Blogging talk:Blogger's Code of Conduct/Take action against attacks

From Blogging

[edit] 4: Unfair Attacks

I think a lot of bloggers might want guidance as to what constitutes an unfair attack. Not everyone is an intuitive moderator. If you "censor" someone on your blog they will probably argue about it regardless, but having a list of rules/guidelines that you are adhering to and asking your commenters to adhere to would make those arguments shorter. Ad-hominem and the various forms of bigotry are the obvious unfair attacks. They're extremely common in the political commentosphere...I suspect a certain level of ad-hominem is going to be hard to avoid, I can't imagine many political bloggers who would welcome a policy that completely banned it, many of them welcome that sort of "frank exchange of views" (I was certainly game for it in my day)

--Sethop 10:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

A blanket exclusion of ad hominem would eliminate a great deal of satire. In logical argument, ad hominem isn't useful but in satire - especially political satire - it's both common and rhetorically effective. On those occasions when I've been actively blogging, I assumed to myself the liberty to decide what could and could not be posted on my site (in the same way that I assume the authority to decide not only what will and won't be discussed in my home, but also the tenor of any conversations that take place there). My understanding of the code of conduct is to allow people to voluntarily associate themselves with a particular standard of discourse which might or might not include the type of writing produced by Anne Coulter or Maureen Dowd. One NRO blog is dedicated to debunking assertions of a particular NYT columnist. They deliberately post things they know to be false, but the content is labeled as false. What some people regard as "false" might be more legitimately viewed as a difference of opinion.

If I post a certain badge and someone feels that I'm not honoring the standard associated with the badge, then what? Does someone somewhere have the authority to take away my badge? Who? and on what grounds? Can I appeal?

As fraught with problems as this enterprise may be, it's perhaps the most worthwhile conversation currently taking place in the ether. Good manners are sorely undervalued everywhere but especially on the web.

Unfair attacks would not include; factual statements, or statements where the commenter felt they had a duty to provide information, or opinions that are based on facts. Satire should be allowed as long as it is intelligent, insightful

and relevant to the topic.

comment: These are points that a blog owner might want to consider before choosing a policy of 'no adhominems.' But having the policy/icon available, does not mean that everyone has to choose it. Imo it would be good to have several levels of 'little/no adhominem' available for each blog owner to choose from.

--anon

[edit] Cops vs common sense

4. When we believe someone is unfairly attacking another, we will take considered action. When someone who is publishing comments or blog postings that are offensive, we'll tell them so (privately, if possible) and ask them to publicly make amends, unless it is considered that doing so will only inflame or worsen the situation. If those published comments could be construed as a threat or of an illegal nature, and the perpetrator doesn't withdraw them and apologize, we will cooperate with local law enforcement regarding those comments and/or postings.

I don't know what "considered action" means. If I take that at face value, I assume it means that I will consider my options, then act. In this case, I have what is defined as an unfair attack on another person. This could be a result of obvious ignorance yet expressed in a manner that is perfectly civil. No action is required of me other than to allow the target of the attack to respond. If the target doesn't respond, I can publicly rise to the defense of the target. Probably should, in fact.

Then we have "postings that are offensive." Again, this is vague to a fault. To say that someone's son or daughter died in vain in Iraq, for example, might be highly offensive to the parents of fallen soldiers but should the poster be asked to make amends? I think not. I think what this section is getting at is not "offensive" postings but "abusive" ones. And, as far as I'm concerned, if it's so patently abusive as to warrant a request for retraction or, worse, raise concerns of even nastier postings, I'm dumping that post without consulting the poster in question. This is what editors do and it doesn't consitute an abridgement of the offending poster's 1st Amendment rights. The cops, on the other hand, just might do something that does. Do bloggers really want to be a party to that? Personally, I prefer to act as an editor and keep the government out of it. davehackit@gmail.com

Comment: Calling for amends, or even justifying one's decision to remove or mask a post, doesn't seem very practical; that's just likely to start a big tiresome argument. If it's offensive, remove it, or move it to some sort of back-alley holding area. A well-meaning poster may apologize spontaneouly, without any demand for amends. A mean or angry poster might 'make amends' with a token 'apology' that really was a further attack, continuing to pollute the main channel.

If anyone is really interested in calling for amends, perhaps that should be a separate module. I'd certainly not choose a boilerplate that included it.

-- anon, added comment to my own