues are dead, let them be buried! Hopefully your new thread will let them happen. Just as my earlier post did... "huff puff" *blows his house down*. "New dawn, new day" - as our new comms officer has quoted.

from "Everyone's favourite Jacob" x x

-- Edited by CrowJake at 17:47, 2008-03-23

phi · One foot out of Narnia

ok i think everyone needs a chillax to think about what this is. this is not a bitching thread, please let's not reduce it to such. i understand your points jacob and i think they are very valid. obviously it's the holidays now so everything kinda stops for awhile (happy easter by the way) but when we get back i see no reason why the new committee cannot do a bit of research by engaging with the membership at coffees and seeing what they would like because at the end of the day, the committee only act as the representative leaders of the membership.

this issue has come up too many times before, thus it is contentious and we should just have an open debate, where people can express the for and against. i think the members would be a lot happier with that, if we were open with our 'constructive' criticisms about this and if the committee are damned with whatever decisions they make regarding anonymity, then perhaps throwing this one out to the members in a democratic form will save them from blame.

just an idea xx

phi · One foot out of Narnia

p.s. i'm off to amsterdam for a week now, so i'd appreciate if any replies were emailed to me cus i'm not really a fan of the forum x

Ditzy_fck · Dame Poofy

Rt hon NickyDyke85 wrote:

Yeah, the ones with nothing constructive to say generally just slag people off using anon as a cover,

HO HO!! o dearie me.........

i think the way the forum works is fine. its just some ppl dont respect the rules. things like remaining anonymous on the welfare thread and refraining from being downright offensive are things that one would expect anyway from ppl. i think the main problem is that instead of nitpicking at every single detail and just moaning and complaining, maybe asking the committee why a rule is in place and talking about it when ur not on a high horse and when ur actually listening would be a great thing and maybe the forum could return to the happy and fun times of yor

Rt hon NickyDyke85 · Lord of the Rings

LGBT Forum Rules

Rules... nobody likes them but they are there for a reason. We only have 5 of them here, but if you stick to them then things should run smoothly and everyone will be happy:

1. You must not pretend to be someone you are not. Signing off messages with someone elses name is an abuse of the forum.

2. Personal attacks on anyone, whether known to you in person or not, are unacceptable.

3. If someone takes personal offence at something you post, please try to justify your message in a subsequent post. Afterwards, do not enter into a public argument or descend into insults or personal attacks.

4. Light-hearted banter and in-jokes between friends are perfectly acceptable. If these do not concern you, please do not jump to the conclusion that somebody is seeking to cause offence.

5. Respect other peoples right to an opinion. If it differs from yours, it is not necessarily wrong. Again, if you think someone is setting out to cause offence, do not retaliate; report it to Forum Admin using our email address: luu.lgbt@leeds.ac.uk

_____________________________________________________________________________

Those are the forum rules. Generally they do need abit more clarification.

1 is pretty self explanatory and doesn't really need much more adding to it.

2 would probably benefit from having a part added about consistantly singling a person out, but making it clear that providing constructive criticism isn't a personal attack.

3 again is pretty self explanatory, but it would need to draw a clear line between carrying on a debate and descending into an argument.

4 could possibly benefit from an added on bit encouring them to contact the committee/forum admin to look into it and speak to those involved to see whether it is just banter or something more serious.

5 would definately benefit from having more added to it such as any valid points, constructive criticisms etc should be respected, rather than face unjustified attempts at discrediting and cheapening the content, nor should you disagreeing with an opinion lead to you seeing and using that as justification to conduct personal attacks and slander.

After all this is a forum for adults with mature debates and discussions, if you can't behave like an adult and partake in mature debates and discussions taking on valid points and constructive criticisms raised, then you should not be partaking in them.

Rt hon NickyDyke85 · Lord of the Rings

Also thank you Jake & Phi for continuing a mature discussion of the rules.

The problem with anonymity on welfare threads, also arises when a member who has personal experience/knowledge in a certain area that committee may not have.

Taking this information and posting it as their own gives the impression that the committee knows about and/or has experience in this area, when they don't, this can quite easily get out of hand as the person seeking help/advice will keep going back to that committee member, which is unfair on the member as it is misleading and puts pressure on that committee member to come up with the infomation, which can lead to the wrong information & innapropriate support being given out. It has happened in the past.

The best thing for welfare threads is to allow people to post as themselves, as it is easier to moderate as you know who has been posting and what their experience is... such as the medical students who can give accurate information about STI's, members who work for sexual health charities and have had the relevant training and experience to be able to provide sound advice about safe sex, then there's the others who have been heavily involved in LGBT welfare & rights work and have also undergone training on certain issues. It cuts down having to do a tonne of research (& looking in the wrong places) and also means that you can identify anyone providing incorrect information and inform them of that and the correct information.

Lets not forget, none of the committee members recieve any training regarding sexual health provisions and issues, police hate crime reporting training, equality & diversity training, mental health training etc... at best all the committee get is a half-decent handover about running events and how to kind of run the society. Research is no substitute for proper training and you are never guarenteed to get the right infomation where you look as some sources aren't updated, others are opinion pieces, questionable research and so on.

It's dangerous and unwise to mislead anyone into thinking that you have in depth knowledge that you don't have and declare yourself the ultimate authority on those issues, but gagging those who do and forcing them to contribute anonymously, when they are the better option for helping and supporting that person and can give a consistent answer almost immediately when asked.

It is better that the society doesn't obstruct any member or any person from accessing the correct information and support, even if it doesn't come from a committee member. It's wrong to disrupt and withold access to information that someone requires like that.

scarymary · Forum Addict

Some fair points. However:

"As for the welfare threads, they were only made totally anonymous and for committee posting only last year, which is more of an ego thing. Personally I'm against that way of operating. Prior to last year you were allowed to post on the welfare threads under ur sign in name to post questions or advice, these posts were then checked by the committee and innacuracies were removed... there were no problems with it and no complaints were raised by members."

I have no idea where you got this idea of "prior to last year you were allowed to post on the welfare threads" thing. I don't know if you were walking around blind, but last years committee (as in the one that just stood down) invented them. If you don't believe me, ask Sally and Emma mase who will show you the minutes of the meeting, and Jeni skell, who implemented them onto the site. "there were no problems" before, because there simply weren't any welfare threads for there to be problems with, so no wonder there weren't any complaints raised with members.....

the committee that created the welfare threads (which i think are an excellent idea) ie. the one which just stood down, naturally made the rules, which are now being contested and is fair enough, but what isn't fair is to claim that they changed the rules without consent, this is simply not true, because, as i mentioned above, and can't stress enough, the committee that just stood down, created the separate welfare section. cool.

"It is better that the society doesn't obstruct any member or any person from accessing the correct information and support, even if it doesn't come from a committee member. It's wrong to disrupt and withold access to information that someone requires like that."

It has been stressed and restressed by several committee members from various years, that if you have any information that you would like to convey, on these threads, do feel free to PM them to the committee, and they will include them in answers. It is true that the committee may not know everything, but they do have a wider access to information than most members, and surely you would rather not run the risk of a society member casually posting false information (as does happen in other threads in the forum, which is why these special threads were created in the first place consequently)

"The best thing for welfare threads is to allow people to post as themselves, as it is easier to moderate as you know who has been posting and what their experience is... such as the medical students who can give accurate information about STI's, members who work for sexual health charities and have had the relevant training and experience to be able to provide sound advice about safe sex, then there's the others who have been heavily involved in LGBT welfare & rights work and have also undergone training on certain issues. It cuts down having to do a tonne of research (& looking in the wrong places) and also means that you can identify anyone providing incorrect information and inform them of that and the correct information."

once again, this doesn't need to happen, as, if members of the society who have information about these things, follow the rules and give the information to the welfare officers so that they can pass it on, there won't be a problem. why is it necessary to identify who is giving what information other than for reasons of self congratulation when they get it wrong?

Also, I don't see why you have complete trust medical students (*student* being the operative word) with peoples welfare, any more than anyone else in the society.

"It was also dodgy how ppl were made to anonly post their contributions or PM them to the welfare officers, who deleted all trace of someone else posting it & put it up as thier own advice without giving anyone else credit for it."

once again, I don't see why credit should be given on a thread that is designed to help people in distress or need. I would have no problem with the committee passing on information that I may have provided.

But in general, I do think it's healthy to question authority, and i'm not looking for a fight, just giving my opinion. my god this is actually the longest post i have ever done, most of them are one word. love xxxxx

-- Edited by scarymary at 17:19, 2008-03-24

Shogg · Posting Addict

This welfare thread ad me thinking. I really don't know my way round the LGBT here, so I ma be asking really dumb questions, so forgive me....

I know there is a coffee time drop in, but is there a physical place that LGBT members can get advice from either committee or counsellors. I know there's a counseling service, but I mean something specifically run by the LGBT for LGBT members?

CrowJake · Forum Addict

Welfare officers are the folks who you would turn to to ask for advice, in coffee or elsewhere. That is something that has, in a way, carried through to the forum. Further, in the society there's a bit of a support network that comes about made of the members. Nobody is trained, but is voted in as representative and are supposed to gather in all your very good welfare info and get that back down and available to the rest of the members... in a hope that, in terms of friendship, better advice is shared.

That's advice... Counselling, however, is different and requires years of study & training. The LGBT would have to pay someone a salary for that to happen, like one-on-one work talking someone through their personal issues and working with them to solve them but also taking a responsibility to doing it right, highly studied and highly regulated.

The society doesn't really have anything like that. As you say though, there is the counselling centre. It's a good question; I'm sure making attempts to have a better dialogue with the counselling centre would be amazing, I'm sure they'd know of ways to do that, or ways of making themselves more LGBT accessible through involvement etc.

(I don't envy the committee, so much work!)

CrowJake · Forum Addict

In addition to current talks on site rules,

I think good advice is something people should be applauded for, I think it'd be excellent to have someone give good advice and for an officer to go "That's some really good advice you've given"... surely that'd encourage a lot of things to get better, and also it'd really feel good to be so appreciated! In anticipation of feeling so welcome I can imagine a lot of people getting a lot MORE good advice from members. I really think encouraging people to be involved in advice giving, especially good advice, would be brilliant for the societies welfare.

Some users might only want replies from officers... in that case the current system provides for them. That as i see it is where the value lies, not in any effort to stop anyone feeling good about giving good advice.

Of course many people may wish it to be the other way round, I suppose it's just a case of committee guessing what more people are going to prefer. Then put it in the rules or provide the option for people to request "[Officers Only]" or something like that in the title of their thread.

An additional niggle is that many threads on the welfare boards are threads about welfare but not requests for help, I don't see how non-response would be preferable for anyone there.

I really think encouraging people to be involved in advice giving, especially good advice, would be brilliant for the societies welfare.

Thanks for clearing up when the welfare threads were started, and the excommittee's decision not changing the posting rules on then-existing threads, important point of info I think.

I also personally would trust a medical student less than a medical graduate on medical issues, as you point out... but I WOULD think they'd have a hell of a lot better access to info than a non-medical student; some of the most valuable sex ed volunteers I work with are med-students because of the knowledge they offer to specific med problems (which a lot of sex ones are).

I do think it's dangerous if advice is removed for being non-anonymous and then copy-pasted as advice from an officer... especially if you've got a problem with claiming credit for advice. Plus I can see where that'd be mucho annoying. It'd be much better to go - "We appreciate the advice you're giving but please respect that this board is meant to be replied to by officers so please send any info you think they're missing in their responses, directly to them."

Being a website mod it does get difficult to not get growly, but you want people to use the site and feel comfortable, so too much aggression for people who are literally trying to help is just shooting yourself in the foot. Having clear site rules and consequences outlined, will in themselves get people to do the right things.

I actually wanted to address the anonymity thing only to find it wasn't even mentioned in the 5 rules! We are going round deleting people's posts - quite aggressive in itself and it's not on board rules.

-- Edited by CrowJake at 00:20, 2008-03-25

Rt hon NickyDyke85 · Lord of the Rings

Maybe that should be added into the forum rules

blondelottie · Gay Lord

Shogg wrote:

This welfare thread ad me thinking. I really don't know my way round the LGBT here, so I ma be asking really dumb questions, so forgive me....

I know there is a coffee time drop in, but is there a physical place that LGBT members can get advice from either committee or counsellors. I know there's a counseling service, but I mean something specifically run by the LGBT for LGBT members?

WoopWoop! this is where our new lovely plan comes in. Nothing is totally finalised yet but we're hoping to clean out the office and have 2 hours (5-7pm) once a week (probably wednesday) in which you can come have a good old chin wag to us privately. We're thinking of leaving the door open when we're free and closed when we're talking to someone. hopefully we won't be left bored up there every week. lol! give me chance to catch up on work though. lol.

Does that answer your question sweetie? It that a good idea or were you thinking something different?

x

Shogg · Posting Addict

No, that's the sort of thing.

I used work with a lot of LGBT counseling groups (quite a while ago) and was responsible for setting up a few for various LGBT groups (amongst lots of other stuff) and just wondered, y'know.

If I can be of any help...

CrowJake · Forum Addict

blondelottie wrote:

WoopWoop! this is where our new lovely plan comes in. Nothing is totally finalised yet but we're hoping to clean out the office and have 2 hours (5-7pm) once a week (probably wednesday) in which you can come have a good old chin wag to us privately. We're thinking of leaving the door open when we're free and closed when we're talking to someone. hopefully we won't be left bored up there every week. lol! give me chance to catch up on work though. lol.

Does that answer your question sweetie? It that a good idea or were you thinking something different?

x

That sounds awesome! Nice stuff!!

blondelottie · Gay Lord

Shogg wrote:

No, that's the sort of thing. I used work with a lot of LGBT counseling groups (quite a while ago) and was responsible for setting up a few for various LGBT groups (amongst lots of other stuff) and just wondered, y'know.

If I can be of any help...

If you'd like to help out gathering info etc that'd be great. If members would like to talk to you that's fine but you have to remember that they often choose to talk to commitee members becasue it has to be confidential. (not saying you wouldn't be but there are restrictions)

Itr would be great if you could get involved as much as possible though. I know I would really appreciate any help. :o)

x

Shogg · Posting Addict

Well, as I said, I'd help out as where needed ad certainly wouldn't want to tread on anyones toes. Certainly, the confidentiality issue is important and that having worked in this field/Student Services for many years, something I'm more than aware of

Not being committee, (not to be honest, not wanting to be) I wouldn't have the protection of the Union nor could I take advantage of the public liability insurance should any advice i gave as an LGBT rep went horribly wrong....so it's best I sit out of the actual advice giving, even though I do have counseling training.

But info gathering, suggestions, a helping hand, all that stuff? Happy to help! Drop us a private message if there's owt you want me to do.....

blondelottie · Gay Lord

you have counselling training? awesome!

Shogg · Posting Addict

Yeah. Bit out of practice, but I have had it

Rt hon NickyDyke85 · Lord of the Rings

Speaking of counselling, it could be an idea to approach the student counselling centre about LGBT issues and their experience/knowledge of them & do some work with them/set up a refferal scheme where u can refer any member that needs it to them.

I think NUS LGBT were looking at this as a possiblity for their grassroots (uni's) and advising them on how to do that.

-- Edited by Rt hon NickyDyke85 at 09:04, 2008-03-31

Shogg · Posting Addict

A good idea. it's not usually too difficult to get level 1 counselling certificates; they don't take long to get. It might be worth the committee looking into doing the level one (which honestly, took about 8 hours. The courses my old Uni did was four 2 hour sessions or a weekend) as a grounding. 90% of the problems you will encounter can be solved by really basic counselling, the other 10% can be referred on.

THe big problem is that you will be open to all sort of abuse if you aren't trained in some capacity. If someone takes advice from a committee member and that advice goes wrong, you'd be liable for all sorts. Where counselling is concerned, you really need to protect yourselves. Of course NOT doing also it puts you in a weird position, as it might seem uncaring if you just shepherd some one straight to the counselling service.

I can't stress what a minefield providing counselling can be. Ultimately worthwhile and a feather in the cap of any LGBT, but you have to make sure sure ready and able.

StuStu · Posting Addict

Right.

As this committee's Communications, I feel like I should have some input on this.

Whilst I may not agree entirely with how things are in the welfare thread, the rules are there for a reason. Members can respond to individual's queries, they just have to relay it through the welfare officer. However, I don't think this is advertised enough as the way advice should be delivered. People see a blanket ban on giving advice and turn away. This shouldn't be the case and I'll endeavour to rehash all that a bit so the whole issue loses the tension and gets a bit friendlier and we serve up the best advice for the people asking for help.

If this argument carries on and isn't solved once the committee reconvene and people talk this through in coffee, then there is the option of having pending anonymous posting. This would mean that anonymous posts could be offered as responses, but would not appear on the forum until they had been checked and oked by myself or a welfare officer. If this was introduced, the whole issue of anonymous vs members would not go away, but at least the advice given would be checked and give a presence outside that of the welfare officer. However, that would be time consuming, potentially unnecessary and quite demanding, but we'll review it and see what happens.

I like the option of having anonymous posting for starting a thread, but personally, don't see the worth in it being compulsory. If people have no qualms with having their request for advice seen to be from them, why should we.

But really, it's Easter, let's enjoy it. All this will be discussed by the committee and will no doubt spill over into coffee hour when we return from the holidays. Until then! Chill pills for all!

Stu

-- Edited by StuStu at 01:56, 2008-04-01