Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Longspeak" data-source="post: 7959371" data-attributes="member: 7019284">Arguing over what counts as a trigger is the true strawman here. Saying the behavior didn't count as triggering distracts from the behavior itself. Further, you or I don't get to decide whether anyone in that game was triggered, or to what extent. There's not always visible signs. So any potential trigger needs to be treated with due caution.Now, I agree with you that many times the word &quot;trigger&quot; or &quot;triggering&quot; is used when it would have been more accurate to say &quot;potential trigger&quot; or &quot;possibly triggering.&quot; And I agree that many people use the word to mean &quot;offended&quot; or &quot;annoyed.&quot; But that level of splitting hairs is its own stawman.The issue was and is, the GM should have known better (and IMO DID know better and did it anyway), and when it was clear he'd erred, should have taken steps to correct it. Unless there is new information, he didn't. The thing I saw sounded more like he was sorry I'm too cutting edge for all you people to get what I was trying to do.Finally, even if no-one is triggered by certain behavior, any potential trigger should be treated with care. A responsible person takes reasonable steps to avoid (&quot;reasonable&quot; possibly sliding with the commonality of the possible trigger; sexual violence is a lot more likely to trigger someone than, say, bees) triggering people, and will take appropriate action when they do inadvertently trigger someone.The GM in that game did not do these things. In the immortal words of Jane Austen: &quot;Badly done, Adam. Badly done.&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Longspeak, post: 7959371, member: 7019284"] Arguing over what counts as a trigger is the true strawman here. Saying the behavior didn't count as triggering distracts from the behavior itself. Further, you or I don't get to decide whether anyone in that game was triggered, or to what extent. There's not always visible signs. So any potential trigger needs to be treated with due caution. Now, I agree with you that many times the word "trigger" or "triggering" is used when it would have been more accurate to say "potential trigger" or "possibly triggering." And I agree that many people use the word to mean "offended" or "annoyed." But that level of splitting hairs is its own stawman. The issue was and is, the GM should have known better (and IMO DID know better and did it anyway), and when it was clear he'd erred, [I]should have[/I] taken steps to correct it. Unless there is new information, he didn't. The thing I saw sounded more like he was [I]sorry I'm too cutting edge for all you people to get what I was trying to do.[/I] Finally, even if no-one is triggered by certain behavior, any potential trigger should be treated with care. A responsible person takes reasonable steps to avoid ("reasonable" possibly sliding with the commonality of the possible trigger; sexual violence is a lot more likely to trigger someone than, say, [I]bees[/I]) triggering people, and will take appropriate action when they do inadvertently trigger someone. The GM in that game did not do these things. In the immortal words of Jane Austen: "Badly done, Adam. Badly done." [/QUOTE]

Verification