![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 176 to 200 of 412. Go back in thread:
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
Posted by Gabbix2 on March 16, 2006, at 11:14:39
In reply to Re: upbeat, educational, non-punitive, kind, CIVIL » Dr. Bob, posted by Larry Hoover on March 16, 2006, at 10:53:27
I never thought I'd do that.
But geez, you put up with a lot.
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 16, 2006, at 11:55:46
In reply to Re: Posting more difficult, posted by itsme2003 on March 15, 2006, at 20:52:32
> Larry,
Me2003, I was going to ask you if there wasn't something extra bothering you about this issue, and it came out in your message to Dinah. I understand how brutal the blocking system is. How capricious, and how much it hurts.
I got blocked for getting angry with someone who ignored a DNP request. She should have been blocked for it, but I got blocked for insisting that she honour it. Apparently I was a little over the line, on my insistence. She went unpunished. While I was blocked, she accused me of felony criminal conduct, and other uncivil things. That post sat there for nearly two weeks, until my block ended. It just sat there. When I replied to that post, I worded my rebuttal in such a way as to be blocked again. She called me a criminal, and I questioned her ethics, posting those accusations while she knew I was blocked. I got blocked again. She got nothing, again, even though I retained her uncivil comments by quoting them in my own post, and directly speaking of them.
Don't worry. I get it. I got blocked for agreeing with a person that their post was obnoxious. He said it, so I repeated it. It's called active listening. But here, you have to careful that you don't agree with what a poster says about themselves, if it *could* be taken badly.
Don't worry, I understand your concerns.
> I could live with mandatory trigger alerts at number 6, but I prefer not to.
Forgive me for beating my drum yet again, but my preferences seem more important to me. What happens to me is huge, almost beyond words. You can live with my preferences, but I can't continue to live with yours. Honestly, I can't. I've tried, but I can't.
> How about this:
>
> Dr. Bob could change the post form to include a "possible trigger" checkbox.No. Not "possible". Triggers are triggers. No trivializing language, please.
> It's usage would be voluntary, but GENTLY encouraged. He could display the word "trigger" on the post subject line, or if possible display the topic in red.
There is nothing at all gentle about being triggered. That said, I have no problem with helping write gentle and sensitive "standard warning" messages.
> In addition moderators would have the ability to flag a post as triggering. I guess that after a little education period you would get 60% - 80% or so compliance with voluntary posting.
That's not good enough, for me. I only speak for me, here. I hope others address this issue, too.
A partial solution is an illusion. Yes, reducing the frequency of triggering events is a measurable sign of progress, I suppose, if your thing is all about creating illusions. Yes, I appreciate the efforts required of others. You can create elaborate illusions, and go to a lot of effort, and still fail to address the problem itself. Anything less than full participation in flagging posts does not create the sense of protection that would represent a real solution.
Clearing most of the mines from a minefield would not make me feel safe to walk there. Putting up a sign warning me away from the minefield would.
> In addition, moderators would usually get to posts before most users, so most triggering quotes would only be seen by a few people before they are properly flagged.
Only a few people triggered? Bob's operator is "could". That's the meaning he imposes on all posts right now. That's his threshold operator for civility. It a post could be felt a certain way, it's assumed that it was felt a certain way.
A trigger always could.
> In all, I would assume that this could reduce the number of triggering posts seen by any give user by 90% - 99%. And this could be done with a voluntary system.
So, why not just make it mandatory?
Frankly, I do not believe anything like that 99% success rate is achievable with a voluntary system. Because it is voluntary, even the standards that might be used are virtually of no import. What difference would it make, if someone doesn't care to make the effort?
Instead, a huge task is then put on the shoulders of other people. Moderators or interested Babblers would have to "pick up after" posters who didn't comply? And, that all happens after the fact? An afterthought?
I said it before, and I guess I say it again.....who knows the content of a post better than does the original poster? The least total collective effort towards compliance would come from everyone being responsible for their own post content. Anything else is a huge make-work project, that still doesn't solve the problem.
The solution is forethought. There is no substitute.
> This system could be put into place to see how well it works. A deadline could be set (the end of this year could be a good time, or at least until the end of summer) and if compliance wasn't fairly high, then a mandatory system could be put into place.
And, how would you determine what is sufficient compliance? We already know that triggered people and non-triggered people have different perceptions. Just go to mandatory, with a three-month gentle nudge period. Or something. I don't mind a break-in period at all. I'm looking for something that everyone can agree to. I'm sure we can do this with consideration and caring for ALL BABBLERS.
> Moderators could determine if a post is blatently in violation of whatever guidelines are set up about triggering and mark it as triggering. They should only do this for posts that blatently violate the trigger guidelines. The original poster's judgement should not be overridden in cases where it's on the borderline if the original poster should have flagged the post or not.Okay, but the concept needs a little bit of work. I think "borderline" would have to be explicitly defined. Kind of like what you already did, with those examples. But, we could refine that, because 5 might have been a trigger, with all the four previous statements taken together. You have to be very careful, in selecting the examples you'd want in a FAQ.
> As an aid to education about triggers, moderators could email posters who post blatantly triggering posts without marking them. The email could say something like:
>
> =====
> I am a moderator on the PsychoBabble website.<snippage>
I really don't like the idea of behind the scenes moderation. It has to be overt.
The second thing is, I really take issue with the word "possible" being associated with the word "trigger". It's not okay to say that. Triggers always could (trigger). Not possibly. Always.
>
> There is one implementation detail that I feel I should discuss. Because people often quote other posts, I feel that once a thread has reached the "possible trigger" threshold then every post after that one in the thread should automatically be labeled "possible trigger".I disagree. Threads go all over the place, and triggers come and go. I only want real triggers with labels. I don't want the flag to have its significance diluted in any way. And I want every trigger post flagged, because we have archives too. I mean forward-looking, not going through the archives we already have. But the protection has to go with the individual post, so if it comes up in a google or archive search, it's properly designated.
> That way posters don't have the burden of having to decide if what they are quoting is a possible trigger.
I think that would be a good exercise, myself. Just like the current "pause and reflect before hitting the submit button".
It's a very small burden. Just as "any man can move a mountain....one stone at a time", we collectively can build a mountain, one post at a time. Each poster brings their own stone (the effort expended), and we build sanctuary.
> If that's not possible then at least someone who quotes a post should never be penalized for not indicating a possible trigger if the original quote was not flagged as a possible trigger.
Okay. Fair enough. But, if the first one was, and the trigger part was quoted, then the flag better still be on it.
> And lastly, people should focus on how well the system works, not how much it fails.
Only a non-triggered person could say that. It's the failures that matter. Nothing else does. Only the failures matter.
Weakest link. All of New Orleans flooded, because of a very small failure in the levee system. Only failures matter.
> In other words, if most triggering posts end up being labeled as such, then don't focus on the few that aren't labeled.
Sorry, but that's the only place I do focus. Try it from my eyes, please. Try it on. Back to wheelchairs and ramps. Will anything less than a complete ramp fill the void? 90% isn't good enough, because the solution doesn't come in halves, or portions.
> There will always be some that aren't labeled anyway, and this way we do it with a voluntary system that's not oppressive and tyrannical like the civility system is.
Here, you turn to the other issue. Here, the confound enters directly into your arguments. The weaknesses in the blocking/civility system can also be fixed. Nothing that involves humans is perfect. But that ought not prevent us from setting clear standards of conduct, from which no individual should stray.
I remain aghast that I even have to ask for a clear standard of conduct. That I have to ask for sensitivity to my feelings, the way I am already asked to be sensitive to the feelings of others, in any way my words *could* be taken. I presently give more than I get. I've had that burden all along.
There's been an elephant in the room all along. If that elephant was standing on *your* foot.......
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 16, 2006, at 11:59:24
In reply to ((((Dr. Bob)))), posted by Gabbix2 on March 16, 2006, at 11:14:39
> I never thought I'd do that.
>
> But geez, you put up with a lot.Just for the record, so have I.
Lar
Posted by Gabbix2 on March 16, 2006, at 12:45:42
In reply to Re: ((((Dr. Bob)))), posted by Larry Hoover on March 16, 2006, at 11:59:24
>> Just for the record, so have I.
>
> LarI chose to acknowledge Dr. Bob, because he doesn't make sure everyone knows just how much he goes through.
I wish you'd left that alone. I really do.
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 16, 2006, at 13:43:21
In reply to Re: ((((Dr. Bob)))) » Larry Hoover, posted by Gabbix2 on March 16, 2006, at 12:45:42
> >> Just for the record, so have I.
> >
> > Lar
>
> I chose to acknowledge Dr. Bob, because he doesn't make sure everyone knows just how much he goes through.
>
> I wish you'd left that alone. I really do.Ya. Well.
Getting told off civilly pales in comparison to getting blocked unfairly. If he's going to treat me like that, I'm going to speak to him like this.
I believe that Dr. Bob got into this pickle through his own agency, and I'm not inclined to just drop it. By his own account, he can do what the f*ck he wants. He wants a software solution to a human problem. Sorry. Unacceptable.
I also get ticked off at being ignored. (Yes, some call that a trigger, but that's a different kind.)
I'm trying to fix Babble, and I know my examples better than any.
Nobody forces you to read my posts.
Lar
Posted by gardenergirl on March 16, 2006, at 13:49:55
In reply to Re: Posting more difficult, posted by itsme2003 on March 16, 2006, at 2:18:22
>> Some people go out of their way to be insulting, etc, and they deserve to have a penalty imposed. On the other hand, I've seen lots of penalties imposed here on people who really had no idea that they were doing anything wrong.
I often struggle with trying to understand how someone can not know they were doing something that was actionable under civility standards when they had just been warned about the same behavior. I always feel a bit sad and frustrated when this happens. And bewildered.
> In the case of posting warnings about possible triggers, assuming that you had a voluntary system, what better way than gentle behind the scenes encouragement toward the desired behavior.I think that would impede the learning of the entire community, although I recognize that with my above statement, whether the entire community learns from such posts is not established.
>To make a spectacle of someone in public about an unintentional infraction of a subjective rule that is skewed against the poster is not the method most likely to produce the desired outcome.
I think that labelling it as "making a spectacle out of someone" is subjective. It certainly depends a great deal on how that someone takes constructive criticism. Similarly, feeling "thrashed" is subjective and is a personal reaction to a PBC or similar action.
>I'm choosing to exercise the privilege that he has granted to everyone to come into his yard and tell him that they disagree with him. I've seen quite a few posters come here and disagree with the civility rules and be told by others that if they don't like the rules they can just leave.
I agree that it's a good thing that we can question and discuss the way the site's run. I don't recall anyone being told by administration that they could "just leave". I do recall reading statements to the effect that this site may not be for everyone. Which is quite true. It's impossible for this or any other site to be all things to all people or to be perfectly safe for all people. That's an unreaslistic expectation. However, knowing what is expected as far as behavior is comforting to me. If I know what's expected, I know what I can and can't do, and I can choose to comply or not. If I have questions, I can ask.
>I feel that I have as much right to stand here and disagree with the civility rules (as long as I'm civil) as anyone else has any right to say anything here.
I agree.
> And I'd like to tell you what I think about the people who tell people that they don't have a right, or shouldn't be here if they disagree with the civility rules, except that if I told you what I thought about that I would be violating the civility rules.
Thanks for refraining. I likely would be offended if someone told me that I should leave just because I disagreed with someone else here.
>
> Let me take a wild guess. I could be wrong, but I think that people who are opposed to the civility system here probably don't get to be moderators.First let me clarify your use of the term "moderator". Dr. Bob is the moderator/adminstrator here. He appoints "deputies". We are not moderators. Moderators have more authority and power than deputies. And to become a deputy, one must demonstrate a good understanding of the rules. Whether one agrees with them or not is not necessarily relevant as long as they follow and apply them.
> I've seen people work toward agitating someone then that person gets banned. I've even seen moderators {(self censored to avoid the civility police)} instead of trying to soothe things over.
I've seen that, too. And I feel disappointed when it keeps happening, and when posters who've experienced it before seem to fall into the same pattern. And soothing is not really a deputy role, although it certainly can be the role of a poster who is also a deputy. Or of any other Babblers.
>Regards,
gg
Posted by gardenergirl on March 16, 2006, at 13:57:48
In reply to Re: ((((Dr. Bob)))) » Gabbix2, posted by Larry Hoover on March 16, 2006, at 13:43:21
Larry,
Deep breaths? Is it time to step away for a short time to give yourself a break? I'm worried about you.gg
Posted by Gabbix2 on March 16, 2006, at 14:18:40
In reply to Re: ((((Dr. Bob)))) » Gabbix2, posted by Larry Hoover on March 16, 2006, at 13:43:21
I agree with GG.
And for now, I ask that you D.N.Post to me.
Just until this Whatever it is.. is over.
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 16, 2006, at 14:24:00
In reply to Lar? » Larry Hoover, posted by gardenergirl on March 16, 2006, at 13:57:48
> Larry,
> Deep breaths? Is it time to step away for a short time to give yourself a break? I'm worried about you.
>
> ggIt's funny. I thought I'd forgiven Dr. Bob. And then, a repeat experience brings it all back.
I would rather have not seen a single word from him, with respect to ignoring my participation in the debate, than have him say the brief few words he did.
Thanks, gg.
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 16, 2006, at 14:25:13
In reply to Lar D.NP please. » Larry Hoover, posted by Gabbix2 on March 16, 2006, at 14:18:40
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 16, 2006, at 14:43:46
In reply to Re: DNP....saved me the trouble (nm), posted by Larry Hoover on March 16, 2006, at 14:25:13
I don't know how to do this without posting to her, so I want it understood that she is under a mutual obligation. It will therefore require mutual consent to restore communication, rather than being left to her sole discretion.
Do Not Post to me, please.
Lar
Posted by thuso on March 16, 2006, at 16:22:56
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...It's a nice idea, but I don't think it would work in this case. The words we're throwing around are too easily used in a sentence that has absolutely nothing to do with anybody's trigger. Perhaps, in a lot of cases, a trigger warning would be necessary, but unless there was a way for a person to manually turn it off, I think you'd get too many false-positives.
Consider the list you guys have been throwing around:
> self-injury
> suicidal intent
> suicide
> self injury
> abuse
> violence
> substance abuseFor example....abuse....I could write a thread on how I abuse my boss' generosity towards me and want to stop (I don't really do that). Where is the trigger there?
And can you imagine how long a list you'd have to come up with if you did the auto-triggering? I really doubt there is anything online that you can pull from like with the auto-asterisking. Heck...look at how much controversy that has caused (e.g. f*rt)...and that is a lot less subjective than these trigger warnings.
I think it would be nice to at least come up with a list of most frequent trigger subjects for the FAQ, but not auto-triggering threads unless there is a manual way to un-trigger a thread.
I hope that all makes sense.
Posted by gardenergirl on March 16, 2006, at 16:29:56
In reply to Re: Lar? » gardenergirl, posted by Larry Hoover on March 16, 2006, at 14:24:00
> I would rather have not seen a single word from him, with respect to ignoring my participation in the debate, than have him say the brief few words he did.Any chance there's some transference going on here? And if so, what can be taken out of the equation to lower the intensity of the feelings? And if not, what can you/are you doing to take care of yourself right now?
I don't need you to answer on the board or even at all. Just wanted to toss this thought out as I had it.
>gg
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 16, 2006, at 16:49:20
In reply to Re: Lar? » Larry Hoover, posted by gardenergirl on March 16, 2006, at 16:29:56
>
> > I would rather have not seen a single word from him, with respect to ignoring my participation in the debate, than have him say the brief few words he did.
>
> Any chance there's some transference going on here?Thanks for the suggestion, but this is all Dr. Bob stuff. You see, when a person is blocked, and let's assume the person feels unfairly so, one of the most critical details is that time is of the essence. Six weeks, or whatever, is ticking away, and he has rendered you powerless to speak to the issue. That is, except for email. And let's say he takes three weeks to get back to you, and he asks some question that he should have already known the answer to.....and it takes three more weeks to hear from him....it's almost worst than being ignored altogether. Every time he enjoins you, he fosters hope. But then, he disappears. He doesn't teel you he's disappearing. He just does. And your block expires, and it's been a complete and utter waste. He hasn't met your need for timely resolution. It is rendered moot, and that is not a resolution. There needs to be a better way than Bob is God and you can take it or leave it. I can't even manage to see him as consistent, let alone fair.
Here, he has literally said to me that he is not ignoring me, yet his attention is anywhere else.
It's mad-making. I thought I forgave him. I was trying to work towards meeting everybody's needs. I do have a vision, guiding me.
There's more than just triggers at play in this thread, and it would be naive and insensitive of me to not note those other issues, also. Yes, I do understand the pain and suffering of blocks. Oh, yes I do.
And he ignored me. Or, better yet, I have no convincing evidence to the contrary.
I dunno. I just dunno.
Zen asked a really important question of me. Why do I put energy into this? At this point, I don't know. I must be nuts, to keep trying.
And, given that......
TTF?
Lar
Posted by itsme2003 on March 16, 2006, at 17:00:45
In reply to Re: upbeat, educational, non-punitive, kind, CIVIL, posted by Dr. Bob on March 16, 2006, at 8:58:06
Dr Bob,
In your last post was the following:
>> I HAVE BEEN ON BOARDS THAT HAVE BEEN RUINED BY HAVING THE WORD "TRIGGER" IN ALMOST EVERY POST ON THE BOARD.
>I'm curious about that. In what way were they ruined for you?
Even though I am educated, intelligent, and articulate I don't know how to answer your question without running afoul of the civility rules. I'll try to give you a terse answer that will at least give you an idea of why I felt that way.
Let's just say that it involves the tyranny of the minority, whining, creative ideas about how anything can be triggering, crying wolf, narcissism trumping content, bullying and controlling behaviors, The Princess And The Pea, some people feeling their problems are more wothy of respect than others, and warning fatigue.
If every post on the board is triggering then what possible benefit could be obtained by warning about each post.
To me, that board had descended into a dysfunctional state and was not doing a good job at its intened purpose because so much energy was wasted on a sideshow.
I see a lot of energy wasted here because of the civility rules, and I would hate to see the waste expanded by having triggering rules that invite some of the same problem areas that I have cited above.
Posted by gardenergirl on March 16, 2006, at 17:05:21
In reply to Re: Lar? » gardenergirl, posted by Larry Hoover on March 16, 2006, at 16:49:20
>It is rendered moot, and that is not a resolution.
Yeah, I know the timeliness of responses is something that others have been bothered by, too, myself included at times.
>
> Here, he has literally said to me that he is not ignoring me, yet his attention is anywhere else.Well, I think we interpret this differently. I think ignoring you would mean you had absolutely no reply. I think what he said was that he disagrees. That's not the same as ignoring you. It doesn't mean he didn't read your posts and consider your views. He may not agree. But I suspect this is not something you and I will agree on, either, as it seems quite personal.
>
> And he ignored me. Or, better yet, I have no convincing evidence to the contrary.Other than his post to you.
I appreciate what you are trying to accomplish here. Is now the best time for you personally to work towards this? Can it be taken up again in a bit? Maybe see if anyone else helps hold the flag for you?
I admit I don't quite "get" the level of intensity I'm feeling in your posts. I do feel it, though.
Please take care,
gg
Posted by JenStar on March 16, 2006, at 18:27:02
In reply to Re: Posting more difficult, posted by itsme2003 on March 15, 2006, at 20:52:32
I like this suggestion more than any other I've yet read. I am absolutely not in favor of mandatory trigger warnings. Thanks for taking the time to write all this out!
jenstar
Posted by itsme2003 on March 17, 2006, at 8:21:02
In reply to Re: Posting more difficult, posted by itsme2003 on March 15, 2006, at 20:52:32
When I first entered into this discussion I suggested automated filters as part of the solution. I now agree that they will not work here.
I still strongly prefer a non-mandatory system such as I discussed at http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060225/msgs/620768.html.
I could live with a mandatory system that was simple, non-punitive, allowed a "reasonable person" interpretation of the rules, resolved ambiguities in favor of the poster, and was not expansive in its definition of a trigger.
Larry, I'd like to see a complete proposal of your thoughts on this. Your ideas sound good and if we are to have a mandatory system, I'd like it to be based on the ideas that you have put forth. Truthfuly, it seems like this whole idea of trigger warnings is bogged down and nothing is going to come from this, but I hope for your sake and the sake of many others that something gets done.
I encourage you to not get too discouraged if nothing comes of this. Sometimes it takes ideas a while to sink in and if nothing comes from this now, what has been done here will prepare for some action at some time in the future.
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 17, 2006, at 9:58:22
In reply to No automated filtering, posted by itsme2003 on March 17, 2006, at 8:21:02
> When I first entered into this discussion I suggested automated filters as part of the solution. I now agree that they will not work here.
I very much appreciate your saying so.
> I still strongly prefer a non-mandatory system such as I discussed at http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060225/msgs/620768.html.
>
> I could live with a mandatory system that was simple, non-punitive, allowed a "reasonable person" interpretation of the rules, resolved ambiguities in favor of the poster, and was not expansive in its definition of a trigger.I've asked that people consider just that. A mandatory version of your proposal. Just because something has teeth, doesn't predict biting. I've had dogs.....blah blah.
> Larry, I'd like to see a complete proposal of your thoughts on this.
I was afraid to lay out a "grand vision." I already have it, in my head, but I didn't think that was an approach that anyone would consider. Certainly not His Bobness. He has poured so much of himself into this place. Yet, he has also earned his critics.
> Your ideas sound good and if we are to have a mandatory system, I'd like it to be based on the ideas that you have put forth. Truthfuly, it seems like this whole idea of trigger warnings is bogged down and nothing is going to come from this, but I hope for your sake and the sake of many others that something gets done.
I know it looks like I have been trying to force this down people's throats, and for that, I'm sorry. But the truth is much simpler. I was just about ready to go, to go quietly, just not be here any more, like so many before me, when I saw that innocent-sounding question that sparked this massive thread. And I thought, well, I can't have this inside of me and carry it off, unseen. The rest, as they say, is history.
At this juncture, however, I'm leaning very much towards my former position. I have good argument for that.
My disputes in this thread have been tripartate, in three distinct themes. Babble, the administration. Babble, the people. And Bob. And as you have indubitably become aware, those main and the many subordinate issues are very important to me. The only way to address any of it was right out here in front of everybody. I'm sorry if it was a spectacle. But I have confined myself to this forum, these topics, and my feelings. I wouldn't waste my breath, if Babble didn't matter to me.
> I encourage you to not get too discouraged if nothing comes of this. Sometimes it takes ideas a while to sink in and if nothing comes from this now, what has been done here will prepare for some action at some time in the future.
I know. It took me over two years of therapy to even consider that I had PTSD. I know that.
Yet, one must also consider timing, in the context of his own life. And that's what I'll be doing over the immediate future. Considering the timing. I'm leaning very much towards Babble-broken right now. I'm so far into the grey, it is virtually black. I'm already anticipating the snick of the latch, as the door comes to.
And, as I would hope would come from anyone's efforts to address issues of grand importance, I have a new insight into the nature of my particular distress, here at Babble. I'll describe my insight more fully in (a) subsequent post(s). Perhaps, even in a new thread, I don't know. I'm not sure that I even can participate any longer, given my new insight.
I thank you for not bailing on me. I thank you for considering the coherence of my ideas. They're not random. They are anything but products of the moment. I've been thinking about these issues (and discussing it all with my therapist, and anyone else who would listen) ever since I landed here. Please do not mistake my passion for any hint or element of poorly thought out ideas. Anything but.
To all Babblers:
My passion is proportional to my pain. I didn't want this to be about me. I wanted it to be about Babble, the Babble I envision. I am not the perfect speaker for that vision. But, I'm trying to do it, anyway, despite my own frailties. That's why I'm so touchy when someone judges me, in even the slightest way, instead of my ideas. I don't need anyone to tell me I'm hurting. Just leave me be, the spectacle that I am, and attend to the debate. Please.
Lar
Posted by AuntieMel on March 17, 2006, at 12:04:54
In reply to Re: upbeat, educational, non-punitive, kind, CIVIL, posted by Dr. Bob on March 16, 2006, at 8:58:06
How about for now, trigger warnings become site policy, strongly encouraged but leaving punishment details (if any) for later.
There could be something in the FAQ describing what a trigger is and why the posts should be flagged.
Posters can continue, as they do, flagging other posts as triggers or possible triggers.
The addition would be you and the deputies would also, either by following up a posters flag or by flagging it ourselves, follow it up in an official capacity, with a link to the FAQ.
This is short of mandatory (as there is no punishment) yet it is a much stronger encouragement, backed by the site owner for all to see (not just the followers of admin.)
Posted by Gabbix2 on March 17, 2006, at 19:04:29
In reply to Lar D.NP please. » Larry Hoover, posted by Gabbix2 on March 16, 2006, at 14:18:40
I will extend the same consideration
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 17, 2006, at 19:56:32
In reply to Re: Lar D.NP also D.N B and E-mail thanks, posted by Gabbix2 on March 17, 2006, at 19:04:29
I expect her to be blocked.
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 17, 2006, at 20:02:56
In reply to That was a clear violation of a DNP request, posted by Larry Hoover on March 17, 2006, at 19:56:32
Posted by agent858 on March 17, 2006, at 20:31:09
In reply to Re: Lar D.NP also D.N B and E-mail thanks, posted by Gabbix2 on March 17, 2006, at 19:04:29
stoppit :-(
please?
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.