Recent changes Random page
GAMING
Technology
 
Gaming
Entertainment
Science Fiction
 Biggest wikis
Hobbies
Music
See more...

Talk:Blogger's Code of Conduct/All discussion

From Blogging

Jump to: navigation, search

To make it easier for people to follow comments on specific modules, comments have been moved to specific discussion pages. This page shows the whole discussion in one place. Each discussion page is transcluded here.

Talk:Blogger's Code of Conduct#Moved sections shows the original section titles with details of where the discussion has moved to.

This is an automatically generated page made up of various discussion pages. Please do not edit this page directly.

Contents

talk:Alternate Code of Conduct

Page Created

A much simpler code of conduct, talking about behaviour rather than implementation, which will change with technology. Based on http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/coc.xml

-- Zeth 11:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Improvements

(Add comments here)

Code of Conduct

Well, nannyism aside the Alternate Code of Conduct is a much more acceptable format and list - but remember, limit it to the list! The 'blogosphere' is an open forum, gentlemen; when you enter it, you do so at your own risk. As a famous quote goes, "If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen!" Good manners vary from one society to another. What I consider rude, crude, and socially unacceptable is quite possibly the epitome of refined behavior elsewhere. And vice versa. When you venture into the Wild West (which wasn't, by the way - but that's another debate), you accept that the Thought Police were left in 1984 London, and gird your loins accordingly. Only a fool brings a knife to a gunfight; only a total Idiot comes totally unarmed and expects to survive unscathed - if at all! Good etiquette is a variable, and we cannot enforce it - except on OUR OWN BLOGS. If YOU run a Blog, YOU decide what is acceptable and unacceptable behavior - NO ONE ELSE can. Conversely, what I allow on MY blog, as long as it does not violate INTERNATIONALLY ENACTED Law - because the Internet IS an international place, perhaps the last free range - is NO ONE ELSE'S BUSINESS. If YOU don't like what I allow on MY BLOG - get OUT! Bluntly put? ACPOTI and FOAD.

talk:Blogger's Code of Conduct criticisms

I See a Litter Box Full of Net Nannies

Which is good, because I was getting constipated.

Meow.

Been there...

Hasn't someone done this before?

Oh, and what if I already say online what I would say to someone's face?

Oh please! Do we really nanny state nazis in the blogosphere?

Well who cares what the whiners & criers want in the way of blogging etiquette?

The solution is simple, if the pantywaists can't take it then they can stay out of blogging or start their own internet and blogosphere...

... Conversely, if the argy-bargy howly bags can't take it, they could start their own (codeless) internet and blogosphere.

Edited Invective

Keep your (&*)&%##&(( hands off of my free speech- er free typing!

This Code is pure BS

Should folks be responsible and polite in what they say? Of course! But let the net remain a free speech zone, and don't try and tell me or anyone else how to run a website. If you don't like it, leave, create your own, or LOG OFF.

Excessive quarreling in order to cause strife

Many blogging discussions become heated because of excessive quarreling. Obviously, some people enjoy this, and enjoy "winding up" others. Many of the other issues could be rectified if blog commenters would stop this unwholesome activity.

Since they will not, it's up to we bloggers to do it. I tried to add this to The Code, but it was stripped out after a few days. I'm afraid I cannot and will not support The Code until it is added back in. I will also be telling my thousands of daily visitors not to support the The Code.

We must have the ability to remove comments that are simply designed to get into an argument. If someone disagrees with something someone says, they can go say it on their own site. They have no right to expect me to print it for them, and I will refuse to do that and I will not only remove their comments I will ban them from commenting ever again.

And I won't ever support the Code until it clearly stipulates that I have the right to tell my children when to go to bed!

comment: Pls delete my comment if it is out of line or in the wrong place. But I'm curious as to what code about this issue was stripped out, and what sort of posts are considered to be "winding up" others. I'd think that most such posts would already fall under simpler standards, like including profanity or personal attacks or including content considered racist, hate-mongering, etc.
As for not supporting "The Code", this is not a single code to be applied as is, it's a collection of boilerplate modules for individual blog owners to choose from (and modify as they like). It does seem to me that including a module about how much disagreement is welcome at a particular blog, would be a good idea, since I've seen several people mentioning it as an issue at their blogs.
If I were going to delete a civil, pleasant post 'just' because it disagreed with the majority, I'd want to give some sort of link to that person's own site for those who wanted to see a different view.
My impression is that the defacto standard in most of the LJ's I visit is that if someone wants to talk at length or take the discussion in a different direction, he usually does make a short comment indicating this, with a link to his LJ for the rest of what he wants to say. Maybe a module spelling this out would be helpful for some.
-- bemusedoutsider.livejournal.com (recently posting as anon)

Be polite .... or else.

Gee ... the first reaction to my use of FOAD is a threat to delete it.

This is exactly why I used said acronym. It is probably my mildest response to someone setting the stage up for an eventual abridgment of a basic human right.

Attempts to set a "standard" for civility will be used as a stepping stone to censorship.

I have no problem with the owners of a given server implementing their ToS. I do have a problem with wannabe netKKKops attempting to inflict their personal standards on the blogosphere as a whole.

  • kbarrett-at-cotse.com
  • http kbarrett.cotse.net/idiot


Absolutely undeniable that you have the right to use FOAD or anything else you choose, anywhere, at any time. If fuck-off-and-die (the acronym doesn't change a thing, by the way) is your mildest, it must be something to see your content when you're wound up. The point is: it's my undeniable right to remove it from my blog. Some blogs will not care - that's where you'll be able to express yourself as you wish. Others (lots, I hope), will edit crude stuff out. The Code of Conduct will be a great resource for a lot of people, I suspect. Be well.


By all means, create whatever in house rules you desire for your own little "civil bloggers" group. Just don't be surprised at the backlash you get when you try to make it some kind general code of conduct for bloggers. I am not launching at your decision to adopt a conduct code for your own little website sticker blog group.

I am reacting poorly to your attempt to make it a general code of conduct. Take a good look at the title you gave this code. As long as you try to peddle it as some kind of general standard, I will continue to verbally assault it.

--

I take no issue with the comment policy of any blog administrator. What I take issue with is the desire to impose that policy on MY site. I WANT flame wars. They amuse me. They also have no effect on the content or tone of your site. In summary, Butt out and go piss up a rope.

RadioactiveLiberty.com

--

Politically correct

Well as long as it is not so Politically correct guide ....THAT is getting out of hand really. thats all I got to say about that. Politically correct stuff is way out of hand. Just do not get carried away with your "rules"

talk:Blogger's Code of Conduct versioning

Versioning and/or variants?

I think a bloggers code of conduct is a good idea, but it needs to be handled with care if it's to gain widespread adoption and become a useful part of the blogging ecosystem.

I think it will be highly unworkable if everyone shows the same badge and then everyone has an ongoing argument about what the badge actually means.

I think a better long term solution would be a structure similar to creative commons, where there are different variants, and different versions of the variants. Just so long as the badges are distinct and link to a page with enough explanation, I think that would be a more effective long term solution than one set of rules that people keep arguing over. Individual bloggers can choose which particular variant/version they subscribe to, and know what their responsibilities are, and only have to worry about changing them the next time they check in at the central site and discover there's a new version/variant that suits them better.

--Sethop 06:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking the approach used by the Definition of Free Cultural Works could work well here. The community edits a draft version of the definition, and when there is consensus on the changes made, the definition is replaced with the new version and the version number is updated. There is a permalink to each version, so people can choose to link to a specific version of the definition, or to always link to the most recent community-approved version. Angela talk 06:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
That looks like a pretty good approach, and obviously, it worked for them, although I note they are still at 1.0. The question of whether we need variants as well as versions is probably best addressed alongside the question of scope, which I'll open a new section for. --Sethop 07:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I can't imagine this working without Variants because most of these standards will not be appropriate for all blogs. Areas that will need variety:
- Anonymous comments, pseudonyms: permitted or not
- Anonymous comments: higher standards for politeness and verifiability?
- Comment control: conditions for deletion; whether approval is required before they go live...
- Dispute resolution methods {Dscrimshaw}

I feel that people "anonymous" not having blogs should be permitted to comment, I did have only good experience with them and the casual readers too. 'julie70'

Scope

So we have:

  • is being used to abuse, harass, stalk, or threaten others
  • is libelous, knowingly false, ad-hominem, or misrepresents another person,
  • infringes upon a copyright or trademark
  • violates an obligation of confidentiality
  • violates the privacy of others

The question I have is whether all bloggers will want to take responsibility for all of these, and if they do not whether they should have a middle ground between "all" and "none" that they can subscribe to (hence my mention of the creative commons licences).

And then there are the other clauses.

I think the most important item here is clearly the first - that is certainly what is uppermost on many of our minds at the moment WRT Kathy Sierra.

However I am sorely tempted to suggest that there should be a clause regarding disclosure standards, which was a big argument in the 'sphere a while back that never got satisfactorily resolved, or not that I noticed. I was taking part briefly, see my rant on Pay Per Post, but I was burning time that my startup needed so I never really followed up on it. It seems like a fairly closely related matter so I thought I would bring it up and see if people wanted to fold it in or save the disclosure discussion for another time.

--Sethop 08:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Im not a fan of the code proposed but I'll try to post some constructive criticism here. The stuff about Trademarks and Patents seems pretty absurd to me. The only trademark example I could think of in comments would be spam, but spam doesnt seem to be covered in the document in general so why go off on a tangent about trademarks and patents here? Honestly this makes the code seem more like a list of every dull law that an uber-responsible blogger might want to think about, but to stretch that burden to all of the comments posted to their blog seems crazy to me. And how do you break patent law in blog comments? With great difficulty I presume. The EFF guide that was linked to is good though, I question whether the code should maybe just point to it in regard these matters rather than list every possible legal violation some text on the net could commit?

I believe that stuff and other clauses in this code will hamper widespread adoption, because of how many people have fought for to have freedom from too much legal responsibility for anything someone else may publish tot heir site. There is a balance to be struck, and comparisons could be made with the likes of youtube and the costs to their business of having to police content more vigorously. Scares in the past with messageboard being held responsible for libel had many people fearing for the viability of self-pulishing masses and the communities that host them.

And I so agree with Sethop about the 'disclosure standards' stuff. Either that or reduce the scope of this from being a 'bloggers code of conduct'. Because when I think of a code of conduct for bloggers, its got a lot of stuff in it about disclosure, ethical marketing, sponsorship, etc. But the code here seems heavily skewed towards policing the actions of others on the bloggers site, and not all that much about the routine conduct of the blogger themselves, outside crisis situations. The absence of such things from the code makes me very cynical, nearly all the rules in the code are 'easy' for bloggers to sign up to because its probably how they already behave. It places a big burden on the blogger to moderate others, but not to moderate themselves much in daily posts or business dealings or the ways they relate and inform their readers/viewers/listeners.

Thanks for listening, sorry my contribution was mostly negative. Steve Elbows

Scope

Do not limit to blogging

We have places to post beyond blogging. They maybe called groups, forums or something else.

A Cyber Code of Conduct?

talk:Censorship

Censorship mitigating

What about moving "offensive" postings to a separate section of the site so that those who are concerned about censorship can check on the site owner's criteria for removal?

--I really, really want this. There are a few blogs such as Monsters and Critics that "memory hole" comments some anonymous "moderator" disagrees with. It's really demoralizing to watch comments disappear off a site and have no way to take the site to task for it. I see this as a responsibility thing. A blogger should be responsible for what they delete as much as for what they say. --(a different) Erik, I don't have a login yet.

slippery slope of censorship

These proposals will create a slippery slope of censorship. Nearly every blog has settings on who can comment and other levels of controls on who can add to the blog(being clueless is no excuse). The list is very subjective, the history of free speech is littered with politically correct rules, only to serve the oppressor. My view is to give people time to grow up and mature.

Let's remember who owes "Freedom of Speech" to us

People are owed freedom of speech by their governments. Not by each other. If a telemarketer calls me and I hang up without listening, I am not violating the telemarketer's freedom of speech. If someone puts a comment on my blog and I delete it because it's offensive, stupid or just written poorly, I'm not violating their freedom of speech; I'm looking after the integrity of my blog. - Dscrimshaw

In fact, the Supreme Court has explicitly held that newspaper editors have the right to pick and choose which editorials will be printed. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/17.html#7 Restrictions on Radio and Television are only accepted because of the historic definition of radio bandwidth as a limited resource that is leased by the government to commercial radio stations. The bottom line is that the First Amendment gives me as the "editor" of a blog or community forum, complete liberty to delete any posts I believe run counter to the mission of that site. I am under no obligation to let anybody use my bandwidth for their speech. My site policies do not prevent you from shouting your opinion on any corner, or using the hundreds free or cheap services that are available (starting with your local street corner, which might actually reach a larger audience than most blogs.) --Kirk Job Sluder, kirkjobsluder at gmail dot com.

Perhaps better stated: your freedom of speech does not obligate me to listen to you, nor does it obligate me to provide a forum for you (perhaps Intel v. Hamdi or the like is applicable here) -- David Mackintosh, dave at xdroop dot com

Yes. A private blog is not a microcosm of the nation; anyone can start their own LJ or MT site and say whatever they like. Imo there's a continuum, from a private blog like LJ to a large public forum where the banned person might never be able to reach the large audience with his side of the issue. At such a large forum, I think it would be fair to leave links to the banned person's own site, and to refrain from badmouthing him after he is no longer present to defend himself. Or, if possible, it would be good to move the whole controversy to some special area of the large forum. On an ordinary individual blog, deleting an inappropriate comment is not a free speech issue (although even there, it would be more fair to leave a link to the banned person's own site). Of course I'm not talking about people who post profanity, just those who may have some sincere issue. -- anon

101: Codes of Conduct can be used as an excuse for censorship.

If you dislike a blog, don't read it or link to it.

As far as I am concerned, net nannies who compile lists of blogger dos and don'ts like this one can FOAD.

Idetrorce

very interesting, but I don't agree with you Idetrorce

talk:Connect privately first

Add On-Line Mediation Option to Code

Suggest that we add option of those with conflict to engage in online mediation when matters can not be more easily resolved.

Contact in a safe area?

In a LJ discussion, someone said that in extreme cases, contacting an abusive poster would be dangerous: giving him one's real email etc. This seems a point in favor of having some sort of "Flame Zone" where the 'work it out' discussion could be held, outside the main channel, but short of 'take it to email.' In case an abusive poster is targeting a naive poster, it would be good to have a place where the 'work it out' could be witnessed by more experienced members. I'm sure "Flame Zone" isn't the best term for this, but it's a term I've seen on some large forums. -- bemusedoutsider at LJ

talk:Discretion to delete comments

Discretion to delete comments

While it is very important for blog owner to take responsibility for what appears on that blog, the code should give the blog owner "sole discretion" for determining whether a particular comment is unacceptable. For instance, no one should be in the position of determining whether a comment or content is actually libelous or a copyright violation, particularly if there is a requirement that the deleted comment be stated and explained. If deletions require both notice and explanation, there could be an endless and distracting set of comments and responses about whether the deleted material violates the code or not.

This rationale seems more like something that would ensure the smooth operation of a blog rather than part of a code of good conduct. There will be some bloggers who will abuse their ability to delete comments, so I don't like the idea that it goes against "good conduct" to point this out when it happens, or that "good conduct" allows this kind of abuse. Allowing meta-commenting should be left up to the individual blogger, but some form of removal notification should be expected if not required IMO. It builds trust in good blogs and outs the bad ones.
I think a new module for this would be useful. Angela talk 23:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
new ::

I hope I'm putting this in the right place. Rather than having to justify and defend a decision to remove a post or ban a poster, I think that it would be sufficient to have some sort of link to the banned person's own site where he can tell his side of the story. The larger and more public the forum, the more important this would be. Of course not needed when a post was just garbage or profanity or an ad/plug/etc. -- bemusedoutsider at LJ (was anon)

changed, and changed back

[Someone] changed "While it is very important for blog owner to take responsibility for what appears on that blog" to "As the blog owner is responsible for what appears on the blog" for a couple of reasons: 

- The "while" implies the parts of the sentence contrast with each other when actually, the first part implies the second part.
- The original wording implies that a blog owner does not have to take responsibility for what is on their blog. I think a blog owner who does not take such responsibility does not need this module.
comment by bemusedoutsider: I think this is a dangerous change, and the 'while' wording better protects the blog owner. The 'as' wording might be taken as assuming/admitting liability. Even if some blog owners in your opinion do 'not need this module', some of them are likely to choose it anyway. These modules need to be safe for all blog owners, not increase anyone's liability. -- So I'm taking the liberty of changing it back to the 'While' wording, for safety pending further discussion.
Personally, I think either clause is a bit dangerous, and would like the module to begin with "The blog owner has sole discretion for determining whether a particular comment is unacceptable, and may delete, mask, or edit it as he/she sees fit." Selecting this policy/module is a choice of the blog owner, and does not need justification, especially not a justification stated within the module.
--bemusedoutsider at LJ

I agree that the justification should be removed, but I'm not comfortable with "... may ... edit it as he/she sees fit" because that goes outside the scope of removing unacceptable content.

I think "delete, mask, or sever" would be better. How about:

"Unacceptable content may be removed at the blog owner's sole discretion." Dscrimshaw

I agree that 'edit' is a whole nother level and shouldn't be in the basic module here. Any blog owner who is up to editing the comments, could edit the module.:-) How about "delete, mask, or move"? "Mask" could be taken to include "disemvoweling".
--bemusedoutsider at LJ

Talk:Encourage enforcement of terms of service

Point 7 is not about bloggers' conduct

"When bloggers engage in such flagrantly abusive behavior as creating impersonating sites to harass other bloggers they should take responsibility for their clients' behavior."

I assume the person who added this clause means that blog hosts should control flagrant abuse by bloggers who have accounts with them. It may be an excellent idea, but it should be on a blog host's code of conduct, not a blogger's code. - Dscrimshaw

7. We encourage blog hosts to enforce more vigorously their terms of service.
That is not really a code of conduct either, it is not something we can do

Talk:Free expression

[following on from a comment now at Talk:Censorship:]

Well said. This is common sense. Why all the purist handwringing? This comes down to editing and I can't understand why it's considered such an evil, especially in light of the Kathy Sierra incident, which seems to be the impetus for all of this. Lord knows that situation screamed for a level-headed editor. This anti-authoritarian attitude toward editors on blogs sounds very progressive and all but, frankly, we're debating a code of conduct here that includes an explicit threat to call the cops. How anti-authoritarian is that? Do we really prefer to quasi-codify a role for cops over editors?

I don't think we need a "code of conduct." Individuals should come up with those on their own. Instead, how about a "pledge of common decency" to briefly assure readers and vandals alike that this blog is tolerant within broad boundaries?

Here's my suggestion: "This blog values free expression and a vigorous exchange of opinion. Purely personal abuse, plagiarism, libel and SPAM are unwelcome and will be removed, along with anything else that constitutes a blatant violation of common decency in civil discourse."

Maybe another sentence or two but brief is beautiful as far as I'm concerned.

Davehackit@gmail.com

talk:Gentoo derived

Start Again I Say

The idea of a code of conduct for bloggers is cool, I know the authors are famous and everything, but this is hardly the sermon on the mount is it? Some thought to aesthetic quality would help a lot (compare Stallman's 4 freedoms). Most of this can be summed up by the universal, "Do onto others as you would have them do onto you.". Here is Gentoo's Linux' code of conduct, generalised a bit:

  • Be courteous.
  • Give accurate information in the spirit of being helpful.
  • Respectfully disagree.
  • Use the correct venue for your post.
  • Admit the possibility of fault and respect different points of views.
  • If you screw up, take responsibility for your actions.

Zeth 11:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

talk:Keep our sources private

Suggestions

8. We reserve the right to keep our sources private and will only divulge such information upon order of the court.

9. We are bloggers and not journalists, but we do deserve fair and equal access to Press materials.

10. We are matured enough to understand and follow the Blogger's Code of Conduct.

I'd suggest reversing the order of the first two, and changing the wording to "Not all bloggers are journalists"; some bloggers most certainly ARE journalists. (PJ at Groklaw would seem the canonical example, but doubtless any number of the DC Post's journalists with blogs fall in both sets.) 128.143.34.206 14:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I've made a new module for Keep our sources private Angela talk 23:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Cool. Hmm... maybe we should separate the comments for my #9 and #10 suggestions.
quoting ""Not all bloggers are journalists"" - good point. We should build on that as the basis. The basic idea behind it is something like "Not all bloggers are journalists - with that, not all bloggers are bound by the 'Ethics of Journalism' and/or are not familiar with the practices of journalists". Laibeus Lord 12:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


11.Just some thoughts.........

We reserve the right to keep our sources private and will only divulge such information upon order of the court.
In addition, we are also committed that our right to keep sources private shall not be used to obfuscate sources with them intent to claim credit for the work.
--GSephyr 08:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Mutual respect

Heart of the code: mutual respect

From Gerald Duffy: My words, my voice, my real name.

Key concept missing in the code so far: mutual respect. Can’t be legislated but it underlies our best hopes for Internet discourse:


Freely exchanged opinions/views/perspectives/information on any subject


Civility/decency (note: not the opposite of indecency)


Contention with manners


Freedom of speech comes with responsibility and accountability. But, likely our founders did not have vicious, nasty, rude, anonymous, ad hominem attacks in mind. With some notable exceptions, however, anonymity is protected under our 1st amendment rights [1].


Some things for bloggers/site owners to consider:


Actively promote freedom of speech (a great American contribution to the world we can be proud of) – but expect mutual respect. 1st amendment rights are at the heart of WWW at its best


Appeal to contributors’ better selves and ask them to respect the cybercratic oath: Do No Harm. If they insist on playing dirty, delete their content until they’re willing to play by the rules. The "FOAD" in the entry above this one makes it a good candidate for deletion.


Ask contributors to take the living-room test: would they say that in someone else’s living room?


Living-room test may be expecting too much. Alternative approach: conduct the town-hall test: would the contributor be willing to stand up at a community meeting and say that? A short pep talk: Sure, speak your mind, your heart, your passion, but remember you have to live with these people (which we do, even on the Internet: we are more than our pixels and bytes). When you open your mouth, you define yourself. If you do it with respect, people nearly always listen.


(Only half tongue-in-cheek) As a public service, create special mud-pond blogs/forums etc – free-for-all, full contact zones especially for trolls. Encourage anonymous insults, the nastier the better. After a few pig-piles with each other, they’ll probably get bored with insulting one another and find some other outlet for the vitriol/nastiness. Incidentally, this could be a source of great entertainment for non-trolls.

talk:No anonymous comments

I think this is a key guideline which will greatly increase the quality of online discourse if it comes to be more widely used. A situation where the commenters are registed with the site, in my opinion, always leads to better, more mature discussion. Also, it may be beneficial for sites not to allow people to post comments automatically, but rather have the webmaster screen them and then print select comments that make valid points. Some sites thrive on the discussion that takes place in the comments seciton (the onion AV club is a good example) but there are others where the comments section constantly devolves in to flame wars and pointless digressions from the point.

A site I really enjoy, wooster collective, stopped accepting anonymous comments under the reasoning that they didn't want people using their site as a forum to attack people without revealing themselves. Wooster still allows people to contact the site easily, but they only print comments they feel add something (and they don't just print comments from known artists, random people can get their thoughts printed) and I think this model works well.

I have to disagree. IMO, any gain in the quality of discourse is outweighed by discouraging people from joining the discussion. Any sort of e-mail address verification system is going to make it significantly more difficult for casual users to comment. I read many blogs, but I'm not really a 'regular' commenter on any of them, but if something catches my interest, or I feel I've got something useful to add to the conversation, I'll go ahead an comment. However, if a blog requires any sort of registration or address verification, I'm not going to bother (I probably wouldn't make this comment if I'd hadn't been able to do it quickly and anonymously). I suspect a lot of people are in the same boat as I am. Requiring registration or address verification is just going to put them off commenting entirely. Filtering out these 'casual' commenters will make the conversation on a blog a lot more insular. The regulars will keep commenting, but lurkers or new readers are going to be less likely to speak up. This is a pretty significant loss, particularly in terms of diversity, since these are the people who are most likely to say something different. 71.199.58.125 07:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
It's a valid point. It's a matter of tradeoffs. But would a sufficient equivalent for taking the badge be to assure your users that you will individually approve all anonymous comments before they are made visible? --Sethop 07:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you. Like you, when I have something to contribute to a blog that I mostly just read, I post with my own credentials as a "guest". I don't like registering first just so I will be able to contribute to the discussion. Now if for example I am a frequent commenter to that blog already, then that's the only time I register for my own account - sole reason, is to protect my identity, since my name appears frequently already on that particular blog. If we will force all blogs who will agree and conform to these suggested rules, [1]then we might as well remove the commenting feature of all blog platforms, [2]open up our own forums. No, I'm not being sarcastic, just showing that it is better to use a forum system for comments and discussions if we will force our readers to register just to leave comments. After all, that's what forums are for, right? Laibeus Lord
I find that there is a direct proportional relationship between the number of website I give my email address to, and the amount of spam I receive. The problem with providing this info to web-entities, is that it increases the users vulnerability to Identity theft, in that the more accounts you create, the more sites cyber-criminals can steal your credentials from. Since many users use the same password for web-mail that they use for their online-banking, the keys to their personal fortune are likely sitting in someone else's database, perhaps halfway around the world. Blog sites' accounts databases need not meet the same rigorous security standards that banks are required to comply with. Not everything needs to be "secure", and if we don't make sensible distinctions on what does and does not require multi-factor authentication, we risk reducing the effectiveness of security where it really matters. On a more personal note, I find it offensive when web-entities require me to reduce my personal safety and security, in order to augment their own, and thats what I see in this proposal. I am sorry to the individuals that believed that this was necessary, and I sympathize with their plight, but I cannot condone this policy. -Franklin Thomas
I agree with "no anonymous comments" for the reason stated above (quality of discourse), and so that persons may filter their own thoughts in a constructive way. Is that "self-censoring" or editing? IMO the main problem with anonymity is that dialogue degenerates into name-calling, threats, insults etc. Yes, we want to have a free and open exchange of ... what? ideas, opinions, information about a particular topic on a blog. But is it useful to allow unfiltered comments that are irrelevent or rude? I don't think that registering an email address is necessarily an obstacle to open communication. One can use the web-portal email services or "Hotmail" that are not tied to a particular computer address or give up one's real name. Furthermore, there is at least one website (wheresgeorge.com) that allows registered users to exchange anonymous emails privately. ---soiluna
What's the point of the email address? It allows you to tie the comment to other comments using the same email address, that's all. One can easily get a new throwaway email address for each comment, and if there aren't services that allow this today, there will be tomorrow. Furthermore, it says nothing at all about liability, because it cannot readily be traced. No, either use a means of authentication that allows each comment to be traced to a Real World identity who can be sued or prosecuted -- or else not, but don't pretend you are in any way affecting who will and won't post what; plenty of people post outrageous flames under their real names, anyhow. --Johnwcowan 18:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Shii, a programmer who has contributed to the open-source anonymous message board software Wakaba and Kareha, has written an essay on the pros and cons of anonymous posting. To summarize, registration keeps out good users, registration lets in bad users, registration attracts trolls, and anonymity counters vanity. For this reason I am strongly opposed to disallowing anonymous posts. Anonymous
I'm also strongly opposed to disallowing anonymous posts. First, anyone can use any random name & email for registration, so I fail to see what kind of actual guarantee it would give as to the nature of the people or intentions behind any posts. Second, anonimity is one of the biggest attributes of the internet. It has both positive and negative consequences. We shouldn't try to get rid of it just because we're not totally used to it yet. Finally, anonymity is a very random way to choose who posts, since there are a thousand reasons why someone may wish to remain anonymous on any given topic, in any given place. Every other guideline in your code of conduct refers directly to actual conduct. The anonymity section doesn't refer to any conduct whatsoever. Or rather, it refers to as many types of conduct as there are reasons for wanting anonymity. It seems very out of place, and very unreasonable. -anon

Anonymity is not a brake on useless flamewars, think of Ann Coulter! Anonymity is, as many posters to this section have pointed out, essential to preserve open and honest discussion. There are times when anonymity (true anonymity, not obfuscation) is essential to the poster. Apply the 'chinese dissident' rule: How many chinese dissidents will be endangered by the loss of anonymity. They will face the choice of silence or exposure. Even logging IP addresses of comments makes those comments subject to subpoena, whatever information you keep can be demanded by governments, and jurisdictional boundaries are weak.

No anonymous comments is *the* dealbreaker for this whole idea. I will not be agreeing with anything you say as long as this remains here.

Anonymous comments are the very foundation of blogging. Without them, you're just another media shill.

Essentially, it's impossible to disallow anonymous comments anyway. There exists no method of ensuring someone's identity online. Requiring a valid e-mail address is a joke. When I come to a site that requires e-mail addresses, I type "yourmom@dodgeit.com". Works every time. It is a valid e-mail address, so even going to the length of an MX record check won't work. So basically, beyond the obviously bad ethical implications of disallowing anonymous comments, it's impossible to enforce. This rule sucks even worse than the rest.

I think the argument in favor of anonymous commenting is often the wolf of the profit motive dressed in the sheep's clothing of free speech. By this I mean, allowing anonymous commenting lowers barriers to entry which increases traffic which increases ad revenues. Inflammatory discussions, like car wrecks, draw interested rubberneckers which increases traffic which increases revenues. Money...it's a gas.

And when we are on the subject of the very real importance of anonymity for people living under repressive regimes, can we please make a distinction between anonymous posts that are expressions of courage and those that are expressions of cowardice?

The other day I read a blog entry that featured a female CEO in a video demonstrating her company's product. Of the 45 comments, 13 referenced the CEO's looks, her sexuality or her sexual appeal. Of those 13, 11 were anonymous. I'd be very interested to know how many of those anonymous commenters would have had the courage to post if their words were attached to their identity.

I think there should always be a place on the internet for courageous anonymity. But the anonymity that is the hideout of cowards, not in my house.

I would like a badge for my blog that reads something to the effect of: We = Our Words. Firefangle 00:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I too feel that eliminating anonymous comments is a step in the wrong direction. I personally have failed to contribute to a discussion because registration was necessary. And registration WILL NOT prevent (or likely even slow down) trolls. This is a barrier to entry that is easy to bypass with ill intent, but keeps good people from making useful contributions.


OpenID

I think supplying an OpenID should be a valid alternative to using an email address. I think most people have come to think that OpenID is a fine identity standard and should be more widely adopted. But I'm by no means an expert on this. --Sethop 07:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Most people have never even heard of it! 11:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I think that if people start being more concerned about identification of comments, OpenID might become more popular. I think it could suffice as far as emails do, but still neither is terribly difficult to set up and spoof. horsedreamer 16:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I will just add that anonymity is not a crime. If someone wants to say something he knows but by saying it he would put his life in danger for example, there's no reason for any blog to disallow anonymous comments. In fact, people in some countries like China are being chased for what they publish, so I think that without anonymity the goverments will have even more power to control the blogosphere.


Slashdot Solution

I don't understand why bloggers are still reinventing the wheel. Slashdot invented self-moderation years ago which solves most of the problems this Code is dealing with.

Readers use "mod-points" to score the comments of others. The number of mod-points they have is based on their "karma" a measure of the value of their contribution to the site so far. Nothing is censored but any comment that isn't particularly insightful or funny can only be read by clicking through a link. Anonymous comments start with a lower score. Not only are trolls and flamers deterred but readers can skim all the high quality comments quickly and easily. It's all about improving the signal to noise ratio.

Now there is a need for a Wikipedia-style statement of what is a good comment, what makes a comment worthy of mod-points, but there's no need for censorship, compulsory registration, laborious moderation by individual bloggers or anything else. We have the technology - let's use it. James Ferguson

The 'Slashdot solution' is backwards. An anonymous comment is one that stands on its own merits and therefore doesn't need its writer's past to back it up. Karma systems invariably tend to favor popular posters over insightful posts, and giving a lower starting score to anonymous comments causes them to never be weighed by readers in the first place.
if you find the popular posters lack insight, perhaps you're in the wrong community.
this method has worked brilliantly for thottbot.com; millions of threads full of epeen stroking and leet speak posts were trimmed down to just a few highlights per thread within months. --sullage


I agree "no anonymous comments" is a dealbreaker. I can see "no comments by unregistered users"--66.167.133.84 00:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


Beyond rejecting anonymity...

Whether it's OpenID (which I don't understand, personally) or simply better technology that can identify the anonymous, the profane, and the trolls in general, the answer is simple enough: put a name on the poster. People who behave like this do it because they can't be "caught." So catch them. Expose them.

I know from an acquaintance with a skilled techie--not a hacker, though he could be--that tracing the source for a post is not that difficult, and only the very skilled will know how to 'route' their post so as to be untraceable.

If blogs install Finder software with a warning that inappropriate posts will be exposed, what are the odds that the nastiness will subside? Very good, I'd say.

Plus we'd be helping the economy--generating another level of software and expertise for people to create, sell, market, and teach.

LL

It's a good point and I agree. Though we will need to be very careful, especially when dealing with East Asians, as the most popular Internet access point here are iCafes, and most ISPs don't offer static IPs. If we can have a fool-proof system where we can be 100% sure the person we are going to expose is the troll or whatever, then why not? It's a very good suggestion, what we just need now is a very good system. Laibeus Lord

As far as Im concerned such ideas are dangerous on a number of levels. IP address alone is never enough, it always has to be backed up with further investigations such as comparing writing style, known history, etc of the violator. If this stuff isnt handled responsibly then you get into problems with creating more victims instead of fingering the perpetrators. How easy it is to maintain anonimity depends on who you are up against. Governments will usually be able to track someone down if their resources are directed at a serious event involving the net. Amateur investigations in the blogosphere have caught various people quite sucessfully, usually because the perpetrator is none too bright, but Id certainly be wary of any code that went overboard telling would be commenters that those who run the site have a right to track you down. So be careful here, dont do a HP. This is just another area where the code needs to tread carefully to avoid measures designed to prevent online intimidation from becoming a tool bloggers could use to intimidate contributors. - Steve Elbows

Point 5

'5. We encourage anonymous comments. We allow commenters to identify themselves with an alias, rather than being anonymous, but discourage it as vain. '

ENCOURAGE in the leading staement, but the weaker 'allow' and the opposite 'discourage' in the commentary. I suggest 'We PERMIT or ALLOW anonymous comments'. Jalera1

Removing "We do not allow anonymous comments"

Replaced following contents with original.

We allow commenters to identify themselves with an alias, rather than being anonymous, but discourage it as vain.
While this is an outstanding idea in general, I find the specific exclusion of the right of anonymity to be threatening. I agree that people ought not threaten others, but there may well be times when I feel a need to post something that, if my actual name were known, could be very damaging to me outside the context of the actual comment. For example, were I to blog about problems at my company, pointing out, let's say, a data breach, it would be good for the community to know about but dangerous for me to be associated with. Now, if this is just an email address, and that is ALL, I can go make up one like 123abc@hotmail.com and submit that. I am still anonymous. But if this is asking me for a REAL email, one that can be tied back to me, then I think we will stifle the free submission of ideas.
By not allowing anonymity one stifles the chance that an actual professional, certified in their field, will make a comment. The best posters don't always have enough time to register and create a name. However the people who do have enough time to go through that process are the people least wanted to make a comment, children, trolls, and other internet do no gooders. -anon
How could anyone blame anonymous for what is posted unless they themselves posted anonymously. They would find that anonymity is extremely useful as a shield against so called internet bullying. If someone is being flamed, well consider the fact that one is anonymous and the person posting does not actually know who one is. Therefore any posts that are flames can be ignored as they are groundless and irrelevant. -anon
People who post with a name or pseudonym would never understand the point of Anonymous. To use a name is to rely on it for its weight, rather than through logic and skill. People should be able to look on information without predetermined bias and without such a fundamental right, they will fully lose their ability to judge what has merit and what does not. -anon

210.23.138.169 09:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I do agree with that! A post should stand on its own merits, not reputation.

Please excuse me if I'm not putting this in the right place. I support anonymous posting on my blog, but including an 'OPTIONAL' module/icon to label those blogs who do not support it, is reasonable. There seem to be several different policies available, so maybe there need to be more gradations of icons on this. There's "No anon at all" and "Anon will be held for moderation (expected wait time one day)" etc. Aiui, this icon project is not about some whole monolithic code to be imposed on all blogs, but a way for individual blog owners to show quickly what THEIR standards are. -- anon (edited my own and combined my comments)


Removing further discussion

The following was added to this section in the article. Moving it to here.

This requirement is essentially worthless since anyone can get a free e-mail address from about 500 sites in about 30 seconds. It also ignores the need, in some cases, for some people legitimately to comment anonymously because if the comments were known to be from them they could be subject to harassment, loss of employment, imprisonment or murder.
The EFF, in a letter to an organization trying to force Craigslist to disclose the identity of an anonymous poster, had this to say:
“ The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld the First Amendment right to speak anonymously. Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Found. 119 S. Ct. 636, 645-646 (1999); McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm., 514 U.S. 334 (1995); Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60 (1960). These cases assert the important role played by anonymous or pseudonymous writings through history, from the literary efforts of Shakespeare and Mark Twain through the explicitly political advocacy of the Federalist Papers. Accordingly, due process requires that disclosures which impair these fundamental rights only allowed when there is a demonstration of a compelling subordinating interest. NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449, 463 (1958); Bates v City of Little Rock, 361 U.S. 516, 524 (1960). Open letter to Shearman ”
While the First Amendment does not apply to private parties, we should be careful to respect the rights of other people to speak - especially when a statement is the truth - even anonymously. Although the privilege to speak can be abused, it has been shown that open and free commentary has been much more effective in allowing people to be fully informed.

210.23.138.169 01:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Section 5 : Email address

" 5. We do not allow anonymous comments.

We require commenters to supply a valid email address before they can post, though we allow commenters to identify themselves with an alias, rather than their real name. "

I can see this severely limiting comments. The only way I know to validate an email address is to send an email and wait for the user to click a unique link in the email.

I suspect most people just wouldn't go to the effort.



'Name withheld'

Some people use pseudonyms for the same reason that this code of conduct has become necessary -- to protect themselves from harm. Why not adopt a similar policy to traditional print publications -- the publisher/editor can agree to withold a person's real name from publication, as long as s/he knows who that person really is. I realise that the immediacy of the net makes that more complicated to upheld, but there must be ways around it.

Apologies in advance if someone has already suggested something like this, and I just missed it in the density of text.

moved this comment of my own

talk:No pseudonymous comments

Some of the discussion which led to this being a separate module is at Talk:No anonymous comments.

talk:Nothing we wouldn't say in person

Things that would not be said in person

One of the powerful things about the internet is that it allows opressed people to share information they would not be at liberty to share in "real life". ~erik

This is a very problematic clause that IMO needs to be cut out. First of all, for members of some minority groups such as gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender populations, religious minorities, people suffering from some diseases, and political dissidents the Internet provides a forum for the expression of views that many would find to be embarrassing, and would open up possibilities of discrimination and/or violence.

Face-to-face norms of politeness vary from community to community, and conflicts between those norms are not infrequent. These norms can vary between genders within a culture as well. We know that when those tendencies are taken into online discourse, that they result in conflicts between participants. Case of sexual or racial harassment, it's rather foolish to assume that some participants wouldn't be saying the exact same thing verbally in "safe" environments of like-minded individuals.

On the other hand, while we know that online discourse has many of the same characteristics of other forms of human discourse, online discourse also adapts to the constraints and capabilities of the medium. (Just like every other form of discourse in human history.) Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC) is sometimes used in instructional environments as an adjunct to f2f discussion for this reason. While I appreciate the sentiment here, I don't think this is a very productive way to approach the problem.

This is also not a new problem. I would suggest also taking a look at RFC 1855 the "netiquette guide" http://www.dtcc.edu/cs/rfc1855.html to see what to incorporate. -Kirk Job Sluder, kirkjobsluder at gmail dot com

I would not put this clause in a code of conduct. Different people will have different standards for what they will say in person and if a statement is offensive, it really doesn't matter to me if the speaker would have said it to my face. - Dscrimshaw

While I agree that it is great that oppressed people have an anonymous voice online, this rule really protects the people who write these things. The point is there is a strong likely hood that what you thought was anonymous may not actually be anonymous and if you cannot live by the consequences of that post being public then you should rethink doing it.

Too often it is tne anonymous people who are the ones who get hurt, because they share sensitive information and eventually it gets tracked back to them. There is no real protection from this, except to understand that the possibility is there that no matter how anonymous you think you are it could be traced back to you.

Suggested changes around rule2, and additional rules

2. We won't say anything online that we wouldn't say in person.
Unless we are trying to protect a confidential source, in which case, we may omit certain private details or otherwise obfuscate the soure of the information.
2. We strive to be respectful in our disagreements with others, by focusing on issues rather than personalities.
Often our posts are built on an important disagreement. In our posts, we will try to address the issues underlying the disagreement rather than the personalities involved in the disagreement. If our differences of opinion can't be resolved, we have the option to agree to disagree.

For reason's I've stated http://blogging.wikia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Blogger%27s_Code_of_Conduct&oldid=2316#Things_that_would_not_be_said_in_person the "not said in person" rule is really problematic. This is an alternative guideline.

Add:

3. We give others the benefit of the doubt.
Posts to blogs are often made "off the cuff," in a short period of time, and with minimal editing. Many perceived disagreements often stem from misunderstandings. We will try to extend the benefit of the doubt before taking offense.

Often I find that many internet flamewars can be mediated if the participants just took a step back and asked themselves, "did they really mean that?" IMO this rule should go after #2.

Add:

LAST. We are only human (and admit it.)
We will try to follow these guidelines, but will sometimes make mistakes. We will take responsibility for our own actions.

I don't think it is possible to follow a code of conduct perfectly. So we should offer some accountability for we don't.

-Kirk Job Sluder, kirkjobsluder at gmail dot com.

talk:Personal code

Shared policy vs personal code

Seth blogged about the difference between a shared policy and a personal code, with some comments about the merits of each, after discovering a rather excellent personal blogging code of ethics. Seth will probably tweak and post for himself sometime soon. But that certainly doesn't mean he wouldn't sign up to a shared code of conduct if there was one out there that he felt was appropriate for him.

Allan Jenkins writes: "I wrote my personal blogging code of ethicsso we wouldn't have to go through the agony of choosing what will surely be dozens of competing 'badges'". His view is, "I will post my promise to readers on my blog. They can compare their experience at the blog against that promise and choose: keep reading (I kept my promise) or leave (I broke my promise)".

Some bloggers contend that collective blogging codes are the wishful thinking of elitists. Tim O'Reilly thinks he makes a difference; to some bloggers he does. In any case, recent events have highlighted (again) the pitfalls some bloggers face in the absence of any guidelines to remind them of their responsibilities.

What can be relevant for the individual blogger and the blogger's audience, is a statement about how the blogger treats content. However, as no blogger operates in a vacuum, the idea that bloggers could, together, create a shared code of conduct is a compelling one.

Talk:Responsibility for our own words

  1. REDIRECT Blogging talk:Blogger's Code of Conduct/Responsibility for our own words

talk:Scale of conduct

Universal Code Vs Grey Scale

Modern humans habitually attempt to set rules. No problem there because it is the structure upon which society is/must built - else it be anarchy. However, please keep in your mind that each society is different from the next, precisely because those rules/structures have evolved in different environments. They have adopted different memeplexes. Thus, do not be supprised when some "Universal Blogger Code" cannot be neatly married to a diverse blogsphere. Codification of any process - in this case, blogging - is logically impossible when that process has an effectively infinite number of elements.

You need only look at the attempts to codify societal behaviour to witness how "universal codes"always fail to achieve their stated goals: excluding regious sects; football; gay pride; corporate governance, et cetera. In every case, each group becomes riven with schisms as one subsetafter another attempts to modify (or flout) some part of a "universal code."

However, longer lived societies/groups are characterised by some level of tolerant flexability and set behavioural boundries that are wide - wide enough, that few people ever cross them. Note that those boundies may or may not bw codified. Boundies can be, in practise, both known and adhered to without codification.

If the blogging society wishes to become a longlived facet of human interaction, it should *not* adopt a "universal code." It should strive to embrace the majority without excluding the minority. I suggest that the blogsphere mimic the real world and allow each blog to float to its own level of acceptable civility. Unfortunately, unlike the real world, blogs currently do not have obvious telltale signs of what is inside - in the manner shops and bars. Which brings me to my suggestion:

1. No universal code. 2. A highly visable grey scale for civility on each blog and board.

The scale could/should be simple, for example: 1. No Holds Barred - anything goes at the risk of legal intervention. 2. Raw Meat - no explicite death threats, but ad hominae permitted. 3. Robust - no ad hominae, but mild abuse permitted. 4. Civil - no abuse, but vigous debate permitted. 5. Text Book - only proven facts, with scholarly opinion permited.

Comments welcome.

6. Semi-homogenous - disagreeing with the majority must be done carefully, and not as one's first post
7. Supportive - nothing that would distract the blog owner from the thoughts she's sharing
-- anon

Instead of a single code

Why not levels of codes. So this becomes a rating system, more than a single moral guide. As a rating system, it gives people some idea of what to expect, It helps outside observers to decide how to take the contents.

You could have levels on a number of scales.

Yes. Frex, some blogs allow very rough language and personal attacks -- as long as you're agreeing with the majority
-- anon

Talk:Take action against attacks

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

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

Talk:Blogger's Code of Conduct

Use this page to discuss the Blogger's Code of Conduct.

Add a new section
If you log in you can sign your name with ~~~~
We also have a mailing list

Some discussion has been moved to the discussion pages of their related modules.

Moved sections

To make it easier for people to follow comments on specific modules, comments have been moved to specific discussion pages. If you want to see the whole discussion in one place, please visit Talk:Blogger's Code of Conduct/All discussion where each discussion page is transcluded.

Here are the original section titles with details of where they have moved to.

Titling 
See Blogger's Code of Conduct name.
Taking responsibility 
See Talk:Responsibility for our own words
No anonymous comments 
See Talk:No anonymous comments
Unfair Attacks 
See Talk:Take action against attacks
"infringes upon a copyright or trademark" 
See Talk:Responsibility for our own words
Versioning and/or variants? 
See Talk:Blogger's Code of Conduct versioning
Scope 
See Talk:Blogger's Code of Conduct versioning
We take responsibility for our own words and for the comments we allow on our blog." 
See Talk:Responsibility for our own words
Legal Assertions 
See Talk:Responsibility for our own words
Beyond rejecting anonymity... 
See Talk:No anonymous comments
Censorship mitigating 
See Talk:Censorship
Suggestions 
See Talk:Keep our sources private
violates an obligation of confidentiality  
See Talk:Responsibility for our own words
Discretion to Delete Comment Must Be Clear 
Now a new module at Discretion to delete comments
Add On-Line Mediation Option to Code
See Talk:Connect privately first
Shared policy vs personal code 
See Talk:Personal code
Privacy  
See Talk:Responsibility for our own words
Things that would not be said in person 
See Talk:Nothing we wouldn't say in person
slippery slope of censorship 
See Talk:Censorship and Talk:Free expression.
Point 5 
See Talk:No anonymous comments
Point 7 is not about bloggers' conduct 
See Talk:Encourage enforcement of terms of service
Respecting copyright 
See Talk:Responsibility for our own words
Universal Code Vs Grey Scale 
See the new module scale of conduct
Removing "We do not allow anonymous comments" 
See Talk:No anonymous comments
ad hominem, misrepresents etc.. too subjective 
See Talk:Responsibility for our own words
Politically correct 
moved to criticisms
Start Again I Say
Moved to Gentoo derived
We reserve the right to have an opinion 
See Talk:Responsibility for our own words
Section 5 
Email address : See Talk:No anonymous comments
Codes of Conduct can be used as an excuse for censorship. 
See Talk:Censorship
Heart of the code
mutual respect : See the new module Mutual respect
Opening Paragraph 
Suggested change made
Cops vs common sense 
See Talk:Take action against attacks
Be polite .... or else.  
Moved to criticisms
Oh please! Do we really nanny state nazis in the blogosphere?  
Moved to criticisms
Edited Invective 
Moved to criticisms
This Code is pure BS  
Moved to criticisms
Code of Conduct  
See Talk:Alternate Code of Conduct
Scope  
See Talk:Blogger's Code of Conduct versioning#Scope
I See a Litter Box Full of Net Nannies  
Moved to criticisms
Been there...  
Moved to criticisms
Instead of a single code  
See Talk:Scale of conduct
Excessive quarreling in order to cause strife  
Moved to criticisms
Retrieved from "http://blogging.wikia.com/wiki/Talk:Blogger%27s_Code_of_Conduct/All_discussion"