Posted by Larry Hoover on March 16, 2006, at 10:53:27
In reply to Re: upbeat, educational, non-punitive, kind, CIVIL, posted by Dr. Bob on March 16, 2006, at 8:58:06
> > 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.
>
> That's an interesting idea, which Tamar just mentioned, too:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060225/msgs/620267.html
>
> Like automatic asterisking...You can't create a filter good enough, to anticipate the different ways that creativity or expression might show themselves. You are ignoring the clear and explicit criticisms I posted about filters.
> > In addition moderators would have the ability to flag a post as triggering.
> >
> > If someone thinks that a post is a possible trigger then they should alert a moderator. They should not post into the thread that they think the original poster should have labeled the post as a possible trigger. In my opinion that would be a direct criticism of the original poster's judgement. I think it should be a violation of the civility rules to post into a thread something like "You should have labeled this as possibly triggering."
>
> IMO, it's working OK -- not perfectly, but OK -It's not working okay. It's not. The only way you could say this is to ignore me, and eight other people who spoke up.
> - now, with anybody being able to add a warning.
After the landmine went off.
> And I agree, your example response was:
>
> > upbeat, educational, non-punitive, kind, and CIVIL.
> >
> > itsme2003So, what would change if you made trigger notices mandatory, and you did all those other things? I intend to make the whole process upbeat, educational, non-punitive, kind and civil. I have said so, all along.
Your suggestions are not civil, as they do not consider the sensitivity of your audience. By your own definitions, sir, triggering posts are uncivil.
Pray tell me, what is civil about posting triggering content without any warning in the header?
> So I think it could be posted instead of emailed... Thanks for your input on this.
You have ignored my own suggestions entirely.
> --
>
> > Show me that you hear me, that I am not banging my head against a wall.You showed me, all right.
> > Please don't ignore me.
> >
> > Lar
>
> I hear you, but I don't agree with you.You hear me? I see no evidence for that. You already block for what could have been meant, and you are ignoring the effects of what is being said, without adequate notice of the content.
> At least not yet, anyway. That may make me a wall, but it doesn't mean I'm ignoring you. Or don't care about you.
>
> BobSimply saying those few words does not negate the evidence that you are ignoring me.
I repeat, Dr. Bob. I will not let you continue without challenge. The status quo needs a very hard look. You ignore the now embedded issue that people fear your making anything new mandatory, as your existing blocking system creates horrors in people's minds and souls.
Because people fear your blocks, they fear even considering creating sanctuary here. Do you think that making triggering an exception from Poster's Responsibility is a good precedent to set?
"Please be sensitive to the feelings of others, except when you're posting about triggering material. Then, it's every man for himself."
Is that what you want?
I don't propose to make this hard, Bob. I have made many suggestions about how to implement a mandatory flagging system with sensitivity and caring.
Having blocking as a last resort is the only consequence we currently have. Nobody likes blocking. Believe me, I get it. But, just because a rule has teeth, it's not predestined that someone will get bitten.
A partial solution is no solution at all. The solution doesn't come in half measures. Clearing half the mines from a minefield does not render it safe.
Lar
poster:Larry Hoover
thread:614568
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060225/msgs/620914.html