![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 361 to 385 of 412. Go back in thread:
Posted by corafree on June 7, 2006, at 20:53:01
In reply to Re: Implementation of trigger flags » curtm, posted by Larry Hoover on June 7, 2006, at 12:17:59
>The Psycho board is different than the Social >board, IMHO, both in content and in traffic.
>Lar
My understanding was that the psycho board is the med board.
I feel like I'm going to say something I don't want to say.
love,cf
Posted by Larry Hoover on June 7, 2006, at 22:57:52
In reply to Re: Implementation of trigger flags » Larry Hoover, posted by corafree on June 7, 2006, at 20:53:01
> >The Psycho board is different than the Social >board, IMHO, both in content and in traffic.
>
> >Lar
>
> My understanding was that the psycho board is the med board.Sorry, my bad. Historically, the psychology board was called psycho-psycho-babble. It isn't any more.
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on June 7, 2006, at 23:01:06
In reply to Re: Implementation of trigger flags » gardenergirl, posted by corafree on June 7, 2006, at 20:41:20
> When I saw TRIGGER typed four times it really took me aback.
I didn't even realize I did that, at first. Maybe I was counting, before I broke away?
More, tomorrow. Time for sleep now.
Lar
Posted by corafree on June 8, 2006, at 22:22:07
In reply to Re: Implementation of trigger flags » corafree, posted by Larry Hoover on June 7, 2006, at 23:01:06
Think we were suppose to learn 'counting' in DBT. It would be a distraction technique. Or, maybe I just made that one up as I often was distracted by trying to be distracted.
beammeupbob,cf
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 9, 2006, at 3:18:16
In reply to Re: Implementation of trigger flags » corafree, posted by gardenergirl on June 6, 2006, at 16:00:08
> All Bob needs to do is to enable a function that allows:
> 1. any person to flag their own post
> 2. others to flag posts that got overlooked
>
> The 2nd one could work either of two ways. A deputy could go and add a missing flag. Or, if a threshold number of people click on some notification button of some sort, a flag could be added to the post.
>
> I think Babblers can manage this without any need for administrative sanction, except in the most extraordinary circumstances.
>
> Lar> I agree it's not always easy to know what might be triggering. But I do think that any graphic or detailed account of upsetting things such as violence, suicide, self-harm, abuse, etc. might be more likely to trigger someone, and thus, might be a good rule of thumb for now.
>
> ggWe're making progress! Should we go with the above rule of thumb for now?
(1) is certainly necessary. (2) is more complicated. How about starting with:
2a. someone else posts to the thread, flags their own post, and adds "^ 2" or something like that to their subject line to indicate that the flag is actually for the post that's 2 up
Then later:
2b. anyone could flag the post directly, but only deputies could unflag (and reflag) it
Bob
Posted by Larry Hoover on June 9, 2006, at 8:48:42
In reply to Re: Implementation of trigger flags, posted by Dr. Bob on June 9, 2006, at 3:18:16
> > All Bob needs to do is to enable a function that allows:
> > 1. any person to flag their own post
> > 2. others to flag posts that got overlooked
> >
> > The 2nd one could work either of two ways. A deputy could go and add a missing flag. Or, if a threshold number of people click on some notification button of some sort, a flag could be added to the post.
> >
> > I think Babblers can manage this without any need for administrative sanction, except in the most extraordinary circumstances.
> >
> > Lar
>
> > I agree it's not always easy to know what might be triggering. But I do think that any graphic or detailed account of upsetting things such as violence, suicide, self-harm, abuse, etc. might be more likely to trigger someone, and thus, might be a good rule of thumb for now.
> >
> > gg
>
> We're making progress! Should we go with the above rule of thumb for now?
>
> (1) is certainly necessary. (2) is more complicated. How about starting with:
>
> 2a. someone else posts to the thread, flags their own post, and adds "^ 2" or something like that to their subject line to indicate that the flag is actually for the post that's 2 up
>
> Then later:
>
> 2b. anyone could flag the post directly, but only deputies could unflag (and reflag) it
>
> BobGood to see you back, Dr. Bob. Especially so when you come back with such a glorious response.
My only question is, why not 2a and 2b simultaneously? The first person to find an unflagged trigger post can certainly post a subject line warning, to serve in the time between when the post is first noticed, and when a concensus forms on whether that belief is commonly held.
I don't think there's anything there that is too complicated to implement the entire package. It could be that making gradual changes is much harder on people, Bob, because they just get finished making one change, and it's on to another one. And different posting or reading styles would have people in different belief systems, depending on how frequently they read posts or specific boards at Babble.
I can imagine this exchange:
"But I thought the new rule was......."
"No. No. That was last week. We were just doing that for a while. The new rule is that you...."Lar
Posted by MidnightBlue on June 9, 2006, at 10:57:47
In reply to Re: Implementation of trigger flags, posted by Dr. Bob on June 9, 2006, at 3:18:16
Dr. Bob,
I still like the idea of each person being asked to check a box if they think their post has a trigger in it. Just like right now we have to confirm our post before it is posted.
Ideally, a computer program would be written that could note possible trigger content. A message would pop up asking the poster if their message might be trigger material. This gives the writer time to reflect and consider the gravity of what they have written.
The poster could still check "no" if they felt the computer had picked up on something that was not trigger material. However, if you or a deputy disagrees, the decision could be overridden and a flag would be posted.
I do not think this should call for a block or other disciplinarly action unless the person repeatedly does this to try to get around the system.
I agree with the description of graphic violence, suicide threats, etc. That is a good place to start. It can always be fine tuned later.
MidnightBlue
Posted by Larry Hoover on June 9, 2006, at 11:49:43
In reply to Re: Implementation of trigger flags » Dr. Bob, posted by MidnightBlue on June 9, 2006, at 10:57:47
Lay it down.
Let's go.
Lar
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 10, 2006, at 1:29:35
In reply to Re: Implementation of trigger flags » Dr. Bob, posted by MidnightBlue on June 9, 2006, at 10:57:47
> My only question is, why not 2a and 2b simultaneously?
>
> LarBecause 2b is more complicated to implement. :-)
> Ideally, a computer program would be written that could note possible trigger content.
>
> MidnightBlueI agree, that would be ideal. But it's especially hard if the program isn't looking just for words like "suicide", but for graphic or detailed accounts...
Bob
Posted by MidnightBlue on June 10, 2006, at 10:45:06
In reply to Re: Implementation of trigger flags, posted by Dr. Bob on June 10, 2006, at 1:29:35
Dr. Bob,
Well, couldn't we start with a program that just looks for those words like suicide, etc? It might not catch everything, but it would be a big help. That is one reason why the writer should be able to over ride the program by saying it was NOT a flagable post. To help weed out false positives.
I think the whole idea here is to help the person writing the message think about what they are saying and the effect it might have on others.
MidnightBlue
> I agree, that would be ideal. But it's especially hard if the program isn't looking just for words like "suicide", but for graphic or detailed accounts...
>
> Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 11, 2006, at 19:02:22
In reply to Re: Implementation of trigger flags » Dr. Bob, posted by MidnightBlue on June 10, 2006, at 10:45:06
> Well, couldn't we start with a program that just looks for those words like suicide, etc?
We could, but if it "cries wolf" all the time, people might start ignoring it...
Bob
Posted by MidnightBlue on June 11, 2006, at 20:52:40
In reply to Re: Implementation of trigger flags, posted by Dr. Bob on June 11, 2006, at 19:02:22
Dr. Bob,
I understand that problem, but we have to start somewhere don't we! Maybe I'm not expressing myself clearly.
The computer program would look for trigger words like "cutting," "suicide" etc. and then would ask the person who is posting the message IF they think the message they have just written contains a trigger. For example, this message would elicit a response from the computer because it contains the word "suicide."
The computer would then ask me if I thought the message I had written could trigger someone else. After thinking about it, I realize this is not a description of how to commit suicide or a threat to action, but an academic discussion. I mark the box "NO" and the message is posted without a flag.
However, a HIDDEN flag would be triggered to alert a deputy or you that a message had been posted that MIGHT contain a trigger according to the pre-selected word list. No one else on the boards would see a flag if I chose the "no" option. And yes, that leaves a window of time when someone could stumble on a triggering post, but that happens all the time now.
Now let's say I chose the "no" option and in your opinion it is indeed a post that would likely trigger someone. Then you (or a deputy) would manually flag that post. At that time I can think it would be appropriate for you or the deputy to write a note saying that most people would find that kind of post triggering. This would not cause someone to be blocked unless they are blatantly trying to inflame or beat the system.
This may not be a perfect, but I suspect there would be far fewer visible flags then you think, primarily because the writer can choose to override the system and eliminate false hits. Of course, you and the deputies would be able to see all those times the writer has opted out, but it would not be a distraction to the average reader or poster.
Dr. Bob I see this as a learning experience. It is a way to help people see the power behind their words. It helps a person become responsible for what they say. I think this is really what Babble is all about! Helping people respond to each other and seek each other's help in a way that is not harmful to others.
Thanks for allowing me the opportunity to express myself on this subject.
MidnightBlue
Posted by muffled on June 11, 2006, at 21:26:20
In reply to Re: Implementation of trigger flags, posted by MidnightBlue on June 11, 2006, at 20:52:40
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 12, 2006, at 4:23:59
In reply to Re: Implementation of trigger flags, posted by MidnightBlue on June 11, 2006, at 20:52:40
> The computer program would look for trigger words like "cutting," "suicide" etc. and then would ask the person who is posting the message IF they think the message they have just written contains a trigger.
>
> This may not be a perfect, but I suspect there would be far fewer visible flags then you thinkI was worried more about how often the program would ask than how often there would be a visible flag. If the program only asks at certain times, people might (1) always answer no if it asks a lot when it shouldn't, (2) always answer yes because they think that's being suggested, or (3) assume their post doesn't need to be flagged if they're not asked.
Why not just always have a box that lets a poster flag their post?
Bob
Posted by MidnightBlue on June 12, 2006, at 10:44:25
In reply to Re: looking for trigger words, posted by Dr. Bob on June 12, 2006, at 4:23:59
Dr. Bob,You bring up some good points. I'm not sure how to prevent someone from always answering "yes" or "no." But that could happen even if you just have a box they can check. In some ways that happens now. Some people write "TRIGGER" on a post even if it isn't really trigger material because they are worried about offending someone. Others never write "trigger" no matter how graphic the post!
It is the second group I am most concerned about. People who don't stop to think OR don't realize the gravity of their words. The computer program would actually be a teaching tool that would encourage self-restraint and insight. There have been occasions where people have commented that they didn't realize just how bad the situation was until another poster responded to their post.
I do think it is a good idea to allow a poster to check a trigger box even if the computer program doesn't "recommend" it. Some posts will always slip through the cracks. That way a conscientious poster can flag something they feel should have been caught by the program. And the others, well, that is why we have you and deputies, right? :-)
I would suggest starting with a short list of trigger words and adding or modifying them as needed.
MidnightBlue
> I was worried more about how often the program would ask than how often there would be a visible flag. If the program only asks at certain times, people might (1) always answer no if it asks a lot when it shouldn't, (2) always answer yes because they think that's being suggested, or (3) assume their post doesn't need to be flagged if they're not asked.
>
> Why not just always have a box that lets a poster flag their post?
>
> Bob
Posted by Larry Hoover on June 12, 2006, at 11:08:49
In reply to Re: looking for trigger words » Dr. Bob, posted by MidnightBlue on June 12, 2006, at 10:44:25
> I do think it is a good idea to allow a poster to check a trigger box even if the computer program doesn't "recommend" it. Some posts will always slip through the cracks. That way a conscientious poster can flag something they feel should have been caught by the program. And the others, well, that is why we have you and deputies, right? :-)
>
> I would suggest starting with a short list of trigger words and adding or modifying them as needed.
>
> MidnightBlueA beautiful job, arguing that. Way to go. Way to go!
The option must be on every page in the posting window, to flag as a trigger. But the default is *not* flagged.
Failure to flag will be a teaching offense.
Lar
Posted by llrrrpp on June 12, 2006, at 20:31:55
In reply to Re: looking for trigger words » MidnightBlue, posted by Larry Hoover on June 12, 2006, at 11:08:49
I err on the side of caution, for 2 reasons.
1) I'm very sensitive right now
2) I don't want to upset nice people.
I think better to err on the side of caution.
First, sensitive folks like me are pretty wary already. at least we will know not to read certain threads until we are in a good, strong state of mind.
Second, folks who are unaware of the triggering thing will learn more about what are potentially disrupting and devastating topics. Just because they are not personally sensitive doesn't mean that they won't be thoughtful when considering other's feelings. Supportive people who care about supporting others need to learn about this stuff, to help them be supportive.
sorry for inarticulation (blah blah)
I'm in favor of Mid-Blues suggestions for implementation.
-L
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 12, 2006, at 21:54:21
In reply to Re: looking for trigger words » Dr. Bob, posted by MidnightBlue on June 12, 2006, at 10:44:25
> The computer program would actually be a teaching tool
I agree, a computer program could be, but if it suggests flagging based on words, then wouldn't it teach flagging based on words?
> I would suggest starting with a short list of trigger words and adding or modifying them as needed.
If we did, which ones should we start with?
Bob
Posted by Larry Hoover on June 13, 2006, at 16:51:12
In reply to Re: looking for trigger words, posted by Dr. Bob on June 12, 2006, at 21:54:21
> > The computer program would actually be a teaching tool
>
> I agree, a computer program could be, but if it suggests flagging based on words, then wouldn't it teach flagging based on words?
>
> > I would suggest starting with a short list of trigger words and adding or modifying them as needed.
>
> If we did, which ones should we start with?
>
> BobI think using words as a filter is not very efficient or effective, compared to the effort required to make it work.
I prefer simple, manual flagging. We could never anticipate all examples of evocative writing, and we could not ever avoid false positives. False positives would just confuse and weaken the whole enterprise.
Lar
Posted by Gabbi~G on June 13, 2006, at 17:23:33
In reply to Re: Implementation of trigger flags » Gabbi~G, posted by AuntieMel on June 7, 2006, at 8:52:39
Well... maybe I'm still quite unsure okay with it in theory, but after seeing what happened with Cora's thread, I'm concerned that even with a subject heading obviously indicating unpleasant subject matter people might still be upset that it didn't spell out the word *trigger*
I re read her post and did not find it at all graphic (as it was described)And I'm concerned that sometimes there will be more indignation over whether or not it said trigger, than upset caused by the actual subject matter. This draws attention to those claiming that they are triggered by the post and away from the poster.
That could be really painful considering these are likely posts that written during a particularly difficult time for the author.And I think it's up to Bob whether or not it becomes a blockable offence.
Posted by AuntieMel on June 14, 2006, at 8:09:08
In reply to Re: Implementation of trigger flags » AuntieMel, posted by Gabbi~G on June 13, 2006, at 17:23:33
I don't know where cora's thread is. I looked but couldn't find one.
And Larry, above, agreed with Midnight Blue about it not being blockable, so I think we still have consensus.
Posted by 10derHeart on June 14, 2006, at 10:18:08
In reply to Re: Implementation of trigger flags » Gabbi~G, posted by AuntieMel on June 14, 2006, at 8:09:08
Mel,
Cora's thread is on Social.. The board archived, so it's here:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20060604/msgs/652665.html
The post is hard for me to read. I'll try to say something more articulate about that later. gotta run...
Posted by Kath on June 14, 2006, at 17:15:17
In reply to Petition to add trigger flag. please sign below, posted by llrrrpp on June 4, 2006, at 15:24:34
Didn't see my post after 'refreshing'. Wanted to make sure my 'vote' was in.
Kath
Posted by MidnightBlue on June 14, 2006, at 21:59:14
In reply to Re: looking for trigger words, posted by Dr. Bob on June 12, 2006, at 21:54:21
> I agree, a computer program could be, but if it suggests flagging based on words, then wouldn't it teach flagging based on words
In my opinion, the program would be teaching self-restraint. The word list is only there to cause the poster to pause and think about whether or not what they have written is a trigger.
> > I would suggest starting with a short list of trigger words and adding or modifying them as needed.
>
> If we did, which ones should we start with?
>
> BobI think we already came up with a pretty good word list when we listed trigger words/subjects several weeks ago.
MidnightBlue
Posted by zazenduck on June 20, 2006, at 16:34:37
In reply to Re: looking for trigger words » Dr. Bob, posted by MidnightBlue on June 14, 2006, at 21:59:14
because some people just don't get it
it's not okay to hurt children or to post LIGHTHEARTEDLY or any other way about it
it needs to be mandatory because some people don't seem able to voluntarily comply
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.