Posted by SLS on March 18, 2006, at 9:41:07
In reply to Re: Trigger warnings as POLICY » Dinah, posted by gardenergirl on March 17, 2006, at 23:52:26
Hi.
If I may add a few comments: (I guess I just like to here myself type).
I don't seem to be very vulnerable to being triggered by the things I read here, so I cannot truly empathize and identify with those whom are sensitive to them. However, it does seem that it would be nice if those who are triggerable be warned in advance that the post they are about to read will trigger them.
Because there are so many individuals reading posts here, there must be a great many diverse things that will act as triggers for people. I wouldn't know where to begin when creating a list of actionable phraseology to encompass all sensitivities of all individuals. It's only fair that everyone be afforded the same level of safety, right?
I'm trying to think of how such a policy could be employed.
What a mess.
I like GG's approach towards the issue of flagging possibly triggering posts. It should be an evolving process to create a system of trigger warnings. For now, I think a checkbox on the submission form should be made available; the checking of which will add a red flag similar to the yellow and green "new" flags currently employed. I think its use should be made voluntary, although subject to a moderator's comments and referral to a FAQ demonstration. I don't personally know what will trigger everyone here. I don't know how anyone else should be expected to know this either. What is obvious to one person may be elusive to another. Let people flag themselves. Let moderators flag posts. Let readers e-mail and alert moderators of possibly triggering posts. Let moderators comment on triggering posts.
Should readers act as policemen and flag other peoples' posts? I guess you'll have very little choice but to allow it. They could either change the subject line or reply with a flagged "no message" post.
What if someone persists in their use of triggering language along the same thread without flagging their posts despite a moderator's commentary? Red flag the poster for a limited period? Block the poster? What about people who consistently introduce triggering text along multiple threads? What do you do with follow-up posts that contain the triggering text? What is the threshold at which a triggering post becomes uncivil such that even self-flagging is insufficient to avoid administrative action?
Lots more questions to be addressed and pondered, I'm sure. So far, civility seems to be judged using a precision that is afforded by an exacting use of grammar to establish a set of rules as to how one person relates to another. You can't be so precise when judging what constitutes globally triggering content.
There are a lot of good suggestions posted along this thread regarding the methods by which triggering phraseology might be monitored. I have none to offer. However, I would still like to express my impression that the attempt to enforce with blocks a policy against submitting unflagged triggering posts seems like it would involve an unwieldy set of rules and protocols. Keep it simple and voluntary at first with moderators flagging posts and giving commentary along with additional references to a FAQ. See where that leads. Refine policy and implementation as the dynamics of the boards evolve with this new discipline. You wouldn't want too many people "triggered" to leave the community by an abrupt and restrictive change in the way they are to be required to evaluate the triggerability of their own content. Is triggerability a word? I guess it is now.
What a mess.
I guess with time will come clarity.
I hope people continue to offer suggestions. And I hope the doctor "titrates" gradually the construction and implementation of a trigger-warning policy.
- Scott
poster:SLS
thread:614568
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060317/msgs/621624.html