|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Self Examination [Trigger Warning]
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
Over in the Purgatory thread on trigger warnings I noted a Ship-based example of the practice and commented that it seemed to be content-based rather than oriented towards avoiding legal liability, as Doc Tor had earlier asserted (with the aside that he was "[s]peaking personally, but with some board responsibility").
I'm not claiming that a graphic content warning on a link "hampers discussion" as Gwai asserts, but was noting it as an example of a trigger warning in a context we would all be familiar with. Is it Ship's policy that a thread on trigger warnings cannot discuss their use within and effect on Ship-based discussions?
For that matter, what is the Ship's policy on trigger warnings and when they should be included?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
We have a policy on "not work safe" content on linked webpages. Many employers have rules about not using their computing resources to access porn or sites advocating illegal practices. We don't want anyone to be getting into trouble for innocently accessing a site at work, so we ask people to indicate sites that may not be safe for everyone to open.
The only other policy we have is for a "two click rule" on offensive, or potentially offensive, images. That is, for someone to see the image they need to follow an additional link on the page linked to from here.
And, of course, the general "if you can't stand the heat ..." warning for Hell.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Some clarifications [cross-posted with Alan]:
1. With regard to this post: there is a long-standing Ship practice of the two-click rule, which means that any off-site, NSFW content should be at least two clicks away.
As I understand it, this is a) to provide some measure of protection for those people reading the Ship from work computers liable to fall foul of company internet policy b) to give people some measure of warning before clicking on an external link containing graphic content.
The definition of "NSFW" and "graphic" is not written down anywhere, but it's general practice and not aimed at limiting the Ship's legal liability. It's basically aimed at being polite.
2. The trigger warning thread quotes a statement made, not by a host, but by a shipmate.
3. The hosting on the Josh Duggar thread to date is, as it makes abundantly clear, designed not to preclude discussion but to apply the Ship's policy on avoiding legal liability as per Commmandment 7. As far as I'm concerned, you can be as graphic as you like, provided it's not gratuitous, irrelevant, or otherwise Commandment-breaking - and that it cannot be construed as libellous or anything like it.
4. As far as I can recall, at no time to date has a host inserted a "trigger warning" before written, on-board content.
[ 02. June 2015, 15:13: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
Two points (most of which is covered above, due to X-posting)
The OP explicitly referred to the Duggar thread. My comments intended to differentiate between 'we shouldn't be discussing this because it's triggering' and 'if we say that particular thing we'll get our arses sued'. I'd already redacted a potentially libellous comment in Hell before the Purg thread came into being, and the Purg hosts have steered a similar course, because we're singing from the same hymn sheet.
That is an entirely separate discussion from any graphic content sticker on a picture of a dead, lynched man. Which is point two: shipmates access the boards in different ways, not all of them using a private device. Hosts check all the links everyone posts, and reserve the right (as I do in Hell) of stickering them with 'nsfw' or 'massive pdf' or somesuch to give everyone the choice as to what to do next.
(and in the interests of disclosure, I was the one who brought your link to the immediate attention of the Purg hosts)
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Yes, I think a few distinct issues got mixed up here. The Duggar thread raises issues, for us as Hosts/Admins, to do with legal liability because there is particular sensitivity around accusations of sexual crime.
This is not the same issue as the one that a Shipmate chose to raise in the opening post of the Duggar thread, about "triggers".
And warnings about content in links are not really based on "triggers" either.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
Echoing the points made above, my hosting comments on the Duggar thread are entirely based on the question of what may potentially be defamatory, and not at all on the question of what individual shipmates might find offensive.
The thread itself has the phrase "horrific set of circumstances" in the title, which I personally would regard as sufficient notice that something unpleasant is up for discussion there.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
