Notes to self: vid warnings at VVC
Having been following the open policy revision process being hosted by 
astolat and read a large number of other people's posts and comments about warnings and VVC accessibility I think my current, entirely non-authoritative and not very original position is this:
People at risk of being triggered by vids and requesting warnings are grown ups. They are perfectly aware that vidder or VVC or VJ supplied summaries of potentially triggering content are just someone else’s judgements. They don’t guarantee safety but they would make the con more navigable and feel more hospitable. An explicit warnings policy, however imperfect and far from comprehensive a guide it produces/makes available, also at some level acknowledges that they exist, they are visible.
People at risk of being triggered by vids who are not asking for warnings or are arguing against some of the more pro-warning policies are also grown ups. There may be different reasons for their stance but at least in some cases it may be that they have evolved strategies for balancing the risks that rely on convincing themselves that they don’t need to trust other people who are not them to figure out what they need to know. A very in your face pro-warning culture may make the attitude required to do this more difficult to maintain. Where the message one person gets from content notes and checklists is “you are seen” for someone else it might be “ you are being watched (over).”
I think compromise is possible and that several of the suggested models for the new warnings policy could achieve it, the main thing being that warnings/content information need to be kept as separate as possible from other types of information about the con that people might want to access. The need to make the con accessible to warning averse people would place certain restrictions on where information could be made available. For example, warnings should not be integrated in the programme notes or embedded in vids but could be supplied on separate printouts. Lists of which vids and or vidshows vidders, VJ’s or the concom consider may contain specified potential triggers would ideally be collated in one central place that can be linked to but (on request) not copied and pasted into unlocked journal posts. Private correspondence with the concom or VJs should be encouraged but with, if logistically possible, a way for individual attendees to opt out of being e-mailed about whether they need such information. And so on and so on.
http://hazelk.dreamwidth.org/109447.html |
comments | Comment at Dreamwidth
astolat and read a large number of other people's posts and comments about warnings and VVC accessibility I think my current, entirely non-authoritative and not very original position is this:
People at risk of being triggered by vids and requesting warnings are grown ups. They are perfectly aware that vidder or VVC or VJ supplied summaries of potentially triggering content are just someone else’s judgements. They don’t guarantee safety but they would make the con more navigable and feel more hospitable. An explicit warnings policy, however imperfect and far from comprehensive a guide it produces/makes available, also at some level acknowledges that they exist, they are visible.
People at risk of being triggered by vids who are not asking for warnings or are arguing against some of the more pro-warning policies are also grown ups. There may be different reasons for their stance but at least in some cases it may be that they have evolved strategies for balancing the risks that rely on convincing themselves that they don’t need to trust other people who are not them to figure out what they need to know. A very in your face pro-warning culture may make the attitude required to do this more difficult to maintain. Where the message one person gets from content notes and checklists is “you are seen” for someone else it might be “ you are being watched (over).”
I think compromise is possible and that several of the suggested models for the new warnings policy could achieve it, the main thing being that warnings/content information need to be kept as separate as possible from other types of information about the con that people might want to access. The need to make the con accessible to warning averse people would place certain restrictions on where information could be made available. For example, warnings should not be integrated in the programme notes or embedded in vids but could be supplied on separate printouts. Lists of which vids and or vidshows vidders, VJ’s or the concom consider may contain specified potential triggers would ideally be collated in one central place that can be linked to but (on request) not copied and pasted into unlocked journal posts. Private correspondence with the concom or VJs should be encouraged but with, if logistically possible, a way for individual attendees to opt out of being e-mailed about whether they need such information. And so on and so on.
http://hazelk.dreamwidth.org/109447.html |
comments | Comment at Dreamwidth