Posted by Dr. Bob on March 14, 2006, at 2:02:49
In reply to Trigger warnings (*****violence trigger*****), posted by Tamar on March 12, 2006, at 17:51:28
> We have to think about whether the content of our posts is civil; if we also had to think about whether the content was triggering, people would probably be more likely to remember to add the warning. I think the biggest difficulty with a voluntary system is that sometimes people simply don’t know what may trigger others, or perhaps they don’t understand why an account of something in their own life might lead to a disproportionate reaction in someone else. A voluntary system doesn’t address that. I also don’t quite see how a voluntary system is better for the community as a whole than a mandatory system. Would voluntary civility rules be better for the community as a whole?
Thanks, everyone, this discussion has really helped me to think this through.
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.
But some of you, at least, have seen how hard it is to make civility mandatory. And that's after years of refining the guidelines. As far as triggers, we haven't even agreed yet on whether:
> self-injury
> suicidal intent
> violenceor:
> suicide
> self injury
> abuse
> violence
> substance abuseare the general topics that should be flagged. And then the next question is what specifically about those topics should be considered triggers.
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. In other words, the biggest difficulty with a mandatory system is that sometimes people simply don't know what may trigger others.
It's an interesting question, how well voluntary civility rules would work...
Bob
poster:Dr. Bob
thread:614568
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060225/msgs/620095.html