thuviaptarth | What I'd like to see as the VVC trigger warnings policy (update)

What I would like implemented is

such_heights's suggestion in the Vividcon Open Policy Suggestion Post. This is, that as a default the con makes available a list of vids which have common triggers (graphic violence, sexual violence, migraine/epilepsy triggers) for people who want it, online before the con and in a stack of 20-40 copies in the Con Suite during the con. The concom can also be contacted by individuals with other triggers and ask for a list tailored to that requirement.

What I like about this:

For some number of people, access becomes institutionalized -- the disability is incorporated into the model of likely default human abilities instead of treated as a one-off peculiarity that requires the person with disabilities to ask explicitly for help. People with less common triggers still need to ask for individual assistance, but I think that is unavoidable; as many people have remarked, it is not possible to be aware of every possible trigger.
People who do not have triggers but who prefer to be warned for those common triggers also have access to this information.
It provides more complete information than the distribution among vidders previously suggested, under which many vids would have the question mark label of "Choose not to warn".
People who feel that the program offers an adequate guide to triggering information can continue to manage their triggers as they have in the past. That is, this doesn't seem to interfere with the methods that some people with triggers are already satisfied with.
People who prefer not to be warned can easily avoid the warnings.
Vidders who prefer not to label their vids, even with "Choose not to warn," do not need take on the task of warning or not warning.
The compilation work for the most common triggers gets pulled together ahead of time, which seems a little more efficient than waiting for and answering individual requests as they come in and on an individual basis.

What I dislike about this:

I really liked the way making this a community project sort of normalized the idea of triggers and made them a default part of the community worldview and not an addendum. However, it's clear a lot of the community doesn't want them to be a default, and this way that section of the community aren't forced into something they dislike.

In the post itself,

astolat suggests that all requests be sent to the Concom, who will respond to them individually.

What I like about this:

It provides a clear way for people to get personalized warning information. This may have been the con policy all along, but that has not been clear to people. It's a huge improvement just to have a clearly defined and reliable way to get the information.

What I dislike about this:

This is actually what I passionately hate about this. To be open with you, when I saw that line in the (generally vast improved! and clearly provisional!) revised policy statement, I burst into tears. As someone with clinical depression, there have frequently been times in my life when I have undergone great losses or suffered easily avoidable penalties because I could not bear the energy and emotional requirements of carrying on basic and simple human interactions. I don't (currently) have triggers, but I can easily imagine a situation in which it would be easier for me to suffer the anxiety of watching possibly triggery vids or the disappointment of not participating in major parts of the con than to have to put together the words of the email request and allow someone else to see my vulnerability, anonymous or not. It is an additional burden and it would feel like an additional stigma -- this is the another way I am not a normal person and am more effort than I'm worth and make trouble for everyone and don't deserve to live blah depressive thinking blah.

In addition to requiring extra effort from someone who is more likely not to have much extra to give, there's the way this still positions the person with triggers as an isolated individual who is an extra burden. Psychologically, having to email would make me feel like I was asking for a favor, not making use of an access right.

As I said above, I don't see a way to avoid putting some people with triggers into that situation. But I do see a way to make it fewer people than it would otherwise be.

To be very clear, this is my individual take based on my personality, experience, and opinions about human psychology. It does not necessarily apply to other people with clinical depression or to people with triggers or to people who belong to both of those groups. It is possible I am projecting my feelings in a way that is inaccurate.

I am closing comments because I don't feel up to hosting discussion on this issue. There are ongoing discussions about this and other parts of the con accessibility policy at

astolat's. There are discussions about trigger warnings here and here. Please check to see if discussion on this is currently open before you post; there have already been some requests for people to take a break for a cooling down period.