Posted by Dr. Bob on March 7, 2006, at 23:36:17
In reply to Re: Am I the only one? » Larry Hoover, posted by littleone on March 7, 2006, at 20:40:44
> you would leave it up to us, the sensitive ones, I suppose, to flag, notify, or reply to that failure to warn?
>
> It won't be pretty if I'm the one warning others. I don't want the job. But I'll do it. I'll be in there, in their face.
>
> Instead of self-flagging, you have proposed that I have someone maybe go ahead of me, and screen all the possible posts that I might read? How does that change the barrier to my participation in any substantive way? At the very least, I couldn't be spontaneous, as I'd have to wait until my posts were screened for me.
>
> Dr. Grohol didn't even flinch when he set up his guidelines for his own site. Some content is simply banned outright, deleted if it sneaks in, and other less triggering content must be flagged. It is simple. It works great.
>
> Your site does not permit retroactive flagging. If the first post in a thread is triggering, but has no flag, how can the warning on that post's content even be given?
>
> LarI guess my idea was that the less sensitive ones would go first and the more sensitive ones would follow. The former would protect the latter. And the latter would allow themselves to be protected by being less spontaneous.
Does it matter if the protection comes from me or other posters?
Some posters are already doing this job. Retroactively. Plus, as I mentioned before, retroactive flagging could in fact be an option.
It wouldn't be civil to be too much in someone else's face...
Regarding other sites:
> I can see why the different forums are suited to different people.
> And I can see why some people who don't do so well at one can do much much better at another.
> I think the diversity is good.
> People have more options.http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050628/msgs/526583.html
--
> It's already something many of us do out of consideration of others. And when people don't put warnings on and you stumble across your trigger unexpectedly, well it just destroys you. I guess destroy is the wrong word because you do eventually get back up again, but that's what it feels like at the time. And getting back up again is so hard and emotional and draining and ... well it's just awful.
>
> And all that can be avoided just by having a little warning.
>
> Obviously it won't make you perfectly safe, you'll probably encounter your triggers in other places as well.
>
> And also, to be honest, your suggestion of leaving it up to other readers to flag triggering posts is kind of a kick in the guts. a) it's what happens now, Larry is asking for the warning system to be improved, and b) like Larry says, it's too late to flag a post once it's already dropped you into your hellhole.I think it's great that you and others are taking care of each other. I'm sorry you get hurt in the process. But I'm glad you're not destroyed. A little warning can indeed make a big difference. I agree, no system will guarantee safety. But probably posters are the best judges of whether particular posts need warnings?
The particular improvements I'd like to focus on right now are (1) the red alert idea and (2) some consensus on what in general should be flagged.
> I would suggest:
>
> Suicide trigger
> Self Injury trigger
> Abuse trigger (includes sexual, physical, verbal, ritual abuse)
> Violence trigger
> Substance Abuse trigger
>
> littleoneThanks for working on (2). Before, I mentioned:
> > Self-injury
> > suicidal intent
> > violenceWhat do others think?
Bob
poster:Dr. Bob
thread:614568
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060225/msgs/617322.html