arduinna: a tarot-card version of Linus from Peanuts, carrying a lamp as The Hermit (Default)
Arduinna ([personal profile] arduinna) wrote2010-07-05 01:20 am
Entry tags:

on warning at Vividcon

So, like many people on all sides of this issue, I've been frustrated by the recent discussion on warnings at Vividcon. Part of it for me is because I look at the list of things people want specific trigger warnings for, and I think about Premieres, and all I can think is: "warn for ALL the vids?"

I keep seeing what seem to me to be assumptions that of course many (or at least several) vids will be marked "no warnings apply," while some vids will have specific warnings and some will have "choose not to warn," and the end result will be that people with triggers will be able to enjoy a large portion of the show. And that just doesn't match my memory of what Premieres is like.

So I popped in my VVC 2009 DVDs today, and got out a notebook. I put columns for everything asked for in [personal profile] thuviaptarth's post on the subject, which seems to be the baseline people are now talking about.

This is the relevant part of her post, with the specific triggers she wants people to warn for:


  • Choose not to warn
  • Common PTSD triggers

    • Explicit violence (assault, self-harm, suicide, gore, explicit medical procedures)
    • Sexual violence (rape, sexual assault, noncon, dubcon)
    • Sounds of gunshots

  • Common physical triggers for migraine or epilepsy

    • Bright flash
    • Strobe lighting
    • Quick flashing microcuts
    • First-person "shaky" cam
    • Abrupt changes in sound volume

  • No warnings apply



I checked off each PTSD and physical trigger for each vid as I watched the Premieres show, so I could get a feel for what sort of things actually show up, and just how safe the show could be if properly warned for.

There were 38 vids in the Premieres show, including the intro vid. (This is purely a collation of numbers; I'm not naming any vids.)


Vids with PTSD triggers

  • Explicit violence: 30 vids

  • Sexual violence: 4 vids

  • Sounds of gunshot: 0



Vids with physical triggers

  • Bright flash: 32 vids

  • Strobe lighting: 27 vids

  • Quick flashing microcuts: 20 vids

  • First-person "shaky" cam: 5 vids (but see caveat below)

  • Abrupt changes in sound volume: 28 vids



Vids with no triggers

  • No warnings apply: 1 vid.





The breakdown

  • 1 vid had no triggers at all that I could see or hear

  • 37 vids had triggers, of which:

    • 30 vids had PTSD triggers, of which:

      • 1 vid had only PTSD triggers

    • 36 vids had physical triggers, of which:

      • 7 vids had only physical triggers

    • 29 vids had both PTSD and physical triggers

  • 146 total trigger warnings on 38 total vids




So here are the caveats:

This is my personal take these vids. I don't have any of those triggers, so some things probably slipped right past me, particularly things like fast cuts (I honestly don't know how fast "quick flashing microcuts" need to be to count, here, and cutting in general gets faster every year).

Someone else going through and doing this will come up with different numbers, because different people judge things differently.

"Shaky cam" is under-represented in my numbers, I believe, because there was very little actual source shaky cam like someone running, and I was going with that as my baseline as that seems to be what's being asked for in the above list.

But there were several vids where it looked like the vidder shook the footage in an effect that I wasn't sure should count, so I didn't. There were also several vids where the vidder accidentally exported the file with the wrong field order, so some or all of the vid was jerky. So while technically I think I reported an accurate number of source-shaky-cam, or vidder-shaky-cam if it looked sufficiently like that type of shaky cam, assume anywhere from 5-10 more vids that include jerky footage that could be similarly triggery.

For "strobe lighting", I may have counted things other people wouldn't, as it's my understanding that the sort of strobes that affect people can vary wildly (color, intensity, speed, etc.), and I wanted to cover as wide a field as possible. For what it's worth, in most vids, any strobey light is of very short duration, a few seconds at most.

"Abrupt changes in sound volume" was really dicey, because the sound volume changes throughout Premieres; each vid has its own volume, and there's silence between each vid on the DVD, but during the con the audience applauds at varying intensity and for varying durations. If a given vid has a lower gain than the surrounding vids, the VJ generally tries to increase it once the vid starts so as to even things out, but that means that there's an abrupt change within that vid even if the song itself stays relatively even.

Anyone attending with audio-change issues should be aware that really, the sound levels go up and down all night, and there's almost always a brief silence before a vid starts; sometimes a song fades up slowly, but it's equally likely to come in very abruptly, very loudly.

For the sake of this, I went with what a vidder would be able to warn for, and assumed the switch from silence to sound at the opening to a vid didn't count, even if the credits were over silence so the audience would also be silent; nor the switch from sound to silence at the end of a vid, likewise even if it included credits that the audience would be quiet for. If those things count, basically every single vid is affected.


This vidshow felt like a standard VVC Premieres vidshow to me -- not overly bright or flashy (in fact a little less flashy than some years), not overly violent (again, less violent than some years).

The weighting also feels accurate/standard to me according to past Vividcons.

On the PTSD side, there's generally a lot of violence, but fighting and such is much more common than rape or noncon, and I don't think I've ever heard a gunshot in a vid (doesn't mean there hasn't been one, but usually the audio is a musical source) (ETA per this comment ETA 2 per this thread) gunshots are vanishingly rare, with possibly only one two vids in eight years having one.

On the physical trigger side, vids are made with lots of flashing/flickering lights and fast cuts (faster every year), and lots of vidders want a song that has audio "motion" to it, which often means changing audio levels. I'm really not surprised that only 2 vids out of all 38 had no physical triggers, given the nature of vids.

I was going to wrap up with a comment about my own take on all of this, and my take on warnings on vids, but I think I'll leave it at this. I think this is information that a lot of people are lacking, and that might help. So here it is.

Anon and openID commenting are on, but I reserve the right to turn off anon commenting if needed.
heresluck: (Default)

[personal profile] heresluck 2010-07-06 02:03 am (UTC)(link)
This was fascinating to read, and also made me think about my own Premieres vid from last year. Had I been asked to label it, I would blithely have said "no warnings," because, hi, mellow vid about Shakespeare (and not even Titus Andronicus). But when I rewatched, there were those bright flashy lights! And this speaks to your point in the follow-up post, I think: vidders are not necessarily going to be reliable judges of our own work.

So now I'm wondering about my premieres vid for this year. Football tackle: explicit violence, definitely, but does it count as assault? In the context of the source, it doesn't; it's part of the game. In the context of the vid and the vidshow, I find that I no longer have any idea.
ariadne83: cropped from official schematics (Default)

[personal profile] ariadne83 2010-07-06 02:32 am (UTC)(link)
As arduinna pointed out, the level at which people are affected varies immensely based on color/intensity/speed etc, not to mention how the person is feeling on any given day.

Like me, for example: I get severe headaches from blue-spectrum lights, so while there are a wide range of vids I can watch and enjoy I would think twice about watching a vid if it had a warning for strobe lighting.

And if I'm tired already, watching shaky cam makes me nauseous. It depends on what I've been doing that day, physically and socially. If I were already feeling worn out and the vid had a warning for shaky cam I'd probably choose to come back and watch it another day.

As for the label "chooses not to warn" sometimes I'd take the chance and watch anyway, but sometimes I wouldn't. It varies depending on how I'm feeling and whether I think I have the spoons to handle it.

So yeah, I take part in vidding (as an enthusiastic audience) because I love it as a form of expression, even though sometimes I have to be careful.

[personal profile] owlrigh 2010-07-06 02:42 am (UTC)(link)
Thanks for going through last year's vids with an eye for warning and checking them off; this is a very valuable post. As [personal profile] heresluck says, vidders are probably not going to be the best judges of their own work, should they be inclined to warn. A measure of personal responsibility should come into play, if one *is* triggered by things in vids, because even if say, [personal profile] heresluck didn't think her Shakespeare vid was triggering, and so there was no label, but it had to potential to...and someone was? That raises the possibility of lots of other vids out there which might have the same problem.

Now that I think on it: have there been cases of people who've been triggered--not disturbed or hurt, but actually triggered, in a PTSD or physical sort of way? Or has this discussion been theoretical so far?
deathisyourart: (GK - Ferrando says O RLY)

[personal profile] deathisyourart 2010-07-06 02:52 am (UTC)(link)
There is also Haldyon_shift's "Natural Blues" which showed at VVC in 2008.
zvi: self-portrait: short, fat, black dyke in bunny slippers (Default)

[personal profile] zvi 2010-07-06 03:09 am (UTC)(link)
Celli was. Her cut tag on that reads triggery for sexual assault and PTSD; please read with care, I am linking uncut.

[personal profile] owlrigh 2010-07-06 03:11 am (UTC)(link)
Thank you for this--I was very much wondering. Off to read.
morgandawn: (Cat Sleepy)

[personal profile] morgandawn 2010-07-06 06:11 am (UTC)(link)
not to be flippant, but after reading this I feel like we need a warning on the warnings: Warning, YMMV. Or: Warning: (FP)TMDCT(FP) (Flips Page) The Manual Didn't Cover This (Flips Page).

The next logical step (and one I am *not* advocating no sireee, not me) is create a fan board that reviews fanworks to come up with warnings standards which they then apply. Only way to get reliable and consistent results.

Or we can keep doing what we're doing which is discussing & pondering and basically muddling about with the hope that our best efforts are going to be allowed to be good enough.
ratcreature: RatCreature is buried in comics, with the text: There's no such thing as too many comics.  (comics)

[personal profile] ratcreature 2010-07-06 08:01 am (UTC)(link)
It was actually quite a good comic iirc (it's been a while I think it came out in 2003). Arrowsmith by Kurt Busiek and Carlos Pacheco, and was a WWI alt history with dragons and magic being real. And the piles of dead made sense from what I recall in the context of war and dark sorcery. Just bizarro breasts did not.
rydra_wong: Lee Miller photo showing two women wearing metal fire masks in England during WWII. (Default)

Via the network

[personal profile] rydra_wong 2010-07-06 08:41 am (UTC)(link)
Well, no.

The post you're linking to is not in response to or about people who use "Choose not to warn" (which is, itself, a warning); it's in response to the proposal in [personal profile] astolat's journal that vidders should be able to censor and control how other people warn about their vids.

(See the thread [personal profile] lightgetsin links to here.)

So that, as I understand it, if a vidder didn't want any warnings on their vids, a VJ using one of their vids in a show would not be able to make a note saying "There is sexual violence in this show."

That's not about an individual's right to use "Choose not to warn"; that's about a whole lot of other things, including giving vidders the right to gag other people.
seperis: (Default)

Re: Via the network

[personal profile] seperis 2010-07-06 09:00 am (UTC)(link)
I read the original argument in context of [personal profile] astolat's post as well as [personal profile] therienne's response.

Specifically, this referred to the VJ, which I noted my objections of here. Short version: VJs as volunteers are extensions of the concomm and shouldn't, but private individuals can.

My specific objection starts with this phrase:
Which leads to the actual problem, which is that I find it basically impossible to not read that as, "we have weighed it up, and we've decided vidder egos are more important than the accessibility needs of people with disabilities."


It's becoming more prevalent to characterize anyone who isn't into warnings negatively--not as a difference of opinion, not even as just thoughtless, but in a way that casts them as bad people and the act of not warning in itself is an act of harm. The argument is being set that if you do not like warnings/do not want warnings/whatever == egotistical, mean, bad, viddres who do not warn are slurred, or in teh case of one entry Integriteee as Arteeests is used pejoratively. I can get more examples if necessary if I can run them down; that's how I ended up reading an accessibility discussion that spoke disparagingly of non-breastfeeders in the middle for no particular reason.

I say this as someone who argued for warnings in the last debate, who loves warnings, and changed my entire policy on warnings as a result of those discussions, it's one thing to disagree strenuously, but it's another when the argument becomes good people versus bad people. It's like that thread about breastfeeding; choice isn't a dirty word.
zvi: self-portrait: short, fat, black dyke in bunny slippers (Default)

[personal profile] zvi 2010-07-06 11:23 am (UTC)(link)
You're welcome.
zvi: self-portrait: short, fat, black dyke in bunny slippers (Default)

Re: Via the network

[personal profile] zvi 2010-07-06 11:46 am (UTC)(link)
So that, as I understand it, if a vidder didn't want any warnings on their vids, a VJ using one of their vids in a show would not be able to make a note saying "There is sexual violence in this show." You misunderstood. The intention was not to prevent a VJ from saying "There is sexual violence in this show" but to prevent them from saying, as a public statement as part of their VJ'ing, i.e. in their official capacity, that particular vids are whatever, if the vidder has chosen to present their vid as choose not to warn.
zvi: self-portrait: short, fat, black dyke in bunny slippers (Default)

[personal profile] zvi 2010-07-06 11:47 am (UTC)(link)
You're welcome.
wickedwords: (Default)

[personal profile] wickedwords 2010-07-06 02:23 pm (UTC)(link)
The year that Ian showed his tribute to sexploitation movies, one woman was triggered and ended up crying in the onions and roses panel ant the end of the con. I remember that one pretty vividly. Sweetestdrains Dexter vid plus lum's women's work plus other violence against women vids all in the premier show ate my soul one year, but I wasn't trigger past nadeau and anxiety myself.
dragovianknight: Now is the time we panic - NaNoWriMo (Default)

[personal profile] dragovianknight 2010-07-06 04:46 pm (UTC)(link)
This trend also makes me sad. We shouldn't need to produce credentials to have an opinion, dammit.

Some people apparently see it as a feature, not a bug.

Page 2 of 3