Not that anyone asked me, but the Draft Blogger's Code of Conduct currently being discussed here and there seems vague and subjective. Worse, it's a "solution" that is attempting to deal with an unstated, and hence unclear, problem.
A lot of the Code applies to blog comments, which (you may have noticed) we don't have here. Back when I started, comments seemed to be more trouble than they were worth; if anything, my feelings against them have strengthened. I was a denizen of Usenet for many years, and blog-comments remind me of those good old days, where each new post starts off a thread potentially containing abuse, spam, off-topic drift, and (almost always) a very low signal-to-noise ratio. Been there, done that, moved on.
Apart from the comment-specific parts:
-
The proposed Code
needlessly lumps together illegal behavior (copyright infringement,
libel, threatening) with rude-but-legal behavior. There are legal
remedies available for illegal behavior, and the courts will
do a decent job of disambiguating and assigning liability. (Not perfect,
sure, but better than a "Code of Conduct" is likely to.)
-
Among the criteria for "unacceptable" content is "ad-hominem".
Please. Why not just deem all logical fallacies
as "unacceptable"? Even if a Code could define "ad-hominem"
unambigously, what's the point? Readers can judge such content
on its (low) merit.
And while ad-hominem may be weak at making a valid argument, it can be funny. Gosh, maybe the code should say it's OK if it's funny?
-
Another verboten area of content is "abuse". Again, please.
I can't abuse self-important politicians? Get over yourself.
Also, prepare for endless legalistic meta-discussions whether
a set of words constitute "abuse" or not. Prepare for being abused
during said discussions.
-
"[We reserve the right to change these standards at any time with no
notice.]" Fine. But maybe—just maybe—in that case,
you'll want
to use some other word besides "standards"? I suggest "whims".
-
"We won't say anything online that we wouldn't say in person." Why
not? It's normal and acceptable
to have different rules for different audiences.
-
"We connect privately before we respond publicly." That might be a good
idea sometimes. Maybe most times. In all
possible cases? Doubtful.
But if they really want to go after despicable blogger conduct, I wish someone would ban "This posting will remain on top". Cripes, that grates my cheese.