Some people think they are being funny and clever, not realizing that they are the only one who gets their joke, adn the rest of us just think they are a tool.

Also, it's so interesting that the NY Times, and other papers,  are trying to police blogs when their own houses aren't in order.  If the media did their jobs, blogs wouldn't even be necessary.  And few would even bother.

There are some really rotten things on the internet -- and a lot of good things.  Trying to suggest that all bloggers are like the worst of the worst is kinda like suggesting the writer of the article is just like Judith Miller or Armstrong Williams.

So, while I think an ethical code is good, and I'd generally support it, I don't think compelling everyone to use their full name online is something that should be required.  There are too many bullies. 

But in case of something really outrageous, the perpetrators can be identified anyway.

PS Have they found the person who posted a notice online (Craig's list) and told people to empty out a house?  The house wasn't his (or hers).  The police are handling that one, as well they should.

But I am afraid of a code that is too rigorous.  How does the code differentiate from a post that says "You're wrong because a,b,c" (where a, b and c are facts) from a post that says "you're wrong because you are stupid?"  And how will you separate insult from satire?

Who will police the Code?

I have posted for 15 years to a private site of people from all across the US.  In that time, I have learned that (to paraphrase Lincoln) some people are worth reading all the time, some are worth reading some of the time, and some are worth reading none of the time.

Judicious use of the mouse and scroll buttons are probably more useful than a Code.

And I think Lowell has kicked off a few people -- quite justifiably -- who were continually abusive.  It's usually a pretty clear cut case, in my view.

I am very loathe to place any restrictions on expression, from exotic dancers to flag burners to avant garde artists who try to shock the conscience.

As to the commenters who have little to say other than abuse -- I just stop reading them.

That said -- this site needs more exotic dancers.

Ornery Demented Brainless Activists?

1. We take responsibility for our own words and reserve the right to restrict comments on our blog that do not conform to basic civility standards.

2. We won't say anything online that we wouldn't say in person.

3. If tensions escalate, we will connect privately before we respond publicly.

4. When we believe someone is unfairly attacking another, we take action.

5. We do not allow anonymous comments.

6. We ignore the trolls. 

7. We encourage blog hosts to enforce more vigorously their terms of service. 

###8. Bought-and-paid-for bloggers will be designated with who is paying them in all their postings.###

I'm still sort of split on the issue, but on sites such as this I don't think there are a huge number of people who would just drop by to make one post and never return.  That might the case on a site where you might want to ask a technical question, for example, and once answered you wouldn't need to return.  On this type of site, I don't think that applies.

On top of that, people are getting more and more tech and internet savvy every day, and registering a user name on the internet isn't difficult to do.  With all that said, I can say with certainty that is does reduce the amount of trolling from "anonymous" users.

1. Don't be stupid.
2. See Rule 1.

The point is, when does the "Code of ethics" pervert itself into content control?

I do agree with the use of a consistent screen name -- there are anonymous posters on NLS who leave some really nasty stuff.  But I don't believe that bloggers should be forced to publicly reveal their real names.  There are vindictive public figures out there (Tom Davis is known for that), and let's face it, sometimes you do need a little protection from them.

On the other hand, no I don't support automatically banning somebody for wanting to be anonymous.  Lately, newspapers have instituted policies of always publishing letter writers' names but I remember, not so long ago, when it was possible to write a letter to the editor and to sign yourself "Name Witheld."  Editors recognized that there were legitimate concerns, including fear of reprisals, that caused people to want to remain anonynmous.  The paper required the letter writer to sign his letter so that the paper's editors could check it out and make sure the letter was legitimate.  But people could and did ask to have their identities withheld. 

Also, many fine writers have written under pseudonyms and pen names.  This includes George Sand and Isek Dinassen, among others. And in a different age, anonymous truly was often a woman, when it was considered scandalous for women to express themselves or show they had a brain publicly.

While times have changed, there are situations where it is in fact legitimate to post under a an assumed name or simply anonymously.

And does it really matter if somebody is rude, inflammatory and untruthful even  if that person uses his or her real name?

I would gladly subscribe to a code of ethics that encouraged better behavior, not one that scared off valuable and talented writers who are not in a position to reveal themselves.

Karen Duncan
posting as AIAW

You may then question, well, what is the difference?  It's a very subtle difference, but it still helps a lot in keeping trolling down.  If people have to use one username, that goes a long way in keeping at least a small amount of manners in their posting, for most people anyway.  It doesn't always work that way, but it often does. Probably helps more in reducing/eliminating the 'drive by' attacks, but you'll still get the trolls coming in to set up camp and cause trouble.

Lowell, with soapblox you have the ratings system in place along with enough users, so even if you were to encounter similar problems, there's a bandaid in the very short term, and other mechanisms to follow up with. And if things were to get out of control, couldn't you vet new accounts?

If you subscribe to this code - or something like it - and feature a badge, what will change? Who benefits?  I'd like to see the responses in the tech blogosphere if someone like Bill Gates instead of O'Reilly originated this code of conduct.

The reason is simple: anonymous people say things they would not normally say if their identity were known.  I think such a site would be taken more seriously as well.

On the stalking and other nonsense - that is a problem.  However, anyone in the public eye risks that.  Politicians don't hide their identities, and they take on enormous risk (Senator Webb isn't packing heat because it's stylish).  As a voter and citizen I am also willing to take on some risk in order to make sure that my government represents my interests.  That means revealing my identity when I post.