(reposting here as I didn't see the notice on top of the tracker entry)
I think:
You don't need this for guys you already know.
You also don't need this for guys who you don't know but are known by others -> see "Past opponents" and "Recommendations".
This leaves you with guys noone knows. For the bad and the lazy guys among them, ticking in an "I'm a good guy, honest" field would be a very small investment compared to what they gain: a chance to meet an opponent who trusts them. Then if they abuse/wreck that opponent, the opponent can mark them as having broken the code of honor sure, but the bad guy can just simply delete their profile and open up a new profile - and go on wrecking more good guys.
While if you talked to the bad guy at length and asked your million questions, you had some chance to see through them and choose not to meet them.
So I think the feature, in the form you are currently suggesting it in the tracker, would deliver more harm than good.
when negotiating a fight, be clear about what you are looking for and only agree to meet someone if interests really match
be on time
if a fight is agreed upon, working phone numbers should be exchanged so that in event of a delay you can inform the other person.
if you have to cancel, for whatever reason, give as much notice as possible, especially if your opponent has travelled to your city
good personal hygiene (and indeed, very important, make sure finger and toenails are clipped)
if you have any serious health issues your opponent your opponent has a right to know about them before he agrees to a fight
safety: no honourable fighter should intentionally try to inflict injury on another just for the sake of it (unless of course two opponents specifically agree to do just that.)
respect for third parties: don't fight in places where you are a danger or nuisance to others
Hey guys! I read through the discussion on this and just wanted to share my thoughts!
First of all, it would be interesting to hear a few examples of what "Rules of Ethics" you are aiming for. I believe that a few basic Ethics could be a good idea, but Im not so sure about a "tickbox agreement" on them...
Why? Well, this site is brilliant when it comes to real guys up to meet likeminded. But there will always be a part of the community that have other interests than meeting in real life. Call them Spammers, Wankers, or just "Closet-guys"... Will this Ethics agreement make a difference? If so, what? Would it be easier to see who are real, and who are not?
I personally don´t think so. The system with reccomendations and past opponents speaks for itself. For example, if a profile lacks a picture, and without reccomendations, my warningbell rings. I really don´t see the need for aother way to tell this.
Why not instead do a system with, say, some sort of box for "Real, safe and sane guy for real meets"!? If a guy wrestled two guys, and they both think the guy is reliable, they mark him as that, and it shows on his profile.
A code of Ethics could well be displayed on the site, but Im not sure a tickbox for it is the right way to go...
Mancsmonkey pretty well summarised my initial thoughts on the proposal. I struggle to see what benefits it will bring.
I feel that there would be a small minority of members that would discuss what such rules would be. Without seeing what rules people came up with, it's hard to predict on how many would tick the boxes for it.
You say that it is "not about the creation of a set of super-members" but those that do subscribe to it do get a shiny graphic or icon against their profile name, akin to a status symbol.
People who sign up to the "Code" would actually not know they are meeting others who subscribe to the same basic principles as they do themselves - they would merely know they are meeting someone that has ticked the same boxes as themselves, akin to the other options we already have (e.g. "Even match", "Not interested in cyber", etc). We already have a well thought out rating system which, if taken with what's on a persons profile is a very good indicator that they are what they say they are / do what they say they do.
Marking people down will be open to abuse (e.g. member A marks member B down as breaking the code; member B disputes this - which member is telling the truth?). This is in the same manner as the early days of this site and leaving negative feedback; there were occasions when there clearly were disputes between memebers, members who then took to leaving defamatory and damaging comments about each other in feedback (remember too that in some EU countries libel cases are easier to bring about than in others).
@ MancsMonkey THanks for the comment. Far be it from me to take the fun out of negotiating! Just to clarify that I don't see a Code of Ethics as a constraint, much less as a way of nannying members, but rather as a foundation on which to build a negotiation. As regards younger or less experienced members, having a Code of Ethics and seeing people adhere to it might give them the courage to jump into the fray sooner. As regards potential for malicious tagging or other forms of negativity - maybe the Code should have a paragraph about bitching :)
Part of me thinks that we are probably big enough and mature enough to negotiate our own safety, respect etc. Given the risks of what we do and that many of us are not too young, I think guys using the site are probably a lot more aware of such issues than guys on the bar/vanilla scene. I suppose it's down to choice and as the proposer says, it shouldn't create some two-tier membership and those not signing up to it are not necessarily psychos who don't respect negotiated limits. But, some peole might like negotiating stuff for themselves without some pre-ordained 'pre-nup' contract. Personally, I think there are enough codes and contracts (though this is one where rules can be resources not constraints)but I actually like doing the negotiating, which allows for flexibility as your limits change either way. It's part of the fun/process too.
Anyway, how democratic could the code be if only a minority of people contribute their views? What about the possibility of malicious tagging? Doesn't this create opportunities for wrongful accusation/recrimination etc. Don't feed the bureaucratic beast is my instinct but open to hear what others have to say.
(The following has also been placed in the tracker for administrative purposes but I suggest discussion takes place here.)
I propose the creation of a voluntary Code of Ethics (or Conduct) that members can sign up to - or not. That way people who sign up to the "Code" know they are meeting people who subscribe to the same basic principles as they do themselves. Signing up to it - or not - would be completely voluntary and not signing up would not take any advantages away from members with otherwise complete profiles. Of course anyone wishing to meet people who haven't signed up is completely free to do so and should not even be discouraged from doing so. However, for those who do sign up, a Code would bring the added advantage of knowing they are meeting someone likeminded, without having to ask a million questions. A simple tick in a box and a symbol on a member's profile would tell them everything they need to know.
The code would function like a ready-made contract between two members who have both signed up to it. If member A 'breaks' the Code, member B should have the opportunity to mark member A's profile with 'Broke the Code' as part of the regular recommendations feature. Only members who have signed up to the Code can apply this tag or have this tag applied to their profiles. This turns an abstract code of ethics into a real and valuable tool, a Code of Honour.
What exactly would the basic principles in a Code of Ethics (or Conduct) be? To determine this, I suggest a democratic consultation process where any member is free to suggest five points to be included in a future Code, in order of importance. After the member consultation process, the Code will be locked, so that members who have signed up to it are not faced with a changing set of principles. I do suggest, however, the possibility of opening up the Code once a year to accomodate for issues that might arise after the Code is locked and signed.
This is NOT about the creation of a set of 'super-members' who think they are better than others, as not signing up to the Code would not lead to the loss of any advantages members with complete profiles enjoy. In fact, this is about community. As has often been said on this site, we are community, not consumers. Most ancient warrior societies had (and several martial arts communities have) codes of conduct in which the principles upheld by their members (or practitioners) are enshrined. It might be time for us, who are essentially modern warriors, to start to think of ourselves and other members as such - and not as a bunch of individuals who are out for what they can get.
StrikeFighter (78 )
2011-01-06 오후 2:53All considered, I think ikf is right in his post below. You can close the entry in the suggestion box!
ikf (23 )
2010-12-20 오전 11:38(reposting here as I didn't see the notice on top of the tracker entry)
I think:
You don't need this for guys you already know.
You also don't need this for guys who you don't know but are known by others -> see "Past opponents" and "Recommendations".
This leaves you with guys noone knows. For the bad and the lazy guys among them, ticking in an "I'm a good guy, honest" field would be a very small investment compared to what they gain: a chance to meet an opponent who trusts them. Then if they abuse/wreck that opponent, the opponent can mark them as having broken the code of honor sure, but the bad guy can just simply delete their profile and open up a new profile - and go on wrecking more good guys.
While if you talked to the bad guy at length and asked your million questions, you had some chance to see through them and choose not to meet them.
So I think the feature, in the form you are currently suggesting it in the tracker, would deliver more harm than good.
Admin
2010-11-27 오후 1:44This is an old topic. I'm thinking about closing the corresponding entry in the suggestion box, unless it suddenly picks up some support!
Any takers?
StrikeFighter (78 )
2010-07-12 오후 2:53OK, here's a list of the things I would include:
SileX (208 )
2010-06-15 오전 10:12Things I would include are in my personal code of ethics:
boine (115 )
2010-06-10 오후 3:36Hey guys! I read through the discussion on this and just wanted to share my thoughts!
First of all, it would be interesting to hear a few examples of what "Rules of Ethics" you are aiming for. I believe that a few basic Ethics could be a good idea, but Im not so sure about a "tickbox agreement" on them...
Why? Well, this site is brilliant when it comes to real guys up to meet likeminded. But there will always be a part of the community that have other interests than meeting in real life. Call them Spammers, Wankers, or just "Closet-guys"... Will this Ethics agreement make a difference? If so, what? Would it be easier to see who are real, and who are not?
I personally don´t think so. The system with reccomendations and past opponents speaks for itself. For example, if a profile lacks a picture, and without reccomendations, my warningbell rings. I really don´t see the need for aother way to tell this.
Why not instead do a system with, say, some sort of box for "Real, safe and sane guy for real meets"!? If a guy wrestled two guys, and they both think the guy is reliable, they mark him as that, and it shows on his profile.
A code of Ethics could well be displayed on the site, but Im not sure a tickbox for it is the right way to go...
/ P
SurreyGuy (121)
2010-06-10 오전 12:59Mancsmonkey pretty well summarised my initial thoughts on the proposal. I struggle to see what benefits it will bring.
I feel that there would be a small minority of members that would discuss what such rules would be. Without seeing what rules people came up with, it's hard to predict on how many would tick the boxes for it.
You say that it is "not about the creation of a set of super-members" but those that do subscribe to it do get a shiny graphic or icon against their profile name, akin to a status symbol.
People who sign up to the "Code" would actually not know they are meeting others who subscribe to the same basic principles as they do themselves - they would merely know they are meeting someone that has ticked the same boxes as themselves, akin to the other options we already have (e.g. "Even match", "Not interested in cyber", etc). We already have a well thought out rating system which, if taken with what's on a persons profile is a very good indicator that they are what they say they are / do what they say they do.
Marking people down will be open to abuse (e.g. member A marks member B down as breaking the code; member B disputes this - which member is telling the truth?). This is in the same manner as the early days of this site and leaving negative feedback; there were occasions when there clearly were disputes between memebers, members who then took to leaving defamatory and damaging comments about each other in feedback (remember too that in some EU countries libel cases are easier to bring about than in others).
StrikeFighter (78 )
2010-06-09 오후 8:09@ MancsMonkey THanks for the comment. Far be it from me to take the fun out of negotiating! Just to clarify that I don't see a Code of Ethics as a constraint, much less as a way of nannying members, but rather as a foundation on which to build a negotiation. As regards younger or less experienced members, having a Code of Ethics and seeing people adhere to it might give them the courage to jump into the fray sooner. As regards potential for malicious tagging or other forms of negativity - maybe the Code should have a paragraph about bitching :)
MancsMonkey (0)
2010-06-09 오전 11:02Part of me thinks that we are probably big enough and mature enough to negotiate our own safety, respect etc. Given the risks of what we do and that many of us are not too young, I think guys using the site are probably a lot more aware of such issues than guys on the bar/vanilla scene. I suppose it's down to choice and as the proposer says, it shouldn't create some two-tier membership and those not signing up to it are not necessarily psychos who don't respect negotiated limits. But, some peole might like negotiating stuff for themselves without some pre-ordained 'pre-nup' contract. Personally, I think there are enough codes and contracts (though this is one where rules can be resources not constraints)but I actually like doing the negotiating, which allows for flexibility as your limits change either way. It's part of the fun/process too.
Anyway, how democratic could the code be if only a minority of people contribute their views? What about the possibility of malicious tagging? Doesn't this create opportunities for wrongful accusation/recrimination etc. Don't feed the bureaucratic beast is my instinct but open to hear what others have to say.
StrikeFighter (78 )
2010-06-09 오전 7:04(The following has also been placed in the tracker for administrative purposes but I suggest discussion takes place here.)
I propose the creation of a voluntary Code of Ethics (or Conduct) that members can sign up to - or not. That way people who sign up to the "Code" know they are meeting people who subscribe to the same basic principles as they do themselves. Signing up to it - or not - would be completely voluntary and not signing up would not take any advantages away from members with otherwise complete profiles. Of course anyone wishing to meet people who haven't signed up is completely free to do so and should not even be discouraged from doing so. However, for those who do sign up, a Code would bring the added advantage of knowing they are meeting someone likeminded, without having to ask a million questions. A simple tick in a box and a symbol on a member's profile would tell them everything they need to know.
The code would function like a ready-made contract between two members who have both signed up to it. If member A 'breaks' the Code, member B should have the opportunity to mark member A's profile with 'Broke the Code' as part of the regular recommendations feature. Only members who have signed up to the Code can apply this tag or have this tag applied to their profiles. This turns an abstract code of ethics into a real and valuable tool, a Code of Honour.
What exactly would the basic principles in a Code of Ethics (or Conduct) be? To determine this, I suggest a democratic consultation process where any member is free to suggest five points to be included in a future Code, in order of importance. After the member consultation process, the Code will be locked, so that members who have signed up to it are not faced with a changing set of principles. I do suggest, however, the possibility of opening up the Code once a year to accomodate for issues that might arise after the Code is locked and signed.
This is NOT about the creation of a set of 'super-members' who think they are better than others, as not signing up to the Code would not lead to the loss of any advantages members with complete profiles enjoy. In fact, this is about community. As has often been said on this site, we are community, not consumers. Most ancient warrior societies had (and several martial arts communities have) codes of conduct in which the principles upheld by their members (or practitioners) are enshrined. It might be time for us, who are essentially modern warriors, to start to think of ourselves and other members as such - and not as a bunch of individuals who are out for what they can get.