warnings poll

[kiki_miserychic]

Perhaps I'm missing something, but why doesn't someone make a poll about the warnings issue and put it in the VVC comm?

Comments

[danegen.livejournal.com]

[halcyon-shift.livejournal.com]

I'm not really following the back and forth (I get the digest from others *g*), but maybe because it's not so much about the numbers. Like, if one person has a valid issue (for instance, I know there's more than one, but go with me) and a hundred people don't - or vote without understanding that issue - then it's weighted against something that should be dealt with?

That's the sort of thing that would stop me putting something to a poll. I have no idea if that's applicable in this case - maybe they didn't think about it, or they're just trying to figure out how to present it.

Also, I now want tacos.

[thuviaptarth.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure people have finished not listening to each other yet.

[crickets.livejournal.com]

I pretty much disagree with the whole idea of it from an artists standpoint. Completely.

Maybe that makes me insensitive or a jerk or whatever, but I can't make myself feel any differently.

As someone who has been a contributing member for the past 2 years [and would have been this year if I could have afforded it] and who has one vid [not-premiering] that will be played at the con this year, the only thing I might be okay with would be a standard-type rating system a la the MPAA or the TV-Ratings system. Not that those warn for triggers at all, of course. But I am just really, really against this. So some 'standardized' warning would be the only acceptable thing for me.

I think discussing it in the actual community wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. However, I don't think that there's even any group of suggestions that they could put in a poll that the majority would agree upon.

I kind of resent this whole thing actually, but I haven't had enough time to really consider it to put into words why.

[amnisias.livejournal.com]

I think the problem is that you can only put two options to a vote in a demogratic way if both options are ethical, legal and morally right. Like, for example Obama or Clintion for president. But it would unethical (and unconstitutional) to ask people to vote on women's suffrage, even if there was a majority in favour of abandoning it.

At the moment I think there is no agreement in the community in which category the warning issue falls, and from what I have read I don't think it's likely that people will agree on that any time soon.

I've stopped reading about it, it's like watching a dog with rabies chasing it's own tail. I'm sure I can accommodate whatever the outcome of the discussion is.