Re: [Policy] Brahma Kumari Info: Code of Ethics - Discussion
Posted: 10 Apr 2009
I think that is a fair comment Ray.
Although all parties should guard against simple, "if you are not with us your against us" dichotomies, (that is to say a position defensive of the BKWSU, or against ex-BK excess, is not necessarily in support of the BKWSU) terry's situation had, or has, abiguities that his continuation of the politicking does not make clear, e.g. his recent fronting up for the BKWSU in Australia. If this had been clearly stated in his profile or at the beginning, according to clause 5, none of the continued ire would have existed. The responsibility lies with the user.
... but not to distract.
What benefit this does raise for me is that perhaps instead of "the Administration" perhaps the codes should say, "the Forum" in non-confidential cases? This would make the Codes less authoritarian.
Personally, I think the codes - which are after all only advisory and "ass covering" for the administation - should be for those that stick around to give support and not necessarily for newcomers. As a "Code of Ethics" is not a "Code of Conduct", perhaps the Code of Ethics should be more idealistic? As to propaganda
I think you are mispresenting the clause terry. If you read the whole thing, it is talking about people being stoned or drunk.
Back to the "ass covering" or "big stick" aspect, if someone is in a manic or psychotic phase, then the moderators need to be able to do something about it to protect the forum. Its rare but we have seen that happen here. It goes along with the whole discussion of mental health problems in the Brahma Kumari movement; whose responsibility, what cause, how are they handled or mishandled etc?
If it needs clarification, then please offer us your alternative terry.
Although all parties should guard against simple, "if you are not with us your against us" dichotomies, (that is to say a position defensive of the BKWSU, or against ex-BK excess, is not necessarily in support of the BKWSU) terry's situation had, or has, abiguities that his continuation of the politicking does not make clear, e.g. his recent fronting up for the BKWSU in Australia. If this had been clearly stated in his profile or at the beginning, according to clause 5, none of the continued ire would have existed. The responsibility lies with the user.
5) If a member is an adherent, re-joins seeks to promote the interests of the Brahma Kumari World Spiritual University (BK) ... they must first inform the administration.
... but not to distract.
What benefit this does raise for me is that perhaps instead of "the Administration" perhaps the codes should say, "the Forum" in non-confidential cases? This would make the Codes less authoritarian.
Personally, I think the codes - which are after all only advisory and "ass covering" for the administation - should be for those that stick around to give support and not necessarily for newcomers. As a "Code of Ethics" is not a "Code of Conduct", perhaps the Code of Ethics should be more idealistic? As to propaganda
11) Members must limit their involvement, or refrain from giving advice posting, when their psychological health is impaired ...
terry wrote:sounds like Catch 22 to me. If you know you are psychologically impaired, then are you really?
I think you are mispresenting the clause terry. If you read the whole thing, it is talking about people being stoned or drunk.
Back to the "ass covering" or "big stick" aspect, if someone is in a manic or psychotic phase, then the moderators need to be able to do something about it to protect the forum. Its rare but we have seen that happen here. It goes along with the whole discussion of mental health problems in the Brahma Kumari movement; whose responsibility, what cause, how are they handled or mishandled etc?
If it needs clarification, then please offer us your alternative terry.