![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 25. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by justyourlaugh on August 18, 2005, at 23:36:29
i am hurt everytime i stumble apon a post that is filled with death...
where are the "triggers"...i want to avoid posts that make me dizzy with repulsion...dizzy with rememberance?..i want to hate..not entire boards..
what about a "trigger" board?
i do not like little surprises hidden between humour and social banter..
anythoughts of a safe posting area where we leave "lables" at the door..
we could call it "jokes and weather"..
or "candy and lollipops"!
j
Posted by AuntieMel on August 19, 2005, at 8:35:04
In reply to triggers...and administration..., posted by justyourlaugh on August 18, 2005, at 23:36:29
Don't you think there should be something in the civility rules *requiring* the word "trigger" in the subject line on certain topics?
For the most part the honor system has worked and people will do it once it is explained. And other poaters are pretty good at putting **trigger above** afterwards as a warning.
But what if a person has had this explained and requested several times and continues. Wouldn't an official "Please be civil" get the point across better?
Posted by Nickengland on August 19, 2005, at 9:23:11
In reply to triggers...and administration..., posted by justyourlaugh on August 18, 2005, at 23:36:29
Are you talking about 'triggers' within the administration board?...just wondered because of your subject title..
I understand what your saying I think it makes sense, if thats what you would like to avoid. How do you difine what is a trigger though for someone? as for somone else it may not be one? Its kinda like you'll never actually know whats contained within a message until you open it up and read it. I see you mention death though, i guess posts with those types of messages it would be easy to have a rule to contain 'trigger' within the message..
Theres one thing i'm quite interested in which may not be directly related to this, but perhaps it kind of is. This board isnt for support and education. I can understand the education part. But I don't understand why in administration it isnt a 'supportive' board like the rest of the boards. If people were to support each other more in here, then maybe things would run more smoothly?....Or is the board not for support for a specific reason to see how behaviour can be seen without the supportive means?...or do I think too much? lol
^^^^ Thats was kind of a general comment justyourlaugh...not directly wrriten towards yourself.
Kind regards
Nick
Posted by AuntieMel on August 19, 2005, at 10:59:37
In reply to Re: triggers...and administration..., posted by Nickengland on August 19, 2005, at 9:23:11
I think she is talking about the other boards - and a way to administrate this - or enforce having people put the keyword "trigger" in the subject line. But I think it should apply to admin also.
It can be quite troubling to be on a board (social, meds, etc) and open up a post that refers to something that you have a strong emotional reaction to. Putting the word "trigger" in the subject give a person warning. Then they can either choose not to read it or at least prepare themselve that reading it might be difficult.
There are several things that most people would agree are triggers. If you would like I can babblemail you what they are.
Posted by Nickengland on August 19, 2005, at 11:58:08
In reply to Re: triggers...and administration... » Nickengland, posted by AuntieMel on August 19, 2005, at 10:59:37
Hi Aunt Mel,
Thanks for the offer of the babblemail of examples of possibles triggers, I am aware of what a trigger is...thanks for the suggestion though :-)
Like you say there are serveral things that most people would agree are triggers...like major triggers for want of a better word. I was thinking along the lines of the more minor triggers, (for want of a beter word again if you get what I mean) those ones some people who may diagree on whether they would be a trigger or not. Therefore if you didn't put the word 'trigger' in the subject title, you could get a PBC, in theory. Basically I would of thought you'd need specific guldlines for what is a trigger in the FAQ's as so then to know when to add the word trigger and to avoid confusion if and when a PBC was issued because you didn't type the word 'trigger'..and that would be uncivil....but on the other hand the actual message you wrote would not be considered uncivil, its only uncivil becasue you did have the word trigger, you understand what I mean?
To the several things that most people would agree are trigger, maybe there is also a grey area, certain subjects are not clear with black and white, as to what is a trigger and what is not. In that grey area there could be serveral things which people would possiibly disagree on whether they are triggers?...or maybe i'm wrong. If you had clear guildlines though, i guess thats where that grey area could be cleared up, if the trigger rule was/is to come into play.
Kind regards
Nick
Posted by ClearSkies on August 19, 2005, at 13:06:36
In reply to Re: triggers...and administration... » AuntieMel, posted by Nickengland on August 19, 2005, at 11:58:08
> Basically I would of thought you'd need specific guldlines for what is a trigger in the FAQ's as so then to know when to add the word trigger and to avoid confusion if and when a PBC was issued because you didn't type the word 'trigger'..and that would be uncivil....but on the other hand the actual message you wrote would not be considered uncivil, its only uncivil becasue you did have the word trigger, you understand what I mean?
>
> To the several things that most people would agree are trigger, maybe there is also a grey area, certain subjects are not clear with black and white, as to what is a trigger and what is not. In that grey area there could be serveral things which people would possiibly disagree on whether they are triggers?...or maybe i'm wrong. If you had clear guildlines though, i guess thats where that grey area could be cleared up, if the trigger rule was/is to come into play.
>I think that having guidelines in the FAQs about requiring the word *trigger* in the subject line of posts with delicate subjects; and having those subjects spelled out precisely in the FAQ, would make many people feel safer here. It's good to know ahead what posts are more likely to upset someone with a warning like that.
ClearSkies
Posted by Nickengland on August 19, 2005, at 13:20:06
In reply to Re: triggers...and administration... » Nickengland, posted by ClearSkies on August 19, 2005, at 13:06:36
Hi Clearskies...did you see how bad my spelling was in that message? ..that is definately a topamax side effect lol
I just re-read what I posted and my spelling was awful, I do appolgise if any of what I wrote sounded confusing due to letters not being placed on the ends of words :-O
>I think that having guidelines in the FAQs about requiring the word *trigger* in the subject line of posts with delicate subjects; and having those subjects spelled out precisely in the FAQ, would make many people feel safer here. It's good to know ahead what posts are more likely to upset someone with a warning like that.
I totally agree with you..
Kind regards
Nick
Posted by Dinah on August 19, 2005, at 13:26:06
In reply to Re: triggers...and administration... » ClearSkies, posted by Nickengland on August 19, 2005, at 13:20:06
But it is sort of difficult to figure out what everyone's triggers are. There are times when I just figure I should put "trigger" in all my subject lines.
Also, if someone comes here in clear distress, putting trigger in their subject line might not occur to them.
I sort of hate making rules for everything. Can't the same thing be done more gently from other posters than a big stick approach from Dr. Bob?
Posted by Nickengland on August 19, 2005, at 14:01:54
In reply to Re: triggers...and administration..., posted by Dinah on August 19, 2005, at 13:26:06
Yes this is what I mean by a grey area. There are examples, but to be perfectly honest i think there are many, many example which could be "triggers" and then even more examples determining if that is a trigger to any 1 specific person. You could end up with lots of posts having Trigger in the heading, out of fear of recieiving a PBC.
Looking at it from another angle as well...someone forgets to put trigger in their heading, purely because the nature of the post they are wiriting is distrssing to them and in the event of rules being made that person gets blocked?...because maybe afew weeks ago they recieved a PBC for an entiely different reason.
For me personally I open every message and if trigger is wirtten, I open it anyway. But I understand people that would like to have a trigger rule. I can see it from both sides.
Kind regards
Nick
Ps Dinah ~ if Dr Bob was away or something like that, and if for example you was to agree that a rule should be made...can you make it happen?
Posted by Dinah on August 19, 2005, at 14:07:07
In reply to Re: triggers...and administration... » Dinah, posted by Nickengland on August 19, 2005, at 14:01:54
Nope. Deputies can't make rules.
Posted by Toph on August 19, 2005, at 16:45:54
In reply to Re: triggers...and administration..., posted by Dinah on August 19, 2005, at 13:26:06
I agree that triggers are far too subjective to regulate. Suicide, for example, is a universally designated trigger, yet that subject could be discussed in an empirical or didactic way that might not trigger even the most sensitive reader. For me personally the topic of infidelity stirs up painful emotions though I would never expect someone on the Relationships Board to trigger a post on such this subject. At best, we can only hope that people are polite enough to use triggers, but mandating it requires too much speculation on the unknown reactions of others.
Posted by AuntieMel on August 19, 2005, at 17:02:21
In reply to Re: triggers...and administration... » Dinah, posted by Toph on August 19, 2005, at 16:45:54
Posted by henrietta on August 19, 2005, at 19:32:40
In reply to triggers...and administration..., posted by justyourlaugh on August 18, 2005, at 23:36:29
Perhaps the site's name should be changed to
Trigger.
Posted by henrietta on August 19, 2005, at 19:36:30
In reply to Re: triggers...and administration..., posted by henrietta on August 19, 2005, at 19:32:40
Better yet, how about:
Triggers 'n Stuff
Posted by alexandra_k on August 19, 2005, at 22:00:20
In reply to Re: triggers...and administration..., posted by henrietta on August 19, 2005, at 19:36:30
heh heh
Posted by justyourlaugh on August 20, 2005, at 16:07:51
In reply to Re: triggers...and administration... » Nickengland, posted by Dinah on August 19, 2005, at 14:07:07
maybe.."lollipop" headings..
warning readers about lighthearted fluffiness..perhaps humourous..perhaps a pumkin muffin extravaganza!
j
Posted by chemist on August 20, 2005, at 22:45:04
In reply to Re: triggers...and administration..., posted by justyourlaugh on August 20, 2005, at 16:07:51
or perhaps there is a better way?
like not putting it in /mnt?
i expected better work.
disappointed, chemist
Posted by Toph on August 20, 2005, at 23:12:25
In reply to Re: Hey - glad to see ya (nm) » Toph, posted by AuntieMel on August 19, 2005, at 17:02:21
Posted by justyourlaugh on August 21, 2005, at 0:33:47
In reply to Re: triggers...and administration... » justyourlaugh, posted by chemist on August 20, 2005, at 22:45:04
mnt? ..
better work?
disappointed?
i am so way left field on this one..
i will not cry and tell if you would like to babble mail me..
help me on this one chemist..
j
Posted by Dinah on August 21, 2005, at 9:54:10
In reply to Re: triggers...and administration..., posted by Dinah on August 19, 2005, at 13:26:06
Hasn't peer pressure been largely effective?
I hate to see new rules, or Dr. Bob getting involved in sensitive discussions, for the few times when reminders haven't worked. If someone finds themselves frequently triggered by posts from someone who chooses not to use trigger warnings, perhaps the best recourse is to not open those posts. If it's someone new or someone who doesn't trigger often, I think a friendly reminder from a fellow poster or inserting a trigger warning would be way less invasive than Dr. Bob getting involved.
Posted by 10derHeart on August 21, 2005, at 17:32:54
In reply to Re: triggers...and administration..., posted by Dinah on August 21, 2005, at 9:54:10
I agree we can probably continue to *police* ourselves on this one. Seems yet another rule would be cumbersome at best, and maybe even impossible to craft for the reasons already discussed.
I try to do this already.
I'd be willing to step up my *unofficial vigilence,* if you know what I mean.
(Today's one of those days where *I* hardly know what I mean! brain fog...)I read a LOT of posts. And I'm not easily triggered by any topic. Even if I am, I can usually move past it quickly enough to insert a warning in the thread on behalf of others. Domestic violence is probably the only one I really have to pause over and regain control of myself....but even that's manageable for me now.
But, obviously I'm only one poster. I only regularly read about 5 boards. And I do sleep, eat, leave my computer/Babble occasionally...;-) Maybe other posters who generally feel they can handle most sensitive subjects can be extra-watchful and proactive for a while?
Step up the education and peer pressure a bit?
Posted by Gabbix2 on August 21, 2005, at 17:41:25
In reply to Re: triggers...and administration..., posted by justyourlaugh on August 20, 2005, at 16:07:51
> maybe.."lollipop" headings..
> warning readers about lighthearted fluffiness..perhaps humourous..perhaps a pumkin muffin extravaganza!
> jTrigger happy?
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 22, 2005, at 0:12:23
In reply to Re: triggers...and administration... » Dinah, posted by 10derHeart on August 21, 2005, at 17:32:54
> I agree we can probably continue to *police* ourselves on this one.
I think I'd prefer that, too.
> I try to do this already.
>
> I'd be willing to step up my *unofficial vigilence,* if you know what I mean.
>
> I read a LOT of posts. And I'm not easily triggered by any topic. Even if I am, I can usually move past it quickly enough to insert a warning in the thread on behalf of others.That would be great, thanks!
Bob
Posted by chemist on August 25, 2005, at 3:35:44
In reply to cant get around it.. » chemist, posted by justyourlaugh on August 21, 2005, at 0:33:47
> mnt? ..
> better work?
> disappointed?
> i am so way left field on this one..
> i will not cry and tell if you would like to babble mail me..
> help me on this one chemist..
> jhello there, jyl...a series of very strange events during the last month or so has resulted in the loss of grammatical control in many PBers...not to mention a universal obsession with celexa and lamictal...and jeans and t-shirts, of course.
the triggers being discussed in this thread are, perhaps, in reference to things involving socket clients, tcp, bind, and events (at least), assuming i have not completely lost control of my senses. i lost a partition table but it returned. my senses are another matter.
don't believe everything you hear. i haven't, for over a year now.
more soon.
all the best, chemist
Posted by justyourlaugh on August 28, 2005, at 17:02:07
In reply to Re: cant get around it.. » justyourlaugh, posted by chemist on August 25, 2005, at 3:35:44
my bad...
i try to express myself while being brief..
i miss alot of importance in posts because it is hard to find the pins point..
thanks for responding.
j
This is the end of the 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.