Variaion on the Golden Rule joke (he who has the gold, rules), who sets the consensus for a pressure group gains social power.
-- Enric --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "RANDY MANN" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > there should be one set of rules > > > and i should be the one to make the rules > > randy > > On 4/11/07, Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > You're not that out of the loop here Josh, it seems to me after > > reading all of the posts here is that there, as there always seems to > > be, a bit of misscommunication and retoric. It's for those reasons I > > tend to stay out of these "conversations". What I find interesting > > is that to some degree most if not all of us already "adhere" to some > > sort of "code". Our own moral compass that we have developed. > > > > Some here do not listen to anyone unless they know your real name, > > some on their blogs do not allow anonymous comments, some moderate > > (mainly because of spam but I am sure sometimes for other stuff). So > > it already happens and for the life of me I can not fathom why anyone > > would not agree to delete comments that promoted hate, or threatend > > somone's life. > > > > Fee speach is important, but it is not a blanket to do and say > > whatever you want with no regard, words have meaning, they have power > > they always have and always will and with that comes a > > responability. People may not like that but it's the truth. > > > > Heath > > http://batmangeek.com > > > > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com <videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com>, > > Josh Wolf <inthecity@> wrote: > > > > > > Someone please explain this to me, I am very confused about this > > debate. > > > > > > Let's look at it this way, if I as a media maker decide to make a > > page > > > detailing my own code of ethic and an attached wiki to further > > refine > > > and develop my own ethics through a public conversation is this in > > any > > > way fascist? I don't feel it is, but if you do, please explain. > > > > > > Now, what if others elected to adopt my own code for their sites? > > What > > > if other codes began to develop and some chose to adopt those and > > others > > > remained unaffiliated. If this develops organically and without any > > > outside or heavily weighted influence is put on taking part in any > > > particular school of thought then such a development would actually > > > serve to enhance the visitors experience and abilities to discern > > how > > > much weight to give any particular report. > > > > > > Any real concerns about this being a fascist development seem to me > > to > > > revolve around whether some group or company attempts to dictate > > their > > > values schema on the larger mass of bloggers. At which point, I > > would > > > tend to agree with your thesis that this is an assault on our first > > > amendment freedoms. Perhaps this is already the case; I've been out > > of > > > the loop for a while and am coming into this conversation without > > much > > > recent background information. > > > > > > Josh > > > > > > mattfeldman78 wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > I have taken the LIBERTY to create a wiki for those who oppose > > > > draconian measures on the internet. Please help to build this up > > if > > > > you feel that this is important! > > > > > > > > site: http://nobloggerscode.pbwiki.com > > <http://nobloggerscode.pbwiki.com> > > > > password: "knowfascism" > > > > > > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com <videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com> > > > > <mailto:videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com>, WWWhatsup <joly@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2007/04/draft_bloggers_1.html > > > > <http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2007/04/draft_bloggers_1.html> > > > > > > > > > > 04.08.07 > > > > > Tim O'Reilly > > > > > > > > > > Tim O'Reilly > > > > > Draft Blogger's Code of Conduct > > > > > > > > > > When I wrote my Call for a Blogging Code of Conduct last week, I > > > > suggested some ideas of what such a code might contain, but didn't > > > > actually put forth a draft that people could subscribe to. We're > > not > > > > quite there yet, but we have a plan. > > > > > > > > > > We've drafted a code of conduct that will eventually be posted > > on > > > > bloggingcode.org, and created a badge that sites can display if > > they > > > > want to link to that code of conduct. Civility Enforced Badge > > > > > > > > > > But because we want a period of review, we don't want to > > finalize > > > > that code yet. I've put a draft below (and you'll see it's based > > > > closely on the BlogHer Community Guidelines that I linked to last > > > > week.) But we're also working with wikia to put the draft through > > a > > > > wiki-based review process on blogging.wikia.com. (There's an easy > > to > > > > remember shortcut link at http://blogging.wikia.com/wiki/BCC > > > > <http://blogging.wikia.com/wiki/BCC>) Please > > > > feel free to join in and edit the wiki as well as encouraging > > others > > > > to do so. We'll post the final version on bloggingcode.org, along > > with > > > > the html to display the badge and link to the code. > > > > > > > > > > (While wikis are great for developing the code, we don't want > > it to > > > > be a moving target once people have signed up for it.) > > > > > > > > > > Here's the first draft: > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > WWWhatsup NYC > > > > > http://pinstand.com <http://pinstand.com> - http://punkcast.com > > > > <http://punkcast.com> > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >
