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.
par_avion: collage of intl air mail stickers (Default)

[personal profile] par_avion 2010-07-05 06:20 am (UTC)(link)
I don't think I've ever heard a gunshot in a vid

Flying Home.

But it's very rare, I can't think of another.
klia: (flowers)

[personal profile] klia 2010-07-05 09:10 pm (UTC)(link)
Thanks for doing that. The results don't surprise me, frankly.

Btw, here we go again over on [personal profile] astolat's latest post: ...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."

So, yep, no warnings = insensitive asshole.
morgandawn: (Ariel Yes?)

[personal profile] morgandawn 2010-07-05 09:20 pm (UTC)(link)
I like this. Context! Real life examples. Something we can use to frame discussion. Thank you.
ratcreature: RatCreature is shocked. (o.O!)

[personal profile] ratcreature 2010-07-05 09:40 pm (UTC)(link)
This is interesting. I watch so few vids that I have no representative ideas about them, but I'm surprised that so many have extreme violence in them. I mean, I assumer "extreme" means worse than PG violence? (which I think of as the regular action movie kind)
eatsscissors: (Default)

[personal profile] eatsscissors 2010-07-05 09:58 pm (UTC)(link)
This is a very interesting post, thank you for making it. It seems, based upon this breakdown, that the best that the VVC mods could do would be to put forward a blanket "Choose Not to Warn" policy over the entire con (EDIT: unless of course, the author hirself chose to get more specific, though I do not know what kind of practical difference that would make), which wouldn't be terribly helpful to those who had only one or two of the triggers on the list*.

*Several things directed not at OP but because increasingly an explication upon one's background and privilege is necessary in fannish debates: no, I'm neither a vidder nor an attendee, so I don't have an actual dog in this fight and have been mostly watching and reading a lot; yes, I do have emotional triggers, specifically towards gunshots and/or military violence, but no physical trigger issues.
Edited 2010-07-05 21:59 (UTC)
melina: 24: Jack types on computer, he loves the internets (24 - Jack loves the Internets)

[personal profile] melina 2010-07-05 09:58 pm (UTC)(link)
The original list Arduinna posted says "explicit" violence, which to me means any violence actually seen on screen (as opposed to violence which you infer from context but isn't seen). That would include PG-13 movie violence, such as Star Trek 2009 and Lord of the Rings-type fighting, since it includes "assault." Whacking someone with a sword or hitting them in the face, even if there's no blood, fits in this definition.

From my memory, the number of vids with "extreme" violence is fairly low.
norabombay: (Default)

[personal profile] norabombay 2010-07-05 10:23 pm (UTC)(link)
Which was basically the entire situation in the first place. Choose not to warn unless there is a request for specifics, or the vidder chose.

Arduinna, thank you for putting this together.
dragovianknight: Now is the time we panic - NaNoWriMo (Fandom - Fannish Inquisition)

[personal profile] dragovianknight 2010-07-05 10:26 pm (UTC)(link)
Yeah, it always comes back to that in every warning debate.
eatsscissors: (TVD-Bonnie is a BAMF)

[personal profile] eatsscissors 2010-07-05 10:33 pm (UTC)(link)
Thank you for the background; I've been viewing this debate from askance over the past few days, but have been mostly piecing it together through rlist or flists, but have been having some difficulty tracing it down to the starting point, let alone to the places at which it has started to diverge.
ratcreature: oh no! (oh no!)

[personal profile] ratcreature 2010-07-05 10:35 pm (UTC)(link)
Ah yeah. I have somehow while reading smushed the "explicit" together with the examples in the brackets there to illustrate i.e. "assault, self-harm, suicide, gore, explicit medical procedures" and read something different than the letter. (Bad brain, no cookie. *g*)

I guess the level of violence one considers noteworthy varies a lot. I still remember my o_O reaction when I read a US comic book once (no mature or adult label), which had a half panel with someone sitting on a pile of naked tortured female corpses which prudishly had the nipples edited out, which frankly I found the most disturbing in the whole image, that there were these naked dead women and all had fake looking breasts.
anatsuno: a barcode representing anatsuno's username and account number on Dreamwidth (barcode)

[personal profile] anatsuno 2010-07-05 10:38 pm (UTC)(link)
Yes. I've also already seen a lot of pro-warnings = politically correct whiners and/or childish pwds with no sense of personal responsibility - it seems to me there are idiots prone to make offensive statements on every possible 'side', wouldn't you say?

Arduinna, this is a very interesting post, thank you.
klia: (ronon)

[personal profile] klia 2010-07-05 10:55 pm (UTC)(link)
The comment was addressed to [personal profile] arduinna specifically because of comments elsewhere basically saying because the commenters hadn't seen this attitude expressed anywhere themselves, Arduinna and I were more or less making it up.
anatsuno: a women reads, skeptically (drawing by Kate Beaton) (Default)

[personal profile] anatsuno 2010-07-05 10:59 pm (UTC)(link)
Ah, sorry about that then. I find it odd people would assume these nasty things /have not/ been said - there's always nastiness at some point, sadly.
zvi: self-portrait: short, fat, black dyke in bunny slippers (Default)

[personal profile] zvi 2010-07-05 11:02 pm (UTC)(link)
Yes, but, when people say an effect of an official warning schema is that people who label their work Choose Not To Warn will be derided as bad people, people who are pro-warnings say, "That is ridiculous. That's not what people would think." So, I think it's important to acknowledge that, no, that is an actual effect that actually happens.
anatsuno: a women reads, skeptically (drawing by Kate Beaton) (Default)

[personal profile] anatsuno 2010-07-05 11:08 pm (UTC)(link)
*nods*

It saddens me that it does happen, because I am *completely* in love with 'Choose not to warn' myself, and it has freed me from all warnings-related anxiety (which I used to have a lot of, because I worried I would never do it well enough). I wish people - of all sides and all tripes - would embrace it. :/
seperis: (Default)

[personal profile] seperis 2010-07-05 11:10 pm (UTC)(link)
Thank you for this post. I like having concretes as well as abstracts to work with.
saraht: writing girl (Default)

[personal profile] saraht 2010-07-05 11:58 pm (UTC)(link)
In fact, I got accused of "showing my ass" merely for pointing out, deep in a comment thread, that it did happen over on the fanfic side. That was, apparently, "making it all about me."
zvi: self-portrait: short, fat, black dyke in bunny slippers (Default)

[personal profile] zvi 2010-07-06 12:27 am (UTC)(link)
*nods* I am increasingly frustrated by the insistence that the changes are zero cost/zero consequences. I mean, maybe we as a community will decide that the costs are, in fact, worth ostracizing the people who don't follow the new norms, or that we like the people who benefit from the new norms better than the people who lose something under them, but we can't make an informed collective decision if pointing out the costs is derided as immoral.
klia: (Hey)

[personal profile] klia 2010-07-06 12:28 am (UTC)(link)
Just... wow.

It's been really disconcerting to grasp just how many fans feel that anyone with a differing/contrary opinion or beliefs is a bad person/stupid/insensitive/selfish, or flat-out doesn't know what they're talking about.
seperis: (Default)

[personal profile] seperis 2010-07-06 12:36 am (UTC)(link)
They're saying that now.

Link.

I mean, when the argument seems to be set at if you don't warn you are directly responsible for someone's mental health, that's not a subtle way to say everyone who doesn't warn are bad people.
klia: (ronon)

[personal profile] klia 2010-07-06 12:50 am (UTC)(link)
And once again, the poster is assuming anyone with an opposing viewpoint is able-bodied, and that's just not the case. Disabled individuals have been making that point all over these discussions, and clearly it's still being ignored.
klia: (flowers)

[personal profile] klia 2010-07-06 01:16 am (UTC)(link)
Oh, excellent. *headdesk*

I stand by the comment where I said this is a lose-lose situation for vidders: you either warn or you're vilified. And that's not a real choice unless you enjoy seeing your name cursed all over fandom.
saraht: writing girl (Default)

[personal profile] saraht 2010-07-06 01:17 am (UTC)(link)
Or even that it's fair to impose these costs on the community in the service of [x] goal, which is a choice that, for instance, American society has made with respect to disability and accessibility in some instances. That's a discussion that can be had. People can legitimately disagree. But I was startled to learn that I couldn't even *mention* something that was indubitably true *and* directly relevant because it had something to do with me. Well, I vid on occasion, I've shown a vid at VVC, and I'm willing to talk about whether the benefits are worth the costs to me, or people like me, but I'm not going to pretend that the costs just do not exist.

Oh, well, people have said nasty and stupid things on both sides.
lazulisong: (Default)

[personal profile] lazulisong 2010-07-06 01:47 am (UTC)(link)
...I guess I'm mostly sitting here boggling at the thought that someone who has problems with flashy lights and noise choosing to take part in the section of fandom that specializes in them. I mean. That's just not common sense, dudes.

(My twin sister has epilepsy btw.)

Page 1 of 3