Another "Blogging Ethics" Post

I held out long enough on this topic, but maybe I can create a different viewpoint to it.

One thing I think almost everyone agrees upon in the blogosphere is that some form of ethics should be in effect, at least in some form. Whether it be series of unspoken-yet-consciously followed rules, or a universally-agreed upon pact made at a conference like the upcoming Blogs United...I think most people agree that we, the desktop pundits known as political bloggers, should hold ourselves to a certain level of ethical behavior. Ethics, by definition, is non-partisan. The partisanship of ethics is defined by the individuals we are, and the beliefs we hold.

But what constitutes "ethical" behavior and conduct?

Let me define MY ethics for The Podium, and how I conduct myself on other blogs, just as an example.

- I keep cursing to a minimum. The occasional foul word is OK by my standards...but using vulgarity to discuss a topic such a politics in a constructive manner is pointless and lowers the integrity of the point being made.

- I encourage debate, and discourage simple ad hominem attacks with no basis. While I disparage liberals quite a lot (and fellow conservatives a bit, too), I usually have a reason for saying something like "Harry Reid is a sniveling little weasel", and I outline that within the rest of my post. Every now and then, I'll pop a one-liner on a comment section...but usually it's in a place where many people know me/my positions, and they know where I'm coming from with my one-liner.

- I allow anonymous comments if there is a point to be made. If it's an anonymous "personal attack" comment, or just a bunch of incoherent cursing, it gets deleted. Simple as that.

- I post with my real name. My blog has a name, but the man writing the blogs uses no psuedonyms. However, I'm also not in the business of "outing" bloggers, or going to strenuous lengths to ruin people's lives over online disagreements. I have no problem with pseudonymous bloggers, but they should realize that by cloaking their real identity, they do open themselves up to jeers of cowardice for not standing up and admitting "who they really are." At the same time, jeering someone for adhering to a common practice in blogging (using a psuedonym) is a bit pointless, childish, and sometimes ruin what was otherwise good discourse and discussion.

- If you have a grudge against a blogger, keep a limit as to how far you will go to slander that person. The last thing the blogosphere needs is lawsuits involving blogs. It will cause the positive aspects to be overshadowed by negative press.

I'm glad people have decided to discuss blogging ethics. Although nobody will probably agree on the exact rules of ethics for blogging...I think most will agree that we should hold ourselves to a decent standard.

What do you think?