Drafting a code of ethics

hilary · Jul 14, 2007

Here goes - some preliminary thoughts for a code of ethics we might all sign up to - largely inspired by Rosada's reading:

"What should be the code of ethics at Clarity?"
58.2.3.4.5 to 36

"This is a forum - a place for open conversation and exchange. While I'm here...

I'll remember that I don't know everything about the person I'm talking to
Also that the brilliance of my understanding isn't particularly important - and never as important as the effect my words might have on the real human being who reads them. So as a diviner, I will always consider with great care and attention how my interpretations might affect the person I'm working for, especially if I'm talking about their future.
I will be true and present in my communications here...
...and remember that I don't get to set conditions on how they're received.
I'm ready to enjoy some open-ended, ongoing debate without taking it personally, or making it personal.
And when I read through the responses to my request for a reading, I'll remember my own autonomy, and take conscious decisions on where to place my trust."

Please add, remove, question, rephrase, and generally take me at my word when I call this a draft. The objective is to get something as short as possible, that everyone would put their name to.

Oh - and let's keep this thread on the rails. I'll stomp round in big moderatorly boots if need be and delete any posts that start turning into personal attacks.

heylise · Jul 14, 2007

I like your code a lot. First of all because it does not look like 'rules' at all, but like something completely natural. Anything which goes anywhere against this, will go against the feelings of any sensible person.

I have to read it all again, and think a lot, and see what others find, but so far I agree with it.

LiSe

bruce_g · Jul 14, 2007

Gee, I dunno. Seems really touchy/feely, which is ok, but I don't see clear lines. Thinking about Rosada's reading, the feeling I get from it is that of regard/disregard of freedom and license, which are not the same thing. Someone may have the freedom to say whatever they want, but will you give them license to say it? Even if the individual's JimYi contains a rearranged group of meanings? If someone forecasts futures - I mean out of the ordinary forecasts - do they have a license to practice that here? I think that has to be determined before a document can be effective, because those were the issues of contention. That is what defines the ethics of the board. And that, our fearless leader :bows:, is up to you. Unless you put it to a vote. But that too is up to you.

hilary · Jul 14, 2007

I forgot about the JimYi issue. I suppose we could add in the rule I suggested before: if the method you're using is markedly different from the traditional text-based stuff, include a link to more information about it in your signature. Either to your own site, or to a discussion thread. It seems to me that's more 'rule' than 'code'. Also, that this particular issue hasn't come up very much.

On the forecasting of futures, I think we reached the conclusion that this was all such a grey area that no rules could be made. Some of the more definite predictions might come under the 'link to your sources' rule. Apart from that, I don't think I can ask for more than an undertaking of care and attention to the querent. I know this isn't a rule, I know that determining whether or not there's sufficient care and attention is wholly subjective. Hence 'code of ethics' not 'set of rules'.

As I was saying... please suggest additions/ rephrasings if you have some in mind.

bruce_g · Jul 14, 2007

Gonna wait this out awhile, see what develops.

getojack · Jul 14, 2007

Hilary,

What happened to the rule you had about the Forum Area... what was it? Something like "The only rule is that you give something back... when and how much is entirely up to you." I liked that one.

hilary · Jul 14, 2007

Let's keep it. It's just that it seems we need to be more specific about the 'something'.

Sparhawk · Jul 14, 2007

hilary said:
I forgot about the JimYi issue. I suppose we could add in the rule I suggested before: if the method you're using is markedly different from the traditional text-based stuff, include a link to more information about it in your signature.

Silly question: what "signature"? Are you going to enable the "signature" feature of the forum software? They use that feature in the E-Ching forum and is quite handy to post links to a site.

L

hilary · Jul 14, 2007

Yes, that signature. Just a moment... (disappears into uncharted depths of admin section)

hilary · Jul 14, 2007

That'd be the signature you can edit under 'edit signature' in your user control panel. I'm assuming that if people want to use a different method, they'll do so quite often, so the links to explanations/ background will usually be relevant.

Trojina · Jul 15, 2007

bruce_g said:
If someone forecasts futures - I mean out of the ordinary forecasts - do they have a license to practice that here? I think that has to be determined before a document can be effective, because those were the issues of contention. That is what defines the ethics of the board. And that, our fearless leader :bows:, is up to you. Unless you put it to a vote. But that too is up to you.

I think I'm with Bruce here. I read through the draft several times and it seems okay but I realised it doesn't deal with the actual points of contention that arose. Although it does stress the importance of care for the querant that is very subjective as to what that is.

If most people here don't care whether predictions given come from the I Ching or not - if they think its fine for someone to say for example 'you will have a windfall on Aug 3rd' without showing how they reached that conclusion fron the Yi - if most people here think its fine just to make hard and fast predictions for others off the tops of their heads, then let it stay that way.

If most people don't care about the points of contention raised by some of us then theres no point in expending any more time and energy on the issue as far as i can see.

Then the code of ethics as it is is at least good enough or better than nothing -

hilary · Jul 15, 2007

In that case, please make some suggestions!
:hissy:

(Edit: written before Trojan added the part to the post above from "If most people here..." onwards. Hence the weird apparent-disconnect.)

Trojina · Jul 15, 2007

Okay could these ideas be included if reworded etc..

1. The friends area is a place to share and discuss I Ching readings you have received, where other members may help you with interpretation based on their own knowledge and experience. It is important to remember no one member here is qualified to give you direction or instruction in your life nor to make any certain predictions about how your future may be (then the last point in the draft re autonomy etc..) The I Ching increases your capacity to understand your present and create your own future it never diminishes it.

2. This area is for sharing and helping others with I Ching readings. If you give prescriptive advice or prediction to a member that is not based on the I Ching please state your source, if possible providing links. If you are using a text that departs considerably from the traditional text of the Yi jing please introduce it initially in the discussion area.

lindsay · Jul 15, 2007

Your ethical code lacks a general foundation stating what kind of behavior is expected in this community. I think the best general guidelines for decent public behavior are these two statements:

(1) Treat other people the way you want them to treat you.

(2) Do not treat other people the way you would not want to be treated.

These guidelines have the merit of not requiring people to “understand”, be “sensitive to”, sympathize with, or even like other people. All that is necessary is a single test: “How would I feel if someone said or did this to me?”

Who wants to be deceived or lied to? Who wants to be slandered, insulted or disrespected? Who wants to be treated arrogantly or dismissed out of hand? Who wants to be manipulated by rules and pronouncements they do not understand? Who wants to be ridiculed? Who wants to be lectured interminably by someone who treats their ideas with contempt?

My answer is “No reasonable person wants to be treated this way.” When people do things that would offend or harm any “reasonable person,” they are acting out of bounds and should be reprimanded.

Let’s dispel one myth right away: No one has a right to say anything he wants. At least not in any civilized society in the world. We do not have a right to cry “Fire” in a crowded theatre. We do not have a right to slander or accuse others falsely. We do not have a right to steal other people’s ideas as our own. We do not have a right to make hateful public statements. And so on. The good of the many will always outweigh the desires of the individual.

I think the parameters of a public forum like this one should be those of basic human decency, and I feel confident we know what they are.

getojack · Jul 15, 2007

Just my code, you can sign on if you wish...

I will do no harm to my friends.
I will stay true to the principles which guide my life.
I will see both sides of every interaction between myself and my friends, in discussion and in practice.
I will treat my friends in the same way I would wish to be treated.

Trojina · Jul 15, 2007

getojack said:
I will do no harm to my friends.

I will stay true to the principles which guide my life.

I will see both sides of every interaction between myself and my friends, in discussion and in practice.

I will treat my friends in the same way I would wish to be treated.

But that doesn't deal in anyway with the issues of contention we have discussed which are people making predictions in such a way the newbie/querant whatever is led to think they have no choice in their course of action - and the issue of just making up predictions that have nothing to do withthe I Ching.

What use is it to just say like you and Lindsay things like "I will treat others as I want to be treated" thats seems of no practical use in what we are trying to do here, its way too general. And its not such a good guideline anyway since some people like to be fed predictions as if from an unassailable authority figure - infact alot seems to like it - does that make it okay to do the same to others ?

actually I realised above my suggestions were more like disclaimers than ethical guidelines - a more concrete guideline I might consider would be something like

when helping others with interpretations please refrain from stating that you know the exact outcome of a situation and that the querant has no choice in the matter

hilary · Jul 15, 2007

Ah, debate, suggestions, proposed wordings. Just what I wanted.

I think starting with the Golden Rule would be good. The object of the exercise here - my object, anyway - is both to respond to the latest bones of contention, and also to provide something broader.

We discussed predictions, and making rules about them, before. I'm not going to lay down a law that says 'no predictions about the exact outcome'. Occasionally such predictions are the most honest response to a reading, and even help a querent adjust to the inevitable. The questions are - is the diviner being responsible in making this prediction to this individual at this time? And does the querent have a realistic idea of the status of the prediction?

And as far as I can see, there really isn't a way to reduce these questions to a universal rule. So we ask diviners to give an undertaking of care and attention, and remind querents that what they read here is not gospel. And we also add the request to give links to sources. If every 'windfall on August 3rd'-type prediction is accompanied by a signature file that reads, 'my predictions of specific dates are based on a system you can read about here,' that has the benefit of setting it in context for the querent.

Oh - and no laws about what is and isn't an acceptable source of information, either. We discussed this on the previous thread and established that it's really not a good idea.

Trojina · Jul 15, 2007

hilary said:
Oh - and no laws about what is and isn't an acceptable source of information, either. We discussed this on the previous thread and established that it's really not a good idea.

Did we

Do you mean that if someone comes along say like the I Jim and says the I Ching says X,Y and Z - even if hes not using anything that much resembles the I Ching thats okay ? Just seeking some clarification here.

hilary · Jul 15, 2007

No. He needs to say - as Jim actually did, btw - that his system says x, y and z. And if he makes a habit of using this system instead of what would normally be recognised as the I Ching, he needs to put this in his sig file so it'll appear after every post he makes.

The point is that readings should be put in context, so people can see where they come from (and that they do come from a particular human source, not from a cloud somewhere). But there will be no list of approved translations, no bans on non-textual systems, no bans on astrology or tarot, no compulsory ratio of text to intuition...

I just want to ensure no-one is misled. I'm not much into banning things.

bruce_g · Jul 15, 2007

Folks, it ain't never gonna be perfect. It is what it is: a forum. The people ain't never gonna be perfect neither.

breathe in... breathe out... breathe in... breathe out

I've noticed Wf has rounded out her readings, quietly refining. Credit where it's due, I think.

JimYi, who knows? Maybe when he comes back from the weekend, folks can take their grievances up with him, or let it slide. Whichever suites you. But like Lindsay suggested, it can be done civilly.

The document? Well, I thought it would be more like stripes on a tiger than a spots on a panther, but panther change is too.

hilary · Jul 15, 2007

bruce_g said:
Folks, it ain't never gonna be perfect. It is what it is: a forum. The people ain't never gonna be perfect neither.

What, not even if we all sign up to a code to promise that we will be? Rats...

bruce_g · Jul 15, 2007

hilary said:
What, not even if we all sign up to a code to promise that we will be? Rats...

Me no think so. But I don't think it's futile to talk about it openly once in awhile. Just makes us more aware.

So, how do you interpret 52 now? :mischief:

rosada · Jul 15, 2007

I don't know if under the Code of Ethics would be the appropriate place to make this statement, but I would like to see something that reminds those who seek readings that we only learn by getting feedback. If you ask for a reading and someone is gracious enough to consider your question, it's nice to not only say "Thank you," but to also give some indication as to how the situation actually worked out.

heylise · Jul 15, 2007

Trojan:
1. The friends area is a place to share and discuss I Ching readings you have received, where other members may help you with interpretation based on their own knowledge and experience. It is important to remember no one member here is qualified to give you direction or instruction in your life nor to make any certain predictions about how your future may be. When I read through the responses to my request for a reading, I'll remember my own autonomy, and take conscious decisions on where to place my trust.
The I Ching increases your capacity to understand your present and create your own future it never diminishes it.

2. This area is for sharing and helping others with I Ching readings. If you give prescriptive advice or prediction to a member that is not based on the I Ching please state your source, if possible providing links. If you are using a text that departs considerably from the traditional text of the Yi jing please introduce it initially in the discussion area.
When helping others with interpretations please refrain from stating that you know the exact outcome of a situation, suggesting that the querant has no choice in the matter.

(added what you referred to, and changed one word: "suggesting", hope it agrees with you)

What I like a lot about Trojans points, is that half of the responsibility is laid in the hands of the querent. Never thought of that. Makes a lot of sense. Of course we cannot "look after them", they have to look after themselves.

If this text is in a prominent place, I myself will feel a lot more comfortable here.

And we have to look after ourselves, so her 2nd point is also very important, but the first one feels to me most of all like the solution for my problem. No idea if this is the same for others.

LiSe

heylise · Jul 15, 2007

Bruce: I've noticed Wf has rounded out her readings, quietly refining. Credit where it's due, I think.

:bows:

LiSe

bruce_g · Jul 15, 2007

I have no problem at all with what Trojan wrote. Maybe in combination with some of the more subtle points mentioned.

lindsay · Jul 16, 2007

What about people who combine the Yijing with astrology? Or tarot? Both of these predictive systems are "reputable" and massive - bigger than the Yi system itself - and unless you happen to know them, there is no way you can judge whether they are being plausibly interpreted or not. And who can tell whether conjunctions or congruences between such systems and the Yi are valid, despite every assurance from the interpreter? People here know or want to know the Yi, but mixing in other systems is problematical. What if you ask for help on a reading, and someone offers you a plausible interpretation of the Yi, but then adds not to worry about it because the related astrological signs indicate you are about to suffer a horrible death in the next 24 hours? Or that the associated tarot spread, based on your Yi reading, shows all your problems will soon be solved by a tall dark stranger?

This isn't about the I Jim or anyone's personal divination system - it's about mixing in interpretations of other established predictive systems that other people do not know and cannot vouch for. This seems to me another aspect of Trojan's concerns.

rosada · Jul 16, 2007

I like Trojan's emphasis on putting the responcibility on the questioner. That is, if you're going to ask for advice you have to be ready to "... let many things pass without being duped." Otherwise we maybe stifling the very words the querent needs to hear. I myself have often been surprised to read some responce a poster has offered and thought, "Oh come on, that doesn't fit at all!" only to have the querent say, "You have told me exactly what I needed to know." So rather than being too restrictive on the interpretations - other than to emphasize gentleness - I agree there should be an expectation placed on the querent to be able to handle a many-sided discussion. Indeed, I even like predictions. I do think it would be appropriate when someone makes a prediction which events prove to be inaccurate, that the person post something to the effect of, "Oops, I was wrong."

I appreciate anyone who knows a little something from another field - astrology etc. - throwing in their additional insights. I don't think we've had the sort of extreme cases lindsay warns about so far, so any insight a person feels to share is fine with me as long as they identify where they are getting their ideas from.

Although it will probably be good to have a credo in writing, I'm not enthusiastic about "Moderators," unless perhaps we say that whoever starts a thread is the moderator of that thread. But even there it seems very un-IChing like to ask one person to speak for anyone other than themselves. Rather I would just say we should feel encouraged to speak up if we think someone is out of line. Thus, if we see an interpretation we feel is too harsh or not based on the I Ching, no need to wait for a moderator, we as individuals should feel it's appropriate to say, "Whoa, that was harsh!" or "Did you get that from the I Ching?"

hilary · Jul 16, 2007

About 'mixing in interpretations of other established predictive systems' - that, in moderation, is fine by me. And it's never really caused a problem: people who want to discuss tarot readings tend to go to http://www.tarotforum.net/ . Also I think we have a sufficiently broad base of knowledge here that any inept uses of other systems would be corrected.

Oh, and also that there are no crisp, clear definitions to be had here, either. Everyone reads from some sort of blend of common knowledge, not-so-common knowledge, and the unexplainable.

Everything Rosada wrote sounds good to me.

I'll let this thread run for a little while and see who else shows up with inspired ideas. Then comes the working version, and then the technical business of how to ask everyone to sign up. Suggestions welcome on that, too - I'm inclined to keep it simple and not try to create a formal system where all current members have to tick a box somewhere in order to continue posting.

jesed · Jul 16, 2007

Hi Hillary

Listener wrote about the risk of be judges of others, and that leading to elitism (elders, she said). Most of the people said that wasn't truth, even some people said Listener was "paranoid" and "hysterical".

But now, the forum claim to be apt to judge and correct any "inept" uses of other systems?.

This bring to memory the questions Listener did: who decide when the use is "Apt" and when the use is "inept"?. And not only about "other systems", but about the I Ching itself.

If you remember, one way to understand the previous conflicts (of course, you may not agree with this interpretation) is that some people started to attempt to "correct" what they see to be "inept" uses of the I Ching. Someone even said that if your version of the I Ching is diferent from the "traditional" text, then there is a problem to the forum. I wonder which one is the traditional text... Wilhelm? Blofeld? Legge? Is Ewald's translation "traditional" enough?

Will the forum start to use a confucionist test to participants before they can say how they would interpret some reading? (I'm doing exageration here, of course, in order of make a point.)

So, in the way I see the previous conflicts, the code of ethics may answer this issues
a) The forum has a defined "apt" way to use the I Ching or not. In case the answer is YES, how is described that "apt" use. (In my interest... is Wen Wang Gua method allowed?, since this method is quite diferent that "traditional text-based" method, and provide straight predictions)

b) The forum has a defined "traditonal" text to use or not. In case the answer is yes, which one is that "traditonal" text?
Also, in case the answer is YES, then all other versions should be corrected; not only some versions, but all. Otherwise, that will be a double-standard issue as cejudesc claimed.

c) In case the previous issues cab be answered YES, who is the one responsable to "correct" wrong behavior (inept use; untraditional use)? Yourself? the "core" of elder people in the forum (as Luis pointed)?, anyone? If I see something that I interpret as inept use.. can I say so in the forum (as some people suggest)? or should I send you a note, in order you correct it?

Now, if the answer to the 2 first issues is NO.. then the least thing to do if we are sincere is to recognize that one of the root of the conflict was this deviation of some participants to "correct" and be "judges" of people who works diferent. Not only the interpretation: new people leave because they don't get inmediate recognition.

Best wishes

Drafting a code of ethics

Administrator

Supporter

bruce_g

Guest

Administrator

bruce_g

Guest

visitor

Administrator

One of those men your mother warned you about...

Administrator

Administrator

Supporter

Administrator

Supporter

visitor

visitor

Supporter

Administrator

Supporter

Administrator

bruce_g

Guest

Administrator

bruce_g

Guest

Supporter

Supporter

Supporter

bruce_g

Guest

visitor

Supporter

Administrator

jesed

Guest