Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Bloggers Code Of Conduct
Billy Bragg Forums > Politics and Current Affairs > Current Affairs
barmyrob
Tim O Reilly has suggested a new bloggers code of conduct. Could/sould we ask Toby for something like that for the forum*? Is this the beginning of attempts to control the web by the users themselves rather than by governments? Is that good, or bad?

Incidentally I think many of us break the existing forum t&c's rather a lot.

Discuss....

Original post here: http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2007/04/...bloggers_1.html

and the already amended wiki here: http://blogging.wikia.com/wiki/BCC

QUOTE
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.


The existing forum terms and rules are:

"The messages express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of this bulletin board. Any user who feels that a posted message is objectionable is encouraged to contact us immediately by email. We have the ability to remove objectionable messages and we will make every effort to do so, within a reasonable time frame, if we determine that removal is necessary.

You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this bulletin board to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law.

You agree not to post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you or by this bulletin board."
Andy Larter
Seems to me that you've missed something. This is not a blog, it is a forum. The rules are quite clear about what you can and can't post on the site. I don't have a problem with that at all. I've complained about some posts as well as certain forum members - usually those who post pornography or racist messages - and they have been withdrawn.

If this is a question about YouTube having mobile phone films from classrooms then I think something needs to be done about that. That is an entirely different proposition. Those photos and films are "defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law." Either Youtube does something about it or it is closed down and the owners of the site prosecuted. Simple.
barmyrob
QUOTE(Andy Larter @ Apr 10 2007, 02:05 PM) *

Seems to me that you've missed something. This is not a blog, it is a forum.


Yes. I am well aware of that.

This is a discussion in the blogosphere about online behaviour on blogs - which in many ways is replicated on forums, which I think can justifiably be included as part of 'web 2.0'.

I was asking if this is a good idea. Particularly - is this an attempt at self governance on the web? - is it an attempt to move the blogosphere from anarchy to anarchism?, or is it an attempt for an elite to regulate the masses? And, would it work for this forum?
Andy Larter
Well there's already a code of conduct which seems to work.
geoff
I agree with the principle of a code of conduct, and particularly a self-regulating one. But this is drawing the bow a bit too far:
QUOTE
[We reserve the right to change these standards at any time with no notice.]
Who, exactly, is "we" going to be? huh.gif
Andy Larter
QUOTE(geoff @ Apr 11 2007, 12:26 AM) *

I agree with the principle of a code of conduct, and particularly a self-regulating one. But this is drawing the bow a bit too far:
QUOTE
[We reserve the right to change these standards at any time with no notice.]
Who, exactly, is "we" going to be? huh.gif


That is what democracy is all about.
Martyn
The rules we have are fine. Any more regulation would mean that I would no longer have the pleasure of being able to write things like:

George W Bush is an evil, reprehensible, lying, hypocritical piece of sub human garbage into whose mouth I would not even piss were his teeth to be alight.

or in response to someone like Jimmy, who is a troll and a buffoon:

Fuck off!
barmyrob
QUOTE(geoff @ Apr 11 2007, 12:26 AM) *

I agree with the principle of a code of conduct, and particularly a self-regulating one. But this is drawing the bow a bit too far:
QUOTE
[We reserve the right to change these standards at any time with no notice.]
Who, exactly, is "we" going to be? huh.gif


we. it's them!
SallyA
I started from the proposition that a code of conduct agreed by members of a group rather than imposed as a condition of joining would be a better thing. Then I paused and thought for a moment. The typical code of conduct is no more than is required to keep the posters (and more to the point the hosts/publishers) on the right side of the criminal/civil law. Because we pick up "off the shelf" software from other nations (esp the US) with "off the shelf codes of conduct" it is perhaps a bit more general than our laws allow - and here is where moderators come in - thanks for Toby!!

So we can say on here - all members of [name your least favoured religious group] are bigoted nutters.

We cannot say "lets go out and kill [name your least favourite religious group] - what's everyone up to later?"

We can say how very much we hate George Bush... we cannot defame him (actually that might be literally true - is it possible???]

Let's think about what would happen if we self goverened/self policed - I suspect that we would suddenly find ourselves on a much less tolerant/diverse piece of the virtual planet. Only those with very strong views about standards of behaviour/content of posts could probably be bothered to step up to the mark and do the job... sadly I think we'd find the world less vibrant and less interesting and yes also less infuriating/blood pressure raising - but I'd rather have the challenge and the row than the bland...

...so no - let's only ban that which incites hatred, libels or otherwise breaks the law...

of the rest - let's reason with those we can, ignore those we can't and enjoy the amazing free for all this astonishing form of communication offer us
Sarah lady
What she said.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2010 Invision Power Services, Inc.