On VVC, criticism, and warnings

[laurashapiro]

Note: This post is addressed to friends of mine in the vidding community who have expressed anger and frustration that the current discussions around Vividcon's policies, accessibility, and trigger warnings are taking place.

Vidding is my fandom. For me, Vividcon is its nexus, the highlight of my year, my favorite place to be, where almost all of my very best friends are. It's where I see great vids and have great conversations, where I dance my ass off and have my mind blown. All of it is made possible by a fastidiously-organized concom and the vidders and vid fans who volunteer and participate. I love it.

Vidding is my fandom. Vividcon is my con. I am part of it. I feel responsible for it. That's why I'm making this statement.

The VVC concom asked people to offer concerns and suggestions about their Background and Policies document. The fact that many people have done so does not mean they are "bashing the con", just as giving critique in vid review does not make a person "mean". I have complete confidence that when the concom says "VividCon welcomes comments and feedback on the VividCon Background and Policies statement. We would like to express our gratitude to those who have taken the time to make a comment or write to us about their concerns" they mean exactly that. I respect the people on that concom, some of my best friends in fandom, and I know that they are sincere in wanting to hear criticism so they can learn and improve -- the same way many vidders who come to the con sincerely want criticism on our vids so we can learn and improve.

This is not about being "politically correct", a phrase that I have a lot of problems with. This is about trying to make Vividcon accessible and fun for everyone.

Regarding the trigger warnings debate specifically, I'm going to quote thuviaptarth here because she says just what I would have:

Last year's discussions about warnings in fanfiction changed my mind about warnings. I am firmly opposed to censorship. I don't have triggers myself. Generally I prefer to avoid vid warnings. I am almost certain that my position on my premiering vid will be "Choose not to warn." And I am in favor of implementing warnings for common PTSD and physical triggers, preferably as a separate list rather than included on the vid or in the vidshow itself.

...

The thing is, I am opposed to requiring warnings for "offensive content." That's something I consider a free expression issue. I am in favor of warnings for "triggers," which is more of a disability and accessibility issue. I don't feel that my artistic freedom of expression is best served by my incapicitating people with flashbacks or inducing a migraine.

Her entire post is worth reading.

A person who requests trigger warnings is not a crybaby. They are a survivor of trauma or a person with disabilities trying to protect themselves from serious harm. They are not asking other people to take responsibility for them. They are taking responsibility for themselves.

To return to the subject of the con itself: in order for to make Vividcon accessible and fun for everyone, some things will have to change. Change is upsetting, and it takes work. It's particularly hard for people who have loved VVC for years just the way it is. We feel protective of VVC and of the people who make it happen.

But I want to work for the change, because I believe that my pleasure is not worth more than other people's pain, and because as much as I love Vividcon, I believe that it's possible for it to be better. I want to be sure that everyone who is interested in coming to Vividcon can come, can feel welcome and safe there the way I do, can return home with the same cherished memories of fannish delight and deep thinkiness and social hilarity that I do. I want everyone to love it the way I do.

I want everyone to say, the way I do, "Is it August yet?"

ETA July 1, 2010 4:35 pm: I am reading every comment but I may not be able to reply to them all. At this time I am also not moderating comments, but will do so should it become necessary. I am working full-time, busy tonight, and going away for the weekend, where Internet access will be limited. But I am taking it all in. Please do continue to discuss among yourselves.

Comments

[rachelmanija]

To take a leaf from AO3, which has a set of basic warnings but also has "chooses not to warn" as an option, would you be okay with labeling all of yours "chooses not to warn," as a number of fic writers do?

[sisabet]

I am coming around to it. It is hard to explain but one of the things I use vidding for is to escape this thing called Vicarious Trauma or Compassion Fatigue. What it means for me is that I have to hear and see some pretty awful things and I *have* to engage empathetically with it or I can not effectively utilize my own resources of patience and understanding and kindness to help someone else deal with their trauma.

After a while though, enough real horror stories? And you start to disengage emotionally from everything. Not just work (which suffers) but from, well everything. Have a traumatic event happen in your own life or in your family and you're toast - no resources to deal with it. Mostly for me it results in callousness and horrid anxiety, but for the most part I try to police myself and do all the self-care things I need to do to function and be effective and also to be happy and sleep at night.

Vidding? Is where I tend to put it all. And I know my vids sometimes are awful to watch (I made them that way!) but if I am taking my secondary trauma and using vidding as an outlet for *that*(and never doubt for a moment that Women's Work and Get Low were just that) and suddenly I have to face the idea that I might be causing real harm to the audience, I don't know what to do with the anxiety that sparks.

I mean, I've thought of this before and the whole, well everything at VVC is watch at your own risk was comforting because it was out of my hands and I could just share this without a moral issue or shame or guilt. Choses not to warn might be my only option but it still does not alleviate it, at least for me, at least right now.

[dharma_slut]

I am an outsider to this culture of yours, but I don't think your culture has as much to do with it as all that.

Well... you know that most people who have issues will, for instance, look to movie reviews before they pay for a movie ticket. If the review contains a spoiler, so be it, and if it doesn't contain a spoiler, folks will hunt for a friend who will provide one. Same with book reviews.

But watching vids for the first time at a con, there won't be any reviews available, I don't think.

Personally, I would seriously, really-truly, want to KNOW that you make your vids for your own personal therapy needs.

I would surely watch them, but I would appreciate having the warning that I need to put my own armor on.

Seriously, say something. Don't stop making your vids in the way you do, don't not show them, just don't dump your traumas on other people without a little warning. It's not that horrible a compromise.

[arduinna]

That label is already on every vid at the con.

Under existing VVC policies, there's nothing stopping individual vidders from looking at the blanket "choose not to warn" label and deciding that they want to add individual warnings instead, while those who choose not to warn are *already covered*.

[thingswithwings]

But, the thing is, that label isn't already on every vid at the con, is it? I attended last year, and don't recall seeing anything in any of the literature that said "all vids are 'choose not to warn' unless it is indicated othewise,' and I don't recall seeing anything in the vids upload form that said "your vid will be default labelled 'choose not to warn' unless you put other information in the program or on the vid." Though it's possible I am missing something! But having no information whatsoever on the vids is not the same as having creators choose (even passively, by not-checking a tickybox, say) to label as "choose not to warn." Where is the blanket "choose not to warn" label? Because it seems to me that it's something that's been retroactively created by this year's con policies, and not the general state of the con as it has functioned in years past.

It seems obvious to me that, given the choice, some vidders would choose "choose not to warn," and some would choose "no warnings," and some would choose "warning for X." And that many vidders who hadn't thought about the issue might realise, upon being given that choice, that their bouncy fun multivid about hugs wants a "no warnings" label, rather than a choose not to warn label. Frankly, it's the "no warnings" label that I want most, and that I think people simply don't consider when writing their descriptions in the con program. If you've made a vid with rape or violence in it, you are likely to consider whether or not you want to warn; if you've made a vid that requires no warnings, the issue might not even occur to you. But a simple ticky-box on upload would make (some) people say, oh, no warnings for this one! Then it gets labelled, by default, as safe, rather than having a default "caution - enter at your own risk" label.

(of course it's also fine to label your vid choose not to warn if it's a happy bouncy multivid about hugs, but I'm saying, some people might make a different choice).

[arduinna]

Where is the blanket "choose not to warn" label? Because it seems to me that it's something that's been retroactively created by this year's con policies, and not the general state of the con as it has functioned in years past.

It's always been the case, actually, just not explicitly stated until right now. And of course to be precise, the con policy is "we don't require or provide warnings", not "we choose not to warn". (Which I realize is a subtle difference, but slight changes in language can mean different things to different people, so. I consider those two statements to be effectively identical in meaning, fwiw.)

Vividcon came out of the Escapade tradition, which had an explicitly no-warnings-required vidshow (after someone brought up the idea of warnings ca. 2000 - before that, warnings was just something no one ever did), and VVC very much stuck to that. While the VVC website never explicitly stated that the con didn't provide warnings, it did always say something along the lines of "Vividcon does not discriminate against vids for [list of example things that might be in vids], and you may be exposed to any of that or more; consequently, only adults 18 and over are allowed into Vividcon".

This served as a blanket "caveat viewer" warning for the entire con: all the vidshows, all the vids shown in part or in whole in panels, any vids shown in the con suite, vids shown at room parties. Vividcon never required any of its vidders to put warnings on any vids, although some vidders chose to do so on their own, which is perfectly acceptable.

(There are historical reasons why it was just understood by the early attendees that "you may see things you don't like" also meant "and you won't be warned about them", and the concom likely felt that it continued to be understood as a basic part of the con's culture, until it became clear that that was no longer the case, at which point they took the implicit policy and made it explicit.)

To put this into context, I have never heard of a single vidshow at any con that required warnings on vids (other than MediaWest traditionally segregating gen, het, and slash vids). I've sent a vid to three cons so far this year, including VVC, and haven't had to put warnings on it for any of them, and I would be *very* startled to find a warnings checkbox on any other vid submission form.

It may be growing as an *online* practice, but warnings are simply not part of the general con-based vidshow tradition. It's not just a Vividcon thing.

I'm also not sure how much people who aren't familiar with the con who are chiming in on this actually realize just how many vids are shown, in how many places, during VVC. (i.e., this next bit isn't aimed at you, since you've been, but at people reading who may not realize).

VVC shows vids not just during vidshows (during which you can't read a flyer anyway, since the shows are kept dark and no lights are allowed), but also during panels when mods may use whatever vids they want to illustrate a point; during Karaoke; in the consuite for basically every minute it's open, as random attendees pick random vidshows and vidder DVDs out of the library to play; during pretty much every room party, ditto; and during Vid Review (which is the only time I can see a flyer being truly useful, as the lights are on for most of Vid Review, and only lowered when sections of vids are played to refresh people's memories).

(Note: The vid library contains every vid show that has ever aired at Vividcon, plus individual and collaborative vidder DVDs. It's huge, and it's available to every attendee to play in the consuite or back in their rooms, and there are no warnings on any of it.)

I can't see any way that someone with triggers can truly protect themselves from ever being exposed to vid content that might be triggery for them by means of a warnings flyer, when just walking into the con suite for a brownie could trigger them, or knocking on a door and looking in to see what's shaking in a party.

It seems vastly safer to me to just say across the board that the entire con is Caveat Viewer, and for people to keep that in mind when they decide whether or not this is something they can risk attending, than to lull people into thinking that with a warnings flyer, they can safely make specific choices throughout the con to protect themselves.

That aside, it looks like you're assuming that if it's a case-by-case basis, the majority of vidders will choose to warn or say "this vid has nothing in it that needs to be warned for"; I think that will be true of some vidders, but by no means all. Especially since at least one commenter I've seen somewhere has explained that "choose not to warn" will provide sufficient protection from harm, but choosing to warn but accidentally missing a trigger will mean that the vidder is causing harm.

I would much rather send my vids to a con where the automatic assumption was that every attendee there was willing to risk seeing whatever I made. If I can't have that, I will never put anything but "choose not to warn" on a vid of mine, because I can't see any other safe thing to do for everyone concerned.

[(Anonymous)]

Thank you very much for providing this context. It's very helpful to have it here.

[laurashapiro]

Thanks very much for providing this context. It's very helpful to have that here.

[thingswithwings]

Okay, VVC hasn't historically offered warnings, and other cons don't tend to offer warnings either - yes, that's accurate. I've submitted vids to several different cons and was never prompted for warnings. But I don't see what that has to do with the issue right now, which is, people are asking for VVC to make a space for vidders to either warn or explicitly choose not to warn. If I went to VidUKcon, I'm sure I would feel as passionately about this issue for that con as I do for this one, but. I go to VVC. And it is my hope that, were VVC to begin a warnings policy, it would encourage other cons to do the same. Just because it hasn't been done before doesn't mean it can't be done.

Last year I didn't notice vids playing in the consuite all the time - I staffed it, I hung out there, I ate the delicious brownies, and I think the only time I saw vids playing in there was when they were mirroring premieres etc. Which isn't to say that it doesn't happen, but rather that one isn't really unable to go in there without seeing vids. Parties and the vid library seem to me like things that an individual is more in control of than what they see at the premieres show - all the vids shown in those places have been shown before, for example, so there is more information available on them (at veni_vidi_vids or places like that) and I was so busy with new vids and things last year (and eventually overstimulated) that I didn't take any dvds out of the vid library - it's not the centrepiece of the con.

No one is arguing that everyone can protect themselves 100% every moment of the con. Just that there are ways that we can make things safer, a little - a little easier, a little better. I think that this part of your comment is rather revealing:

It seems vastly safer to me to just say across the board that the entire con is Caveat Viewer, and for people to keep that in mind when they decide whether or not this is something they can risk attending

Safer for who? Safer in the sense of "exempt from criticism," I suppose, yes, but not safer in the sense of "people who have triggers who do attend can be helped to be a bit safer." Trying to warn for triggers can indeed be a risky business, as I know well from fic warnings - and it takes serious introspection, and empathy, and willingness to see your story or vid from other peoples' perspective. And it's possible to get it wrong; I have, and I have friends who have. But I would rather try, in order to make things more accessible most of the time, than just say "if you have triggers, don't come to the con, or if you do come to the con, don't blame us if you get triggered, because we've laid it out clearly in our terms of service that we cannot be held accountable for any harm you might experience." That latter attitude is not interested in helping, or making more people feel more secure at the con, or giving people resources to make their management of the con easier. Of course things can go wrong or a warning can be insufficient or a person could simply misread a warning - who knows, we're people, things happen. But the concom stated in its policy guidelines that it wanted to be accessible, as accessible as possible, and this is a way to make it more accessible. Perfect accessibility isn't the goal; better accessibility is.

The "risk" that people are taking to see every vid is not the same from person to person - for me, I might get depressed or feel crappy or be angry; that is an easy risk for me to take, personally. Other people are taking much, much bigger risks in order to participate in something that they love, and I want to help them reduce that risk, wherever possible. It may be easier and "safer" for me to not say anything at all, but if I want to make the world safer for them - and not just safer, but more accessible, to enable them to have access to as much of the con as possible (Premieres really is the highlight of the con, is it not? It's the thing I would least like to miss), then this is something that I can do. I can take a little risk on myself to reduce other peoples' risk. People will still be taking a chance - but, less of one.

For me, it comes down to: people have said that warnings would help them navigate the con, even if there were only warnings on some parts of the con and not all. It is not my job to question whether or not that is true; it is my job to say, well, warnings are pretty easily managed, so let's set that up for you. These people are managing their own triggers, and asking for some resources to help with that, and that should be reason enough to put them in place.

eta: oh, actually, my friend has just informed me that Wiscon this year provided a list of trigger warnings for the entire (huge!) vidshow that they put on. In fact, damned_colonial and were_duck personally went through all the vids and listed the trigger warnings for all of them, which I assume was a lot of work. So, even though I don't think precedent is necessary, there is in fact precedent.

[arduinna]

Just because it hasn't been done before doesn't mean it can't be done.

No, of course it doesn't. But equally, just because one part of fandom makes one choice doesn't mean that all other parts of fandom need to make the same choice; it's perfectly valid to have different traditions that are suited to different fannish audiences.

Safer for who? Safer in the sense of "exempt from criticism," I suppose,

No, I sincerely meant safer for people with triggers, in that they will never be lulled into a false sense of security, then whammed with something unexpected that the vidder genuinely didn't realize should be warned for.

I've seen people say that that's the most dangerous thing for them - that when they don't expect warnings, they can be mentally prepared to cope with triggers, but once they're assured they don't need to make those mental preparations, any trigger can hit with intensified force. I don't want the con telling people "don't worry, you can relax on this road, we've put guard rails up" and have them plunge over a cliff because someone mislabeled something, or didn't realize something was dangerous.

I don't ever want to do that personally, either, and so I'll never use anything but "choose not to warn" if I'm forced to stick a label on at all.

I'm getting a little frustrated with people saying, on the one hand, that "choose not to warn" is of course a totally valid, respectful choice, but on the other hand, as you imply so clearly here, that it shows a lack of thought, lack of empathy, narrow-mindedness, and lack of willingness to compromise, and is cowardly to boot.

If you believe that "choose not to warn" is an invalid option, please take it out of the mix of valid options you're talking about. I am feeling hugely bait-and-switched in this conversation.

actually, my friend has just informed me that Wiscon this year provided a list of trigger warnings for the entire (huge!) vidshow that they put on.

No, it didn't. Wiscon doesn't have a vidshow; the word "vid" doesn't even appear anywhere on their website.

Two Wiscon attendees had a huge, unofficial vid party, for which those two individuals apparently provided warnings. There's a huge difference there.

I'm fine with individuals saying whatever they want about my vids, at any time. I am not fine with a convention (either the concom or people representing the con, such as a VJ) applying official warnings or ratings to them (other than a default equivalent of CNTW), or with a convention demanding that I apply specific warnings without the ability to opt out of that process.

I would be equally unhappy with any member of the AO3 team going through all of the CNTW stories on the archive and posting an official, detailed listing of triggers contained in those stories. If someone wants to do that privately as a favor to a friend, fine, no problem. But the AO3 shouldn't be doing that, and neither should cons.

[thingswithwings]

I'm getting a little frustrated with people saying, on the one hand, that "choose not to warn" is of course a totally valid, respectful choice, but on the other hand, as you imply so clearly here, that it shows a lack of thought, lack of empathy, narrow-mindedness, and lack of willingness to compromise, and is cowardly to boot.

Um . . . no? I don't believe that at all. I'm not sure where I implied it, but perhaps you mean in my discussion of how providing warnings can be difficult, but it's a good thing that we can do? When I say 'provide warnings,' I do mean to include CNTW as one of the potential warnings that can be chosen. If I thought it was a cowardly, unempathetic, narrow-minded choice, I would have to kick half the fic writers off my flist. On the contrary, I think it's a great option for when an artist doesn't feel emotionally up to providing a warning, or when they honestly don't know what kind of warning to provide. Some other options that might help with that situation are a text-box option for warnings (so, if you're not sure if your vid contains 'non-con,' you can just say, contains four seconds of very rough sex, or what have you) and asking someone else (the concom, perhaps) to apply a warning to your vid for you. But CNTW is an admirable option that helps to make the warnings system accessible for vidders even as it works as an accessibility tool for viewers.

What I think lacks empathy or consideration is refusing to label at all. When people on my flist write fic and label it with "I don't provide warnings for X Y and Z, enter at your own risk," that still shows care and consideration. "Choose not to warn" as an option chosen by the vidder, rather than a blanket statement made by the con itself, shows care and consideration in a manner that the blanket statement does not.

[(Anonymous)]

Thank you for this comment. I have watched VVC from the sidelines since its inception, enjoying the vids that come out of it, and celebrating vidding culture. I have refused to attend VVC, not just because of the con's policy on warnings, but that has been one of the factors in my decision. A blanket "choose not to warn" statement coupled with a severely regulated and closed vidding room means no way to leave if I am suddenly exposed to something that will hurt me. I take care of myself by not going to the convention. Statements made by others dismissing comments by those who have not attended make me want to scream: why do you think we haven't attended?

Warning vid-by-vid or else posting "chooses not to warn" per vid gives people the option of ducking out of the room before the trouble starts, and if it is written on a handout, it doesn't impact the viewing experience except for the better. Spoilerphobes can simply choose not to take the paper. Vidders who do not want to suss out the warnings themselves can choose not to warn or ask the con comm to view their vids and put on a warning. The con comm can also list at the outset of specific things which are warned for such as violence or sexual assault or seizure flashes with a note that other triggers such as bugs or bunnies may not be warned for. Communication is all people are requesting.

[thingswithwings]

Statements made by others dismissing comments by those who have not attended make me want to scream: why do you think we haven't attended?

*nodnodnod* yes, exactly! Oh god, I am so sorry for the frustration you must be feeling at this whole debate. <3

And yes, exactly - communication is all that's wanted, just a little of it, just a bit more. I find it almost unbelievable how much resistance there is to the very idea.

[avendya]

Thank you for this comment -- I'd like to cosign pretty much everything here.

[thingswithwings]

<3

[klia]

I've seen comments negatively characterizing the "chooses not to warn" option as doesn't care about anyone else's feelings, so it's already become a lose-lose situation for vidders.

[cofax7]

I've seen comments negatively characterizing the "chooses not to warn" option as doesn't care about anyone else's feelings, so it's already become a lose-lose situation for vidders.

I'm not challenging that you've seen that, but ... I haven't. And the AO3 has been using "Choose not to warn" on the archive for the last year, and so far as I know there hasn't been any adverse commentary about that. (It's possible there was and I missed it.) I think it's a very workable compromise between producers' artistic concerns and reader/viewers' triggering concerns.

I do think that the people who know their triggers will choose to avoid CNTW stories/vids, and they may miss some things they would otherwise like. But if the writer/vidder uses CNTW, that is actually expressing more concern for the reader/viewer than no label at all.

So basically those people who claim CNTW means "don't care about anyone's feeling" are wrong. I'm sorry they're claiming that.

That said, I have seen some people be kind of jerkish about CNTW, but people can be jerkish about anything, after all.

[arduinna]

I'm not challenging that you've seen that, but ... I haven't.

Under this system, "choose not to warn" is itself a warning, not an opt-out. Vidders must necessarily create vids under the AO3 model with the understanding that they will have to either warn or deliberately opt out. It seems that ticking the "choose not to warn" box would be understood as "doesn't care about anyone else's feelings." To be fair, the vidder should still have a choice not to use warning labels.

I'm sorry they're claiming that.

But if they're claiming that because they believe it, does that make it any less valid than your belief that it's not true? It's true for them, and presumably it's true for other people as well. If I submit a vid marked CNTW and you think "yay, a respectful choice" and someone else thinks "wow what an uncaring bitch", are their feelings invalid?

But if the writer/vidder uses CNTW, that is actually expressing more concern for the reader/viewer than no label at all.

*hands*

That's what the con is doing, pre-emptively putting a CNTW label on every single vid and vidshow, and people are flat-out saying it's not acceptable, it's not enough.

Any individual vidder who wants to can put warnings in their summary for people to read in advance. Any vidder who wants to can put warning cards up in front of their vids. No individual artist is being forbidden to warn in any way, they're just not being *required* to add warnings beyond the con's blanket CNTW label.

And yet clearly, to many people CNTW is already *not* sufficient, because it isn't taking the feelings of viewers who want more explicit warnings into account. So no, I don't think "it's a lose-lose situation" is an inaccurate assessment.

[klia]

Thanks for jumping in. I... ran out of spoons earlier. *g*

[rydra_wong]

Under this system, "choose not to warn" is itself a warning, not an opt-out. Vidders must necessarily create vids under the AO3 model with the understanding that they will have to either warn or deliberately opt out. It seems that ticking the "choose not to warn" box would be understood as "doesn't care about anyone else's feelings." To be fair, the vidder should still have a choice not to use warning labels.

Erm.

That quote is not an example of someone hostile claiming that "choose not to warn" = not caring about anyone's feelings; that's an example of someone who doesn't want to use the label themselves expressing the fear that it would be seen that way by others.

I may well have missed something, but, like cofax7, I haven't seen anyone in the VVC discussions saying that "choose not to warn" is cruel or uncaring. AO3 have had it as an option from the start, it's been well-used, and I haven't seen any objections to that.

[arduinna]

First, klia said she'd seen someone characterizing the "choose not to warn" as uncaring; cofax7 said she hadn't; I quoted the line that klia had seen, which does in fact characterize the phrase that way. So.

Second:

that's an example of someone who doesn't want to use the label themselves expressing the fear that it would be seen that way by others.

The person who said that was very clear that s/he is not a vidder, and thus wouldn't be using that label on his/her own vids. They're speaking as a vid watcher who would be using the label system as a source of information.

That person was also taking part in a VVC discussion, fwiw. They may not "count" in your view, but the comment is there.

And if "choose not to warn" were really a completely acceptable option (which I certainly think it should be!), no one would have any problem with the con announcing that that was the official warning on every vid and vidshow, leaving it up to individual vidders to add more warnings (of whatever sort they wanted) if they wanted. But people do seem to have a problem with the CNTW blanket policy, as something insufficient to the needs of the membership.

The idea I take from Laura's post is very much that if the concom truly cares about its membership, it will mandate more explicit warnings, or at the very least mandate that every vidder has to individually choose "choose not to warn" on each vid if they prefer that, rather than going with a con-wide "caveat viewer" as has traditionally been the case.

If that's not the message you take from Laura's post, well, okay.

[saraht]

I'm not challenging that you've seen that, but ... I haven't.

Last year, when the warnings debate was last churning, it was stated pretty damn explicitly that people who used a blanket "choose not to warn" policy were supporting rape/abuse culture. I know any side will have people on it saying stupid things, but it isn't an unnatural progression of the pro-warnings ideology.

[klia]

Thanks for jumping in; I ran out of spoons and had to crash for a while.

I've seen several comments to that effect specifically about VVC (arduinna linked to the one I quoted), but you're right -- I'd forgotten all about seeing the same sorts of comments during that previous warnings debate. Thanks for reminding me.

[ljc]

Actually, I still jave an issue with "choose not to warn" because there's no alternative to put a warning on one of my stories that is triggery and involves involves dubcon/power play but there's no actual way to label it so it has a warning other than to use "choose not to warn". The reason it's an issue for me is that the language "choose not to warn" is sorta contrary to my actual intent. In reality I very MUCH want it to have a little red exclamation point precisely so people will read the author's notes to see exactly what I'm trying to warn for--precisely because the story is triggery. I don't want anyone to open it up thinking "yay porny fun!" and instead get completely blindsided by the fucked-up-edness of it. I kinda want people to be able to make an informed choice, rather than be blindsided by it and potentially triggered by it.

I've actually submitted tickets on it, and had discussions, both on my Livejournal and via email with some of the folks on the A03 committee, but last I heard, there was no movement on that front. Every once in a while I go to edit the headers, to see if there is any way I can properly label the story so it's labelled as "warning" but doesn't include the "choose not to warn" header, but so far, no joy. And it's frustrating on many levels, but I want to support the achive and I'm willing to hang in there until a suitable compromise can be found. And I would hope that people aren't just ignoring it hoping I'll go away, but that people meant when they said that my concerns were being taken into consideration. But it's also an issue with what is a quick fix versus what is a major programming change.

But most likely what will happen if there's never going to be a ticky box for "Warning: see author's notes for specific triggers," is I'll simply take it off A03 because in that instance, the archive can't actually provide what I need, vis a vis that story. I don't blame the archive. I don't blame the story. It just means I lsoe that channel of distributuon for that particular work, and people who might have read it there most likely won't.

So, erm... yeah. I realise I'm atypical in fandom, but it's still very much an issue for me as a writer. If I were a vidder more than merely an occasional vidder, I would most likely have the exact same issue with content labelling.

[vito_excalibur]

At some point you have to decide whether your goal is "never to be criticized by anyone" or "try to reasonably balance own desires with other people's needs".