Loading...
 

unethical code

By the standards of transformative justice, an unethical code is a moral code enforced by unethical (typically unnecessarily violent) means, a legal code which must be interpreted by people with special training (typically lawyers) or influence (Liberals), or a code of conduct or etiquette which directly interferes with the exercise of an ethical code. The term is pejorative: by calling something an unethical code is more or less to dismiss and disregard.

Examples of such unethical codes include:
all of which totally fail to consult the norms of the actual community interested in, or protected by, the deliberations that are supposedly being conducted on their behalf. This is entirely contrary to any green ethic or ethical code that operates for the benefit of those who are affected by decision making, NOT FOR THE BENEFIT OR COMFORT OF THOSE WHO PRESENTLY PARTICIPATE IN IT. In Defense of Politics, one must be willing to engage in a lot of confrontation and encounter strong views in order to defend the integrity of due process even as it tends to adversarial process, as it always will.

In pursuit of such an ethic via such a politics, an open politics etiquette tries to avoid any "top-down" rules that would interfere with efforts to self-organize or order matters other than by the balances of the ethic itself. A reflexive intranet approach may be the ideal way to define rules, such as the administrator guidelines of LivingPlatform.CA itself: These are mutable by anyone, who may then act according to the new rules they have written. But anyone may change them and what was done by them, without recrimination. Hopefully this dialectic tends to tensegrity as people do not simply change rules "back" to what they were but to new ones more reflective of the actual faction concepts of safe/fair/done.

This mirrors the wiki way: In general what we find acceptable is what we, trolls, are willing to let stand as written and then live closely by. Why would the rules by which we play be any different than the pages about other things? We should believe what we write and let stand, as long as we all have equal power to change it.

In this view, authority is conferred by lack of dispute not by any special powers - and certainly not by lack of disputability. This is basic to how to wiki will although most large public wikis impose rules and unethical codes, typically relying on those who have infrastructure owners trust, i.e. the domain name, to make arbitrary decisions those owners approve of but do not want to be associated with directly, i.e. as hatchetman.