has long enforced civility through its Rules, Survival Guide, and Terms of Service.

Tim O'Reilly, the high-profile "Web 2.0" trendsetter, has recently called for and proposed a draft for a Blogger's Code of Conduct to set certain minimal standards for enforcing online civility. Some bloggers and podcasters are beginning to rally around it, others like Robert Scoble and Mike Arrington don't like the idea.

The Civility Problem
main link
another article

Ever since online communication became popular, the feeling of anonymity has been cited as a reason why participants in online discussions let down their inhibitions and say things they wouldn't say in real life. Moreover, those inclined to issue threats, to stalk others, and to relentlessly torment the objects of their anger seem to amplify those practices online. Although fame is not a prerequisite for attracting such "trolls", people with a certain online celebrity status, particularly women, usually become the target of multiple trolls, and sometimes, the trolling leads to serious real-world danger.

Last month, threats against Kathy Sierra led her to cancel a public appearance, and inspired many bloggers and podcasters to band together to see what they could do to help keep the problem under control. One problem they have identified so far is the lack of an accepted standard for online conduct or remedies for misbehavior. Many are now attempting to standardize a Blogger's Code of Conduct that should be easier for comment moderators to encourage and enforce, with the blessing of an alliance of top bloggers behind it.

Several podcasts have recently discussed the issue of enforcing online civility. A podcast of lawyers, including some who helped draft the Creative Commons licenses, recently discussed the Blogger's Code of Conduct and the larger issue of online civility with celebrity blogger Cory Doctorow of Boing Boing, on episode 5 of This Week in Law (TWiL). Earlier, Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales discussed the secrets of managing the Wikipedia community with Amber Macarthur and Leo Laporte on episode 13 of net@nite (warning: not the main focus of the episode).

In general, it seems that these groups are just now starting to catch up to , and I think the Web could be better for it, if a real consensus is possible and it's imposed voluntarily rather than through the intimidation Scoble mentions.

Questions for Debate:

1. Are people occasionally less civil online than they would be in real life? Have you experienced incivility from others? Do you find yourself tempted to be less civil online?

2. Does enforcement of civility rules tend to improve the quality of online comments, or oppress commenters? How, specifically? Why?

3. Which civility rules are preferable in most moderated online commenting situations: rules, the Blogger's Code of Conduct, other online civility rules (please link or quote), no rules at all (Safe Harbor/Anything Goes)?

4. Besides civility rules, what ideas do you have that might help alleviate the online civility problem? Or is enforcing online civility a hopeless cause?

(edited to correct wording of a question, before anyone answered)
(Edited to add: here's what hundreds of bloggers are saying about the Blogger's Code of Conduct)

I had to explain my "other" answer in the first question-
It's a yes and no answer.
Yes- this situation is on blogs, myspace, and the like. People who dislike you, in real life, unless they are instigated or hate you with a passion, will not walk up to you and start yelling/cussing at you. They have enough civility to know this is not right. But with whole blog/internet opened up, people can yell and scream and cuss as much as they want at another person, just because of a simple dislike. I have had this happen several times, so I am not only hypothesizing on this. People have sent not-so-great messages over my blog, then when confronted in person, would never do such a thing.
No- this situation is such as on AD, people have enough civility to debate and argue in a nice, even though sometimes grudgingly nice, way. There is no flaming on here that I have seen so far, which is far less than on blogs.

I have experience both, in real life and elife if I can get away with that term. Personally I think it should be up to the website or content owner. Such as AD does run its own rules, which for what its worth I like. You don’t really have to worry about some admin stepping on your windpipe every time you generate a post here, which actually allows for a certain comfort level which I think allows for someone to actually put in whatever two cents they hold on a particular topic. If you make things to uptight people post in regards to the rules more then anything else, simply because they want to participate. AD has many long term members that have in my opinion developed something of a community, which is great but I am sure just having those same people posting over and over again is not something AD particularly wants in my opinion.

So with that in mind, simply banning foul language is a standard I can live with, but I do like to participate in boards where anything goes, and in terms of speaking on politics you can actually find out why some people support some issues and then of course start to see actual statistical patterns to such, because people are not speaking in fear really. It actually can be a real kick in the pants to go no holds bar on some sites, but that’s for other sites. Such as I don’t really see any threads attack bush on his support for industry or the consumer, ever really on this board, why this is IDK.

I answered Yes, No, and Unmoderated forums (Anything Goes). For the record I’m a moderator on a gamer’s message board, where anything almost goes there; that comes closest to your options.

Are people occasionally less civil online than they would be in real life?
Occasionally, no. Frequently, yes. It’s easier to put people down when you don’t have to disagree with them in person.

Have you experienced incivility from others? Do you find yourself tempted to be less civil online?
I’ve been tempted to respond obscenely to ideological opponents but I have, for the most part, successfully avoided obscenity to make the other side look bad. Oozing sarcasm is not obscene, but it can drive opponents to be even more obscene and lose sight of their argument. A win-win for me.

As far as writing my own posts, going off half-cocked is incredibly tempting. If I were in the journalism business I wouldn’t allow employees to keep a blog as a condition of continued employment. Giving in to anger and hyperbole is almost guaranteed when you don’t have editors to “censor” you back to reality and like it or not, anything you say on your blog can and will be used against your media employer.

Does enforcement of civility rules tend to improve the quality of online comments, or oppress commentators? How, specifically? Why?
Oppress. Civility in the blogsphere will be used to enforce liberal and conservative standards of decency and suppress obscenity by conservatives. The government is already taking action against bloggers. I don’t want indignant trolls throwing the Code in my teeth. Bloggers already give each other plenty of reasons to bludgeon criticism they don’t like.

I don’t like what happened to Kathy Sierra, but if we object to threatening expression then we need to tweak First Amendment restrictions or let the courts adopt a new constitutional test to stop it.

Which civility rules are preferable in most moderated online commenting situations: rules, the Blogger's Code of Conduct, other online civility rules (please link or quote), no rules at all (Safe Harbor/Anything Goes)?
That depends on your expectations. As I mentioned, I “moderate” in another board. 1) We don’t allow real life contact and account information, 2) members are forbidden from taking shots at the physical appearance of other members who have posted their pictures, and 3) no porn, although spammers frequently ignore this rule and are banned. Other than the three no-no’s you can make any racist/sexist/anti-Democrat/anti-Republican/anti-Muslim/anti-anything and pro-anything comment you like and I won’t intercede on anyone’s behalf, but you can expect a verbal throttling from myself or others. Posters don’t want any more rules because unlike , it’s a place to blow off steam with people you play alongside.

Besides civility rules, what ideas do you have that might help alleviate the online civility problem? Or is enforcing online civility a hopeless cause?
Punishing certain speech (i.e. excluding vagueness as a defense in threatening statements), but then you run into other constitutional roadblocks dealing with government censorship.