tom wrote:The Admin of this forum is not changed, is it right?
I am so sorry to interrupt your post in response to John here. I've been waiting for someone to bring this up and I've been waiting because I did not want to say something I've only been 'feeling', but it has certainly been reflected in my earlier posts and not answered. With you bringing it up now, it means I am not the only one sensing this so here goes, for all to answer and see if what I have to say is valid or not:
I do
feel that "Admin' is not the same person/s as before ... and if this is so, then the emerging 'new direction' of this forum is obvious. I have no way of proving this and I have no inclination or agenda to do so, but we all know that 'things' have changed and sometimes not for the better. Especially in terms of what we shold be offering those newly arrived ex-BKWSU members needing some help. They've been met with a barrage of negativity ever since they've logged on, and that sure is not right, in my book. (I read that one of the ideas behind said Codes of Ethics is for it to protect those newcomers as well? - How will it do that I wonder when personalities will always be apparent).
The forum has always had people coming on board that brought some of these aspects into play and they were countered where and when neccessary. Most left if memory and a name search serves well.
As a forum, we've already lost the BK/PBK people (and I am not saying that that was all a bad idea and was perhaps neccessary in terms of the contributions of members at the time). But this Code of Ethics seems to leave an energy in my body that something doesn't ring true.
I do wish to say that have no objection whatsoever to a "Code of Ethics" being published, as I believe this could add a valuable process to the forum, but I am most concerned with it's 'intention'. Some of its wordings, and most of all with its sudden appearance at a time when some of our members are having a 'go' at each other, as well as saying that some of their posts 'aspects' and 'wordings' are also appearing in the Draft Code, making me again 'feel' a hidden intention which may or may not be be at play here.
I'd really appreciate being proven wrong though. I'll wait for any such responses.