![[Home]](http://www.bayleshanks.com/cartoonbayle.png)
Difference between revision 55 and current revision
No diff available.Most discussion forums eventually find that they need to have some guidelines or rules. But if there are too many rules, few will read them. Therefore there is a quest for a concise, readable, yet effective set of rules.
Here are some examples of discussion forum guidelines (not all of these are concise, readable, and effective):
Related to this topic are moderation guidelines.
" a) Sure, there’s freedom of speech. Anyone who wants it can go start their own blog. On Yog’s board, Yog’s whim is law. b) Yog is an ancient ghod of chaos and evil. And he doesn’t like people very much. c) Moderation is a subjective art, and the moderator is always right. d) The moderator may have minions. They need to have a private area where they keep the buckets of Thorazine and the cold-frosty bottles of cow snot. e) The minions speak with the voice of Yog. Yog backs his minions up. f) There is always someone awake, and in charge, when Yog isn’t around in person. The minions know who the Duty Yog is. g) If someone starts off as a spammer, troll, or flamer, he is a spammer, troll, or flamer forever and is liable to instant deletion/banning with no recourse and no appeal. h) If the moderator ever needs inspiration, he can re-read Jonathan Edwards’ Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God and recall that the posters are sinners and he is Ghod. i) Rules? In a knife fight? Yog and his minions have standards, but they don’t need to tell the posters, lest some of them attempt to game the system. Attempting to game the system is, all on its own, a deletable offense. j) ALL CAPS posts are deleted on sight, unread. Mostly ALL CAPS POSTS are ALL CAPS. k) Anyone who doesn’t space after punctuation marks is insane, and can be deleted/banned on sight. l) Personal attacks against Yog and his minions are ignored. Personal attacks against anyone else are deletable on sight. " -- http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/010445.html (todo, read comments on that post)
---
other random examples that didn't make it into the main list above:
---
" October 4, 1957 Moderation, community, and rules I’ve added since 2005 Posted by Teresa at 12:00 AM * 8 comments
Virtual Panel Participation, January 27, 2005:
Patrick and I were invited to be on a panel called “Spammers, Trolls and Stalkers: The Pandora’s Box of Community,” at the 2005 South-by-Southwest conference. (The shorter Jay Lake panel description: Virtual community, good. Trolls, bad. Anonymity, enabling. Whither the internet? Only time will tell.) Since we couldn’t attend, I posted my panel remarks on Making Light.
It is an inescapable truth that for some people, the most interesting way to participate in online discourse is to kick holes in the conversation. Others have such a sense of entitlement that they think having an opinion means the rest of us are obliged to listen to it. Others clearly enjoy dishing out verbal abuse, and look for venues that will allow them to do so. And so on and so forth; there’s an entire bestiary of trolls.
Some things I know about moderating conversations in virtual space:
1. There can be no ongoing discourse without some degree of moderation, if only to kill off the hardcore trolls. It takes rather more moderation than that to create a complex, nuanced, civil discourse. If you want that to happen, you have to give of yourself. Providing the space but not tending the conversation is like expecting your front yard to automatically turn itself into a garden.
2. Once you have a well-established online conversation space, with enough regulars to explain the local mores to newcomers, they’ll do a lot of the policing themselves.
3. You own the space. You host the conversation. You don’t own the community. Respect their needs.
4. Message persistence rewards people who write good comments.
5. Over-specific rules are an invitation to people who get off on gaming the system.
6. Civil speech and impassioned speech are not opposed and mutually exclusive sets. Being interesting trumps any amount of conventional politeness.
7. Things to cherish: Your regulars. A sense of community. Real expertise. Genuine engagement with the subject under discussion. Outstanding performances. Helping others. Cooperation in maintenance of a good conversation. Taking the time to teach newbies the ropes.
All these things should be rewarded with your attention and praise. And if you get a particularly good comment, consider adding it to the original post.
8. Grant more lenience to participants who are only part-time jerks, as long as they’re valuable the rest of the time.
9. If you judge that a post is offensive, upsetting, or just plain unpleasant, it’s important to get rid of it, or at least make it hard to read. Do it as quickly as possible. There’s no more useless advice than to tell people to just ignore such things. We can’t. We automatically read what falls under our eyes.
10. Another important rule: You can let one jeering, unpleasant jerk hang around for a while, but the minute you get two or more of them egging each other on, they both have to go, and all their recent messages with them. There are others like them prowling the net, looking for just that kind of situation. More of them will turn up, and they’ll encourage each other to behave more and more outrageously. Kill them quickly and have no regrets.
11. You can’t automate intelligence. In theory, systems like Slashdot’s ought to work better than they do. Maintaining a conversation is a task for human beings. (Which doesn’t mean automated moderator tools are a bad thing. They’re swell. I want more.)
12. Disemvowelling works. Consider it.
13. If someone you’ve smacked down comes back and behaves, forgive and forget their earlier gaffes. You’re acting in the service of civility, not abstract justice.
Further theses for the door, November 06, 2010:
14. Not every site is a natural for conversation and community, and not every site that tries to attract it gets it. Some sites that do succeed in attracting it are surprised to discover that online forums need maintenance, and dismayed by the uninhibited behavior of the participants.
What to do? For starters, don’t throw a party you aren’t going to attend. If you can’t imagine talking to people who hang out in online forums, don’t invite them to hang out in yours. And if you ask for feedback and suggestions, don’t be surprised if you get it.
15. Every forum that has developed great conversations and great community (the WELL, Ars Technica, Daily Kos) is firmly moderated. Apparently reader/commenters like the rule of law, or more precisely prefer sites that enforce it. This should come as a shock to no one. If people really wanted to settle all their online disagreements via “open public debate,” they’d still be hanging out on Usenet.*
16. Maintaining online civility is user-friendly. A great deal more interesting conversation has been lost to trolls and general unpleasantness than has ever been lost to moderator interventions.
17. Three non-negotiable site needs that make human moderators necessary:
— a. Killing hardcore trolls. A cohesive and self-aware online community can argue with trolls and try to run them off, but that quickly becomes exhausting. Also, while it’s going on it’ll dominate site conversation, and be alienating and offputting to users you’d rather keep. On the other hand, a moderator can block or ban most trolls within minutes.
They’re essential, they require a human moderator, and a community of unempowered base-level users can’t deal with them.
18. Rule Sets
19. Sitegeist: “Fail fast, fail cheap, fail often” is not a workable approach to community management. Users are always evolving an overall sense of the site and its purposes, habits, quirks, and rules. If you mess with that too often and too arbitrarily, you’ll break their sense of the site, and their emotional connection to it.
20. Good comments are attracted by high perceived value. People don’t like feeling that their time, effort, caring, and creativity are being wasted. If they’re going to go to the trouble of writing smart, well-informed comments, they want them to be read by smart, well-informed people. They won’t engage with a community and its conversation if they think that at any moment it might get trashed by random vandals.
21. Site design:
22. Not all sites are or should be communities.
23. “Real” names encourage good behavior because their owners are invested in them, not because of their ontological status.
24. The most accurate user profile is the full text and history of their participation on the site. Plus their IP address.
25. Building from zero:
26. Communicating with users in private email:
27. Moderators are a type, and can recognize each other. I don’t know what to make of this, but it’s true.
28. Moderation isn’t free. Real people have to give it consistent (possibly constant) attention, and take consistent, appropriate action. That’s a lot of reading and writing and thinking. The fact that in the past it’s often been done by volunteers doesn’t mean it’s trivial or valueless, and it certainly doesn’t mean that it can be taken for granted.
29. Big sites need muscular moderation, in terms of both man hours and moderation tools.
30. The idea that moderators should be invisible non-participants, and should intervene as unobtrusively as possible, is an inappropriate import from the style of moderation used in public panel discussions. It doesn’t apply to online forums. Insisting that it’s the only right and proper moderation style is a sure sign that the person speaking has no idea what they’re talking about.
31. A moderator who isn’t interested in the conversation for its own sake will be slow to notice when it’s turning sour.
32. Volunteer moderators arise from the community, and are active participants in it. They defend it because they value it. Other users accept their authority because they know them.
33. Be wary of potential volunteers whose chief desire is to run things, and who don’t understand that power is a momentary role in events, not a possession or a state of being. You want the ones who understand that being in charge is 95% responsibility.
34. If your site gets a lot of conversation, has no resources to spare, and is attracting flamers and trolls, the only cheap automated mechanism I know of that’s effective is to require site registrations to post comments, and automatically delay registration confirmation by 6 - 24 hours. This won’t keep out all the nogoodniks, but it will reduce their numbers considerably, limit their maneuverability, and help you keep track of them.
35. To the extent that I bear any responsibility for the idea that “community moderation” is a cheap cure-all for everyone’s moderation and community management needs, I most heartily repent.
36. Users take their cues from what they see when they come to the site.
A little intervention, early on, does more than a lot of intervention after things have blown up.
Intervention doesn’t just dissuade the culprit you’re working on. It also dissuades the potential culprits who are watching.
There are always people who’ll misbehave no matter what, and people who’ll misbehave the minute your back is turned. There are always people who’ll behave because it’s right, and people who’ll behave because it’s prudent. And then there’s the majority that’s in between. If they see virtue praised and rewarded, they’ll aspire to it. If they see misbehavior unpunished, they’ll figure that anyone who follows the rules is a chump or a goody-goody, and venture upon some misbehavior of their own.
Working notes and unincorporated bits
history is identity, and vice-versa.
Plebiscite vs. Editorial models of comment value. Web 1.0 vs. 2.0.
What makes a pile-on, how they work.
A word on a page continually shouts its own name.
Does community and online discourse pay off? In terms of site profitability, not much. Sometimes. Good on yer if you can make it work. It pays off like building schools and roads pays off.
Live Journal and Facebook, for all their drawbacks, allow their users some control of their conversational space. Zillions of people use them. There’s a lesson in that.
We’re primates. We learn by watching each other.
Bad actors have less variability.
Sense of investment and ownership. Having a stake in the site. The more committed your community is to your site, the more they think they own it. They’re not wrong, or shouldn’t be. You can make a new site a lot faster than they can make a new community.
1:10:100:10000:Jo Walton.
Awards and badges only work if your regulars agree with them.
Odd strategies:Trolls:
I am troubled by the apparent gender bias of trolls. However, I’m not so troubled by it that I’m going to ignore it.
Healthy communities develop games or other favorite amusements.
Civility is the original open-source interface that everyone can use.
If users are misusing post count features, you’ve been emphasizing the wrong things.
Sockpuppets. Authors and academics are forever imagining they’re the first ones to think of it.
Concern Trolls.
Talking pointers.
Astroturfers.
Shills. Practices that raise or lower perceived value
R Strong moderation. This forum is worth the labor it takes to maintain it.
R Cleaning up trash text, usually comment spam. ” ” keep it clean.
N Tolerance. One person’s laudable tolerance is another’s excessive lenience.
R Long-term regulars. This place is worth coming back to.
R Community moderation. It’s not a train station. It’s a place with known rules which can be learned. There are interpersonal mores.
R Respecting the community. The community has clout and commands respect. You can be part of it.
L penalizing backseat moderation. “only we hand out honor” “you have no social weight or authority”
L Ignoring, disrespecting, or mistreating the community. It must not be worth anything.
L Publicly penalizing users for no discernible reason.
R Goodness brought from elsewhere by other users
L Badly written rules. It’s tacky, like old cheap wallpaper.
L Arbitrarily shutting down threads before their time
L Scolding or penalizing users for posting to old threads
L Accusing users of posting to old threads to bring them to the top of the page
L Scolding or penalizing users for attracting attention to themselves
L Making it difficult to navigate, find, and browse
L Bugs that cause comment posting or site registration to fail, esp. after the user has worked on it
L Skimping on necessary services
L Trashing community-built structures or message bases
L Allowing bad moderation practices “we don’t care if some officious prick mistreats you”
L Allowing ignorant and inept moderation “we don’t care who runs this place”
L Hiring dweebs and idiots to run your organization’s site. They’re your voice, and they’re saying stupid things.
L Failing to discipline users who consistently skirt the edges
L Making a big deal out of your ownership of the site if you don’t hang out there: “someday this will go away”
L Fraudulently selling the individuals or the community or information about them
L Deleting old conversations
L Failing to maintain old conversations
L Making old conversations hard to access
N Keeping or deleting messages at the user’s request
L Making empty threats, especially legal ones
L Exceeding your legal rights
L Chopping the conversation into short pages loaded with ads: “We’re selling you by the yard”
R Promoting good comments
R Being polite to your readers
L Referring to your readers as computer geeks, propellerheads, internet addicts, or people who have nowhere better to go.
L Moderating behavior without regard to content or context
R Explaining.
L Letting trollishness and gratuitous nastiness remain on the page
R Removing worthless trolling and nastiness. Showing good judgement.
R Personalized public correction that works
L Letting users game automated moderation systems
R Seeing misbehaving users turn into well-behaved regulars
R Well-judged public forgiveness
R Seeing regulars switch in and out of moderation roles
L Allowing concern trolls, debate trolls, or other misbehaved species to take over and trash a lively conversation
R Subtly shifting the rules to defend or maintain an outstanding conversation
L Allowing participants to be mocked for their contributions
L Shutting down what had been an excellent thread because some unpleasantness broke out.
L Mass deletions because some users have misbehaved, or are alleged to have done so.
L Deleting message bases without giving users an opportunity to collect their writing.
L Displaying messages one at a time.
L Making it impossible to find concatenated versions of users’ public contributions.
L Using a generic rule set that’s badly suited to the site
R Site-specific rules that make sense
R Making the user feel ill at ease, like they don’t know what’s going on
R Making the user feel left out
R Failing to leave out zero-value contributions
N Games
R Poetry
L Pile-ons
L Rules made hastily and without thought in the wake of dust-ups
R A ghodlike moderator who seems to be fair and understandable
L A ghodlike moderator who is actively unfair, or incomprehensible
L Frequent and/or contradictory rule changes “You don’t know what you’re doing”
R Rules evolving as part of comprehensible process
R Special rules for special events “You really know what you’re doing”
L Whiny, dissatisfied tone
L Frequent anger
R Happiness, real laughter, being emotionally moved, shared sorrow, small personal interactions, real help
L Failure to acknowledge invasions or other site events
R Acknowledging site events; community helping to cope with them.
L Threading: “your contribution isn’t valuable to the conversation as a whole”
L Bottom-to-top message order: any random comment is more valuable than the conversation
L Zillions of forum topics with a handful of messages in each: “no one will read what you write here”
R Good site navigation mechanisms: “We expect that people will want to go back and find comments posted here”
L Site navigation that makes it hard to go back to a thread: “conversation and community aren’t that important”
L Making it difficult or impossible to link to a specific comment: “You’re yard goods. No one will care.”
L No decent search mechanisms: “interest in these comments will quickly wane”
L No way to find all of a user’s comments: “identity and history don’t matter”
L Old comment threads full of spam: “this is a deserted subdivision”
L New threads full of spam: “We aren’t bothering to block it.”
R New comments in old threads: “Your comments will still be read and discussed in the future.”
R Packed page layouts. The measure of an interesting page is whether you can see something interesting at that moment. The more you can see at once, the better the chance that some portion of it is interesting.
R Sleek, clear, unobtrusive layout and design, which continually broadcasts “This is a cool place maintained by smart people who devote real resources to it.”
L Bad design, fugly design, hard to read layouts, advertising being too obviously privileged.
L Headlines and entry titles that are incomprehensible on their own. That’s all you see in RSS and archives.
L Not enough space for extended text because the page is crowded with site advertisements.
L Badly formatted text obviously meant for some other site.
R “Related item” lists that are genuinely helpful and interesting.
L Forum software where the user info, icons, badges, etc. eats 40% of the space, and forces the conversation to be spread across too much space.
L Too much and too many Digg/Reddit/Facebook/etc. link bits: “If you like something here, take it elsewhere.”
L “Join the community” messages where there is no community, and registration mechanisms that too urgently want you to put up a personal profile and link to other sites.
R People using their real names.
R Users obviously knowing each other.
R Users who’ve been here a long time.
R More latitude and privilege being given to regulars and well-known participants.
L Deleting a user’s message base, points, honors, awards, or other site indices.
L “click here to update your status on multiple social networks at once!”
L Cues that this site isn’t intended for you.
R Good writing, good information, good comments, good community
L One bad entry. Readers are merciless.
R Links to good, interesting, valuable, pertinent sites
L Automated context links
L Trashy advertising
L Google advertising for trashy, fraudulent, or otherwise objectionable entities
L Broken advertising
L Advertising that interferes with reading
L Importunate site pop-ups
R high-end advertising
R site-specific advertising
R high-end site-specific advertising
R bloggers and other site owners participating in conversations
R good comments being promoted
R other commenters being made to look smart
R comment areas that are part of the main pages, not hived off to another area
R comments in the same typeface as the site’s main pages
R Commenter identifications at the start of their comments “your comment is important; you are more important”
L Moderators dealing ineffectually with trolls and vandals
R partially disemvowelled comments, demonstrating fine judgement
L public arguments about who did what in email, or revealed stuff from email
L comments about material that has disappeared without any acknowledgement
L Moderators who aren’t. Not everyone is a born moderator, but they can feel the difference.
L Wimpy, overwhelmed moderation mechanisms on a large site
L Overworked moderators coming in way too late.
R Moderators who are part of the conversation: “this is something you’re a part of, not a product you consume”
R Other participants following moderators’ lead
L Moderators who only appear when there’s trouble
L Moderators who seem clueless about what’s been going on
L Earless scolds
L Fruit punch committee minions
L completely anonymous moderation: “god knows who’s running this place”
L Moderators publicly making slighting remarks about the forum
R Moderators keeping their temper when provoked
N Brief incursions by flying monkeys: “This site is worth attacking.”
L Flying monkeys making a hash of things: “Why should I invest my writing here?”
N Some difficulty registering an account, as long as it succeeds in the end.
N Moderation mechanisms that only convey negatives
L Moderation mechanisms the regulars won’t use, but bad actors will
L Intervention long after the situation has blown up
R A well-made forum the first time they visit.
R Moderators teaching by example.
L Moderators breaking the site rules.
R Being able to watch a problem arise and be satisfactorily dealt with
R Watching other users’ good behavior that they learned from the moderators
L Pile-ons.
L The three words you can’t say
R A sense of investment, having a stake in the site
R other users applauding when someone is honored
L incomprehensible badges and point systems
L rating systems that don’t find excellence
L “Bozo” moderation tools. They falsify the site experience. They raise the question of why the site owners can’t just deal with the guy. And the moment you imagine yourself being the one bozo’d, you feel insecure about the site.
R Site-specific tools. Double points for site-specific user tools.
L Audience swiping.
L Collecting on debts not owed.
L Tolerating users who, no matter how untrollish they sound, always disrupt the conversation and turn the focus on them.
N Hapless souls. Always difficult. Be kind, but be firm, but be kind.
R Troll suppression. It doesn’t validate the troll. It validates the people whose conversations aren’t trashed.
L Misused post count or rating features. These aren’t the cool kids; these are obsessive geeks.
L Tolerating sockpuppets. Even if users can’t recognize them for what they are, they lower the tone of the joint.
L Talking pointers. Again, they lower the tone of the joint.Welcome to Making Light's comments section. Moderator: Teresa Nielsen Hayden.
Comments on Moderation, community, and rules I've added since 2005:
R Making the user feel ill at ease, like they don’t know what’s going on
R Making the user feel left out
R Failing to leave out zero-value contributionsDid you mean "L" here?
The date at the top of this post is "October 4, 1957." Were poorly-moderated blogs an issue for many people in 1957?
Hey, they were a problem back in the days of early fanzines (aka The Very Slow Internet). Yeah, there were problems then -- they just didn't know how big they could grow.
And get off my lawn, you new kids! (harumphs, waves cane)
" -- http://web.archive.org/web/20111112165143/http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/012691.html
random/funny: http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/010750.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blogger%27s_Code_of_Conduct
" We present this Blogger Code of Conduct to promote personal expression and constructive conversation. We believe open conversation need not lack civility.
Modules
Create your own code by selecting the modules you want:
Responsibility for our own words
Nothing we wouldn't say in person
Connect privately first
Take action against attacks
a) No anonymous comments OR b) No pseudonymous comments
Ignore the trolls
Encourage enforcement of terms of service
Keep our sources private
Discretion to delete comments
Do no harm
Think twice - post once "
" Responsibility for our own words ...
To the extent there is any inconsistency between the Terms of Use and this Code of Conduct, the Terms of Use shall take precedence. You agree that we may modify terms of this agreement from time to time at our sole discretion, which we will do by updating this page. If you do not agree with the terms below, you should stop using our site immediately.
for posting messages, photos, video and other content ("Content") on AMYC , which rules are set forth in our [http://www.facebook.com/terms.php Terms of Use] and in this User Code of Conduct. YOU ARE AGREEING TO ABIDE BY THE USER CODE OF CONDUCT AND THE OTHER RULES SET FORTH IN OUR TERMS OF USE. FAILURE TO ADHERE TO THIS CODE OF CONDUCT AND THE TERMS OF USE MAY RESULT, AMONG OTHER THINGS, IN TERMINATION OF YOUR ACCOUNT AND THE DELETION OF CONTENT THAT YOU HAVE POSTED ON FACEBOOK, WITH OR WITHOUT NOTICE, AS DETERMINED BY FACEBOOK IN ITS SOLE DISCRETION.Please do not give you are password to anyone else. Also don’tleave you arelogin forlong time andwhenyoufinishusedon’t forget to sign out .
You will show courtesy and good will towards other members and users. 2. You will not post content that is offensive to our community, such as photos, videos, messages, or events that promote racism, bigotry, hatred or physical harm of any kind against any group or individual. 3. You will not harass or advocate harassment of another person, such as by sending inappropriate messages, stalking, or posting inappropriate comments. 4. You will not distribute or disseminate inappropriate, unauthorized or unsolicited advertising or promotional offers including, but not limited to, spam, contests, sweepstakes, barter, junk mail, chain letters, and pyramid schemes. 5. You will not invade privacy by attempting to collect, store, or publish private or personally identifiable information, including, but not limited to, password, account information, email, credit card number, address, or other contact information. 6. You will not use the site to obtain personally identifiable information, or to solicit, sell, or promote to any member inappropriately. 7. You will not impersonate another member, celebrity, or otherwise falsely represent yourself. We appreciate members that are proud of who they are at all times. 8. You will not copy or reuse other members' content, such as their photos or videos, without their permission. 9. You will not engage in "friend spam" (amassing a large number of contacts on the site for promotional purposes or personal gain). 10. You will not create "trolling" posts (deliberately posting false or provocative information in order to elicit responses from people who would not respond if they knew the motivation behind the post). We will review and may act immediately upon any complaints from our members. We reserve the right to investigate and take appropriate legal action, in our sole discretion, against anyone who violates these terms.
Although as an online service provider, we are not responsible for the conduct of our users, we want AMYC to be a safe place on the internet. Therefore, in using AMYC, you may not:
"
was:
" We take responsibility for our own words and reserve the right to restrict comments on our blog that do not conform to our standards.
We are committed to the "Civility Enforced" standard: we strive to post high quality, acceptable content, and we will delete unacceptable comments.
We define unacceptable comments as anything included (but not limited to) or linked to that:
is being used to abuse, harass, stalk, or threaten others
is libelous or knowingly false
infringes upon any copyright, trademark or trade secret of any third party. (If you quote or excerpt someone's content, it is your responsibility to provide proper attribution to the original author. For a clear definition of proper attribution and fair use, please see The Electronic Frontier Foundation's Legal Guide for Bloggers.)
violates an obligation of confidentiality
violates the privacy of others We define and determine what is "unacceptable content" on a case-by-case basis, and our definitions are not limited to this list. If we delete a comment or link, we will say so and explain why. "
http://blogging.wikia.com/wiki/Nothing_we_wouldn%27t_say_in_person (empty, was:)
" 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 source of the information.
Unless in real life you would face physical intimidation, whereas online you could avoid it. There is a basic understanding for freedom as well -- your right to swing your fist ends where someone else's nose begins. We must be as responsible and civil we are in the real world. And for criminals in virtual world, well that's a real law enforcement issue. But as civilised citizens we should follow some rules. "
http://blogging.wikia.com/wiki/Connect_privately_first (empty)
" If tensions escalate, we will connect privately before we respond publicly.
When we encounter conflicts and misrepresentation in the internet, we make every effort to talk privately and directly to the person(s) involved--or find an intermediary who can do so--before we publish any posts or comments about the issue. Bloggers are encouraged to engage in online mediation of unresolved disputes. Mediate.com will provide mediators. "
http://blogging.wikia.com/wiki/Take_action_against_attacks (empty)
" 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.
Comments or posts that are deemed offensive will result in a request - private, if possible - that the commenter or poster make public amends, if practical. If those published comments could reasonably be viewed as illegal (threat or otherwise), we will report the comments and commenter to police.
This is very important to build a civil online society where people feel free and protected as we feel in real world by our neighbours. While the doctrine of 'agree to disagree' applies, we must build a trust among each other. "
http://blogging.wikia.com/wiki/No_anonymous_comments (empty)
" 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. "
http://blogging.wikia.com/wiki/No_pseudonymous_comments (empty)
" We do not allow pseudonymous comments, but will allow anonymous ones.
We require commenters to supply a valid email address or OpenID? before they can post, though we allow commenters to identify themselves as anonymous, rather than use their real name, which is the difference between pseudonymous and anonymous. We can always trace someone pseudonym. "
http://blogging.wikia.com/wiki/Ignore_the_trolls (empty)
" We ignore the trolls.
We prefer not to respond to nasty comments about us or our blog, as long as they don't veer into abuse or libel. We believe that feeding the trolls only encourages them -- "I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it. (George Bernard Shaw)" Ignoring public attacks is often the best way to contain them. "
http://blogging.wikia.com/wiki/Encourage_enforcement_of_terms_of_service (empty)
" We encourage blog hosts to enforce more vigorously their terms of service.
When bloggers engage in such flagrantly abusive behavior as creating impersonating sites to harass other bloggers the host of the abuser blog should take responsibility for its clients' behavior. "
http://blogging.wikia.com/wiki/Keep_our_sources_private (empty)
" We reserve the right to keep our sources private
We will only divulge such information upon order of the court. "
http://blogging.wikia.com/wiki/Discretion_to_delete_comments (almost empty)
" Discretion to delete comments
While it is very important for blog owner to take responsibility for what appears on that blog, the blog owner has sole discretion for determining whether a particular comment is unacceptable. "
http://blogging.wikia.com/wiki/Do_no_harm
" Do not incite violence or attempt to force a point of view on someone.
Control strong language like hate.
Remain civil at all times even when you disagree with someone.
Remember you are communicating with a human. Behave as you would in normal society. "
was: " Do no harm
A blogger must not use his or her blog to willfully cause harm. A blogger must consider the impact of his or her actions on others. A blogger must not send his or her audience to harass other bloggers or people. "
http://blogging.wikia.com/wiki/Think_twice_-_post_once (empty)
"
the first draft was http://web.archive.org/web/20070416101941/http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2007/04/draft_bloggers_1.html :
" We celebrate the blogosphere because it embraces frank and open conversation. But frankness does not have to mean lack of civility. We present this Blogger Code of Conduct in hopes that it helps create a culture that encourages both personal expression and constructive conversation.
1. We take responsibility for our own words and for the comments we allow on our blog.
We are committed to the "Civility Enforced" standard: we will not post unacceptable content, and we'll delete comments that contain it.
We define unacceptable content as anything included or linked to that:
- 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 othersWe define and determine what is "unacceptable content" on a case-by-case basis, and our definitions are not limited to this list. If we delete a comment or link, we will say so and explain why. [We reserve the right to change these standards at any time with no notice.]
2. We won't say anything online that we wouldn't say in person.
3. We connect privately before we respond publicly.
When we encounter conflicts and misrepresentation in the blogosphere, we make every effort to talk privately and directly to the person(s) involved--or find an intermediary who can do so--before we publish any posts or comments about the issue.
4. When we believe someone is unfairly attacking another, we take action.
When someone who is publishing comments or blog postings that are offensive, we'll tell them so (privately, if possible--see above) and ask them to publicly make amends.
If those published comments could be construed as a threat, and the perpetrator doesn't withdraw them and apologize, we will cooperate with law enforcement to protect the target of the threat.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.
6. We ignore the trolls.
We prefer not to respond to nasty comments about us or our blog, as long as they don't veer into abuse or libel. We believe that feeding the trolls only encourages them--"Never wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty, but the pig likes it." Ignoring public attacks is often the best way to contain them.
anythinggoes2.jpg We also decided we needed an "anything goes" badge for sites that want to warn possible commenters that they are entering a free-for-all zone. The text to accompany that badge might go something like this:
This is an open, uncensored forum. We are not responsible for the comments of any poster, and when discussions get heated, crude language, insults and other "off color" comments may be encountered. Participate in this site at your own risk.
"
other discussion:
" The "code of conduct" needs to be much more modular
Where we fell down, apart from the negative framing given by the Sheriff's badge, is the lack of granularity in the proposed assertions and associated images. There are actually several different values that a site might or might not want to express. For example, a site aspiring to a higher level of journalistic integrity might want a logo that linked to a statement of their fact checking policy; a site that allows anonymity for good reasons might want a logo that links to their commitment to protecting the identity of posters; a site that wants to enforce civility might want to say so. The advantage of a widely agreed-on set of "rules of engagement" with associated logos is that people don't have to read someone's "terms of service" to understand what the policy is on a given blog. It's conveyed by shorthand via a symbol. "
"
" John at librarything wrote:
"One technical suggestion, employed by my employer: letting users flag inappropriate comments, which then become click-to-see. This lowers the visibility of the trolls, without censoring them. For an example, see this thread:
http://www.librarything.com/talktopic.php?topic=8702
Message 5 is no longer immediately visible, because it was flagged by a certain number of users as inappropriate. But it can still be seen, if you want to, by clicking on the 'show' link. It's a compromise, but perhaps a practical one.
Similarly, it might help the situation to let users configure whether or not they want to see flagged content, and set the default for flagged content to some sort of reduced visibility.
I really like this, as it addresses one of the biggest hesitations I personally have about deleting comments, namely that deleting part of a conversation can make it impossible to reconstruct what really went on. And there have also been problems in the past with blog owners selectively editing conversations to present themselves in the best possible light. A mechanism that preserves comments while hiding them "in the back room" so to speak would seem to me to be a really useful tool. "
apparently disemvoweling is also good
---
" Constructive Anonymity vs. Drive-by Anonymity
Another place where we clearly erred in the first draft is in the suggestion that anonymity should be forbidden, as there are most certainly contexts where anonymity is incredibly valuable. (Some that come to mind include whistleblowing, political dissent, or even general discussion where someone might not want to confuse their personal opinions of those of an organization to which they belong. As one commenter remarked, it might even be useful for a shy person to whom anonymity gives a bit of courage.)
That being said, there is a strong connection between "drive-by anonymity" and lack of civility. Jaron Lanier just sent me a pointer to a thoughtful article he wrote for Discover Magazine in March, shortly before this controversy erupted:
People who can spontaneously invent a pseudonym in order to post a comment on a blog or on YouTube are often remarkably mean. Buyers and sellers on eBay are usually civil, despite occasional annoyances like fraud. Based on those data you could propose that transient anonymity coupled with a lack of consequences is what brings out online idiocy. With more data, the hypothesis can be refined. Participants in Second Life (a virtual online world) are not as mean to each other as people posting comments to Slashdot (a popular technology news site) or engaging in edit wars on Wikipedia, even though all use persistent pseudonyms. I think the difference is that on Second Life the pseudonymous personality itself is highly valuable and requires a lot of work to create. So a better portrait of the culprit is effortless, Âconsequence-free, transient anonymity in the service of a goal, like promoting a point of view, that stands entirely apart from one’s identity or personality. Call it drive-by anonymity.
Anonymity certainly has a place, but that place needs to be designed carefully. Voting and peer review are pre-Internet examples of beneficial anonymity. Sometimes it is desirable for people to be free of fear of reprisal or stigma in order to invoke honest opinions. But, as I have argued (in my November 2006 column), anonymous groups of people should be given only specific questions to answer, questions no more complicated than voting yes or no or setting a price for a product. To have a substantial exchange, you need to be fully present. That is why facing one’s accuser is a fundamental right of the accused.
Furthermore, sites make traffic tradeoffs when requiring registration versus the additional flow they get from not requiring it. And of course, on the net, identity is very easy to spoof, so even if an email address or other form of identification is required, it doesn't mean that there's a real or easily traceable person on the other side.
However, sites that have problems with vandals disrupting their online discussions may prefer to make the choice to require proof of identity in exchange for participation rather than shutting down comments entirely.
"
"
There are some nuanced legal issues to be looked at
Jeff Jarvis makes the claim that the code of conduct I've proposed "threatens to give back the incredible gift of freedom given us in Section 230." He points to the EFF page explaining section 230 and says "Go read about that," but he didn't follow his own advice, since the page says, among other things: "Courts have held that Section 230 prevents you from being held liable even if you exercise the usual prerogative of publishers to edit the material you publish. You may also delete entire posts."
That being said, I can see that when I converted the wording of my original exhortation to "take responsibility not just for your own words, but for the comments you allow on your blog" into the statement that begins "We take responsibility..." I might well be proposing something that would weaken legal protections.
(A reminder about the context of the original statement. It was inspired by Chris' Locke's assertion regarding the threatening images of Kathy Sierra that had appeared on his site that he wasn't responsible for what anyone else said or did on the site. That seemed to me to be an abdication of responsibility.)
A site owner obviously doesn't want to take legal liability for the actions of commenters on their site. But at the same time, it seems to me that we need to eschew the idea that we bear no responsibility for the tone that we allow on our site. A site owner does have the ability to delete inappropriate comments, to ban IP addresses, and to impose moderation systems or shut down comments entirely if the greifers get out of hand.
Still, the legal implications do need some attention. A lawyer of my acquaintance wrote in email:
Under US law, there's potentially an overlap/conflict between some aspects of the proposed code and existing legal protections for ISPs, bloggers, and others who provide forums for user-generated content. It's worth thinking about how to take those protections into account in discussing the code. Issues include:
how to avoid losing or weakening legal protections against liability for infringement (and even defamation, in some circumstances) that now exist for ISPs, bloggers, and others, and that are partly based on the assumption that posted content is not being monitored
coordinating the code with existing legal tools--such as the DMCA take-down procedure under Section 512--that benefit people who provide forums for user-created content
avoiding situations that force people into making legal judgments in public about [issues] that they really aren't prepared to make, or that force them into appearing to have made legal judgements (e.g., explaining that they've removed a post because it's
infringing or libelous, when it's really not)Also, outside the US, things are different.
If it hasn't happened already, it might be worth convening a small group of congenial and sensible lawyers to talk about it.
In short, there's some thinking to be done here, but it's better done by real lawyers rather than the all-too-common would-be lawyers of the net. "
"
There's a lot of strong feeling on the subject, but civility still matters
A number of posters are obviously not familiar with Godwin's Law, and in particular, the idea that (per Wikipedia), "There is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically 'lost' whatever debate was in progress." Even apart from that strike against their argument, those commenters who equate the idea of a code of conduct with censorship seem to me to fail to understand what I proposed: not some kind of binding code that bloggers would somehow be required to follow, but a mechanism for bloggers to express their policies.
That being said, I am trying to encourage a kind of social self-examination on the part of the blogging community. Many people have written to say that they have no compunctions about deleting unpleasant comments. But I believe that there's a strong undercurrent on the internet that says that anything goes, and any restriction on speech is unacceptable. A lot of people feel intimidated by those who attack them as against free speech if they try to limit unpleasantness. If there's one thing I'd love to come out of this discussion, it's a greater commitment on the part of bloggers (and people who run other types of forums) not to tolerate behavior on the internet that they wouldn't tolerate in the physical world. It's ridiculous to accept on a blog or in a forum speech that would be seen as hooliganism or delinquency if practiced in a public space. "
bayle: maybe what the world needs is just someone to restate the idea with a title like 'online civilty badges' instead of 'code of conduct'. then we could expand it to include things like my friend ROF's proposal for structural rationality rules. It probably won't catch on though until ROF's idea takes off, that is, for third parties to tag sites as deserving of various badges, which as ROF and i saw, should be generalized into an assertion server, which requires a lot of technical work.
See [1].
toread: http://web.archive.org/web/20070428174723/http://www.well.com/confteam/hosting.html
--
interesting response to censorship:
http://lesswrong.com/lw/gkv/official_lw_uncensored_thread_on_reddit/
---
this guy says that meritocratic 'levels' were useful on a Battle for Wesnoth forum:
http://lesswrong.com/r/discussion/lw/j5p/what_can_we_learn_from_freemasonry/a3q4
however the comment indicates that these were purely informal
this guy proposes a site-global system of levels and interviews to establish this hierarchy:
http://lesswrong.com/lw/bql/our_phyg_is_not_exclusive_enough/6cpj
---
i once said, "If i started a forum, i'd relegate topics X, Y, and Z to a certain forum".
A friend replied, "I'd ask the community what they wanted in that regard and do it, then ban the trolls and the complainers (because complainers are like trolls."
I replied, "But what if the community wanted you to tolerate the trolls and complainers, in the name of avoiding censorship?"
My friend replied, "They only say that because they want to appear as good people. In an anonymous vote, they would want to ban a troll. I'd hold an anonymous vote".
---
probably not quite the place for it, but other interesting SoftSecurity?/MeatBall?-ish practices:
---
survey of user levels:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_access_levels
http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7237/how-does-reputation-work
http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/58587/reputation-requirements-compared
http://meta.stackoverflow.com/help/privileges
http://stackoverflow.com/help/site-moderators
https://meta.discourse.org/t/how-do-you-automate-trust/1785
https://github.com/discourse/discourse/wiki/Features-related-to-privacy,-moderation,-and-reputation.
https://meta.discourse.org/t/what-do-user-trust-levels-do/4924?u=riking
https://meta.discourse.org/t/how-does-discourse-compare-and-contrast-with-vanilla-forums/1701
https://meta.discourse.org/t/the-difference-between-admins-and-mods/8643
https://codex.wordpress.org/Roles_and_Capabilities
http://community.wikia.com/wiki/Help:User_access_levels
http://vanillaforums.org/docs/configuration-dashboardusersrolespermissions
from reddit:
do not post personal information, phone numbers, email addresses, names, etc, real or fake, or you will be banned without warning
random ideas of mine:
Be kind
Be polite
Use Your Real Name, or be "anonymous", but don't use a pseudonym. And, if you are "anonymous", we might reveal your information in certain circumstances.
The moderators sometimes censor
Contain the following topics to the relevant forums:
Don't feed the trolls; if you see something that offends you, flag it, but don't respond. If you feel you must respond, respond only in the 'application of the rules' forum.
Do not shame others for refusing to take a stand on an issue
Flaming and trolling are shameful
Do not post personal information, phone numbers, email addresses, names, etc, real or fake, or you will be banned without warning
Details:
details on 'Use Your Real Name, or be anonymous, but don't use a pseudonym'
details on 'If you are anonymous, we might reveal your information in certain circumstances': If you choose to post "anonymously", bear in mind that the site admins may choose to reveal (to law enforcement, or publicly) what information they have about you, for example if:
details on 'The moderators sometimes censor' The mods sometimes:
details on "Contain politics and "spreading awareness" to the relevant forums"
details on 'Contain personal, non-professional, or offtopic discussion to the relevant forums':
---
another idea instead of Use Real Names:
you can use pseudonyms only by application. A pseudonym may be admitted if: (a) this pseudonym already has a substantial "reputation" elsewhere on the net; something that would provide you with a substantial incentive to behave well here; and you can prove that you control it there; and you are willing to publicly let it be known that that user account and this one are to be taken as "the same" pseudonym (b) the mods review the "reputation" of the pseudonym to determine if it is "substantial" (this evaluation is purely subjective and the criteria may change inconsistently over time) (c) the mods review the "reputation" of the pseudonym to determine if this is the sort of personality that they want here (this evaluation is purely subjective and the criteria may change inconsistently over time)
in other words, we are willing to give people using their real name the benefit of the doubt a little more.
---
i noted while reading http://www.integralworld.net/visser20.html that i found the following annoying:
(sorry to start criticizing other ppl's specific writings here but i need some example material, and this is a discussion in a community i am not part of so maybe it won't cause any acrimony)
"So what we have here from Wilber is no documented facts, no relevant details, just his "Einsteinian" authority, his rampant hyperbole, and a laughable appeal to other discredited "thinkers" to back up his own claims to expertise."": use of the word "laughable", quotes around the word "thinkers"
http://www.kenwilber.com/blog/show/46 : "The scholarship in these criticisms is so deranged as to be laughable (or pitiable, it’s hard to say), were it not for the perverse attention it receives, usually from those even less gifted (colossally difficult as that is to imagine).": the use of the word "laughable", "pitiable", picking on the reader with "usually from those even less gifted", picking on the other authors with "even less gifted (colossally difficult as that is to imagine)".
"simply suck my dick": crude
"One of the most loudly aired criticisms is that developmental studies are in trouble—are, in fact, in “complete disarray,” as one critic quaintly put it.": what does it matter if some field or other is "in complete disarray", we need to advance and refute specific propositions; saying that some field is not respected is useful information outside the context of debate, but in the context of debate we need to address specific propositions, since the different people in a field may believe different things, so it's hard to know which propositions you are supporting/opposing when you talk about the field in general.
"(Incidentally, that critic’s level of scholarship is so mediocre that his book manuscript and his many articles have been rejected by more book publishers and journals than I have digits—which means at least 11, if I’m really turned on, but who’s counting? One of his articles submitted to an academic journal where I sit on the board had some truly horrid evaluations, from official readers and others, ranging from “outdated” to “prejudiced” to “badly misinformed” to “childish.” Myself, I found it all four, reflecting my integral attempt to pull things together.)": again, informally, it's useful to say "Look this guy has a reputation of spouting nonsense so just ignore him"; but in the context of debate that doesn't count; what would count is to say "this particular article has not been peer-reviewed"
"Some critics are fantastic in the number of new truths you can learn from them; and some critics are just worthless—I mean Meyerhoff is adolescent postmodernism 101 with an attitude; I’ve already gone over his ideas 10 times more acutely than he has, and I did so years ago.": again, this would mean something if particular propositions were identified, but just saying it this way is just a personal attack with no (or unknown) substance
My goals in the above are to distill these examples into fallacy-like rules for debate. As i've said elsewhere, i find the usual fallacies too broad.
So:
---
http://citizencodeofconduct.org/
---
https://github.com/iojs/io.js/blob/v1.x/CONTRIBUTING.md#code-of-conduct
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/wiki/Note-development-policy#conduct
---
voting for or "supporting" a speaker is distinct from being able to "independently confirm" a fact
--
people say that journalism officials has all of these (often ignored) ideals about 'journalistic integrity'. What are they, exactly?
notes from http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/features/a-rape-on-campus-what-went-wrong-20150405
stuff i've heard from other sources:
five modes of source (provenance) publicity modality:
NOTE: different people use the terms below in different ways (eg [2]); if you are talking to someone, you should define the mode you are referring to rather than using the vocabulary below and assuming that the listener understands it to mean the same thing you are talking about. Typically these modes exist as an agreement between reporter and source; the source cannot just assert 'this is off the record' and continue without getting the reporter's assent to that.