thoughts on warnings
There's been some conversation going on about VividCon's various policies, and I have some thoughts on the warnings discussion (as I have seen here). I support VividCon's current policy. I don't think there should be a required con policy for individual warnings outside the blanket warning laid out in the program/website. I am not a member of the VVC concom, just someone who is attending and submitting vids for the fourth year.
I fully acknowledge that many people have many different kinds of triggers. There is a time and place for warnings, absolutely. I have put a warning on one of my vids for constructing implied child abuse, and my Premieres vid this year will have a warning as well on my lj. I am not anti-warning. But I do think that providing warnings is something every artist should decide for her/himself - what kind, if any, as they want to phrase it. It's something for individual spaces, not something, I think, that can be incorporated into a con space in a fair way that truly addresses and "fixes" a problem. In a way I see it as somewhat analogous to federal vs. state rights, and I say this as a registered Democrat. If you make it VividCon policy, then ultimately, the concom will have to become responsible for labeling vids, which is unfair to the artist and the concom alike. The fact that VividCon works so hard to retain artistic integrity, showing every vid and allowing for criticism/discussion of art, is part of what makes it so great.
There is talk of this "burden" (to use their word) - asking who has the burden of identifying triggery material. As the policy is now, viewers are responsible for their own viewing habits. I have seen several people say that this "burden" should be shifted to either the vidders or to the VVC concom. There is a logic to that, sure. The people who know what's in a vid are the ones who can say what's in it. The viewer can't be held responsible for knowing things they have no way of knowing, or knowing who to ask. Given the large amount of vids and little amount of information available in a blurb, it can be tough and time-consuming to identify beforehand what vids you might not want to watch. I hear that. It would be great if there was a way for every viewer who requested it to have communicated to them what vids they should avoid. What I'm saying is that I don't think there is a way to do that that doesn't largely detract from the con or artistry itself.
Adding a tickybox list or a dropdown menu to the vid submission form would not be hard. But would it really be effective? What should be on that list? Vids are different from fic in many ways, and the same warnings probably wouldn't work. (This comment lays out some great examples of how the manipulation of video can take one concept and turn it into a variety of very different things.) Even if you were able to narrow down some of these very complex ideas into a manageable list, who gets to say what is on the list? If you go for "common" triggers, well, common to whom? Fandom at large? The VVC audience specifically? (for that year?) And is someone else's very uncommon but very real and powerful trigger not as valid because s/he's the only one outing her/himself to claim it? It would be impossible to include every trigger in a manageable list of warnings; if you go too broad, it becomes convoluted and pointless. (As an example, I really can't deal with seeing people's eyes pulled out, but I'm not going to close my eyes for every vid that's labeled "graphic violence.") If you go more specific, you have to include everyone. There has been a general theme in these conversations of how VVC is excluding or ignoring people. Who's to say whose triggers are more "valid" and deserve room on the list? If you make it VVC policy to provide warnings, you are then holding VVC responsible for warning you about what you didn't want to see. If this doesn't happen because of a flaw in the system, it then becomes the concom's fault you saw something you didn't want to see. I'm not okay with this. It becomes one of those systems that is defined by its flaws, and it renounces the adult audience of responsibility over themselves.
From the talk it seems that, if a warning policy went into place, there would be an option for "choose not to warn" or something to that effect, which is fine. If you're going to make something mandatory, then provide the option to opt out. That's fair. But I can think of several vidders off the top of my head who make very powerful vids (often seen as controversial) who would intentionally not put a warning on them because their art shouldn't have a warning -- it is art. In this world, you view art at your own risk. It's often supposed to make you feel uncomfortable and catch you unaware. That may be the very point. (And so on.) Let's say one of these vids shows with this "choose not to warn" label and someone who chose to watch it is triggered by it in some way. Would this person have the right to be upset with either the concom (for letting this happen) or the vidder (for not "properly labeling" her/his vid)? The current VVC policy is that all vids are effectively under this umbrella (watch at your own risk). Would giving an individual vid this label make that much difference? It might become code for "DANGER, SEKRIT WARNING for...something, who knows!" I'm guessing so, since some people have said that they would be wary of any vid that has this label. Isn't that a bit backwards? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of wanting warnings for specific things in the first place? Which leads back to the question of what can/should be warned for. Whose responsibility is it? Some people might not be okay with the concom saying, "Well, the vidder labeled it that way" without claiming ultimate responsibility for it not having the warning they think it should. Should there be some kind of enforcing body on the concom who is responsible for labeling vids with [specific] warnings? That's just as subjective as anything else. Does the concom have the right to veto the label a vidder puts on her/his own vid? I don't think so, no. It becomes a big mess. And in the end, is there that much of a difference between a vidder labeling a vid "choose not to warn" and the entire con having this as a blanket policy?
To me, all of this comes back to the fact that some people seem to expect vidders/concom/anyone to know what will be upsetting to them as an individual and communicate this to them effectively in advance. This is not realistic. Yes, the vidders/concom have knowledge of what is in vids. That does not make it their responsibility to know how I or your or anyone will respond to it. They can make assumptions and provide warnings, but warnings are all subjective and imperfect. There will always be a disconnect between what people warn for (if at all), what people think they are being warned for, and what people wish they had been warned for. (I haven't even brought spoilers into this.) There will be vids with warnings that some viewers felt were unnecessary, and there will be vids with no warning that will upset many people. Sometimes it will align, but there's no way to get that right. Many people seem to think something would be better than nothing, that we have to start trying in order to get it right, but I think this particular issue could open up a can of worms that leads to a trigger hierarchy, an enforcing body, and possibly censorship of art. I don't think that serves what VividCon stands for. It's very possible that more people disagree with me and think an individual warning policy is the way to go. If so, then so be it. But if you make warnings a rule, the buck has to stop with someone to enforce it. Someone is then responsible for protecting and serving an audience and being held accountable when they get it wrong. Otherwise, you will do a big thing badly, to borrow the line from Sports Night, which I personally think is worse (in most cases) than if you had done nothing at all. If VVC chooses to go this route, then they have to follow through and get it right.
I don't know how to effectively and fairly bridge this gap between the people who have the information (vidders/concom) and the people who have the responsibility over their own viewing habits (the vid watchers). I wish I had the answer. Maybe there is one! I just don't think that a required warning policy is necessarily the way to go.
ETA: I really am enjoying all the constructive conversation going on in comments here - thank you. I'm not replying to most comments, but I am reading them all. You've got some very valid, meaty points; thank you for sharing them.
ETA 2: (7/1) I would like to make an amendment to my position after reading through the first 55 comments. I see now that my post convoluted the ideas of being triggered for either PTSD or a physical condition versus seeing something you just don't like. There is a real difference between triggers and squick that I did not properly address. (Great posts have been made to better clarify this.) I absolutely do think that people have the right to know (when possible) that they will encounter something that causes them physical suffering or extreme duress -- this is an access issue. In the real world, we cannot always give them a heads up, but we could in this case much of the time, which is better than nothing. Yes. (I never thought otherwise, but I did not make this clear.)
My fear was - and is - that some people will take whatever trigger warning system is in place and push on the concom to expand it to accommodate whatever they just don't want to see in art. That is the neverending can of worms, that is where I have a problem, and that is what I pessimistically foresee might happen. I say this based on having heard complaints every year at VVC about things people saw in vids that they hated/were angry about, expressed in a manner beyond basic criticism that attacks the vidder. (If warnings went into place, this could transfer to concom, etc. as I laid out before.) I really hope I am wrong! Now, there is also the chance that whatever some people are choosing not to see would fall into these trigger warning categories, and then everyone is a winner. I really liked the idea of having trigger warnings printed on a separate sheet that could be picked up in the con suite. Whoever wants to see it can, and those who don't can easily avoid. That's a terrific idea.
I still have my doubts, but I wanted to publicly say that I don't think anyone should be denied access to the con based on things beyond their control, trauma they may have suffered, or any kind of access issue.
I fully acknowledge that many people have many different kinds of triggers. There is a time and place for warnings, absolutely. I have put a warning on one of my vids for constructing implied child abuse, and my Premieres vid this year will have a warning as well on my lj. I am not anti-warning. But I do think that providing warnings is something every artist should decide for her/himself - what kind, if any, as they want to phrase it. It's something for individual spaces, not something, I think, that can be incorporated into a con space in a fair way that truly addresses and "fixes" a problem. In a way I see it as somewhat analogous to federal vs. state rights, and I say this as a registered Democrat. If you make it VividCon policy, then ultimately, the concom will have to become responsible for labeling vids, which is unfair to the artist and the concom alike. The fact that VividCon works so hard to retain artistic integrity, showing every vid and allowing for criticism/discussion of art, is part of what makes it so great.
There is talk of this "burden" (to use their word) - asking who has the burden of identifying triggery material. As the policy is now, viewers are responsible for their own viewing habits. I have seen several people say that this "burden" should be shifted to either the vidders or to the VVC concom. There is a logic to that, sure. The people who know what's in a vid are the ones who can say what's in it. The viewer can't be held responsible for knowing things they have no way of knowing, or knowing who to ask. Given the large amount of vids and little amount of information available in a blurb, it can be tough and time-consuming to identify beforehand what vids you might not want to watch. I hear that. It would be great if there was a way for every viewer who requested it to have communicated to them what vids they should avoid. What I'm saying is that I don't think there is a way to do that that doesn't largely detract from the con or artistry itself.
Adding a tickybox list or a dropdown menu to the vid submission form would not be hard. But would it really be effective? What should be on that list? Vids are different from fic in many ways, and the same warnings probably wouldn't work. (This comment lays out some great examples of how the manipulation of video can take one concept and turn it into a variety of very different things.) Even if you were able to narrow down some of these very complex ideas into a manageable list, who gets to say what is on the list? If you go for "common" triggers, well, common to whom? Fandom at large? The VVC audience specifically? (for that year?) And is someone else's very uncommon but very real and powerful trigger not as valid because s/he's the only one outing her/himself to claim it? It would be impossible to include every trigger in a manageable list of warnings; if you go too broad, it becomes convoluted and pointless. (As an example, I really can't deal with seeing people's eyes pulled out, but I'm not going to close my eyes for every vid that's labeled "graphic violence.") If you go more specific, you have to include everyone. There has been a general theme in these conversations of how VVC is excluding or ignoring people. Who's to say whose triggers are more "valid" and deserve room on the list? If you make it VVC policy to provide warnings, you are then holding VVC responsible for warning you about what you didn't want to see. If this doesn't happen because of a flaw in the system, it then becomes the concom's fault you saw something you didn't want to see. I'm not okay with this. It becomes one of those systems that is defined by its flaws, and it renounces the adult audience of responsibility over themselves.
From the talk it seems that, if a warning policy went into place, there would be an option for "choose not to warn" or something to that effect, which is fine. If you're going to make something mandatory, then provide the option to opt out. That's fair. But I can think of several vidders off the top of my head who make very powerful vids (often seen as controversial) who would intentionally not put a warning on them because their art shouldn't have a warning -- it is art. In this world, you view art at your own risk. It's often supposed to make you feel uncomfortable and catch you unaware. That may be the very point. (And so on.) Let's say one of these vids shows with this "choose not to warn" label and someone who chose to watch it is triggered by it in some way. Would this person have the right to be upset with either the concom (for letting this happen) or the vidder (for not "properly labeling" her/his vid)? The current VVC policy is that all vids are effectively under this umbrella (watch at your own risk). Would giving an individual vid this label make that much difference? It might become code for "DANGER, SEKRIT WARNING for...something, who knows!" I'm guessing so, since some people have said that they would be wary of any vid that has this label. Isn't that a bit backwards? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of wanting warnings for specific things in the first place? Which leads back to the question of what can/should be warned for. Whose responsibility is it? Some people might not be okay with the concom saying, "Well, the vidder labeled it that way" without claiming ultimate responsibility for it not having the warning they think it should. Should there be some kind of enforcing body on the concom who is responsible for labeling vids with [specific] warnings? That's just as subjective as anything else. Does the concom have the right to veto the label a vidder puts on her/his own vid? I don't think so, no. It becomes a big mess. And in the end, is there that much of a difference between a vidder labeling a vid "choose not to warn" and the entire con having this as a blanket policy?
To me, all of this comes back to the fact that some people seem to expect vidders/concom/anyone to know what will be upsetting to them as an individual and communicate this to them effectively in advance. This is not realistic. Yes, the vidders/concom have knowledge of what is in vids. That does not make it their responsibility to know how I or your or anyone will respond to it. They can make assumptions and provide warnings, but warnings are all subjective and imperfect. There will always be a disconnect between what people warn for (if at all), what people think they are being warned for, and what people wish they had been warned for. (I haven't even brought spoilers into this.) There will be vids with warnings that some viewers felt were unnecessary, and there will be vids with no warning that will upset many people. Sometimes it will align, but there's no way to get that right. Many people seem to think something would be better than nothing, that we have to start trying in order to get it right, but I think this particular issue could open up a can of worms that leads to a trigger hierarchy, an enforcing body, and possibly censorship of art. I don't think that serves what VividCon stands for. It's very possible that more people disagree with me and think an individual warning policy is the way to go. If so, then so be it. But if you make warnings a rule, the buck has to stop with someone to enforce it. Someone is then responsible for protecting and serving an audience and being held accountable when they get it wrong. Otherwise, you will do a big thing badly, to borrow the line from Sports Night, which I personally think is worse (in most cases) than if you had done nothing at all. If VVC chooses to go this route, then they have to follow through and get it right.
I don't know how to effectively and fairly bridge this gap between the people who have the information (vidders/concom) and the people who have the responsibility over their own viewing habits (the vid watchers). I wish I had the answer. Maybe there is one! I just don't think that a required warning policy is necessarily the way to go.
ETA: I really am enjoying all the constructive conversation going on in comments here - thank you. I'm not replying to most comments, but I am reading them all. You've got some very valid, meaty points; thank you for sharing them.
ETA 2: (7/1) I would like to make an amendment to my position after reading through the first 55 comments. I see now that my post convoluted the ideas of being triggered for either PTSD or a physical condition versus seeing something you just don't like. There is a real difference between triggers and squick that I did not properly address. (Great posts have been made to better clarify this.) I absolutely do think that people have the right to know (when possible) that they will encounter something that causes them physical suffering or extreme duress -- this is an access issue. In the real world, we cannot always give them a heads up, but we could in this case much of the time, which is better than nothing. Yes. (I never thought otherwise, but I did not make this clear.)
My fear was - and is - that some people will take whatever trigger warning system is in place and push on the concom to expand it to accommodate whatever they just don't want to see in art. That is the neverending can of worms, that is where I have a problem, and that is what I pessimistically foresee might happen. I say this based on having heard complaints every year at VVC about things people saw in vids that they hated/were angry about, expressed in a manner beyond basic criticism that attacks the vidder. (If warnings went into place, this could transfer to concom, etc. as I laid out before.) I really hope I am wrong! Now, there is also the chance that whatever some people are choosing not to see would fall into these trigger warning categories, and then everyone is a winner. I really liked the idea of having trigger warnings printed on a separate sheet that could be picked up in the con suite. Whoever wants to see it can, and those who don't can easily avoid. That's a terrific idea.
I still have my doubts, but I wanted to publicly say that I don't think anyone should be denied access to the con based on things beyond their control, trauma they may have suffered, or any kind of access issue.