![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 305 to 329 of 412. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 11, 2006, at 3:56:09
In reply to Re: Was this where we left off on the topic? » Larry Hoover, posted by gardenergirl on May 10, 2006, at 22:34:40
Posted by Larry Hoover on May 11, 2006, at 9:14:50
In reply to Re: Was this where we left off on the topic? » Larry Hoover, posted by gardenergirl on May 10, 2006, at 22:34:40
> I suppose one way might be to alert others to any kind of description of an act or event versus talking about the idea in general. Providing any details at all starts one down the path of "seeing" it themselves, perhaps.
>
> ggWhich is why I reached the conclusion that a mandatory consideration thereof would be most effective as a warning process. And I know others quaked at the thought of mandatory anything, so.....but who better, than the author?
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on May 11, 2006, at 11:42:19
In reply to Re: thanks for getting back to that (nm), posted by Dr. Bob on May 11, 2006, at 3:56:09
Dr. Bob, I want you to know that I stand behind your intent 100%. What separates us is not ill will. It is, I surmise, a separateness of comprehension, at its root level. Of all the things I've ever tried to understand, outside of my own existence, this construct you have called civility has occupied me more than any other thing, ever. And it's not because civility itself is incomprehensible to me. It occupies me because of the differentness itself, this separateness of comprehension. If only we could, if only I could, find a common understanding, all the rest would simply fall into place. And we could each attend to other things.
The inherent imbalance in power between us only complicates things. When posters draw attention to your power, I do hope that you appreciate the symbolic and pragmatic inequality that permeates all discourse. When people pose questions to you, replying with a question is perhaps the very worst thing you could do. Your guidance, your leadership, are inseparable from the power you wield. Clarity is what eludes me. I would not question your exercise of power, if I understood it.
Unintended consequences are neither irrelevant, nor unavoidable. However, if they were avoided, they would no longer have relevance. Placing sole responsibility on the poster is not a good exercise of leadership. There is a pattern in these unintended consequences, and changes in management also influence incidence of these consequences. An unintended consequence of your management structure is that it all falls on you.
I am sorry that I made that so very clear, Dr. Bob. I regret treating you as if you were not a person, like myself. I regret treating you as if you were nothing more than a caricature, just another Internet personna. The impending Babblefest gathering in Toronto showed me that I had two versions of you in my mind and heart. One was an illusion, a cardboard cutout to fire verbal darts towards, a blow up doll to figuratively punch. I spoke here to that illusory version. I expect to meet the real one, soon. I'm sorry that I ever forgot that they are one and the same. I'm sorry, Dr. Bob.
Humbly,
Lar
Posted by MidnightBlue on May 11, 2006, at 13:38:14
In reply to Was this where we left off on the topic?, posted by gardenergirl on May 9, 2006, at 12:42:02
Okay I have a dumb idea. I think part of the problem is that people don't realize what they are writing is a trigger. Or they are posting so quickly they don't think about it.
Would it be possible to write a computer program that would search for trigger words, then instead of automatically marking the message with a flag, ask the writer if what they are writing could be a trigger?
In other words, if I write something about suicide and I don't think (or don't care) that someone might be hurt by what I say, before it is posted, the computer would ask me if I have written something that might trigger someone else. I could still mark "no" and it would be posted, but that message might carry an invisible "flag" that Dr. Bob or the deputies could see that would suggest they might want to check it out. I could also choose to flag a message myself if I thought/knew it might be triggering.
This is what I see as one step "below" an automatic flagging system, and one step above letting the person choose to flag their own message. It builds in a step to help you think.
No, this wouldn't catch everything, but it might be a step in the right direction.
MidnightBlue
Posted by Larry Hoover on May 11, 2006, at 13:52:30
In reply to Re: Was this where we left off on the topic?, posted by MidnightBlue on May 11, 2006, at 13:38:14
> Okay I have a dumb idea.
This is anything but a dumb idea.
> Would it be possible to write a computer program that would search for trigger words, then instead of automatically marking the message with a flag, ask the writer if what they are writing could be a trigger?
I think this might be a wonderful solution to the conundrum we face.
It encourages self-guidance.
I have no idea about how hard it would be to write the code, though.
Lar
Posted by zazenduck on May 11, 2006, at 18:06:19
In reply to Re: guidelines, posted by Dr. Bob on March 14, 2006, at 21:45:30
Anorexia triggers? methods, numbers weights bmi ?
that's standard on lots of eating disorder boards.
it's not a personal issue to me but i know it's a big deal for some people
Posted by Larry Hoover on May 12, 2006, at 6:58:18
In reply to Re: guidelines, posted by zazenduck on May 11, 2006, at 18:06:19
> Anorexia triggers? methods, numbers weights bmi ?
>
> that's standard on lots of eating disorder boards.
>
> it's not a personal issue to me but i know it's a big deal for some peopleWhy do we not consider minor changes in the guidelines, to accomodate special considerations, but which apply only to that specific board? For example, permission to speak in politic language on the politics board, or special trigger consideration on e.g. an eating disorders board? Why do they have to be the same rules, if the topic is already different enough to split off as a separate entity? Just flag the special information, whatever it might be, at the top of each board.
Lar
Posted by zazenduck on May 12, 2006, at 8:43:46
In reply to Re: guidelines » zazenduck, posted by Larry Hoover on May 12, 2006, at 6:58:18
> > Anorexia triggers? methods, numbers weights bmi ?
> >
> > that's standard on lots of eating disorder boards.
> >
> > it's not a personal issue to me but i know it's a big deal for some people
>
> Why do we not consider minor changes in the guidelines, to accomodate special considerations, but which apply only to that specific board? For example, permission to speak in politic language on the politics board, or special trigger consideration on e.g. an eating disorders board? Why do they have to be the same rules, if the topic is already different enough to split off as a separate entity? Just flag the special information, whatever it might be, at the top of each board.
>
> LarBecause people with eating disorders post on all the boards? Would you want a special board for people who are triggered by SI or abuse with mandatory triggers only on that board?
I try to TRIGGER any post that could possibly upset someone but I think another subjective rule will only lead to more blocks for people who are doing the best they can. If it makes you feel better maybe it's worth that risk. I mean that sincerely.
Maybe you can lobby Bob for change in person in Toronto :)Like Vatican II for Babble.
I think I'm through posting on Admin. Good Luck
Posted by Larry Hoover on May 12, 2006, at 9:13:58
In reply to Re: guidelines » Larry Hoover, posted by zazenduck on May 12, 2006, at 8:43:46
> > Why do we not consider minor changes in the guidelines, to accomodate special considerations, but which apply only to that specific board? For example, permission to speak in politic language on the politics board, or special trigger consideration on e.g. an eating disorders board? Why do they have to be the same rules, if the topic is already different enough to split off as a separate entity? Just flag the special information, whatever it might be, at the top of each board.
> >
> > Lar
>
> Because people with eating disorders post on all the boards? Would you want a special board for people who are triggered by SI or abuse with mandatory triggers only on that board?I obviously hadn't thought that through. Thanks for finishing what I started.
I still think the politics board, for example, could be liberalized a tad, without adversely influencing the issue of civility there, or elsewhere at babble.
> I try to TRIGGER any post that could possibly upset someone but I think another subjective rule will only lead to more blocks for people who are doing the best they can. If it makes you feel better maybe it's worth that risk. I mean that sincerely.
I do think any solution needs to follow the KISS rule.
> Maybe you can lobby Bob for change in person in Toronto :)
I'm thinking social, not political, interaction in Toronto.
> Like Vatican II for Babble.
>
> I think I'm through posting on Admin. Good LuckThanks.
Lar
Posted by Estella on May 12, 2006, at 11:24:29
In reply to Re: guidelines, posted by Larry Hoover on May 12, 2006, at 9:13:58
er... what happens if someone breaks a rule?
should they be blocked?
Posted by Larry Hoover on May 12, 2006, at 12:45:48
In reply to Re: guidelines, posted by Estella on May 12, 2006, at 11:24:29
> er... what happens if someone breaks a rule?
>
> should they be blocked?Certainly not as a matter of course. I was blocked for using passive voice in an I statement. Give me a f*cking break. Something like "(something somebody said) was felt as an insult", vs. "I felt insulted by what somebody said". In either case, I am reporting my feeling, and relating it to prior statement(s). As one who has done a significant amount of academic writing, adopting the passive voice isn't uncommon for me. It just depends on my mood. But, surely the intended meaning is clear, nonetheless. And the passive voice is itself de-escalating in tone.
It is as if you were asked to administer a criminal code where the only available penalty is amputation. One would hope the consequences would be doled out quite sparingly. Moreover, if escalating penalties are also mandatory......
I would be looking very hard for mens rea, a guilty mind, and animus nocendi, a mind to harm, both, before I handed down *any* sentences under the existing blocking system. Unfortunately, one has to learn of the idiosyncracies here by other methods than by simply reading the FAQ. E.g. Bob's imagined "could". Perhaps a glossary might be a feature of the FAQ, in future? Words as they are defined here?
Lar
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animus_nocendi
Posted by Estella on May 13, 2006, at 3:50:47
In reply to Re: guidelines » Estella, posted by Larry Hoover on May 12, 2006, at 12:45:48
hmm...
law does make use of an interesting theory of mind...
apparantly philosophers don't tend to do so well on juries...
they are always bugging the judge for definitions of terms such as
'intent' etc etc...and the judge says 'go with your intuition'
and well...
depends on your theory of mind...
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 15, 2006, at 7:57:00
In reply to Re: Was this where we left off on the topic?, posted by MidnightBlue on May 11, 2006, at 13:38:14
> Would it be possible to write a computer program that would search for trigger words, then instead of automatically marking the message with a flag, ask the writer if what they are writing could be a trigger?
That was suggested before:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060317/msgs/622756.html
And could be done. What words would be searched for?
Bob
Posted by Larry Hoover on May 15, 2006, at 9:05:16
In reply to Re: trigger words, posted by Dr. Bob on May 15, 2006, at 7:57:00
> > Would it be possible to write a computer program that would search for trigger words, then instead of automatically marking the message with a flag, ask the writer if what they are writing could be a trigger?
>
> That was suggested before:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060317/msgs/622756.html
>
> And could be done. What words would be searched for?
>
> BobNo, not exactly the same as before. Midnight came up with a hybrid idea. I argued to reject the former proposal because it was to simply automatically flag or not flag, based on the presence of strings. That is no improvement over now, really, because the false positives would absolutely outweigh the benefits.
What makes her concept more intriguing is that it returns the decision to the author. The decision to flag has not yet been made. The author must decide if the post is a trigger or not. Moreover, you and your deputies would know whether the flagging issue itself had been considered by the poster. You would know if someone bypassed the feature. I think that is also an important datum.
What is better about this idea is it forces the author to consider their post from an angle that they simply may not have done on their own. It helps people to learn about what is involved in triggering, especially those who do not know what triggering even means.
The limit of this method is the catch file itself. I would think it would have to be huge, to anticipate the possible permutations of triggering language. That's where I wondered about the coding, if searching for strings all the time wouldn't significantly slow down the through-put of your servers.
Lar
Posted by Jakeman on May 15, 2006, at 19:49:51
In reply to Re: trigger words, posted by Dr. Bob on May 15, 2006, at 7:57:00
I think we are getting way too caught up in trying to catch people who are saying the wrong thing. People have a choice about coming to this board. Let people be. It's not the end of the world if someone says Bush is evil. Yes, personal insults should be moderated, but within reason.
warm regards, Jake
Posted by 10derHeart on May 16, 2006, at 10:37:47
In reply to Re: trigger words » Dr. Bob, posted by Jakeman on May 15, 2006, at 19:49:51
Hi jake,
I think maybe you're misunderstanding the topic of this thread. Did you read back through it? It's not about posting anything that's inherently *wrong,* or about insults, etc., but about triggering posts for people with various sensitivities, e.g., csa, S/I (either meaning) and more. These posters are concerned with their past experiences of unwittingly stumbling on upsetting language and descriptions in posts on *any* board which trigger a PTSD episode or similar very unpleasnt reaction. The discussion is kind of a brainstorming to come up with a way to prevent that, or at least reduce the likelihood as much as humanly possible, while at the same time educating those who genuinely have no idea something they've written about could trigger others.
I may not have explained that well, but hope it helps. Warm regards to you, too - I've always liked your sign-off ;-) - 10der
Posted by Larry Hoover on May 16, 2006, at 10:56:30
In reply to Re: trigger words » Jakeman, posted by 10derHeart on May 16, 2006, at 10:37:47
> I may not have explained that well, but hope it helps. Warm regards to you, too - I've always liked your sign-off ;-) - 10der
I think you did a great job explaining it.
I was reading the other day that 4% of the population has active PTSD at any point in time. That's one person in 25. I suspect the rate is higher, at Babble.
Lar
Posted by Jakeman on May 16, 2006, at 19:18:23
In reply to Re: trigger words » Jakeman, posted by 10derHeart on May 16, 2006, at 10:37:47
Hi 10der,
Thanks for your explanation. Apparently there is a need among some in this community to have trigger alerts. If that is the consensus then so be it.
warm regards, Jake
> Hi jake,
>
> I think maybe you're misunderstanding the topic of this thread. Did you read back through it? It's not about posting anything that's inherently *wrong,* or about insults, etc., but about triggering posts for people with various sensitivities, e.g., csa, S/I (either meaning) and more. These posters are concerned with their past experiences of unwittingly stumbling on upsetting language and descriptions in posts on *any* board which trigger a PTSD episode or similar very unpleasnt reaction. The discussion is kind of a brainstorming to come up with a way to prevent that, or at least reduce the likelihood as much as humanly possible, while at the same time educating those who genuinely have no idea something they've written about could trigger others.
>
> I may not have explained that well, but hope it helps. Warm regards to you, too - I've always liked your sign-off ;-) - 10der
>
>
Posted by Larry Hoover on May 23, 2006, at 21:57:05
In reply to what does 'trigger' mean, posted by asmita on March 1, 2006, at 6:33:59
....were a reality. Sometimes I just feel so disabled.
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on May 24, 2006, at 6:16:45
In reply to I really really wish that trigger flags...., posted by Larry Hoover on May 23, 2006, at 21:57:05
> ....were a reality. Sometimes I just feel so disabled.
>
> LarJust for clarity's sake, I'd like to explain that those two concepts are related by this: I still find significant numbers of posts with trigger content that do not have a trigger warning.
I was having a great day yesterday, until....well, until I read one. Getting clobbered just isn't very much fun. I know it's me, but owning that is burdensome.
Lar
Posted by llrrrpp on June 4, 2006, at 15:24:34
Hi All,
Many sensitive people come to Psycho-Babble for support.
Let's help keep Babble a safe place for everybody.
Please post below if you support the idea of adding a little flag next to posts that contain content that sensitive viewers might consider upsetting.
The current system of having to write in "trigger" is not sufficient. Sometimes we forget to write it. Sometimes we don't want to lose 7 characters of space in our posting subject line. Newer members might not know how to use this option, or even what 'trigger' means.
There have been several good suggestions on how to implement this flag. The following petition is in support of the flag, not in support of a particular way to implement it (if you have ideas though, this might be a good place to express them)
Thank you in advance,
-llrrrpp
Posted by llrrrpp on June 4, 2006, at 15:25:11
In reply to Petition to add trigger flag. please sign below, posted by llrrrpp on June 4, 2006, at 15:24:34
Posted by 10derHeart on June 4, 2006, at 16:37:34
In reply to Petition to add trigger flag. please sign below, posted by llrrrpp on June 4, 2006, at 15:24:34
Posted by Dinah on June 4, 2006, at 16:56:05
In reply to Sure (nm) » llrrrpp, posted by 10derHeart on June 4, 2006, at 16:37:34
Posted by Dinah on June 4, 2006, at 17:02:44
In reply to s'okay by me (nm), posted by Dinah on June 4, 2006, at 16:56:05
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.