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
poster:Larry Hoover
thread:614568
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060225/msgs/620615.html