I didn't quite understand what the author meant by 'reverence for place'. Of all things, I came across a site dedicated to parks planning, and I think it captures the sentiment (obviously not all of the particulars are applicable):

http://www.designingtheparks.org/principles/reverence-place

Is there an ethic important to you that was left out of the linked pages listed above?

...and actually, these are about principles as opposed to rules.

Kimmio, 

Just took a quick look. But I am thinking the Holy Manners thread might be a good starting point for what you are hoping to create. 

Behavioural guidelines might help us out more than a set of ethical principles. 

That's how others' might feel. I feel it's the other way around, P3. Even Holy Manners comes out of ethical principles first (in that case, those of the church).

I'd personally like to hear what others' ethics are- and I thought the above model would serve as a good starting point. Especially would like to hear from would be owners/ managers of the site and those tasked with responsibilty for the site (and anyone who'd like to talk about their ethical priorities). This isn't for debate but for clarity.

Does the church have a code of ethics? It has many statements of faith but I don't know if a set of ethical principles has ever been determined. It is possible we have one but I have never seen it. 

Oops, forgot to Quote. I was just responding to this. 

I googled: this is about a proposed Code of Ethics for UCC
http://www.victorshepherd.on.ca/UCC%20Critique/newpage17.htm

UCC has ethical principals implicit in being a church. It's a church so they are faith based/ faith statements.

Here's one about ethical standards for ministry personnel

http://www.united-church.ca/files/handbooks/pastoral_ethical.pdf

This Code of Ethics was proposed for Ministry Personnel, Kimmio. In 1995.

If clergypeople are to have a College (suggested in the Fishing on the Other Side document) something like this will need to be developed. 

I am not here to argue p3 just stating what's important to me and would like to know if ethics are important to others. The church as a Christian church has implicit and explicit ethics in it's faith statements. Non-profit community groups have theirs, usually stated- as do businesses.

Didn't know this already existed. 

But do we have ethical standards articulated anywhere for lay people in the church? If you are looking for ethical standards to guide us on a website, this would be more relevant. 

Oh, I am not arguing with you Kimmio. Apologies if it is coming across that way. 

I am thinking this through myself as we discuss it. 

I'm not talking about behavioural guidelines, but about guiding values.

Trying to remember if the hospitals/ agencies where I worked had Codes of Ethics. I don't think so . . . there were mission statements and the like. And policies and procedures to guide behaviour. 

Professional associations have Codes of Ethics & Standards of Practice as I recall. Similar to what you have shown us upthread for ministry personnel.

As a professional member of a professional body you likely have a code of ethics that could come into conflict with your place of work that you need to be aware of, right?

Have you never heard of an organization operating with stated ethical principals something like those of the OP?

Values can lead to guidelines, though, right? 

They can.

Um, I need to think about this. I don't believe it ever happened to me in my career. 

I have worked for non- profit agencies with ethics, values, and mission statements.

Happened to me. I left- it was largely ethics/ values conflict related. I was trained/ oriented and come from a set of ethics/ values. I only have a diploma so I am not a member of a professional body (that was a further career goal- but I left front line) but those same ethics/ values/ principals influenced, and still do, where I chose to work/ not work, regardless.

Regarding universal ethics and the notion of universal truth.

The ideas and ideals exist, but humans have to execute them.  And all humans are fallible.  Ethics, in general, provide the foundation of a society.  Ethics also provide the guidelines for playing fair in a schoolyard and then graduate to being law abiding adults.

Because humans create, adhere to or  ignore ethical protocols, conflict arises.  And that is because different groups of people adhere to different sets of values, or ethics.

At our base, humans are compassionate, considerate and caring.  I believe these traits are related to a kind of universal understanding of truth, social justice and love.

That said, societies, and within that, communities, create their own guidelines for acceptable behaviour and - sometimes determine what is "for the greater good".

The best way to go about understanding a universal ethical reality is to acknowledge equal rights to everyone, to agree upon causing no harm, and to agree to care for one another.  Economics, politics and religions (not all religions, but many)interfere.  Hence no Utopia to date.  But at least there exists the idea of Utopia.

So back to WC2 for a brief moment:  people enjoy and engage in this virtual community because there is a protection of privacy, there is a sense of belonging, there exists support, there exists humour, wisdom, education and communion.  It is a safe haven.  It is an international community - and some to many might even describe it as an ad hoc (virtual) congregation.  That it did not entice more bums in seats, or bums in pews, to be blunt and particular, is irrelevant. 

The WC community will be closed officially by UCCan, for all of the wrong reasons, in June.

I hope that a new WC2 can exist, with the same parameters: a safe place to engage in discussions, a place to be anonamously forthcoming, a place to seek laughter, solace, to share joys and sorrows, a place to seek advice, and a place to find comfort among friends wh have got your back, who will catch you when you fall and will lift you up when you celebrate achievement.

Bottomline:  the current WC laid out and created a safe, inviting and caring environment for people to communicate.  The wheel does not have to be re-invented, even if WC2 has no formal or informal relationship to UCCan.  The foundation of WC is the one thing UCCan did right:  if UCCan walks away, that is an executive decision, based on business of the day and definitely not on mission and value statements.  And it is a very poor, short sighted decision.

Only with great dedication and effort can a volunteer WC2 succeed: ultimately that means someone has to be in control, map out a plan, COMMUNICATE with others and be realistic about costs.  The good news is that the guidelines, codes of conduct and privacy issues already established in the current WC could easily be the basis of WC2.

Guidelines and codes of conduct aren't what I'm asking about though. More essential to me are ethics and values that underpin the org. Yes, the ones, guidelines and codes of conduct that is, laid out for WC are fine. More regarding the sorts of ideas in rest of your post is what I'd like to know from others, redhead.

What ethical principals in the OP are important to people? What aren't important to people? What else that maybe wasn't mentioned there is important to people?

All of them are important to me except impartiality/ objectivity around subject matter here in the context of WC- especially about issues that conflict with my values.

Excellent post redhead.  I agree that the current guidelines of conduct are transferrable and there is no need to reinvent.  

Personally, how people behave is important to me - not so much their underlying beliefs. 

Kimmio - it's curious to me that you've stated on another thread that you will not be continuing with WC2, and yet you begin this thread for "discussion re: the ethics of WC2." Seems incongruent to me.  

Hi Carolla, 

Even though we see some dust-ups on WC the guidelines of conduct seem to serve us well. A few months ago I was following some discussion about a movie over on Rotten Tomatoes. I was shocked by how rude some people were - - calling each other names and so on. And all this over nothing deeper than the interpretation of a movie in the theatre!

Carolla,

I also mentioned on another thread that I was having back and forth internal conflict about staying or going because I am actually attached to this place and people. I guess you didn't see that. Believe it or not, I'm grieving too. I was asking about an ethics/ values statement Chansen mentioned that I put together something and post it. Here it is. I have been here for 3 years. I do feel i'm being squeezed out. Trying to get a better grasp of the picture going forward.

As for ethics/ values statements that define a group. If people aren't willing to state them ( because they don't want to? Or because of who started the thread?), maybe I have my answer re: should I stay or should I go.

Ethical principals are not beliefs. They're ethical principles.

The problem on news sites is that they have conduct codes but they moderate by complaint. If someone reports a problem, it gets dealt with. There is no (that I have seen) proactive moderation. Whereas on well moderated forum sites, mods are active members who can watch for problems as they participate themselves.

Mendalla

I think that trolls will discover ways to work around the rules. So the way the new board is managed is as important as the rules.   Look at how StephenB worked around the rules. HE only stopped doing something after he was banned and than pleaded to come back.  Which showed not only was he capale of understanding rules of conduct, but that there had to be consequences and a management style and conduct from the memebrs  that does not reward (feed)  trolls, (in that they want attention, and the ability to annoy, and disrupt others) 

I I would say the discusion is having is important, but it is ot so pressing as picking a name, and a management or admin team, and function at this moment.

For me, it's the first thing to consider. It's the basis from which to move forward with any major decision. Nice polite behaviour is fine and good, but isn't always the most important thing. When someone is blatantly rude, or gets in a tesy mood, that can be worked out easily enough. They may have legitimate reason, just poor delivery/ communication skills. Ethics and values are essential to the identity and motivation of a group - what's important to them.

How do you feel you're being squeezed out Kimmio?  It sounds like you were invited to get something together that you feel is important for the new site.

It sounds like you have stated them, or at least found a starting place.  Personally, to me it isn't something I would look for on a forum so it isn't something I really have much to comment on, specifically.  If it will encourage others to join, I'm all for it though, as I don't have anything against one.

It goes back about a month, chemgal. The squeezing out and value conflict. I had a serious disagreement about something that hurt me, and feel turned away by people I thought were friends, at least salvageable acquaintance relationships. Now what every I say has lost credibility with some of the 'gang'- as if I'm a 'troll'. That's how it feels to me. And it hurts because I've invested a lot of time and emotional energy here- and really do feel I had lots of valid things to express. It's like a bad breakup.

You are not the first to talk about a "gang" or "ingroup" around here Kimmio. 

Hope this helps in some small way . . . p3

Kimmio, I don't think people here see you as a troll.  I'm sorry you feel squeezed out.  When arguements start flying and personal comments are made, it can hurt, but I don't think people have anything against you personally, just certain opinions of yours.

.

Well, those opinions come from a deep place that is perhaps hard to understand and maybe I'm tired of being misunderstood in this community. Once people stop trying to understand, the relationship's pretty much over.

People are feeling that way about how the church handled WCs closure. I'm feeling it for other reasons.

It's totally up to you of course Kimmio, but I'd like to see you on the new site.  Even if you exasperate me a bit when it comes to certain topics :)

Anyway...I thought this framework was a good starting place for thinking about group identity. It looks like not many want to discuss it but I hope people will consider it in their own time.

Kimmio...Kimmio...

I'm perplexed re the OP......?  You feel that you haven't been treated fairly, is that it?

There's no way that I've read all of your posts on the WC but I did read some of them. People who replied didn't always agree with you. This happens to most of us on occasion. I just assume that mostly  in this case the parties  agree to disagree and its no big deal. Its how discussions go. Perhaps I've grown a thick tiger hide on the net. I've learned not to be too sensitive or take replies I sometimes read too personally.

We'd be simply writing essays if we all agreed with each other  about everything that was written or posted . To quote unsafe for the 100th. time she always writes that each person is entitled to his/her own opinion, eh?  That's true isn't it?  Its true the world over no matter where you go or what you do. I'm really sorry you are having such a difficult time here. 

The purpose of the OP was to get a better sense of how this group defines itself from an ethics and values perspective and what is important to it, overall. More important than what tech platform is used, or what name the group decides on. More important than if someone's manners aren't perfect. That's what's most important to me. More important than people identifying with any religion/ denomination. I'm sorry people don't get the importance of it. I put it out there. What the group does with it is up to them. I can't be any clearer.

O.K. Kimmio I've read the OP a few times. Don't most of us  want or wish  to be good  ethical people in general as described?  If we don't always fit the bill is it possible that we don't know ourselves, we don't see ourselves as we are. We miss the mark as  Rev. John says.  Some of us may be  playing games. We're sleepy or not quite awake and attuned to our actions or thoughts , something like that?

    Are the guidelines of conduct on the WC  of no use?

 You know there's lots of rough waters on the internet? When I first began to read in chats...gosh...I nearly got drowned....I was told to F off before I hardly had a foot in the door!  Consequently I don't have a very high opinion of forums or chats so I'm not terribly disappointed in whatever I may find. 

I was just explaining how I feel and what I'd like to see with a new group. I get it that others don't want that. I can't force it, although I think it's a good idea. Maybe it is a different approach than some if not most online forums, but it's not an alien concern to many communities. This group is not just online. It transcends online for many.

(((((((((((((((Kimmio))))))))))))))

Remember that you are loved........and I agree with a whole lot that you post.

Agreed

Agreed, it would be my starting point; however, if Kimmio or others wants to mock up another one based on the research done or others, I am happy to participate