![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 211 to 235 of 412. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dinah on March 17, 2006, at 23:47:54
In reply to Re: Trigger warnings as POLICY, posted by gardenergirl on March 17, 2006, at 23:43:22
If Dr. Bob can do it, that would seem to be a good idea. Would it sort of be like "add name of previous poster" or "no message" in degree of difficulty? Or more like the "report this post" button that seems to be a high degree of difficulty.
Posted by gardenergirl on March 17, 2006, at 23:52:26
In reply to Re: Trigger warnings as POLICY » gardenergirl, posted by Dinah on March 17, 2006, at 23:47:54
You mean the one that's so difficult it doesn't exist yet? ;)
I was imagining it as being sort of like the Amazon links...a series of checkboxes for maybe the "big 5" (just making that up, didn't count the list) subjects. I think someone actually mocked up what it might look like in a previous post in this thread.
gg
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 18, 2006, at 8:38:11
In reply to My brain hurts, posted by Larry Hoover on March 17, 2006, at 22:54:56
Sometimes the pain is so bad, I can't think. I'm on nine meds for pain, and it's not working. Last night I couldn't string two thoughts together, and I'm sorry to anybody who tried to make sense of what I was rambling on about.
I can't apologize to that other party, because that's illegal here, but I would if I could. I am concerned about her, not about me.
I intended to post a post more like this one, last night, but I found myself incapable of doing so. Again, mea culpa.
The points I was trying to bring out:1. Hair-splitting arguments indicate bad rules have been made. I intended my first post re: violation of the DNP to draw attention to the hair-splitting issue.
2. In cases of hair-splitting, I would hope that the penalties incurred, if any, would be equally as thin. 24-hour "chillin'" blocks ought to be invoked, if any penalty is to be invoked at all. Anything more than that, is uncivil. (More on incivility in a later post, Bob willing.) So, I meant the two posts to be considered together. One, the rule is bad. Two, the usual penalties are unfair.
The first resort ought to be clarification. Civility is about manners. An opportunity to clarify is mannerly. Clarification can be invoked by either party, in a mannerly discussion.
3. For clarification's sake, my subject line which included the phrase "saved me the trouble" contains ellipsis, and ought explicitly to have said, "that saved me the trouble".
4. I had intended to impose a "cooling off" DNP of my own (my only option, presently), and only upon a moment's reflection did I realize that by not explicitly asking for a mutual DNP, I was not going to obtain the results I desired. So, I clarified in the next post, made immediately following the former one.
Why is all this even at issue?
I've been studying the administrative procedures at great depth, because even though I consider myself to be an intelligent and well-read person, I struggle to comprehend the implementations used here. I read a lot of law. I read a lot. And nowhere on the planet am I more mystified, generally, than I am here, when I try to negotiate *these* administrative matters.
I'd like a second look at pretty much everything we do, with respect to blocks. I'm not asking to change everything. I'm asking for another look. I saw my opportunity to use an example right before our eyes. I didn't anticipate a bad drug reaction, and my subsequent incapacity. I'm sorry (Babble at large).
Back to DNPs, explicitly.The rule was originally drafted to specifically address harassment. As I recall, one poster felt that another poster was "following her around", and commenting on every post she made. All were civil posts, but they became unwelcome.
Since that time, I have clear recollections of the rule being used only twice in that way.
There were discussions about whether a DNP might be a reasonable way to deal with hurt feelings, too. Civil posts can still be provocative, after all. I've studied the discussions in absolute thoroughness, and: a) I saw no evidence of a concensus; b) I saw no evidence that the matter had been properly drafted as a proposal to put to the members of Babble overtly, for further discussion; c) the FAQ was not ammended; and, d) I saw no evidence that Bob had even made a final decision, unless he wishes question marks to become a mark of certainty.
In brief: a) cliques ought not to change rules, and not tell anybody; and b) if (a), nobody should be penalized because of (a).
Apart from all of those issues, using DNP requests to create "chillin' zones" is bad policy. I think it fosters unhealthy coping strategies, and serves to create mountains out of molehills.
A better alternative, to manage these episodes of hurt feelings, would be to implement an ignore function. Here's why.
1. Under the current policy, the only way to create a cooling off zone is to make a public scene out of the situation. That is the antithesis to civility. An ignore button strategy would be invisible to other people. Respecting privacy is a major component of civility.
2. It requires the externalization of locus of control. An external locus of control is other people or outside agencies being responsible for a person's well-being, or absence thereof. It's like laying blame, or showing fault. In contrast, an internal locus of control places the individual himself as the primary agent of responsibility. Crudely, it is "I'll be happier if that other person doesn't do X" vs. "I don't want to see any of that person's posts".
3. People may simply disagree on any topic, but that's nobody's fault. However, managing one's feelings about a disagreement is one individual's responsibility. DNP, used for chilling, reverses the onus. E.g., the fact that I have external plumbing does not make ME responsible for another individual's reactions to men in general. Yet, a DNP could do so.
Lar
Posted by SLS on March 18, 2006, at 9:41:07
In reply to Re: Trigger warnings as POLICY » Dinah, posted by gardenergirl on March 17, 2006, at 23:52:26
Hi.
If I may add a few comments: (I guess I just like to here myself type).
I don't seem to be very vulnerable to being triggered by the things I read here, so I cannot truly empathize and identify with those whom are sensitive to them. However, it does seem that it would be nice if those who are triggerable be warned in advance that the post they are about to read will trigger them.
Because there are so many individuals reading posts here, there must be a great many diverse things that will act as triggers for people. I wouldn't know where to begin when creating a list of actionable phraseology to encompass all sensitivities of all individuals. It's only fair that everyone be afforded the same level of safety, right?
I'm trying to think of how such a policy could be employed.
What a mess.
I like GG's approach towards the issue of flagging possibly triggering posts. It should be an evolving process to create a system of trigger warnings. For now, I think a checkbox on the submission form should be made available; the checking of which will add a red flag similar to the yellow and green "new" flags currently employed. I think its use should be made voluntary, although subject to a moderator's comments and referral to a FAQ demonstration. I don't personally know what will trigger everyone here. I don't know how anyone else should be expected to know this either. What is obvious to one person may be elusive to another. Let people flag themselves. Let moderators flag posts. Let readers e-mail and alert moderators of possibly triggering posts. Let moderators comment on triggering posts.
Should readers act as policemen and flag other peoples' posts? I guess you'll have very little choice but to allow it. They could either change the subject line or reply with a flagged "no message" post.
What if someone persists in their use of triggering language along the same thread without flagging their posts despite a moderator's commentary? Red flag the poster for a limited period? Block the poster? What about people who consistently introduce triggering text along multiple threads? What do you do with follow-up posts that contain the triggering text? What is the threshold at which a triggering post becomes uncivil such that even self-flagging is insufficient to avoid administrative action?
Lots more questions to be addressed and pondered, I'm sure. So far, civility seems to be judged using a precision that is afforded by an exacting use of grammar to establish a set of rules as to how one person relates to another. You can't be so precise when judging what constitutes globally triggering content.
There are a lot of good suggestions posted along this thread regarding the methods by which triggering phraseology might be monitored. I have none to offer. However, I would still like to express my impression that the attempt to enforce with blocks a policy against submitting unflagged triggering posts seems like it would involve an unwieldy set of rules and protocols. Keep it simple and voluntary at first with moderators flagging posts and giving commentary along with additional references to a FAQ. See where that leads. Refine policy and implementation as the dynamics of the boards evolve with this new discipline. You wouldn't want too many people "triggered" to leave the community by an abrupt and restrictive change in the way they are to be required to evaluate the triggerability of their own content. Is triggerability a word? I guess it is now.
What a mess.
I guess with time will come clarity.
I hope people continue to offer suggestions. And I hope the doctor "titrates" gradually the construction and implementation of a trigger-warning policy.
- Scott
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 18, 2006, at 11:29:01
In reply to Re: Trigger warnings as POLICY, posted by SLS on March 18, 2006, at 9:41:07
> Hi.
Thanks for weighing in.
Would it be fair to say that this sentence offers a summary of your concerns?
> However, I would still like to express my impression that the attempt to enforce with blocks a policy against submitting unflagged triggering posts seems like it would involve an unwieldy set of rules and protocols.
I am truly concerned that the confounding effect of people's reactions to the current blocking regime quite overwhelms the issue of triggers itself.
I cannot foresee a comfortable (to all) new policy for triggers which would not itself require a re-examination of blocking policy, too.
> So far, civility seems to be judged using a precision that is afforded by an exacting use of grammar to establish a set of rules as to how one person relates to another.
I am less generous. The existing system is arbitrary and capricious, notwithstanding recent attempts to loosen things up a little bit.
I really must get my thoughts on civility properly organized, so that I can then refer to them more effectively.....
Lar
Posted by SLS on March 18, 2006, at 15:38:42
In reply to Re: Trigger warnings as POLICY » SLS, posted by Larry Hoover on March 18, 2006, at 11:29:01
Hi Larry.
> Would it be fair to say that this sentence offers a summary of your concerns?
> > However, I would still like to express my impression that the attempt to enforce with blocks a policy against submitting unflagged triggering posts seems like it would involve an unwieldy set of rules and protocols.If self-flagging is to be mandatory and involve blocking as a sanction for non-compliance, many questions arise for me.
I guess I really shouldn't direct so much concern towards the logistical problems of implementing a policy. That is more the responsibility of those administering the site.
It is more important that the posting rules and guidelines for determining what qualifies as a trigger be absolutely clear and coherent to prospective posters so that less is left up to an undefined series of subjective interpretations performed by a host of different moderators; each, perhaps, judging content using their own standards, which are influenced by personal sensitivities.
> I am truly concerned that the confounding effect of people's reactions to the current blocking regime quite overwhelms the issue of triggers itself.
People are naturally going to feel choked by the prospect of yet more posting restrictions.
> I cannot foresee a comfortable (to all) new policy for triggers which would not itself require a re-examination of blocking policy, too.You are right. I look forward to reading your thoughts on the matter
> > So far, civility seems to be judged using a precision that is afforded by an exacting use of grammar to establish a set of rules as to how one person relates to another.
> I am less generous. The existing system is arbitrary and capricious, notwithstanding recent attempts to loosen things up a little bit.I guess we see things differently. I don't think it is the system itself that is arbitrary or capricious in how civility is administered. If anything, such would be the result of the behaviors of the administrators whom enforce it. Perhaps I would agree with you if I were to know your reasons for feeling this way. For right now, though, I think the first hurdle is to decide whether a system of self-moderation should be made voluntary or, rather, mandatory and sanctionable.
> I really must get my thoughts on civility properly organized, so that I can then refer to them more effectively.....
I guess civility is at the crux of the issue.
It seems obvious to me that there are at least two degrees of triggering content: that which is triggering and civil, and that which is triggering and uncivil. That which is uncivil should be sanctioned using the same protocol that is to be employed for civility in general. I'm glad I won't be responsible for determining the difference.
Keep it simple?
I have some ideas floating around in my head regarding the moderating of triggering posts - most of which have already been suggested along this thread. I just can't verbalize them right now. It creates a real mess in my head when I ponder the enforcement of a mandatory self-flagging of triggering posts.
Perhaps self-flagging should be left voluntary. Administration could review and flag posts. Members could alert administration via the administration board or using e-mail. Once guideline for civility are established and included in the FAQ, triggering posts that are deemed uncivil can be sanctioned accordingly.
Unfortunately, once an unflagged trigger is read, the damage is already done. Reporting the post to administration accomplishes very little once the reporter is triggered. One possible sanction for recidivism is to flag the poster for a period of time instead of using a posting block, as long as the content is deemed civil.
Perhaps there should be a "caveat emptor" posture taken by administration towards the submission of posts that are potentially triggering just as there is such a posture taken for the veracity of information and recommendations offered by members in other contexts.
Not being easily triggerable, I may not be sensitive enough to the needs of others to be making suggestions regarding this issue. I hope I have not offended anyone.
- Scott
Posted by Gabbix2 on March 19, 2006, at 1:03:56
In reply to Re: Trigger warnings as POLICY » Larry Hoover, posted by SLS on March 18, 2006, at 15:38:42
I think the checkboxes are a great idea.
The more I think about it the more I really dislike the idea of mandatory trigger warnings.
I think most people use them really sensitively.
And when Itsme2003 pointed out the sideshow aspect, That will IMO almost surely happen."This person got penalized, this person didn't, this is just as triggering as that" and i think the point may end up getting lost in the technicalities.
Sometimes I think when rules like this are implemented they become their own morality and exclusive to areas such as this board.
People get upset over things they wouldn't have previously, because it's become ingrained but only in this isolated space.
Then there's the question of how many people will be triggered that no trigger warning was used, when the actual subject didn't trigger them at all.
Then again, I've never seen babble as a "minefield"
I envy the way people just talked back and forth not so long ago. Yes there were civility rules, but it seemed to me to be so much more normal, and I don't see any less hurt now then I did then. Sometimes I think the amount of hurt seems to develop in proportion to the amount of theory saying what one might potentially be hurt by.
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 19, 2006, at 11:55:25
In reply to Re: Trigger warnings as POLICY, posted by Gabbix2 on March 19, 2006, at 1:03:56
>Sometimes I think the amount of hurt seems to develop in proportion to the amount of theory saying what one might potentially be hurt by.
I see something different.
Frankly, I am hearing pain described, in this thread, that I didn't know about before. There are so many silent but hurting people.
I always thought my own pain around blocks was mine. It only applied to me. So, I had to approach seeking comfort based on my solitary experience. Even if broader principles were at play.
So, I was really trying to stay on the point, the one about triggers. I even asked some people, early in this thread, to do that, to stay on point. I didn't realize that they were.
I'm sensing a groundswell of suppressed emotion around the current blocking system. About people feeling very very hurt.
And I wasn't ready for that. I didn't know just how much silence is already here.
It keeps knocking me off what ought to be a simple progression of talking about ideas, or visions. I get stalled. Because it hurts. Our pain hurts me.
I think people are really dissatisfied with the status quo. That's what I think. But there are so many rational arguments for maintaining any specific system of governance.....people well and truly mourned the fall of communism.....it is bigger than I knew.
Or, I am completely wrong. And from over here, I can't tell the difference right now.
If anyone was pausing while I gathered my thoughts (I did say I had some things to get together, to say them right), it may be a little while before I can do it.
I'm in one of those "I care too much" moments. And, given the subject, time is not relevent. They take as long as they take, methinks.
Lar
Posted by James K on March 20, 2006, at 0:45:42
In reply to Re: Trigger warnings as POLICY, posted by Larry Hoover on March 19, 2006, at 11:55:25
I hope this gets worked out in a way that the important people here can find a way to stick around, and guess what, if you are posting on this admin board, you are an important people. I have to go away because In Real Live, i can't be civil, and I can't accept Triggers. I'm going into a locked hallway where my roommate will wake me up for snoring and I'll lay awake because of his. They will open the door once an hour and stick a flash light in my face because that's hour they were trained in Africa psych tech school.
do you know the feeling of violence? When everything gets quiet and calm? When I come back, I hope to be over that, and I hope I don't feel it on PsychoBabble.Please, this is the best not in real life place I've ever been.
James K
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 20, 2006, at 8:20:31
In reply to Re: Trigger warnings as POLICY, posted by Larry Hoover on March 19, 2006, at 11:55:25
Some inquiries have been made with respect to my mental health. I want to assure you, I fully grasp the significance of what you have been observing. I am not at all naive to the fact that I have episodic outbursts. The thing is, they arise through a triggering process. I've been in therapy for years, and it takes time. Time to grasp a potential conceptual framework for an overarching concept of what is happening (in this case, PTSD from childhood experiences), and more specifically, what precisely occurs when such events arise. What are those outbursts? Where do they come from? Have they relevance to the present circumstance, or are they better said to arise from what some call "old pain"? What is one to do about them, those outbursts? And so on. I've been studying it all for some time now.
For a while now, also, I've been trying to obtain an observer's perspective on *what* goes down *when* one of those outbursts goes down. Memory only takes you so far. You need new, live examples to work with. I started to recognize what a trigger was, and how it opened the doors to ..... I'm not really certain yet, but immaturity is certainly an attribute.....Indignant Lar might be a teenager, or a young man. Not sure yet. I just formally met him, for the first time, when I was speaking to JenStar, a week ago. In the framework I'm learning about, that's an ego state, Indignant Lar. Indignant Lar is working under different rules of conduct. Uses different forms of rhetoric. Unfortunately, he also has access to my full vocabulary. He doesn't know what emotional comforting is. He doesn't know respect. He didn't get any, at all, from either his mother or father. Or at least that's how he remembers it. He's not in a frozen state. He's just growing up at a different pace than the rest of me. Interacting with his environment, when he gets a chance....
But Lar, what has silence got to do with it? You're *anything but* silent.....
You're only seeing the little ones, the little triggers and sequelae. The big ones, you don't see. Little triggers, and there goes Lar again. The big ones? I don't even want to talk about it. More succinctly, I can't talk about it.
I might be slow to come to realization (I don't know how to measure the pace of such things), but once I get it, I feel some faith that I do get it. The cognitive framework is in place. The observer is on his mark. And it's then necessary to bide your time, to await an opportunity to use them. To see what had been merely hypothetical, actually taking place.
Well, I do assure you, I have been very busy with new data streams, arising before your eyes. And understanding now comes rapidly. I've always believed that 90% of the struggle is in figuring out the precise nature of the struggle itself. The job is almost done by the time you figure out what the problem is.
I did not know that I couldn't yet talk about the mere concept of triggers without risking being triggered. You live and you learn. I don't mean to trivialize it. I know it wasn't pretty. Nothing, not one word of this, is meant to deflect responsibility. I've been responsible, for years, for things I didn't comprehend. You don't know what a relief it is to now be responsible for things I do comprehend, instead.
I sent babblemail apologies to those I accosted early on in this thread, and I suspect that there are others yet to go out. If you don't have your babblemail on, I apologized on the board, in less individual fashion. I do understand how unpleasant it is to be around me during those times. I am sorry.
I was ready to just walk away from here, because triggers are embedded here. Once I came to understand that, why on Earth would I stay? Well, it's because the Babble community is very unique and special. It afforded me a chance to do what I needed to do, so that I would perhaps one day minimize, even eliminate, that Lar that has the mouth and vocabulary to take no prisoners.
I was asked about gratitude, and my answer was not understood the way I meant it to be taken. I am grateful, or I wouldn't humiliate myself before you, stubbornly attempting to do that which I have never yet before succeeded at doing. There is a lot at stake here, but you don't really get your hindsight until later, eh? I'd rather have it up front, but that's not the way it all works.
I was not taking on airs to say that I care too much. That is what underlies my mental illness. That is precisely it. I haven't been depressed in years, notwithstanding some rather stressful personal circumstances. I'm in chronic physical pain, but that's not anything beside this. I have PTSD from my childhood, and then, a series of adult experiences each inducing acute PTSD. Really, the one arises from the other, but.....most of the time, I like to see myself as a pretty good guy. Those exceptions, though.... man, they are big exceptions. I know. I'm sorry.
Getting back to the years of therapy....one of the enduring themes of those years was the significance of Internet communities, as they make up a fairly substantial component of my social world. Nothwithstanding the episodic turmoil that occurred, I kept going back, despite knowing what I was likely to find there upon my return. What could explain that? Addiction? Been there, done that, but this isn't that. Boredom? Surprisingly, that's actually closer to the truth than my first thought, addiction. My brain needs things to do. Community? It's really hard to find anybody, in real life, who has more than a passing interest in mental health issues, other than professionals. Convenience? Yes, that too. No, wait. Back up. Community. Oddly enough, in doing the alphabet, seeking the theme to study more fully, I stopped at "C". So far, anyway. D*ckhead starts with a "D".
Communities are collective human synergies. More than the sum of their parts, communities accomplish what individuals cannot. Successful communities provide individuals with a better standard of existence than they could maintain on their own. Successful communities also adapt, to accomodate the demands placed on them.
I erred, at the outset, in confounding what I was presenting to you. I simply could have kept to myself the issue I laid out as "Babble-break or Babble-broken". It's not germane to the trigger flagging issue. It's just a cute phrase that I liked a lot, for my own personal reasons. I never even considered it being seen as emotional blackmail. It's a coincidental truth, and nothing more.
In talking to itsme2003, I realized that y'all don't have the benefit (said with a twinkle in my eye) of the vision I hold inside my own head, because there is an integrated whole there. A package. I have a lot of ideas about how things around here might be better than they are now, and they do come together. Even one of most fervent critics has said something to the effect that despite the passion, it doesn't mean he's wrong. The biggest problem before me, right now, is communicating my ideas more effectively, coherently, and respectfully.
For example, when I say mandatory trigger flagging, I envision the mandatory part being "must consider the validity of trigger flagging" for a particular post before submission, rather than "must meet flagging perfection, on penalty of blocking". Moreover, in my vision, blocks would not even be possible, during a phase-in period. A month? 3 months? Time to talk about it, certainly. Time to practise. Time to refine the FAQ. We do get trolls/people with no intention of abiding by rules, though, so we have to have some kind of fall-back for that. Right now that's blocking, but even that could be reconsidered.
In my eyes, in hindsight, I realize the issue must be approached differently than I began to do. I hope you'll let me try again.
Lar
Posted by muffled on March 20, 2006, at 12:55:48
In reply to Re: Trigger POLICY, posted by Larry Hoover on March 20, 2006, at 8:20:31
Posted by muffled on March 20, 2006, at 12:56:33
In reply to hey ya'll, posted by James K on March 20, 2006, at 0:45:42
Posted by Dinah on March 20, 2006, at 17:07:39
In reply to Re: Trigger POLICY, posted by Larry Hoover on March 20, 2006, at 8:20:31
Lar, what I'm afraid of is that the integrated whole vision in your head is likely to cause you to be angry and hurt if it doesn't coincide with the integrated whole vision in Dr. Bob's head. And he's already said it doesn't.
It seems like a big collision waiting to happen. Because in the end, Babble is Dr. Bob's site and Dr. Bob's vision. We can argue and encourage those things that we think are worth arguing and encouraging. But in the end it's up to him.
And that's as it should be. For as long as he owns and runs this site, and takes responsibility for it. As Dr. Laura says, the power comes with the responsibility. And as it says at the bottom of each page "Owned and operated by Robert Hsiung and not the University of Chicago." And not by posters either.
I hate to see you get hurt, Lar, by expecting more than is possible.
Believe me, Lar. I know of which I speak.
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 20, 2006, at 18:56:28
In reply to Re: Trigger POLICY » Larry Hoover, posted by Dinah on March 20, 2006, at 17:07:39
> I hate to see you get hurt, Lar, by expecting more than is possible.
Yes, thank you, I know.
This may seem obtuse to observers thus far, but I don't want to see Dr. Bob get hurt, either. However, it is his obtuse character that is at issue, ultimately. He will did not discuss things in a civil manner. He is the most uncivil entity in this place. It is his incivility that creates my anger.
It's not about competing visions, in the end. It's about feeling that he is even listening. I can't get there from what he has given me. So, what am I left with?
I don't need to be right. I don't have any presumption that my vision will be acceptable to anyone, let alone Dr. Bob. It would be nice, though, if he deigned to play by his own rules.
Lar
Posted by Dinah on March 20, 2006, at 19:33:59
In reply to Re: Trigger POLICY » Dinah, posted by Larry Hoover on March 20, 2006, at 18:56:28
I know what it's like to want Dr. Bob to reflect back what I'm saying in a way that I recognize that he is understanding me. And it sometimes takes a while to get there. But it is possible if you keep trying.
I trust that Dr. Bob can take care of himself. But I remind you that the civility rules apply to comments about him as well.
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 20, 2006, at 23:17:57
In reply to Re: Trigger POLICY » Larry Hoover, posted by Dinah on March 20, 2006, at 19:33:59
> I know what it's like to want Dr. Bob to reflect back what I'm saying in a way that I recognize that he is understanding me. And it sometimes takes a while to get there. But it is possible if you keep trying.
Do you want copies of the dozens of emails I sent him? His replies, with one sentence of my post quoted, with some inane comment?
> I trust that Dr. Bob can take care of himself. But I remind you that the civility rules apply to comments about him as well.
Certainly. And thank you.
Lar
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 21, 2006, at 1:51:12
In reply to ((((Dr. Bob)))), posted by Gabbix2 on March 16, 2006, at 11:14:39
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 21, 2006, at 3:18:38
In reply to Re: Posting more difficult » itsme2003, posted by Larry Hoover on March 16, 2006, at 11:55:46
> she accused me of felony criminal conduct, and other uncivil things. ... She called me a criminal
> her uncivil comments
Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused. Sorry, but I'm going to block you from posting for 6 weeks again.
But please don't take this personally, this doesn't mean I don't like you or think you're a bad person. And I don't want anything bad to happen to you. In a crisis, please also get help in person. You may also wish to check out a listing compiled by a poster of helpful web pages on coping with crisis at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/psycho-babble-tips/links/Coping_with_crisis_001012507973
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
One possibility is to ask another poster to be your "civility buddy" and preview posts before you submit them.
Follow-ups regarding these issues, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
> 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.
Warning: Larry, this site might be a minefield for you.
> Moderators or interested Babblers would have to "pick up after" posters who didn't comply?
Think of it as Babblers looking out for each other?
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 21, 2006, at 3:19:29
In reply to Re: upbeat, educational, non-punitive, kind, CIVIL » Dr. Bob, posted by thuso on March 16, 2006, at 16:22:56
> > > 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.
>
> 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.I know, there might not be any way to do it automatically, but OTOH, this is a creative group...
> [no] auto-triggering threads unless there is a manual way to un-trigger a thread.
For example, what about that? :-) It would be like turning automatic asterisking off...
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 21, 2006, at 3:19:34
In reply to They were ruined for me because ..., posted by itsme2003 on March 16, 2006, at 17:00:45
> > In what way were they ruined for you?
>
> 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.
>
> 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.Thanks for replying. There seem to be 2 separate issues. First, administrative discussions. Which I agree would probably take place, but which could at least be concentrated here at Admin. And which might not always lead to the outcomes people wanted, but IMO wouldn't necessarily be a waste, either.
> If every post on the board is triggering then what possible benefit could be obtained by warning about each post.
And second, the overuse of warnings would render them unhelpful. I agree, it could go too far in either direction. If there aren't warnings when there should be, it would be nice to be able to add them, and if there are when there shouldn't be, it would be nice to be able to remove them.
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 21, 2006, at 3:19:37
In reply to Re: Trigger warnings as POLICY » AuntieMel, posted by Dinah on March 17, 2006, at 23:21:25
> How about for now, trigger warnings become site policy, strongly encouraged but leaving punishment details (if any) for later.
>
> There could be something in the FAQ describing what a trigger is and why the posts should be flagged.
>
> AuntieMel> That would be kind of good in a lot of ways, in that there would be more community involvement in the evolution of standards.
>
> And if it doesn't work out, Dr. Bob could always adjust things. Which would be easier than reversing a policy written in stone, I think. Or at least it seems that way to me.
>
> DinahI agree, let's move in that direction, but I still think it would be better to start with some sort of guideline -- not written in stone! -- regarding what to consider likely enough to be a trigger to warrant a warning...
Bob
Posted by Dinah on March 21, 2006, at 7:43:35
In reply to Re: Trigger warnings as POLICY, posted by Dr. Bob on March 21, 2006, at 3:19:37
Ok, I'll start with a specific suggestion, to move things along.
I suggest that trigger warnings be site policy for any graphic description of self injury, suicide, physical or sexual abuse. Or any evocative expression of those things or how they make you feel. I know poetry about self injury can be very triggering, in the sense of evoking in others the desire to self injure. "Graphic" of course is up for debate, but imo simple mentions of the words shouldn't be enough. Others' opinions may vary.
I also think there should be warnings attached to any post expressing a desire to self injure or commit suicide, especially if they contain a method. Except maybe for things like "I'm having these pesky suicidal ideations." that don't actually express intent.
Posted by verne on March 21, 2006, at 9:00:45
In reply to Re: Trigger POLICY » Dinah, posted by Larry Hoover on March 20, 2006, at 23:17:57
Larry,
Just imagine you're on a six-week vacation cruise. No more walls to bang your head into or rocks to roll up hill. I envy you.
Meanwhile, I'll be hard at work complaining about the pea beneath the mattress.
take care,
Verne
Posted by AuntieMel on March 21, 2006, at 9:26:54
In reply to Re: blocked for 6 weeks » Larry Hoover, posted by Dr. Bob on March 21, 2006, at 3:18:38
The one-week cooling off blocks you were talking about? It seems that this would be a good time to see if that works.
Posted by Deneb on March 21, 2006, at 10:32:58
In reply to Take Care of Yourself » Larry Hoover, posted by verne on March 21, 2006, at 9:00:45
Hey Lar,
I hope you are okay. It might be a good idea to focus your attention on doing fun things in real life for the next couple of weeks.
Please be well and take care of yourself. You're loved here. We love you Lar. Please stay safe.
Deneb*
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.