vividcon open policy, warnings
As promised in my last post (which now has many edits integrated from discussion yesterday, more comments still welcome), here's the post specifically to discuss the warnings section.
One thing that's been brought up to me that I should mention: whatever policy is settled on, there is going to have to be a legalese disclaimer added at the end -- that is, the con can't guarantee the safety of any member and viewing vids will legally speaking be at your own risk, because people can make mistakes or sincerely disagree on trigger content. That said, I think everyone in this discussion gets that what we are talking about here is how to do as good a job as possible.
I'll start with the initial draft of the warnings section that has been under discussion:
The concom will also do our best to address all other accessibility issues, whether visible or not. In particular members are encouraged to contact the concom about emotional triggers that may be hit while viewing vids. The VJs know and have seen all the vids in the vidshows in advance, even the premiering ones, so the concom can alert members to those vids which might be problematic for them. Please write to access@vividcon.com with questions and feel free to use an anonymous email address for any of these.
Vidders and VJs are further invited to provide general warnings about their vids and vidshows, either in the blurbs printed directly in the con program, or as additional sheets which will be made available in the con suite.
Just to confirm, the concom is prepared to handle the work involved in providing answers on triggers in the vids as described in this policy.
Next, I'm going to try and collect several broad points made with some variations in a lot of different places (and anyone is welcome to poke me if you feel I'm getting this wrong):
- As far as I've seen, no problems with the concom privately alerting people who ask them directly for trigger information.
- As far as I've seen, no problems with the concom and/or VJs providing public information about vidshows in the aggregate (eg, "this show/the first half of this show contains vids with the following triggers").
- Objections raised that having to ask is a burden and it would be better to provide at least a partial alternative solution that doesn't require having to ask. There have been different suggestions for how that information should be provided (notably, by vidders themselves via a form, or by VJs/concom reporting).
- Objections raised over public information being provided about vids (most particularly premiering vids before they are shown) by the concom and/or VJs without input or consent from the vidders.
- Note raised that some viewers want to avoid spoilers about premiering vids even if posted by the vidders themselves (so eg the solution of allowing vidders to include warnings in their program book blurbs is not great from that perspective).
Now, to try and provide some more concrete grounds for discussion to move onward, here are my best stabs at putting together a few alternative proposals that try to address some of these issues.
I want to note BTW, which can easily get lost in the intensity of discussion, that none of this is irrevocable or final. Every year, Vividcon tweaks things, sometimes a lot, and whatever the concom decides to do for this year's con, if it doesn't work well, it can be changed. The con specifically asks for feedback in the anonymous suggestion forms and at Calls from the Public so you can convey how it worked.
So please consider "...and see how it goes this year" as tacked on to every one of these proposals.
Also, for ALL of these, any individuals with triggers whose needs are not met will still have the option to privately contact the concom for more specific assistance, as in the current policy.
OPTION 1: Add soliciting email and screened post.
To help address at least the issue with having to initiate contact, the concom would send out an email from "access@vividcon.com" to all attendees to let them know that trigger information is available and would be shared privately with anyone who wished to reply, encouraging people to respond either anonymously or not. Also, if individuals have collected various vidder-provided content warnings in an LJ post, the email could include a link to this post as well.
The concom will also make a post with screened comments on LJ/DW where anyone could post to say "I have accessibility concerns, please contact me at [email]" -- anonymous comments allowed -- and will get in touch with anyone who posts at whatever email they give. (Note: this is going to be done regardless as part of the overall accessibility policy)
As already in the policy, VJs and vidders would be able to provide handouts about their shows/vids, or edit their program blurbs to include warnings. VJs *can* provide vid-by-vid info, except if a vidder specifically contacts them to say they do not want their vid warned for, in which case that vid should be marked "choose not to warn".
(eta: repeating this from above, for clarity) Any individuals with triggers whose needs are not met will still have the option to privately contact the concom for more specific assistance, as in the current policy.
OPTION 2: Concom/VJ-provided generalized warnings.
The concom will put together a standard warning sheet for each vidshow as a whole that describes any of the most common PTSD and epilepsy/migraine triggers that are present in the vids for that show, not vid by vid but in broad sections, probably "the first half"/"the second half" or "the first six vids" etc.
This warning sheet will be posted separate from the program book -- logistics to be figured out by the concom, either a handout or potentially somehow online? In any event it would available in some easily accessible and privacy-protecting ways before the vidshows start. VJs would not put out separate vid-by-vid content warnings without input from the individual vidders. Vidders could still put specific warnings in their vid blurbs.
(eta: repeating this from above, for clarity) Any individuals with triggers whose needs are not met will still have the option to privately contact the concom for more specific assistance, as in the current policy.
OPTION 3: Vidder-submitted warnings.
Vidders will be sent an email asking them to fill out an online form about their vids, with checkboxes to warn for common triggers, or to state that none of these triggers are present, or to state they choose not to warn. If a vidder doesn't want to fill out the form, they don't have to and are assumed to be choosing not to warn for all their vids. (There could also be options to say that a vidder blanketly chooses not to warn for all their vids, or that a vidder blanketly affirms that all their vids have no triggers unless otherwise marked, for convenience.)
Whatever warnings vidders do choose to make available will be provided in a sheet separately from the program book. VJs may not put out content warnings about vids in their shows that contradict what the vidder has provided -- ie, if a vidder chooses not to warn for a vid, the VJ may not say that the vid contains triggers.
(eta: repeating this from above, for clarity) Any individuals with triggers whose needs are not met will still have the option to privately contact the concom for more specific assistance, as in the current policy.
* NOTE: One problem with this option is it's the most logistically challenging -- it may just not be feasible practically in the time before the con. Something like this would be easier to try next year when the tickyboxes could just be made an option on the vid submission form. One possible alternative here might be to just invite vidders to email in trigger information that would be quickly collated -- it would be harder to skim, but might be more feasible. For purposes of discussion, consider this option the "con-organized vidder-provided warnings however they can best be achieved in the time remaining this year". Also, this solution doesn't cover non-submitted vids, so it might make sense to combine in some way with option 2.
Basically, my hope drafting these to start things off is that based on the discussion so far in the earlier post, none of these three options are complete dealbreakers for anyone, at least not to try for this year, and all three are doable in some form.
When proposing alternatives or edits, it would help very much if you can please try and maintain this approach -- ie, avoid suggesting a change or a different proposal that you know from earlier discussion is going to raise a storm of objections. If someone does make a proposal that is a dealbreaker for you, please assume they are not doing so deliberately -- even just in the last post there are a lot of threads and not everyone has had the time to read everything said, or can honestly misunderstand. Just politely raise your objections, and please try and be constructive and if possible offer alternatives in your reply that address what the suggestion is trying to achieve.
(Note: if one of my proposals IS a dealbreaker for you in some way, you can of course say so! Just, like for all other comments, please assume that this is a mistake and not deliberate on my part.)
And I ask that everyone please really try and stay concrete -- this is obviously a tough and emotional topic, and a lot of participants in the discussion are tense and frustrated. I will continue to moderate comments and may freeze threads and/or ask people to take a breather if discussion gets heated.
You can also read this entry on Dreamwidth (
comments)
One thing that's been brought up to me that I should mention: whatever policy is settled on, there is going to have to be a legalese disclaimer added at the end -- that is, the con can't guarantee the safety of any member and viewing vids will legally speaking be at your own risk, because people can make mistakes or sincerely disagree on trigger content. That said, I think everyone in this discussion gets that what we are talking about here is how to do as good a job as possible.
I'll start with the initial draft of the warnings section that has been under discussion:
The concom will also do our best to address all other accessibility issues, whether visible or not. In particular members are encouraged to contact the concom about emotional triggers that may be hit while viewing vids. The VJs know and have seen all the vids in the vidshows in advance, even the premiering ones, so the concom can alert members to those vids which might be problematic for them. Please write to access@vividcon.com with questions and feel free to use an anonymous email address for any of these.
Vidders and VJs are further invited to provide general warnings about their vids and vidshows, either in the blurbs printed directly in the con program, or as additional sheets which will be made available in the con suite.
Just to confirm, the concom is prepared to handle the work involved in providing answers on triggers in the vids as described in this policy.
Next, I'm going to try and collect several broad points made with some variations in a lot of different places (and anyone is welcome to poke me if you feel I'm getting this wrong):
- As far as I've seen, no problems with the concom privately alerting people who ask them directly for trigger information.
- As far as I've seen, no problems with the concom and/or VJs providing public information about vidshows in the aggregate (eg, "this show/the first half of this show contains vids with the following triggers").
- Objections raised that having to ask is a burden and it would be better to provide at least a partial alternative solution that doesn't require having to ask. There have been different suggestions for how that information should be provided (notably, by vidders themselves via a form, or by VJs/concom reporting).
- Objections raised over public information being provided about vids (most particularly premiering vids before they are shown) by the concom and/or VJs without input or consent from the vidders.
- Note raised that some viewers want to avoid spoilers about premiering vids even if posted by the vidders themselves (so eg the solution of allowing vidders to include warnings in their program book blurbs is not great from that perspective).
Now, to try and provide some more concrete grounds for discussion to move onward, here are my best stabs at putting together a few alternative proposals that try to address some of these issues.
I want to note BTW, which can easily get lost in the intensity of discussion, that none of this is irrevocable or final. Every year, Vividcon tweaks things, sometimes a lot, and whatever the concom decides to do for this year's con, if it doesn't work well, it can be changed. The con specifically asks for feedback in the anonymous suggestion forms and at Calls from the Public so you can convey how it worked.
So please consider "...and see how it goes this year" as tacked on to every one of these proposals.
Also, for ALL of these, any individuals with triggers whose needs are not met will still have the option to privately contact the concom for more specific assistance, as in the current policy.
OPTION 1: Add soliciting email and screened post.
To help address at least the issue with having to initiate contact, the concom would send out an email from "access@vividcon.com" to all attendees to let them know that trigger information is available and would be shared privately with anyone who wished to reply, encouraging people to respond either anonymously or not. Also, if individuals have collected various vidder-provided content warnings in an LJ post, the email could include a link to this post as well.
The concom will also make a post with screened comments on LJ/DW where anyone could post to say "I have accessibility concerns, please contact me at [email]" -- anonymous comments allowed -- and will get in touch with anyone who posts at whatever email they give. (Note: this is going to be done regardless as part of the overall accessibility policy)
As already in the policy, VJs and vidders would be able to provide handouts about their shows/vids, or edit their program blurbs to include warnings. VJs *can* provide vid-by-vid info, except if a vidder specifically contacts them to say they do not want their vid warned for, in which case that vid should be marked "choose not to warn".
(eta: repeating this from above, for clarity) Any individuals with triggers whose needs are not met will still have the option to privately contact the concom for more specific assistance, as in the current policy.
OPTION 2: Concom/VJ-provided generalized warnings.
The concom will put together a standard warning sheet for each vidshow as a whole that describes any of the most common PTSD and epilepsy/migraine triggers that are present in the vids for that show, not vid by vid but in broad sections, probably "the first half"/"the second half" or "the first six vids" etc.
This warning sheet will be posted separate from the program book -- logistics to be figured out by the concom, either a handout or potentially somehow online? In any event it would available in some easily accessible and privacy-protecting ways before the vidshows start. VJs would not put out separate vid-by-vid content warnings without input from the individual vidders. Vidders could still put specific warnings in their vid blurbs.
(eta: repeating this from above, for clarity) Any individuals with triggers whose needs are not met will still have the option to privately contact the concom for more specific assistance, as in the current policy.
OPTION 3: Vidder-submitted warnings.
Vidders will be sent an email asking them to fill out an online form about their vids, with checkboxes to warn for common triggers, or to state that none of these triggers are present, or to state they choose not to warn. If a vidder doesn't want to fill out the form, they don't have to and are assumed to be choosing not to warn for all their vids. (There could also be options to say that a vidder blanketly chooses not to warn for all their vids, or that a vidder blanketly affirms that all their vids have no triggers unless otherwise marked, for convenience.)
Whatever warnings vidders do choose to make available will be provided in a sheet separately from the program book. VJs may not put out content warnings about vids in their shows that contradict what the vidder has provided -- ie, if a vidder chooses not to warn for a vid, the VJ may not say that the vid contains triggers.
(eta: repeating this from above, for clarity) Any individuals with triggers whose needs are not met will still have the option to privately contact the concom for more specific assistance, as in the current policy.
* NOTE: One problem with this option is it's the most logistically challenging -- it may just not be feasible practically in the time before the con. Something like this would be easier to try next year when the tickyboxes could just be made an option on the vid submission form. One possible alternative here might be to just invite vidders to email in trigger information that would be quickly collated -- it would be harder to skim, but might be more feasible. For purposes of discussion, consider this option the "con-organized vidder-provided warnings however they can best be achieved in the time remaining this year". Also, this solution doesn't cover non-submitted vids, so it might make sense to combine in some way with option 2.
Basically, my hope drafting these to start things off is that based on the discussion so far in the earlier post, none of these three options are complete dealbreakers for anyone, at least not to try for this year, and all three are doable in some form.
When proposing alternatives or edits, it would help very much if you can please try and maintain this approach -- ie, avoid suggesting a change or a different proposal that you know from earlier discussion is going to raise a storm of objections. If someone does make a proposal that is a dealbreaker for you, please assume they are not doing so deliberately -- even just in the last post there are a lot of threads and not everyone has had the time to read everything said, or can honestly misunderstand. Just politely raise your objections, and please try and be constructive and if possible offer alternatives in your reply that address what the suggestion is trying to achieve.
(Note: if one of my proposals IS a dealbreaker for you in some way, you can of course say so! Just, like for all other comments, please assume that this is a mistake and not deliberate on my part.)
And I ask that everyone please really try and stay concrete -- this is obviously a tough and emotional topic, and a lot of participants in the discussion are tense and frustrated. I will continue to moderate comments and may freeze threads and/or ask people to take a breather if discussion gets heated.
You can also read this entry on Dreamwidth (
comments)