![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 153 to 177 of 412. Go back in thread:
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.
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 15, 2006, at 13:01:58
In reply to Re: Posting more difficult **TRIGGER**, posted by itsme2003 on March 15, 2006, at 12:47:22
I'm on my way out the door, so I'm just going to speak quickly to your example. I agree, 6.
But if 4 is an issue, then I'd hope we'd talk about it. The line I seek is somewhere on that list, certainly. Right now, the line isn't anywhere.
Implementation.....everyone fears the draconian response....blocks. I don't want blocks. I want talks. I trust Babblers to have caring discussions around the issue. Talks, not blocks. But, blocks must still be on the table. Just in case.
Lar
Posted by zenhussy on March 15, 2006, at 13:18:56
In reply to Voluntary vs. Involuntary, posted by Larry Hoover on March 15, 2006, at 12:04:10
Lar,
Have you ever considered putting the energies you put into posting on this site into your healing work? We can only imagine the toll that the considerable efforts you extend to this community take. Your role as advocate for a segment of population of this community appears, by your own admission, to be rather difficult on yourself.
This community is about personal responsibility and we have concerns that your health might be in jeopardy if your enthusiasm and abilities as advocate overshadow your awareness of your own issues and needs.
Only you know the answers for yourself. Keep taking care so that you do what is necessary for your own safety online.>>>Posted by Larry Hoover on March 2, 2006, at 12:39:06
And I've come to the conclusion that I need protection, or I must leave Babble. I care too much about the lives and feelings of other people, that I can't risk many more exposures to these triggers. I just can't.<<<>>>Posted by Larry Hoover on March 8, 2006, at 16:06:27
If I might enter Babble every day, knowing that *every* post around me has at least had the inkling of trigger considered, I can start my day in safety. I want that, because I've never had it before, and it would bring me closer to being unsensitized, like you. All day, I'm not safe, every day. I have to be a certain amount of awake, in the morning, before I come....and I hold my breath, and I start clicking on things, to see which gets me first, my interest, or a trigger. And I want to be like you.Babble is the only source of triggers in my life, almost. It takes its toll.<<<
>>>Posted by Larry Hoover on March 8, 2006, at 20:06:56
I do post to a.s.d.m., but only in an advisory capacity any more. Got rid of the last neanderthal, and things are smooth, for the last while.<<<We're aware that other sites you use and other groups of online "support" are very different than this place and we are curious as to how this particular site is the crux of your triggers when there are many other sites you use that [by different standards of judging] could be considered the wild wild west compared to Dr. Bob's babble playground. You've mentioned that you changed to an advisory capacity over at altdep......why would that not be a possibility here? It appears you found a workable solution for the situation there.........is that at all a possibility here? If not, why? Your ability to problem solve is well known and well documented online.
We'd love to see that happen here if you're willing to continue working towards solutions instead of the halting nature of this thread with the "need to leave" posts. We understand the need to protect oneself. It must be very difficult to be as passionate about a subject and not be able to adequately discuss it due to being triggered....your posts in this thread have made that abundantly clear.
>>>Posted by Larry Hoover on March 8, 2006, at 20:14:50
without me.
I'll look in in a few weeks'/months' time. I'll leave babblemail on.<<<>>>Posted by Larry Hoover on March 9, 2006, at 7:06:36
I *need* to go now.<<<>>>Posted by Larry Hoover on March 9, 2006, at 10:33:13
And, I'm sincere, nothwithstanding that this is maybe the fourth time I've posted similarly, I do need to go.
TTFN,<<<>>>Posted by Larry Hoover on March 15, 2006, at 10:13:21
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.<<<Uncertain as to how this statement jibes with above statement:
">>>Posted by Larry Hoover on March 8, 2006, at 16:06:27
I'm not safe, every day. I have to be a certain amount of awake, in the morning, before I come....and I hold my breath, and I start clicking on things, to see which gets me first, my interest, or a trigger.<<<"Can you see how those two statements could be confusing to outsiders? Any possible explanation you could offer to clarify your meanings?
>>>Posted by Larry Hoover on March 15, 2006, at 12:04:10
Also, 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.<<<>>>Posted by Larry Hoover on March 15, 2006, at 12:41:28
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<<<At least you are still free (unblocked, that is) and willing to share your opinions at this site. Perhaps you could show some gratitude for the ability to post as freely as you do? Few on this site with a record approaching your PBCs, PBSs and blocks would have be given as many opportunities as you've received over the years. Consider yourself fortunate?
Like we stated in sub. line....keep at it Lar! You believe in you and that is enough to change the world.......just figure out whose world you want to change ;) ....and why!
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 15, 2006, at 16:18:12
In reply to Re: amazing efforts put forth!! keep at it!! » Larry Hoover, posted by zenhussy on March 15, 2006, at 13:18:56
> Lar,
>
> Have you ever considered putting the energies you put into posting on this site into your healing work?I do. That's where I get this from.
> We can only imagine the toll that the considerable efforts you extend to this community take. Your role as advocate for a segment of population of this community appears, by your own admission, to be rather difficult on yourself.
It is. I really appreciate being acknowledged for that.
> This community is about personal responsibility and we have concerns that your health might be in jeopardy if your enthusiasm and abilities as advocate overshadow your awareness of your own issues and needs.
I'm fine, thanks. Just came from my counsellor's office.
Babble affords me an opportunity to be aware of my needs. To address them, one needs to observe them.
Had this thread not been in existence, with my considerable word count, I might not have yet become aware of my own fragmented ego. There are more than one me, each quite distinct.
I discovered this, on Sunday.
I know, you already knew. :-)
> Only you know the answers for yourself. Keep taking care so that you do what is necessary for your own safety online.
I'm stronger today than you've ever known me, though far more vulnerable than I've been for a very long time.
Let's not forget, I'm on nine different meds for the pain, and it's not working.
> >>>Posted by Larry Hoover on March 2, 2006, at 12:39:06
> And I've come to the conclusion that I need protection, or I must leave Babble. I care too much about the lives and feelings of other people, that I can't risk many more exposures to these triggers. I just can't.<<<
>
> >>>Posted by Larry Hoover on March 8, 2006, at 16:06:27
> If I might enter Babble every day, knowing that *every* post around me has at least had the inkling of trigger considered, I can start my day in safety. I want that, because I've never had it before, and it would bring me closer to being unsensitized, like you. All day, I'm not safe, every day. I have to be a certain amount of awake, in the morning, before I come....and I hold my breath, and I start clicking on things, to see which gets me first, my interest, or a trigger. And I want to be like you.
>
> Babble is the only source of triggers in my life, almost. It takes its toll.<<<
>
> >>>Posted by Larry Hoover on March 8, 2006, at 20:06:56
> I do post to a.s.d.m., but only in an advisory capacity any more. Got rid of the last neanderthal, and things are smooth, for the last while.<<<> We're aware that other sites you use and other groups of online "support" are very different than this place and we are curious as to how this particular site is the crux of your triggers when there are many other sites you use that [by different standards of judging] could be considered the wild wild west compared to Dr. Bob's babble playground.
Babble offers the illusion of safety. That's all I can say, at this point in time. But it is, no possible doubt, merely an illusion.
> You've mentioned that you changed to an advisory capacity over at altdep......why would that not be a possibility here? It appears you found a workable solution for the situation there.........is that at all a possibility here?
No. This is the solution here. Or not. It's not my decision.
> If not, why? Your ability to problem solve is well known and well documented online.
I really have no comprehension of how I am seen. What is well known about me. <shrug>
> We'd love to see that happen here if you're willing to continue working towards solutions instead of the halting nature of this thread with the "need to leave" posts. We understand the need to protect oneself. It must be very difficult to be as passionate about a subject and not be able to adequately discuss it due to being triggered....your posts in this thread have made that abundantly clear.
Time is not relevant, but for the need to have it. The extent, the duration, are not inherent variables. This issue is timeless, yet I am not.
> >>>Posted by Larry Hoover on March 8, 2006, at 20:14:50
> without me.
> I'll look in in a few weeks'/months' time. I'll leave babblemail on.<<<
>
> >>>Posted by Larry Hoover on March 9, 2006, at 7:06:36
> I *need* to go now.<<<
>
> >>>Posted by Larry Hoover on March 9, 2006, at 10:33:13
> And, I'm sincere, nothwithstanding that this is maybe the fourth time I've posted similarly, I do need to go.
> TTFN,<<<
>
> >>>Posted by Larry Hoover on March 15, 2006, at 10:13:21
> 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.<<<
>
> Uncertain as to how this statement jibes with above statement:
>
> ">>>Posted by Larry Hoover on March 8, 2006, at 16:06:27
> I'm not safe, every day. I have to be a certain amount of awake, in the morning, before I come....and I hold my breath, and I start clicking on things, to see which gets me first, my interest, or a trigger.<<<"Sloppy context on my part. It only takes one landmine to change your life. Babble is a minefield.
> Can you see how those two statements could be confusing to outsiders? Any possible explanation you could offer to clarify your meanings?There is also the issue of individuals. I'd rather not confound this thing. We dare not speak their names.
> >>>Posted by Larry Hoover on March 15, 2006, at 12:04:10
> Also, 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.<<<
>
> >>>Posted by Larry Hoover on March 15, 2006, at 12:41:28
> 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<<<> At least you are still free (unblocked, that is) and willing to share your opinions at this site. Perhaps you could show some gratitude for the ability to post as freely as you do?
I am. You're seeing it.
> Few on this site with a record approaching your PBCs, PBSs and blocks would have be given as many opportunities as you've received over the years. Consider yourself fortunate?
I don't have an opinion.
Maybe you should ask Bob?
> Like we stated in sub. line....keep at it Lar! You believe in you and that is enough to change the world.......just figure out whose world you want to change ;) ....and why!
I am more grateful than you....no, you do appreciate.
Thank you.
<bowing of head>
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 15, 2006, at 16:30:28
In reply to Re: amazing efforts put forth!! keep at it!! » Larry Hoover, posted by zenhussy on March 15, 2006, at 13:18:56
> instead of the halting nature of this thread with the "need to leave" posts. We understand the need to protect oneself.
That's not it at all. I missed this point in my reply to you. I need to attend to me. That's all. I have some very significant things going on, in real life. I can't do two things at the same time, and really, I have spent far too much time this week at Babble.
I have a life. What a concept. ;-)
As to whether I'm back on Babble-break, or I'm Babble-broken, I need someone to tell me which it is to be. But they don't know what it is they need to say, and I don't know what I need to hear. Kewl, eh?
TTFN,
Lar
Posted by itsme2003 on March 15, 2006, at 20:52:32
In reply to Re: Posting more difficult **TRIGGER** » itsme2003, posted by Larry Hoover on March 15, 2006, at 13:01:58
Larry,
I could live with mandatory trigger alerts at number 6, but I prefer not to. How about this:
Dr. Bob could change the post form to include a "possible trigger" checkbox. 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.
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. 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.
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.
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.
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.
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. Your recent post "Post Subject Here" contains material that I and at least one other moderator consider to be possibly triggering (if you don't know what triggering is, click here for more information). Some readers of the board might be triggered by posts of this nature.This type of post is welcomed on PsychoBabble, and since the issue of what might be triggering is somewhat subjective, we leave it up to the poster to make the initial determination of what might be triggering or not. It would be courteous to your fellow users if you would use the "possible trigger" checkbox when you make a post that deals with "Insert category of trigger here." If the original poster of a message doesn't mark it as possibly triggering but at least two moderators feel that it might be triggering then we mark it as a possible trigger and send you an email like this to encourage you to mark posts like this as possibly triggering.
You can review your original post (here). The reason(s) that we thought this post might be triggering is/are (insert reasons here).
The system we have concerning triggering posts is voluntary and we'd like to keep it that way. Please help us do that by marking posts that might be triggering. For some guidance on the types of things that might be triggering click here.
Thanks for your contributions to PsychoBabble. Please continue to post.
=====This is upbeat, educational, non-punitive, kind, and CIVIL. And I think it will work. And users won't feel the shame of being chastised in public.
One area where triggering posts will come from is new users, but that would occur with either a voluntary system or a mandatory one.
If a person is blatantly and repeatedly making triggering posts that can be dealt with through the civility system.
If someone thinks that a post is a possible trigger then they should alert a moderator. They should not post into the thread that they think the original poster should have labeled the post as a possible trigger. In my opinion that would be a direct criticism of the original poster's judgement. I think it should be a violation of the civility rules to post into a thread something like "You should have labeled this as possibly triggering."
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". That way posters don't have the burden of having to decide if what they are quoting is a possible trigger. 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.
And lastly, people should focus on how well the system works, not how much it fails. In other words, if most triggering posts end up being labeled as such, then don't focus on the few that aren't labeled. 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.
Posted by Dinah on March 15, 2006, at 21:24:22
In reply to Re: Posting more difficult, posted by itsme2003 on March 15, 2006, at 20:52:32
I think Dr. Bob currently encourages other posters to post "trigger above" warnings, and I doubt that he would disallow posts that point out what is considered polite in the community concerning trigger warnings. I also doubt that any administrating would be done behind the scenes. Some boards do it that way, but Dr. Bob feels that open administrative decisions are helpful in clarifying the board policies. There is no intent to insult or embarass the poster.
Obviously, I disagree that the current civility system is tyrannical or oppressive. I consider it the reason it's pleasant to post on Babble.
In cases where a new policy is being implemented, public explanations are even more helpful.
Posted by itsme2003 on March 16, 2006, at 2:18:22
In reply to Re: Posting more difficult » itsme2003, posted by Dinah on March 15, 2006, at 21:24:22
Dinah,
Word choice is usually very revealing.
You said
> There is no intent to insult or embarass the poster.Even though there may be no 'intent' what is your opinion of the effect? Do you believe that some or many are embarrassed, feel belittled, insulted, humiliated by the public shaming of the civility system? Of course not everyone does, but plenty of people do. It's clear from lots of posts that I have read that lots of people feel ACTUAL harm from the civility standards which are often imposed to prevent an IMAGINED harm.
Some people go out of their way to be insulting, etc, and they deserve to have a penalty imposed. On the other hand, I've seen lots of penalties imposed here on people who really had no idea that they were doing anything wrong.
Open administration might be a great theory, but truthfully it's broken here. If you took a poll here what do you think the number one problem would be? Is it possible that it would be the civility system?
In the case of posting warnings about possible triggers, assuming that you had a voluntary system, what better way than gentle behind the scenes encouragement toward the desired behavior. To make a spectacle of someone in public about an unintentional infraction of a subjective rule that is skewed against the poster is not the method most likely to produce the desired outcome. And what's more important, getting the desired effect (either being civil or posting a trigger warning) or getting the pleasure of thrashing someone for breaking a rule. The answer to that one is clear here.
Don't get me wrong. I know that this is Dr Bob's playground and he gets to make the rules. And I don't have any problem with that. He does, however, permit free (civil) discourse about most any topic here. I'm choosing to exercise the privilege that he has granted to everyone to come into his yard and tell him that they disagree with him. I've seen quite a few posters come here and disagree with the civility rules and be told by others that if they don't like the rules they can just leave. I feel that I have as much right to stand here and disagree with the civility rules (as long as I'm civil) as anyone else has any right to say anything here. And I'd like to tell you what I think about the people who tell people that they don't have a right, or shouldn't be here if they disagree with the civility rules, except that if I told you what I thought about that I would be violating the civility rules.
In terms of one of your other points, I'm not surprised.
You said:
>Obviously, I disagree that the current civility system is tyrannical or oppressive. I consider it the reason it's pleasant to post on Babble.Let me take a wild guess. I could be wrong, but I think that people who are opposed to the civility system here probably don't get to be moderators. Therefore it would probably be safe to assume that since you are a mod you are in full support of the civility system.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favor of a civility system. It's just the one here is broken. It punishes too many innocent people too harshly. It creates lots of hurt feelings. Those are truths. I've seen people work toward agitating someone then that person gets banned. I've even seen moderators {(self censored to avoid the civility police)} instead of trying to soothe things over.
As far as tyrannical goes, I especially like one definition that I saw:
tyrannical 2. marked by unjust severity or arbitrary behavior. Yep, that about sums it up.
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 16, 2006, at 8:58:06
In reply to Re: Posting more difficult, posted by itsme2003 on March 15, 2006, at 20:52:32
> 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.
That's an interesting idea, which Tamar just mentioned, too:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060225/msgs/620267.html
Like automatic asterisking...
> I HAVE BEEN ON BOARDS THAT HAVE BEEN RUINED BY HAVING THE WORD "TRIGGER" IN ALMOST EVERY POST ON THE BOARD.
I'm curious about that. In what way were they ruined for you?
> In addition moderators would have the ability to flag a post as triggering.
>
> If someone thinks that a post is a possible trigger then they should alert a moderator. They should not post into the thread that they think the original poster should have labeled the post as a possible trigger. In my opinion that would be a direct criticism of the original poster's judgement. I think it should be a violation of the civility rules to post into a thread something like "You should have labeled this as possibly triggering."IMO, it's working OK -- not perfectly, but OK -- now, with anybody being able to add a warning. And I agree, your example response was:
> upbeat, educational, non-punitive, kind, and CIVIL.
>
> itsme2003So I think it could be posted instead of emailed... Thanks for your input on this.
--
> Show me that you hear me, that I am not banging my head against a wall.
>
> Please don't ignore me.
>
> LarI hear you, but I don't agree with you. At least not yet, anyway. That may make me a wall, but it doesn't mean I'm ignoring you. Or don't care about you.
Bob
Posted by Deneb on March 16, 2006, at 9:23:10
In reply to Re: upbeat, educational, non-punitive, kind, CIVIL, posted by Dr. Bob on March 16, 2006, at 8:58:06
> I hear you, but I don't agree with you. At least not yet, anyway. That may make me a wall, but it doesn't mean I'm ignoring you. Or don't care about you.
>
> BobIsn't it great? (((((Larry)))))) ((((((Dr. Bob)))))
Dr. Bob's a caring person! You're so lucky that he wrote that he cares about you. I wish he wrote that to me, but it's okay. At least I know he doesn't not like me and doesn't want me hurt.
Deneb*
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 16, 2006, at 10:22:09
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob cares about you Larry!, posted by Deneb on March 16, 2006, at 9:23:10
> > I hear you, but I don't agree with you. At least not yet, anyway. That may make me a wall, but it doesn't mean I'm ignoring you. Or don't care about you.
> >
> > Bob
>
> Isn't it great? (((((Larry)))))) ((((((Dr. Bob)))))No. I'm sorry. I can't agree with you. I have put many ideas into play in this thread, and I don't consider his reply to me to be anything close to what I expect. I'm very disappointed.
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 16, 2006, at 10:53:27
In reply to Re: upbeat, educational, non-punitive, kind, CIVIL, posted by Dr. Bob on March 16, 2006, at 8:58:06
> > 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.
>
> That's an interesting idea, which Tamar just mentioned, too:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060225/msgs/620267.html
>
> Like automatic asterisking...You can't create a filter good enough, to anticipate the different ways that creativity or expression might show themselves. You are ignoring the clear and explicit criticisms I posted about filters.
> > In addition moderators would have the ability to flag a post as triggering.
> >
> > If someone thinks that a post is a possible trigger then they should alert a moderator. They should not post into the thread that they think the original poster should have labeled the post as a possible trigger. In my opinion that would be a direct criticism of the original poster's judgement. I think it should be a violation of the civility rules to post into a thread something like "You should have labeled this as possibly triggering."
>
> IMO, it's working OK -- not perfectly, but OK -It's not working okay. It's not. The only way you could say this is to ignore me, and eight other people who spoke up.
> - now, with anybody being able to add a warning.
After the landmine went off.
> And I agree, your example response was:
>
> > upbeat, educational, non-punitive, kind, and CIVIL.
> >
> > itsme2003So, what would change if you made trigger notices mandatory, and you did all those other things? I intend to make the whole process upbeat, educational, non-punitive, kind and civil. I have said so, all along.
Your suggestions are not civil, as they do not consider the sensitivity of your audience. By your own definitions, sir, triggering posts are uncivil.
Pray tell me, what is civil about posting triggering content without any warning in the header?
> So I think it could be posted instead of emailed... Thanks for your input on this.
You have ignored my own suggestions entirely.
> --
>
> > Show me that you hear me, that I am not banging my head against a wall.You showed me, all right.
> > Please don't ignore me.
> >
> > Lar
>
> I hear you, but I don't agree with you.You hear me? I see no evidence for that. You already block for what could have been meant, and you are ignoring the effects of what is being said, without adequate notice of the content.
> At least not yet, anyway. That may make me a wall, but it doesn't mean I'm ignoring you. Or don't care about you.
>
> BobSimply saying those few words does not negate the evidence that you are ignoring me.
I repeat, Dr. Bob. I will not let you continue without challenge. The status quo needs a very hard look. You ignore the now embedded issue that people fear your making anything new mandatory, as your existing blocking system creates horrors in people's minds and souls.
Because people fear your blocks, they fear even considering creating sanctuary here. Do you think that making triggering an exception from Poster's Responsibility is a good precedent to set?
"Please be sensitive to the feelings of others, except when you're posting about triggering material. Then, it's every man for himself."
Is that what you want?
I don't propose to make this hard, Bob. I have made many suggestions about how to implement a mandatory flagging system with sensitivity and caring.
Having blocking as a last resort is the only consequence we currently have. Nobody likes blocking. Believe me, I get it. But, just because a rule has teeth, it's not predestined that someone will get bitten.
A partial solution is no solution at all. The solution doesn't come in half measures. Clearing half the mines from a minefield does not render it safe.
Lar
Posted by Gabbix2 on March 16, 2006, at 11:14:39
In reply to Re: upbeat, educational, non-punitive, kind, CIVIL » Dr. Bob, posted by Larry Hoover on March 16, 2006, at 10:53:27
I never thought I'd do that.
But geez, you put up with a lot.
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.