Posted by Larry Hoover on March 16, 2006, at 11:55:46
In reply to Re: Posting more difficult, posted by itsme2003 on March 15, 2006, at 20:52:32
> Larry,
Me2003, I was going to ask you if there wasn't something extra bothering you about this issue, and it came out in your message to Dinah. I understand how brutal the blocking system is. How capricious, and how much it hurts.
I got blocked for getting angry with someone who ignored a DNP request. She should have been blocked for it, but I got blocked for insisting that she honour it. Apparently I was a little over the line, on my insistence. She went unpunished. While I was blocked, she accused me of felony criminal conduct, and other uncivil things. That post sat there for nearly two weeks, until my block ended. It just sat there. When I replied to that post, I worded my rebuttal in such a way as to be blocked again. She called me a criminal, and I questioned her ethics, posting those accusations while she knew I was blocked. I got blocked again. She got nothing, again, even though I retained her uncivil comments by quoting them in my own post, and directly speaking of them.
Don't worry. I get it. I got blocked for agreeing with a person that their post was obnoxious. He said it, so I repeated it. It's called active listening. But here, you have to careful that you don't agree with what a poster says about themselves, if it *could* be taken badly.
Don't worry, I understand your concerns.
> I could live with mandatory trigger alerts at number 6, but I prefer not to.
Forgive me for beating my drum yet again, but my preferences seem more important to me. What happens to me is huge, almost beyond words. You can live with my preferences, but I can't continue to live with yours. Honestly, I can't. I've tried, but I can't.
> How about this:
>
> Dr. Bob could change the post form to include a "possible trigger" checkbox.No. Not "possible". Triggers are triggers. No trivializing language, please.
> It's usage would be voluntary, but GENTLY encouraged. He could display the word "trigger" on the post subject line, or if possible display the topic in red.
There is nothing at all gentle about being triggered. That said, I have no problem with helping write gentle and sensitive "standard warning" messages.
> In addition moderators would have the ability to flag a post as triggering. I guess that after a little education period you would get 60% - 80% or so compliance with voluntary posting.
That's not good enough, for me. I only speak for me, here. I hope others address this issue, too.
A partial solution is an illusion. Yes, reducing the frequency of triggering events is a measurable sign of progress, I suppose, if your thing is all about creating illusions. Yes, I appreciate the efforts required of others. You can create elaborate illusions, and go to a lot of effort, and still fail to address the problem itself. Anything less than full participation in flagging posts does not create the sense of protection that would represent a real solution.
Clearing most of the mines from a minefield would not make me feel safe to walk there. Putting up a sign warning me away from the minefield would.
> In addition, moderators would usually get to posts before most users, so most triggering quotes would only be seen by a few people before they are properly flagged.
Only a few people triggered? Bob's operator is "could". That's the meaning he imposes on all posts right now. That's his threshold operator for civility. It a post could be felt a certain way, it's assumed that it was felt a certain way.
A trigger always could.
> In all, I would assume that this could reduce the number of triggering posts seen by any give user by 90% - 99%. And this could be done with a voluntary system.
So, why not just make it mandatory?
Frankly, I do not believe anything like that 99% success rate is achievable with a voluntary system. Because it is voluntary, even the standards that might be used are virtually of no import. What difference would it make, if someone doesn't care to make the effort?
Instead, a huge task is then put on the shoulders of other people. Moderators or interested Babblers would have to "pick up after" posters who didn't comply? And, that all happens after the fact? An afterthought?
I said it before, and I guess I say it again.....who knows the content of a post better than does the original poster? The least total collective effort towards compliance would come from everyone being responsible for their own post content. Anything else is a huge make-work project, that still doesn't solve the problem.
The solution is forethought. There is no substitute.
> This system could be put into place to see how well it works. A deadline could be set (the end of this year could be a good time, or at least until the end of summer) and if compliance wasn't fairly high, then a mandatory system could be put into place.
And, how would you determine what is sufficient compliance? We already know that triggered people and non-triggered people have different perceptions. Just go to mandatory, with a three-month gentle nudge period. Or something. I don't mind a break-in period at all. I'm looking for something that everyone can agree to. I'm sure we can do this with consideration and caring for ALL BABBLERS.
> Moderators could determine if a post is blatently in violation of whatever guidelines are set up about triggering and mark it as triggering. They should only do this for posts that blatently violate the trigger guidelines. The original poster's judgement should not be overridden in cases where it's on the borderline if the original poster should have flagged the post or not.Okay, but the concept needs a little bit of work. I think "borderline" would have to be explicitly defined. Kind of like what you already did, with those examples. But, we could refine that, because 5 might have been a trigger, with all the four previous statements taken together. You have to be very careful, in selecting the examples you'd want in a FAQ.
> As an aid to education about triggers, moderators could email posters who post blatantly triggering posts without marking them. The email could say something like:
>
> =====
> I am a moderator on the PsychoBabble website.<snippage>
I really don't like the idea of behind the scenes moderation. It has to be overt.
The second thing is, I really take issue with the word "possible" being associated with the word "trigger". It's not okay to say that. Triggers always could (trigger). Not possibly. Always.
>
> There is one implementation detail that I feel I should discuss. Because people often quote other posts, I feel that once a thread has reached the "possible trigger" threshold then every post after that one in the thread should automatically be labeled "possible trigger".I disagree. Threads go all over the place, and triggers come and go. I only want real triggers with labels. I don't want the flag to have its significance diluted in any way. And I want every trigger post flagged, because we have archives too. I mean forward-looking, not going through the archives we already have. But the protection has to go with the individual post, so if it comes up in a google or archive search, it's properly designated.
> That way posters don't have the burden of having to decide if what they are quoting is a possible trigger.
I think that would be a good exercise, myself. Just like the current "pause and reflect before hitting the submit button".
It's a very small burden. Just as "any man can move a mountain....one stone at a time", we collectively can build a mountain, one post at a time. Each poster brings their own stone (the effort expended), and we build sanctuary.
> If that's not possible then at least someone who quotes a post should never be penalized for not indicating a possible trigger if the original quote was not flagged as a possible trigger.
Okay. Fair enough. But, if the first one was, and the trigger part was quoted, then the flag better still be on it.
> And lastly, people should focus on how well the system works, not how much it fails.
Only a non-triggered person could say that. It's the failures that matter. Nothing else does. Only the failures matter.
Weakest link. All of New Orleans flooded, because of a very small failure in the levee system. Only failures matter.
> In other words, if most triggering posts end up being labeled as such, then don't focus on the few that aren't labeled.
Sorry, but that's the only place I do focus. Try it from my eyes, please. Try it on. Back to wheelchairs and ramps. Will anything less than a complete ramp fill the void? 90% isn't good enough, because the solution doesn't come in halves, or portions.
> There will always be some that aren't labeled anyway, and this way we do it with a voluntary system that's not oppressive and tyrannical like the civility system is.
Here, you turn to the other issue. Here, the confound enters directly into your arguments. The weaknesses in the blocking/civility system can also be fixed. Nothing that involves humans is perfect. But that ought not prevent us from setting clear standards of conduct, from which no individual should stray.
I remain aghast that I even have to ask for a clear standard of conduct. That I have to ask for sensitivity to my feelings, the way I am already asked to be sensitive to the feelings of others, in any way my words *could* be taken. I presently give more than I get. I've had that burden all along.
There's been an elephant in the room all along. If that elephant was standing on *your* foot.......
Lar
poster:Larry Hoover
thread:614568
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060225/msgs/620930.html