![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 141 to 165 of 412. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dinah on March 9, 2006, at 10:41:32
In reply to Re: I'm deeply sorry., posted by Larry Hoover on March 9, 2006, at 10:33:13
It happens to a lot of us, Lar. I certainly understand.
And Babble *can* be a place for growth in that. Or at least that's been my experience.
Posted by gardenergirl on March 9, 2006, at 10:58:13
In reply to Re: My apologies, fellow Babblers, posted by verne on March 5, 2006, at 11:08:49
I think this is an excellent idea. (Very good example, Verne!) The easier we make it for people to do something, the more likely it will be done.
Whether it's voluntary or mandatory...well, I haven't thought that through. If it becomes mandatory, I'd like to see a great deal more warnings before a block. What number? I don't know.
Also, I thought about setting up a Yahoo group (Open) survey about topics to try to identify the trigger topics most likely to be used. And perhaps if this format is implemented, there could be a category for "other" and then the person can elaborate a bit in the subject line? Is that still do-able, and is it a good idea?
gg
> Perhaps we could have a box or boxes for triggers that we could check on the "Enter Post" screen.
>
> [] self injury
>
> [] physical abuse
>
> [] alcohol or drug use
>
> Perhaps one universal box for triggers on the Enter screen and more specific boxes on the Revise and Submit Post screen.
>
> These additional boxes would be activated if the trigger box on the Enter Post screen were checked, in the same way movie and book links are created on the Submit Post screen with double quotes.
>
> Verne
Posted by verne on March 9, 2006, at 13:28:40
In reply to Re: please rephrase that » Dr. Bob, posted by Larry Hoover on March 9, 2006, at 7:06:36
I'm sorry Larry, I got hysterical last nite. PWD and more looped than usual, after taking an experimental dose of Kanna powder. Part of my diagnosis is histronic personality disorder. (I tend to up the rhetoric)
You're still fine in my book.
verne
Posted by AuntieMel on March 9, 2006, at 13:40:01
In reply to Re: I'm deeply sorry., posted by Larry Hoover on March 9, 2006, at 10:33:13
I usually start with the indignant version, and then when I edit it I take out the snippy bits.
Heaven help me if I hit the wrong button.
-------
"Somewhere, along that path of discussion, I was joined by an indignant version of myself, but I didn't note his arrival. For a period of time, I was speaking with two voices simultaneously, but I, the one I call me, remained unaware of this. The me version would write something, and then I'd go to edit it. And I think that's where the indignant me snuck through, into print. During the edit. Sharp remarks and embellishments, unfiltered."
Posted by Gabbix2 on March 9, 2006, at 14:02:08
In reply to Re: Try it the other way 'round » Larry Hoover, posted by AuntieMel on March 9, 2006, at 13:40:01
> I usually start with the indignant version, and then when I edit it I take out the snippy bits.
>
> Heaven help me if I hit the wrong button.
>Oh geez, you guys edit?
maybe I should try that..
Posted by James K on March 9, 2006, at 14:05:47
In reply to checkboxes, posted by gardenergirl on March 9, 2006, at 10:58:13
I been following all this discussion as it's happened, and would like to weigh in again. Back to Dr. Bob's original suggestion, I like the red letter thing he mentioned way back up better than the getting into the specific issue in boxes. I think the kind of post can be alluded to in the subject line.
What Larry is asking for makes more sense to me as I reflect on it more. By what Larry is asking for, I mean the fact that failure to warn will get warnings that could eventually lead to a block. But I would want a lot of leeway in the judgement calls for administration.
I think basically, it is the being blindsided by something major AND explicit where it wasn't expected and "shouldn't" be. I think it could be looked at as appropriateness as a component of civility.
First off, I think explicitness versus discussion is important. And, appropriate location would be important.
some examples: and the reason I put a trigger warning on this.
I am cutting myself right now. On Politics versus
After our session I felt like cutting. on Psychology.or
I was in the emergency room with blood all over me and obscenities carved in my chest. on Social
versus. I have issues with self injury. on Social.
I think "I'm wasted right this second drinking this and popping that" would be more appropriate on Substance, rather than less. (I realize that's where the people likely to be triggered are, but it's less of a suprise there.) I think that descriptions of bulimia or binging would be more appropriate on Eating and less on Social or Alternative.Half of the poetry on Writing is triggery. I don't know where my thinking is for that yet.
If someone asks about a med side effect on Babble, and the response is "wrist slashing". That's a kick in the butt that isn't fair to anyone.
By the way, most of these negative examples were me, so I'm something of an expert on the subject.
So I think, not censorship, but appropriateness, enforced loosely, but with the teeth of a block once the poster has had the education to really know better. And a check box for red lettering. And still the freedom to say whatever you need to within the existing rules of civility. And an explanation in the FAQ of why this is important to some of the community.
My best current thinking,
James K
Posted by verne on March 9, 2006, at 14:08:05
In reply to Re: Try it the other way 'round » AuntieMel, posted by Gabbix2 on March 9, 2006, at 14:02:08
I put my posts through several drafts to add as much unnecessary punctuation as possible. I also like to work in a few hyphens and horses - live or otherwise.
no horses were harmed in the making of this post.
v
Posted by Dinah on March 9, 2006, at 16:18:41
In reply to Re: Try it the other way 'round » Larry Hoover, posted by AuntieMel on March 9, 2006, at 13:40:01
Me too.
It's a great stress reliever.
Posted by Gabbix2 on March 9, 2006, at 16:36:20
In reply to Re: Try it the other way 'round, posted by verne on March 9, 2006, at 14:08:05
work in a few hyphens and horses - live or otherwise.
>
> no horses were harmed in the making of this post.
>Well, If you're going to put horses in your posts make sure you have a "Trigger" warning.
Oh
Man,that was bad...
Posted by 10derHeart on March 9, 2006, at 16:42:17
In reply to Re: Try it the other way 'round » verne, posted by Gabbix2 on March 9, 2006, at 16:36:20
Posted by Gabbix2 on March 9, 2006, at 17:46:58
In reply to oh Gabbi ^^^^groan^^^^ ;-) (nm) » Gabbix2, posted by 10derHeart on March 9, 2006, at 16:42:17
Posted by gardenergirl on March 9, 2006, at 21:26:12
In reply to Re: Try it the other way 'round » verne, posted by Gabbix2 on March 9, 2006, at 16:36:20
Or will it lead to more groans?
gg
Posted by alesta on March 11, 2006, at 15:07:52
In reply to Am I the only one?, posted by Larry Hoover on March 6, 2006, at 15:26:26
> I feel like I'm all alone, out on a limb. Am I the only one to whom this makes any kind of a difference? I know there are dear souls no longer members of this board, to whom it would have mattered very very much.
>
> You really have no idea how much it matters, folks. It really really matters, and it is so very hard to talk about.
>
> Babble-break? No. Babble-broken.
>
> :-(
>
> Laroh my goodness...admin is like a box of chocolates...:)..but seriously..lar...i don't have enough time or energy to fully approach this whole issue, and i'm really not sure what to say at the moment...but..you're not the only one who has experienced that..i can say that...there have been times when i actually blocked parts of the screen with my hand whenever a particular poster posted. i guess that seems kind of silly :) anyway, i'm not sure if it was a ptsd issue, but i found their post titles potentially threatening to my mental state. they were vivid suicidal descriptions (to me). when i actually requested to the person that they be a bit 'easier' with their thread titles..well, i received no support, and actually one dissenter (is that a word lol)..i felt alone in how i felt...anyway...i hope you are all right. i have enough battles/complications brewing in my life currently, so i need to steer clear of this one for now..umm...must you leave? 'twould be a pity.:) what am i sayin, i ain't around much meself right now. btw, in these posts you are at your most eloquent.:) and passionate! definitely passionate.
aim:)
Posted by Tamar on March 11, 2006, at 20:48:14
In reply to oh Gabbi ^^^^groan^^^^ ;-) (nm) » Gabbix2, posted by 10derHeart on March 9, 2006, at 16:42:17
Took me three days to get it. Boy, am I slow...
Posted by Tamar on March 12, 2006, at 17:51:28
In reply to Re: oh Gabbi ^^^^groan^^^^ ;-) » 10derHeart, posted by Tamar on March 11, 2006, at 20:48:14
I’ve read through most of this and I hope it’s OK if I stick my oar in.
I’ve been involved in the Babble community for about a year and in that time I’ve tried pretty hard to get my head around what it means to be civil and what it means to be supportive and sensitive. I’m not by nature a very civil person but I seem to have managed OK here so far… And learning to work within the civility rules has had a useful impact on my real life relationships. I’m getting better at biting my tongue instead of cursing at people… So I like the culture of safety.
I’m in favour of mandatory trigger warnings. I think it’s more than just a courtesy to other babblers. It seems meaningless to have a requirement to be sensitive to the feelings of others without a requirement to be aware of the consequences of posting triggering material.
I don’t know about others, but I really hate feeling triggered. I’d much rather feel put down or accused, but although there are measures to deal with posters who might post things that could lead me to feel put down or accused, there’s no insistence on warning me of triggering content. And I’m not triggered very often, but when it does happen it takes a piece out of my life. I can spend hours rocking back and forth, unable to communicate with people, unable to distract myself and unable to stop feeling and remembering the pain.
I’ve considered the idea of waiting for other people to insert trigger warnings before I read. However, I don’t think it’s an adequate solution.
TRIGGER FOLLOWS: DO NOT PROCEED UNLESS YOU’RE FEELING UP TO IT.
I remember a few weeks ago reading a very graphic account by a person who had witnessed his partner being sexually assaulted by her father. There was no trigger warning and when I opened the post I was profoundly disturbed. I have some experience of being on the receiving end of sexual violence, and I am learning to deal with the triggers. However, when the subject is suddenly brought into my mind without preparation, I have a very unpleasant and very physical reaction to it. It’s as if I can feel it happening to me all over again. My flesh crawls with the feeling of unwanted touch; I can feel the pain and the humiliation and the fear as if the attack were happening to me again. And at the same time as feeling old feelings, I find myself trying to ward off the new and appalling images from someone else’s life story. It seems to add another dimension to the physical sensation of horror. It takes me a long time to separate the new images from my own memories, and to regain a sense of safety. The post I mentioned above was later given a trigger warning by someone else, but I’d already spent a couple of hours feeling violated.I also don’t think voluntary trigger warnings are the answer. We have a voluntary system at the moment, and in my experience it’s not sufficient. I know that some triggering content will get through in any system, but if trigger warnings are voluntary then people don’t really have to think much about the content of their posts. We have to think about whether the content of our posts is civil; if we also had to think about whether the content was triggering, people would probably be more likely to remember to add the warning. I think the biggest difficulty with a voluntary system is that sometimes people simply don’t know what may trigger others, or perhaps they don’t understand why an account of something in their own life might lead to a disproportionate reaction in someone else. A voluntary system doesn’t address that. I also don’t quite see how a voluntary system is better for the community as a whole than a mandatory system. Would voluntary civility rules be better for the community as a whole?
I don’t think it’s reasonable to live in a world where we try to cut ourselves off from every potential trigger by avoiding certain people or places or contexts. I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect people to wait until every new thread has a reply before deciding it’s safe to read. I think to require this is to ask too much of those of us who get triggered, and it’s also a lot to ask of the rest of the community. To be honest, if the whole Babble community is to take responsibility for trigger warnings, wouldn’t it be simpler for such warnings to be mandatory?
I know it may be hard to agree on what subjects should be accompanied by trigger warnings, and some issues are more obviously triggering than others. No system is perfect and those of us who are triggered may well still be triggered if there is a mandatory system, especially those of us who are triggered by less common triggers (in my case sl*gs). But I still think a mandatory system would make things a little bit safer.
I think if we are required to be sensitive to each other’s feelings in general, then it’s no giant leap to be sensitive to each other’s feelings about triggering content. The civility rules are part of what seems to me to be a wider culture of safety, and I believe mandatory trigger warnings would enhance the sense of safety and would be an improvement on the status quo.
Tamar
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 14, 2006, at 2:02:49
In reply to Trigger warnings (*****violence trigger*****), posted by Tamar on March 12, 2006, at 17:51:28
> We have to think about whether the content of our posts is civil; if we also had to think about whether the content was triggering, people would probably be more likely to remember to add the warning. I think the biggest difficulty with a voluntary system is that sometimes people simply don’t know what may trigger others, or perhaps they don’t understand why an account of something in their own life might lead to a disproportionate reaction in someone else. A voluntary system doesn’t address that. I also don’t quite see how a voluntary system is better for the community as a whole than a mandatory system. Would voluntary civility rules be better for the community as a whole?
Thanks, everyone, this discussion has really helped me to think this through.
I think "mandatory" trigger warnings may sound like a good idea because it would be great if you could rely on triggering posts to be flagged. Like you can rely on all posts to be civil.
But some of you, at least, have seen how hard it is to make civility mandatory. And that's after years of refining the guidelines. As far as triggers, we haven't even agreed yet on whether:
> self-injury
> suicidal intent
> violenceor:
> suicide
> self injury
> abuse
> violence
> substance abuseare the general topics that should be flagged. And then the next question is what specifically about those topics should be considered triggers.
I think we need to be able to spell out more clearly what would count as a trigger before it would be fair to require warnings. In other words, the biggest difficulty with a mandatory system is that sometimes people simply don't know what may trigger others.
It's an interesting question, how well voluntary civility rules would work...
Bob
Posted by Dinah on March 14, 2006, at 13:45:48
In reply to Re: Trigger warnings, posted by Dr. Bob on March 14, 2006, at 2:02:49
That's what I was trying to get at earlier.
At what point would mention of one of the trigger subjects be a trigger.
I have to admit to not having a good grasp on this at all. I'll read a post and think nothing of it, then later see trigger warnings added.
Maybe I watch too much crime drama on TV. Only very graphic depictions trigger me at all.
Posted by Dinah on March 14, 2006, at 13:46:17
In reply to Re: Trigger warnings, posted by Dinah on March 14, 2006, at 13:45:48
Or very poetic and evocative ones.
Posted by Tamar on March 14, 2006, at 15:35:49
In reply to Re: Trigger warnings, posted by Dr. Bob on March 14, 2006, at 2:02:49
> I think "mandatory" trigger warnings may sound like a good idea because it would be great if you could rely on triggering posts to be flagged. Like you can rely on all posts to be civil.
Er… not sure I’m following. Can we in fact rely on all posts to be civil? How do people get blocks if we can rely on all posts to be civil? Or have I missed your point?
> But some of you, at least, have seen how hard it is to make civility mandatory. And that's after years of refining the guidelines.
Indeed. And I suppose if we had mandatory trigger warnings we’d also have to refine the guidelines. But that’s no reason to put it off, in my opinion.
> As far as triggers, we haven't even agreed yet on whether:
>
> > self-injury
> > suicidal intent
> > violence
>
> or:
>
> > suicide
> > self injury
> > abuse
> > violence
> > substance abuseI favour the second list here. But ‘abuse’ would have to be defined, I reckon.
> are the general topics that should be flagged. And then the next question is what specifically about those topics should be considered triggers.
It’s hard to call. Sometimes specific words are particularly emotive. I’d suggest that any post containing words such as suicide, self-injury, rape, incest, child sexual abuse, and alcohol might be subject to mandatory trigger warnings. Maybe other people have other words. I’m not sure it should be a case of everyone listing their most-hated words, but with any luck we should be able to agree on it as a community.
> I think we need to be able to spell out more clearly what would count as a trigger before it would be fair to require warnings. In other words, the biggest difficulty with a mandatory system is that sometimes people simply don't know what may trigger others.
Yes, that’s very true. But it also seems abundantly clear to me that sometimes people don’t know what may lead others to feel accused or put down!
Of course, it’s entirely possible to have a different set of incentives in place for trigger warnings. Maybe more warnings and shorter blocks, if it’s really very difficult for people to know what triggers others. It’s something to think about, anyway.
> It's an interesting question, how well voluntary civility rules would work...
Yes! I suppose it would be a bit more like real life! Not sure if I’d like that… :)
Tamar
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 14, 2006, at 21:45:30
In reply to Re: Trigger warnings » Dr. Bob, posted by Tamar on March 14, 2006, at 15:35:49
> > I think "mandatory" trigger warnings may sound like a good idea because it would be great if you could rely on triggering posts to be flagged. Like you can rely on all posts to be civil.
>
> Er… not sure I’m following. Can we in fact rely on all posts to be civil? ... Or have I missed your point?That was partly my point, just because something's mandatory doesn't mean you can rely on it.
> > But some of you, at least, have seen how hard it is to make civility mandatory. And that's after years of refining the guidelines.
>
> Indeed. And I suppose if we had mandatory trigger warnings we’d also have to refine the guidelines. But that’s no reason to put it off, in my opinion.I do think it's a reason to put off making them mandatory, but it's not a reason to put off starting on guidelines...
> > > suicide
> > > self injury
> > > abuse
> > > violence
> > > substance abuse
>
> I favour the second list here. But ‘abuse’ would have to be defined, I reckon.The original suggestion, by littleone, did specify:
> includes sexual, physical, verbal, ritual abuse
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060225/msgs/617252.html
> I’d suggest that any post containing words such as suicide, self-injury, rape, incest, child sexual abuse, and alcohol might be subject to mandatory trigger warnings. Maybe other people have other words. I’m not sure it should be a case of everyone listing their most-hated words, but with any luck we should be able to agree on it as a community.
OK, that's progress... :-)
Bob
Posted by itsme2003 on March 15, 2006, at 2:14:08
In reply to Re: guidelines, posted by Dr. Bob on March 14, 2006, at 21:45:30
I don't post much here, but I've read thousands of posts. I think that this board is a very valuable resource. Posters usually seem to have a genuine affection for one another and seem generally considerate of each other. The posts here are some of the most intelligent and knowledgeable that I have ever seen on the internet.
Having said that LET ME BEG YOU not to impose any more mandatory posting restrictions. I feel compassion for those people who could be triggered by something contained in a post. I really, really do.
===As Tamar said above===
I think the biggest difficulty with a voluntary system is that sometimes people simply don’t know what may trigger others, or perhaps they don’t understand why an account of something in their own life might lead to a disproportionate reaction in someone else.
=========================I take the same argument and use it in support of not having a mandatory requirement for posting a trigger alert. I think voluntary alerts are adequate. A proponent of trigger notification admits that people may not know what triggers others. If you can't know, how can you hold someone responsible for it.
Even though I think this board has great information, I mostly refrain from posting here now. It would be much worse if you had a mandatory trigger alert requirement.
You might ask why I don't post here much. It's because of those arbitrary and whimsical civility rules. (I don't even know if I can call them arbitrary and whimsical without risking a civility warning -- really!). In real life I am a very courteous, thoughtful person. Here I feel that I (and lots of other people as well) have to tread on eggshells when I post. Of course a lot of the civility penalty flags are thrown for valid fouls, but a lot of them seem to be thrown because someone (the thrower of the flag) got out of bed on the wrong side that day (am I being uncivil here, I truly don't know). Lots of times it seems to me that the person being penalized for being uncivil was trying their best to be civil, then a ref creatively found a way to flag them as being uncivil.
Imagine that you now add triggering to the civility rules. As someone pointed out earlier just about anything could be triggering to someone. It would make posting here much more burdensome. I'd gladly try to use a voluntary system to mark the things that I consider might be triggering. I'd hate to be subjected to a constant nagging because I failed to imagine every possible way that something could be triggering to someone.
I guess that you could divide the users here into two groups. Those who can be triggered or care about being triggered and those who can't really be triggered or don't care about it. I obviously fall into the can't be triggered / don't care group.
I have a technical suggestion for how to resolve this, but I don't know if it could be programmed within your system. Each user could set a flag as part of their registration something like: Notify me of posts that are potentially triggering Yes or No. You could make the default whichever you prefer, although I would recommend that you make the default No. Using this flag you could implement a couple of mechanisms that would satisfy most users' needs here.
First, you could set up a filter that would look for certain words and phrases and if they exist in a message, then you could turn on a flag within that message. Secondly, your moderators could also turn on the flag for any post that wasn't caught by the filters.
You would use that flag to determine how the message was shown. All messages would be shown as they are now to users that have indicated that they don't care about triggering messages. Messages that are not flagged as triggering would be shown normally to the people who do care about triggering. Messages that are flagged as triggering would be shown with the title in red or the word "trigger" pre-pended to the title to the users who care about triggering.
Whichever way you decide to resolve this issue, it's important to me (and probably lots of other users) that if I have indicated that I don't care about triggering that I not be shown the word "trigger", or see the title of the post in red. I HAVE BEEN ON BOARDS THAT HAVE BEEN RUINED BY HAVING THE WORD "TRIGGER" IN ALMOST EVERY POST ON THE BOARD.
Thanks Dr. Bob for your work on this board.
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 15, 2006, at 10:13:21
In reply to Please don't make posting more difficult, posted by itsme2003 on March 15, 2006, at 2:14:08
I'm going to edit hard.
> I feel compassion for those people who could be triggered by something contained in a post. I really, really do.
Then please listen, again, to what is being asked of you. What I propose might possibly never affect you, as an individual poster. I feel like we've drifted off the target to such an extent that a lot of energy is being misdirected.
> You might ask why I don't post here much. It's because of those arbitrary and whimsical civility rules.
Please don't lump this valid issue in with Bob's poorly implimented civility rules. No one but him has ever grasped that he uses the operator "could". {hyperbole} I'm as confused as you are. But, I have/had every intention of making this implementation different than any rule that has come before it. There would be no doubt, when I am through with it. Trust me, the whole process needs another look.
It is a challenging issue to define. I will commit myself to seeing this through, to the satisfaction of all, Babble willing.
> I'd hate to be subjected to a constant nagging because I failed to imagine every possible way that something could be triggering to someone.
I, the main proponent of mandatory flagging, did not ask for that. I asked for protection from core and obvious triggering posts. Believe me, you would not be in doubt of what they are, when I am through with working at each stage of the process. Nor do I believe you would question why I would have them so designated.
Perhaps I was in error, placing the mandatory/voluntary issue first. Let us set that aside, then, and face the other aspects of the challenge directly.
> I obviously fall into the can't be triggered / don't care group.
So obviously, that you didn't even need to say it. Truly, I knew, even before I got to that specific sentence in your post. Not meaning anything negative by it. Just saying.
> First, you could set up a filter that would look for certain words and phrases and if they exist in a message, then you could turn on a flag within that message. Secondly, your moderators could also turn on the flag for any post that wasn't caught by the filters.
The fact that you might even make such an unwieldy suggestion demonstrates to me that you have not grasped what I should have made very clear....I thought I had, but I thought a lot of things about my earlier posts, which have turned out to be in error.
I only seek protection from explicit and graphic depictions of trauma (I'm collapsing all the listed concepts into a single term for convenience of debate).
The mere mention of the word suicide, or cutting, is not triggering to me. Word screening could not possibly target the posts with the vivid depictions in them, without inevitably picking a vast number of false positives, as well. Word screening protocols are the worst possible solution. I'll try to give an illustrative example.
I went through a bout of psychotic depression, in which I was locked into profound suicidal ideation. (No triggers so far). I found that I could not cast my eyes on an object without seeing it as an agent of my own death. (Still not a trigger, by my definition.) I could not look upon a tree, without seeing its branches as places to suspend a rope. (trigger) I could see the nooses hanging from the tree. (trigger)
The keywords suicide and death are not triggers here. Yet branch and rope are, because of the way they are used. Word screening would have flagged the wrong posts, and missed the right ones altogether, unless noose was on the list. I can't even think of how you'd manage words like pills. No word screening protocol considers context. Our brains do, and they do so automatically.
In a typical day, of the hundreds of posts I read, I have never found more than 3 trigger posts. And most days I find none, except when we've had certain individuals among us, or when I'm reading specific boards/threads.
I am not looking for boards awash in red trigger flags. That would quite defeat the purpose. Nor am I looking for anyone to feel like they are in trouble over this. But, without consequences, there is no real protection offered. That is the only reason I seek a mandatory designation. I feel quite safe walking out of the bank with cash in my wallet, confident that the considerations of my peers will keep me from being robbed. But that may only be so because there are policemen, and consequences, backing up my faith, and that of my peers. Robbery still exists, but no other system could keep its incidence as low as it is.
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 15, 2006, at 12:04:10
In reply to Posting more difficult **TRIGGER** » itsme2003, posted by Larry Hoover on March 15, 2006, at 10:13:21
I just reviewed the entire thread to see if there was any sort of concensus or pattern in the way people expressed their opinions about this sole issue, Voluntary vs. Mandatory trigger warnings.
What I did was I tried to give each poster to this thread two summary characteristics. The first was whether or not they themselves get triggered by posts here (according to what they themselves have said in this thread), and the second issue was how they wished to have trigger flags managed within the Babble bureaucracy.
Where I saw a clear description of not being personally triggered, or where I was unsure about individual triggering, I gave then an N (not triggered). Where triggering was clearly a personal issue, I gave them a T (triggered).
Then, I assigned their individual N or T to the two categories, Voluntary or Mandatory trigger warnings. I wanted to see how the members of Babble represented themselves, and this issue.
For example, I am both triggered (T) and I seek mandatory trigger warnings, so my T goes in the Mandatory column.
Where it was not possible to assign a person to Voluntary or Mandatory (some people are on the fence), I assigned both categories to them. Therefore, the total number of "votes" is not the same as the total number of people who expressed an opinion. Bob was not included.
This is just my crude summary, and I may not be perfect with it, but I looked at every post, and recorded the data. Here are the results:
Those who seek Mandatory Trigger Warnings:
9 T votes, and 0 NThose wishing to keep it Voluntary:
6 T votes, and 7 NAlso, I noted that many of the Babblers standing behind Voluntary trigger warnings do so because they hate the existing blocking system. That, in my opinion, is a major confound for this discussion. Some people expressed a desire for Voluntary trigger warnings only because they see blocking itself as already overly punitive, or unfairly imposed. They don't want yet another reason to get blocked, because blocks are themselves triggers.
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 15, 2006, at 12:41:28
In reply to Re: Trigger warnings, posted by Dr. Bob on March 14, 2006, at 2:02:49
> Thanks, everyone, this discussion has really helped me to think this through.
"But I've also been thinking lately that some posters may feel it's unfair. I hold them to rules, but "can do whatever the f*ck I like" myself."
You said it.
> I think "mandatory" trigger warnings may sound like a good idea because it would be great if you could rely on triggering posts to be flagged. Like you can rely on all posts to be civil.
You so confused me, I thought you were speaking for mandatory trigger flags. Would you please not speak in riddles? Give your arguments, please.
> But some of you, at least, have seen how hard it is to make civility mandatory.
It's only hard because of the way *you* do it.
> And that's after years of refining the guidelines.
Only because of the way *you* do it.
> As far as triggers, we haven't even agreed yet on whether:
>
> > self-injury
> > suicidal intent
> > violence
>
> or:
>
> > suicide
> > self injury
> > abuse
> > violence
> > substance abuse
>
> are the general topics that should be flagged.Why didn't you quote my list, Bob? Why didn't you consider my proposal for a FAQ notice?
> And then the next question is what specifically about those topics should be considered triggers.
I spoke to that. Or are you ignoring me? I feel ignored by you.
> I think we need to be able to spell out more clearly what would count as a trigger before it would be fair to require warnings.
Absolutely, and precisely so. I will not allow you to do to others what you did to me. You blocked me for six weeks because a handful of people went off on a tangent in a thread, and decided that you would over-ride the FAQ, and allow "Do Not Post" to be applied without any evidence of harassment. As soon as I learned of it, I obeyed. But you blocked me anyway. As to how I felt about that? 'Triggered' only scratches the surface.
To this day, Bob, you have not included the "Hissy Fit Exception" to the DNP harassment rule, in the FAQ. Nor have you put a "New" flag on the FAQ button, to draw posters' attention to the amendment. Right thinking people do not behave like that.
I have said more than once in this thread that I will see the whole job through. I will not allow you to blind-side another Babbler with rule changes that are not easily understood, properly and fully debated in the open, properly described in the FAQ, and introduced with sensitivity.
I will not let you do that again, if I have any say in the matter.
We have only just begun to work this out. We can do this.
> In other words, the biggest difficulty with a mandatory system is that sometimes people simply don't know what may trigger others.
I think we can make that very clear.
> It's an interesting question, how well voluntary civility rules would work...
>
> BobVoluntary civility rules do not work. Period. What was it like here, before civility?
The protections afforded by civility rules are only as strong as the weakest link in the chain. You can even add strong links, as many as you want, pretty it up and make it fancy with your flags, but the protection remains at the threshold of the weakest link. That's where the focus must be, or you create an illusion of protection.
With respect to triggers, we already have a voluntary system. And it's not enough. Making the existing system fancier is not enough. Show me that you hear me, that I am not banging my head against a wall.
Mandatory flags address the weakest link directly. Nine triggered people asked for mandatory protection. The only non-triggered people who expressed an opinion clearly, voted for voluntary flags. If you are trying to meet a need, you have to listen to those who are needy. The status quo is not enough.
I know how big the task is, but we can do it. I know we can. Don't turn away, just because it's hard. Please don't ignore me.
Lar
Posted by itsme2003 on March 15, 2006, at 12:47:22
In reply to Posting more difficult **TRIGGER** » itsme2003, posted by Larry Hoover on March 15, 2006, at 10:13:21
Larry,
Firstly I want to say that I hold you in high regard because of the very knowledgable posts that you make regarding dietary supplements and related topics.
I only want to reply to one of your points. You said
>I, the main proponent of mandatory flagging, did not ask for that [...imagine every possible way that something could be triggering to someone]. I asked for protection from core and obvious triggering posts. Believe me, you would not be in doubt of what they are, when I am through with working at each stage of the process. Nor do I believe you would question why I would have them so designated.
I truly think that the devil in the details could easily get out of hand here. I have no doubt that you would put a lot of work into this and come up with a good set of guidelines. The problem is that once you start down this road, the most likely end will be the lowest common denominator -- in this case requiring alerting about any imaginable possible triggers.
Suppose you proposed just a simple guideline based on what you said above such as "...protection from explicit and graphic depictions of trauma." That might work for you and for lots of users, but I think that others here would feel that did not adequately protect them from their triggers.
I could live with a one-sentence mandatory guideline based on the "...protection from explicit and graphic depictions of trauma." I do have one major condition on that, however. I feel that it is essential that in ambiguous cases, the presumption is that the poster has obeyed the rules. I feel that in the case of the civility rules the presumption is the opposite -- if someone can imagine a way that a statment could be viewed uncivally then it is considered uncivil. Here the presumption of innocence in ambiguous cases really must lie with the poster.
** Possible Triggers ahead **
Consider the following sequence:
1) Someone died in a house one block from me the other day.
2) He died of a gunshot wound.
3) I read in the paper that he was shot in the chest.
4) And that he was found in a pool of blood.
5) The newspaper said police were investigating. I had a neighbor tell me that this person lost his job several months ago and moved back in with his parents. The neighbor said that this case was a suicide.
6) The neighbor said that this person's girlfriend had broken up with him earlier in the week. The person waited until his parents were gone, then he took his father's pistol and shot himself in the chest. His parents returned to the house later and they were the ones to find him in a pool of blood.
This is a true story. I have arranged it in the order of least graphic and traumatic to most graphic and traumatic. Reasonable people would disagree about what is the first number that should trigger a trigger warning. In my opinion, only number 6 should require a trigger warning. Other people might want a trigger warning at number 4 (or even earlier). My request is that since reasonable people would disagree about where the trigger point should be, and since some (or many) reasonable people would place the trigger point at number 6, then number 6 should be the trigger point and anything less should not require a trigger warning.
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.