![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 168 to 192 of 412. Go back in thread:
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.
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 16, 2006, at 11:55:46
In reply to Re: Posting more difficult, posted by itsme2003 on March 15, 2006, at 20:52:32
> Larry,
Me2003, I was going to ask you if there wasn't something extra bothering you about this issue, and it came out in your message to Dinah. I understand how brutal the blocking system is. How capricious, and how much it hurts.
I got blocked for getting angry with someone who ignored a DNP request. She should have been blocked for it, but I got blocked for insisting that she honour it. Apparently I was a little over the line, on my insistence. She went unpunished. While I was blocked, she accused me of felony criminal conduct, and other uncivil things. That post sat there for nearly two weeks, until my block ended. It just sat there. When I replied to that post, I worded my rebuttal in such a way as to be blocked again. She called me a criminal, and I questioned her ethics, posting those accusations while she knew I was blocked. I got blocked again. She got nothing, again, even though I retained her uncivil comments by quoting them in my own post, and directly speaking of them.
Don't worry. I get it. I got blocked for agreeing with a person that their post was obnoxious. He said it, so I repeated it. It's called active listening. But here, you have to careful that you don't agree with what a poster says about themselves, if it *could* be taken badly.
Don't worry, I understand your concerns.
> I could live with mandatory trigger alerts at number 6, but I prefer not to.
Forgive me for beating my drum yet again, but my preferences seem more important to me. What happens to me is huge, almost beyond words. You can live with my preferences, but I can't continue to live with yours. Honestly, I can't. I've tried, but I can't.
> How about this:
>
> Dr. Bob could change the post form to include a "possible trigger" checkbox.No. Not "possible". Triggers are triggers. No trivializing language, please.
> It's usage would be voluntary, but GENTLY encouraged. He could display the word "trigger" on the post subject line, or if possible display the topic in red.
There is nothing at all gentle about being triggered. That said, I have no problem with helping write gentle and sensitive "standard warning" messages.
> In addition moderators would have the ability to flag a post as triggering. I guess that after a little education period you would get 60% - 80% or so compliance with voluntary posting.
That's not good enough, for me. I only speak for me, here. I hope others address this issue, too.
A partial solution is an illusion. Yes, reducing the frequency of triggering events is a measurable sign of progress, I suppose, if your thing is all about creating illusions. Yes, I appreciate the efforts required of others. You can create elaborate illusions, and go to a lot of effort, and still fail to address the problem itself. Anything less than full participation in flagging posts does not create the sense of protection that would represent a real solution.
Clearing most of the mines from a minefield would not make me feel safe to walk there. Putting up a sign warning me away from the minefield would.
> In addition, moderators would usually get to posts before most users, so most triggering quotes would only be seen by a few people before they are properly flagged.
Only a few people triggered? Bob's operator is "could". That's the meaning he imposes on all posts right now. That's his threshold operator for civility. It a post could be felt a certain way, it's assumed that it was felt a certain way.
A trigger always could.
> In all, I would assume that this could reduce the number of triggering posts seen by any give user by 90% - 99%. And this could be done with a voluntary system.
So, why not just make it mandatory?
Frankly, I do not believe anything like that 99% success rate is achievable with a voluntary system. Because it is voluntary, even the standards that might be used are virtually of no import. What difference would it make, if someone doesn't care to make the effort?
Instead, a huge task is then put on the shoulders of other people. Moderators or interested Babblers would have to "pick up after" posters who didn't comply? And, that all happens after the fact? An afterthought?
I said it before, and I guess I say it again.....who knows the content of a post better than does the original poster? The least total collective effort towards compliance would come from everyone being responsible for their own post content. Anything else is a huge make-work project, that still doesn't solve the problem.
The solution is forethought. There is no substitute.
> This system could be put into place to see how well it works. A deadline could be set (the end of this year could be a good time, or at least until the end of summer) and if compliance wasn't fairly high, then a mandatory system could be put into place.
And, how would you determine what is sufficient compliance? We already know that triggered people and non-triggered people have different perceptions. Just go to mandatory, with a three-month gentle nudge period. Or something. I don't mind a break-in period at all. I'm looking for something that everyone can agree to. I'm sure we can do this with consideration and caring for ALL BABBLERS.
> Moderators could determine if a post is blatently in violation of whatever guidelines are set up about triggering and mark it as triggering. They should only do this for posts that blatently violate the trigger guidelines. The original poster's judgement should not be overridden in cases where it's on the borderline if the original poster should have flagged the post or not.Okay, but the concept needs a little bit of work. I think "borderline" would have to be explicitly defined. Kind of like what you already did, with those examples. But, we could refine that, because 5 might have been a trigger, with all the four previous statements taken together. You have to be very careful, in selecting the examples you'd want in a FAQ.
> As an aid to education about triggers, moderators could email posters who post blatantly triggering posts without marking them. The email could say something like:
>
> =====
> I am a moderator on the PsychoBabble website.<snippage>
I really don't like the idea of behind the scenes moderation. It has to be overt.
The second thing is, I really take issue with the word "possible" being associated with the word "trigger". It's not okay to say that. Triggers always could (trigger). Not possibly. Always.
>
> There is one implementation detail that I feel I should discuss. Because people often quote other posts, I feel that once a thread has reached the "possible trigger" threshold then every post after that one in the thread should automatically be labeled "possible trigger".I disagree. Threads go all over the place, and triggers come and go. I only want real triggers with labels. I don't want the flag to have its significance diluted in any way. And I want every trigger post flagged, because we have archives too. I mean forward-looking, not going through the archives we already have. But the protection has to go with the individual post, so if it comes up in a google or archive search, it's properly designated.
> That way posters don't have the burden of having to decide if what they are quoting is a possible trigger.
I think that would be a good exercise, myself. Just like the current "pause and reflect before hitting the submit button".
It's a very small burden. Just as "any man can move a mountain....one stone at a time", we collectively can build a mountain, one post at a time. Each poster brings their own stone (the effort expended), and we build sanctuary.
> If that's not possible then at least someone who quotes a post should never be penalized for not indicating a possible trigger if the original quote was not flagged as a possible trigger.
Okay. Fair enough. But, if the first one was, and the trigger part was quoted, then the flag better still be on it.
> And lastly, people should focus on how well the system works, not how much it fails.
Only a non-triggered person could say that. It's the failures that matter. Nothing else does. Only the failures matter.
Weakest link. All of New Orleans flooded, because of a very small failure in the levee system. Only failures matter.
> In other words, if most triggering posts end up being labeled as such, then don't focus on the few that aren't labeled.
Sorry, but that's the only place I do focus. Try it from my eyes, please. Try it on. Back to wheelchairs and ramps. Will anything less than a complete ramp fill the void? 90% isn't good enough, because the solution doesn't come in halves, or portions.
> There will always be some that aren't labeled anyway, and this way we do it with a voluntary system that's not oppressive and tyrannical like the civility system is.
Here, you turn to the other issue. Here, the confound enters directly into your arguments. The weaknesses in the blocking/civility system can also be fixed. Nothing that involves humans is perfect. But that ought not prevent us from setting clear standards of conduct, from which no individual should stray.
I remain aghast that I even have to ask for a clear standard of conduct. That I have to ask for sensitivity to my feelings, the way I am already asked to be sensitive to the feelings of others, in any way my words *could* be taken. I presently give more than I get. I've had that burden all along.
There's been an elephant in the room all along. If that elephant was standing on *your* foot.......
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 16, 2006, at 11:59:24
In reply to ((((Dr. Bob)))), posted by Gabbix2 on March 16, 2006, at 11:14:39
> I never thought I'd do that.
>
> But geez, you put up with a lot.Just for the record, so have I.
Lar
Posted by Gabbix2 on March 16, 2006, at 12:45:42
In reply to Re: ((((Dr. Bob)))), posted by Larry Hoover on March 16, 2006, at 11:59:24
>> Just for the record, so have I.
>
> LarI chose to acknowledge Dr. Bob, because he doesn't make sure everyone knows just how much he goes through.
I wish you'd left that alone. I really do.
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 16, 2006, at 13:43:21
In reply to Re: ((((Dr. Bob)))) » Larry Hoover, posted by Gabbix2 on March 16, 2006, at 12:45:42
> >> Just for the record, so have I.
> >
> > Lar
>
> I chose to acknowledge Dr. Bob, because he doesn't make sure everyone knows just how much he goes through.
>
> I wish you'd left that alone. I really do.Ya. Well.
Getting told off civilly pales in comparison to getting blocked unfairly. If he's going to treat me like that, I'm going to speak to him like this.
I believe that Dr. Bob got into this pickle through his own agency, and I'm not inclined to just drop it. By his own account, he can do what the f*ck he wants. He wants a software solution to a human problem. Sorry. Unacceptable.
I also get ticked off at being ignored. (Yes, some call that a trigger, but that's a different kind.)
I'm trying to fix Babble, and I know my examples better than any.
Nobody forces you to read my posts.
Lar
Posted by gardenergirl on March 16, 2006, at 13:49:55
In reply to Re: Posting more difficult, posted by itsme2003 on March 16, 2006, at 2:18:22
>> 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.
I often struggle with trying to understand how someone can not know they were doing something that was actionable under civility standards when they had just been warned about the same behavior. I always feel a bit sad and frustrated when this happens. And bewildered.
> 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.I think that would impede the learning of the entire community, although I recognize that with my above statement, whether the entire community learns from such posts is not established.
>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.
I think that labelling it as "making a spectacle out of someone" is subjective. It certainly depends a great deal on how that someone takes constructive criticism. Similarly, feeling "thrashed" is subjective and is a personal reaction to a PBC or similar action.
>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 agree that it's a good thing that we can question and discuss the way the site's run. I don't recall anyone being told by administration that they could "just leave". I do recall reading statements to the effect that this site may not be for everyone. Which is quite true. It's impossible for this or any other site to be all things to all people or to be perfectly safe for all people. That's an unreaslistic expectation. However, knowing what is expected as far as behavior is comforting to me. If I know what's expected, I know what I can and can't do, and I can choose to comply or not. If I have questions, I can ask.
>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.
I agree.
> 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.
Thanks for refraining. I likely would be offended if someone told me that I should leave just because I disagreed with someone else here.
>
> 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.First let me clarify your use of the term "moderator". Dr. Bob is the moderator/adminstrator here. He appoints "deputies". We are not moderators. Moderators have more authority and power than deputies. And to become a deputy, one must demonstrate a good understanding of the rules. Whether one agrees with them or not is not necessarily relevant as long as they follow and apply them.
> 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.
I've seen that, too. And I feel disappointed when it keeps happening, and when posters who've experienced it before seem to fall into the same pattern. And soothing is not really a deputy role, although it certainly can be the role of a poster who is also a deputy. Or of any other Babblers.
>Regards,
gg
Posted by gardenergirl on March 16, 2006, at 13:57:48
In reply to Re: ((((Dr. Bob)))) » Gabbix2, posted by Larry Hoover on March 16, 2006, at 13:43:21
Larry,
Deep breaths? Is it time to step away for a short time to give yourself a break? I'm worried about you.gg
Posted by Gabbix2 on March 16, 2006, at 14:18:40
In reply to Re: ((((Dr. Bob)))) » Gabbix2, posted by Larry Hoover on March 16, 2006, at 13:43:21
I agree with GG.
And for now, I ask that you D.N.Post to me.
Just until this Whatever it is.. is over.
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 16, 2006, at 14:24:00
In reply to Lar? » Larry Hoover, posted by gardenergirl on March 16, 2006, at 13:57:48
> Larry,
> Deep breaths? Is it time to step away for a short time to give yourself a break? I'm worried about you.
>
> ggIt's funny. I thought I'd forgiven Dr. Bob. And then, a repeat experience brings it all back.
I would rather have not seen a single word from him, with respect to ignoring my participation in the debate, than have him say the brief few words he did.
Thanks, gg.
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 16, 2006, at 14:25:13
In reply to Lar D.NP please. » Larry Hoover, posted by Gabbix2 on March 16, 2006, at 14:18:40
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 16, 2006, at 14:43:46
In reply to Re: DNP....saved me the trouble (nm), posted by Larry Hoover on March 16, 2006, at 14:25:13
I don't know how to do this without posting to her, so I want it understood that she is under a mutual obligation. It will therefore require mutual consent to restore communication, rather than being left to her sole discretion.
Do Not Post to me, please.
Lar
Posted by thuso on March 16, 2006, at 16:22:56
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...It's a nice idea, but I don't think it would work in this case. The words we're throwing around are too easily used in a sentence that has absolutely nothing to do with anybody's trigger. Perhaps, in a lot of cases, a trigger warning would be necessary, but unless there was a way for a person to manually turn it off, I think you'd get too many false-positives.
Consider the list you guys have been throwing around:
> self-injury
> suicidal intent
> suicide
> self injury
> abuse
> violence
> substance abuseFor example....abuse....I could write a thread on how I abuse my boss' generosity towards me and want to stop (I don't really do that). Where is the trigger there?
And can you imagine how long a list you'd have to come up with if you did the auto-triggering? I really doubt there is anything online that you can pull from like with the auto-asterisking. Heck...look at how much controversy that has caused (e.g. f*rt)...and that is a lot less subjective than these trigger warnings.
I think it would be nice to at least come up with a list of most frequent trigger subjects for the FAQ, but not auto-triggering threads unless there is a manual way to un-trigger a thread.
I hope that all makes sense.
Posted by gardenergirl on March 16, 2006, at 16:29:56
In reply to Re: Lar? » gardenergirl, posted by Larry Hoover on March 16, 2006, at 14:24:00
> I would rather have not seen a single word from him, with respect to ignoring my participation in the debate, than have him say the brief few words he did.Any chance there's some transference going on here? And if so, what can be taken out of the equation to lower the intensity of the feelings? And if not, what can you/are you doing to take care of yourself right now?
I don't need you to answer on the board or even at all. Just wanted to toss this thought out as I had it.
>gg
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 16, 2006, at 16:49:20
In reply to Re: Lar? » Larry Hoover, posted by gardenergirl on March 16, 2006, at 16:29:56
>
> > I would rather have not seen a single word from him, with respect to ignoring my participation in the debate, than have him say the brief few words he did.
>
> Any chance there's some transference going on here?Thanks for the suggestion, but this is all Dr. Bob stuff. You see, when a person is blocked, and let's assume the person feels unfairly so, one of the most critical details is that time is of the essence. Six weeks, or whatever, is ticking away, and he has rendered you powerless to speak to the issue. That is, except for email. And let's say he takes three weeks to get back to you, and he asks some question that he should have already known the answer to.....and it takes three more weeks to hear from him....it's almost worst than being ignored altogether. Every time he enjoins you, he fosters hope. But then, he disappears. He doesn't teel you he's disappearing. He just does. And your block expires, and it's been a complete and utter waste. He hasn't met your need for timely resolution. It is rendered moot, and that is not a resolution. There needs to be a better way than Bob is God and you can take it or leave it. I can't even manage to see him as consistent, let alone fair.
Here, he has literally said to me that he is not ignoring me, yet his attention is anywhere else.
It's mad-making. I thought I forgave him. I was trying to work towards meeting everybody's needs. I do have a vision, guiding me.
There's more than just triggers at play in this thread, and it would be naive and insensitive of me to not note those other issues, also. Yes, I do understand the pain and suffering of blocks. Oh, yes I do.
And he ignored me. Or, better yet, I have no convincing evidence to the contrary.
I dunno. I just dunno.
Zen asked a really important question of me. Why do I put energy into this? At this point, I don't know. I must be nuts, to keep trying.
And, given that......
TTF?
Lar
Posted by itsme2003 on March 16, 2006, at 17:00:45
In reply to Re: upbeat, educational, non-punitive, kind, CIVIL, posted by Dr. Bob on March 16, 2006, at 8:58:06
Dr Bob,
In your last post was the following:
>> 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?
Even though I am educated, intelligent, and articulate I don't know how to answer your question without running afoul of the civility rules. I'll try to give you a terse answer that will at least give you an idea of why I felt that way.
Let's just say that it involves the tyranny of the minority, whining, creative ideas about how anything can be triggering, crying wolf, narcissism trumping content, bullying and controlling behaviors, The Princess And The Pea, some people feeling their problems are more wothy of respect than others, and warning fatigue.
If every post on the board is triggering then what possible benefit could be obtained by warning about each post.
To me, that board had descended into a dysfunctional state and was not doing a good job at its intened purpose because so much energy was wasted on a sideshow.
I see a lot of energy wasted here because of the civility rules, and I would hate to see the waste expanded by having triggering rules that invite some of the same problem areas that I have cited above.
Posted by gardenergirl on March 16, 2006, at 17:05:21
In reply to Re: Lar? » gardenergirl, posted by Larry Hoover on March 16, 2006, at 16:49:20
>It is rendered moot, and that is not a resolution.
Yeah, I know the timeliness of responses is something that others have been bothered by, too, myself included at times.
>
> Here, he has literally said to me that he is not ignoring me, yet his attention is anywhere else.Well, I think we interpret this differently. I think ignoring you would mean you had absolutely no reply. I think what he said was that he disagrees. That's not the same as ignoring you. It doesn't mean he didn't read your posts and consider your views. He may not agree. But I suspect this is not something you and I will agree on, either, as it seems quite personal.
>
> And he ignored me. Or, better yet, I have no convincing evidence to the contrary.Other than his post to you.
I appreciate what you are trying to accomplish here. Is now the best time for you personally to work towards this? Can it be taken up again in a bit? Maybe see if anyone else helps hold the flag for you?
I admit I don't quite "get" the level of intensity I'm feeling in your posts. I do feel it, though.
Please take care,
gg
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.