Psycho-Babble Administration | about the operation of this site | Framed
This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | List of forums | Search | FAQ

Re: Trigger warnings as POLICY » Larry Hoover

Posted by SLS on March 18, 2006, at 15:38:42

In reply to Re: Trigger warnings as POLICY » SLS, posted by Larry Hoover on March 18, 2006, at 11:29:01

Hi Larry.

> Would it be fair to say that this sentence offers a summary of your concerns?

> > However, I would still like to express my impression that the attempt to enforce with blocks a policy against submitting unflagged triggering posts seems like it would involve an unwieldy set of rules and protocols.

If self-flagging is to be mandatory and involve blocking as a sanction for non-compliance, many questions arise for me.

I guess I really shouldn't direct so much concern towards the logistical problems of implementing a policy. That is more the responsibility of those administering the site.

It is more important that the posting rules and guidelines for determining what qualifies as a trigger be absolutely clear and coherent to prospective posters so that less is left up to an undefined series of subjective interpretations performed by a host of different moderators; each, perhaps, judging content using their own standards, which are influenced by personal sensitivities.

> I am truly concerned that the confounding effect of people's reactions to the current blocking regime quite overwhelms the issue of triggers itself.

People are naturally going to feel choked by the prospect of yet more posting restrictions.

> I cannot foresee a comfortable (to all) new policy for triggers which would not itself require a re-examination of blocking policy, too.

You are right. I look forward to reading your thoughts on the matter

> > So far, civility seems to be judged using a precision that is afforded by an exacting use of grammar to establish a set of rules as to how one person relates to another.

> I am less generous. The existing system is arbitrary and capricious, notwithstanding recent attempts to loosen things up a little bit.

I guess we see things differently. I don't think it is the system itself that is arbitrary or capricious in how civility is administered. If anything, such would be the result of the behaviors of the administrators whom enforce it. Perhaps I would agree with you if I were to know your reasons for feeling this way. For right now, though, I think the first hurdle is to decide whether a system of self-moderation should be made voluntary or, rather, mandatory and sanctionable.

> I really must get my thoughts on civility properly organized, so that I can then refer to them more effectively.....

I guess civility is at the crux of the issue.

It seems obvious to me that there are at least two degrees of triggering content: that which is triggering and civil, and that which is triggering and uncivil. That which is uncivil should be sanctioned using the same protocol that is to be employed for civility in general. I'm glad I won't be responsible for determining the difference.

Keep it simple?

I have some ideas floating around in my head regarding the moderating of triggering posts - most of which have already been suggested along this thread. I just can't verbalize them right now. It creates a real mess in my head when I ponder the enforcement of a mandatory self-flagging of triggering posts.

Perhaps self-flagging should be left voluntary. Administration could review and flag posts. Members could alert administration via the administration board or using e-mail. Once guideline for civility are established and included in the FAQ, triggering posts that are deemed uncivil can be sanctioned accordingly.

Unfortunately, once an unflagged trigger is read, the damage is already done. Reporting the post to administration accomplishes very little once the reporter is triggered. One possible sanction for recidivism is to flag the poster for a period of time instead of using a posting block, as long as the content is deemed civil.

Perhaps there should be a "caveat emptor" posture taken by administration towards the submission of posts that are potentially triggering just as there is such a posture taken for the veracity of information and recommendations offered by members in other contexts.

Not being easily triggerable, I may not be sensitive enough to the needs of others to be making suggestions regarding this issue. I hope I have not offended anyone.


- Scott

 

Thread

 

Post a new follow-up

Your message only Include above post


Notify the administrators

They will then review this post with the posting guidelines in mind.

To contact them about something other than this post, please use this form instead.

 

Start a new thread

 
Google
dr-bob.org www
Search options and examples
[amazon] for
in

This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | FAQ
Psycho-Babble Administration | Framed

poster:SLS thread:614568
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060317/msgs/621687.html