Blogging Code of Conduct

Err, no, sorry, this doesn’t quite cut the mustard. The full text is below but here’s a much better replacement.

"This blog is my property and runs to my rules, changeable as they are."

Really, what are they talking about? No ad-hominens? No mis-representations? No abusing of others? Speak online as we would in the real world? (Err, like, yer, well, you know, that Gordon Brown, umm, sorta a wanker, eh?) Connect privately means then end of flame wars, no offensive posts? Do these people not read political blogs?

As to ignoring trolls, that removes half the fun doesn’t it?

Another alternative: we believe in free speech, which means that you have the right to say what you will and also the duty to take the consequences.

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 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. [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.

8 responses

  1. It is absolute bollocks is what it is.
    As anyone with half a brain would want to be associated in any way with that bunch of witless cunts.

  2. “It’s my party and I’ll cry if I want too.”
    Yet another exposure of the authoritarian tendency among supposedly rational folks. Why can’t people accept that the medium of blogging attracts a whole bunch of different people, blogging for different reasons? Is this just the inherent puritan streak in American public life?
    Time for somebody with more artistic talent (or just better graphics software) than me to do a “civility free” logo. DK, Theo and Mr E for founder members?
    I fully appreciate that when I stop being civil and start swearing that I have lost some of the force of my argument. It doesn’t mean that swearing, from time to time, isn’t actually more cathartic and, over all, better for you, than bottling it up and being forceful but restrained.
    S-E

  3. Who appointed this clown to be the arbiter of anything, never mind conduct on a system which needs no arbitration except removal of one’s virtual presence by the click of a mouse?

  4. dearieme Avatar
    dearieme

    Tossers.

  5. Well, that’s Twenty, DK, Mr Eugenides and probably most of Blogistan buggered then, isn’t it?
    Ooops! Sorry. I’ll be in the naughty corner.
    Bad RM. Bad, bad RM

  6. I don’t know about a civility free logo, but the idea of a code of conduct is old hat and needed a bloody good rogering last time it came out.
    You will notice that there is indeed a nice little logo, even if it wasn’t designed by DK.

  7. “Who appointed this clown to be the arbiter of anything, never mind conduct on a system which needs no arbitration except removal of one’s virtual presence by the click of a mouse?”
    Tim O’Reilly is quite influential in the geek world. His books are like catnip to geeks, and there’s always been a certain amount of viewing his company as part of the geek community.
    Well, until this: http://www.tomrafteryit.net/oreilly-trademarks-web-20-and-sets-lawyers-on-itcork/

  8. Actually i think it’s a great idea.
    Whenever you click on to a blog with the ‘Comments Monitored by Big Brother, Credit Card details required’ logo, you know not to bother reading further – a wonderful time saving device.

Leave a Reply

Discover more from Tim Worstall

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading