The idea behind it is that if blog owners don't in any way restrict the abuse of their commenting feature - if they just leave their comments to the loudest, the waffliest, those with the most time on their hands and the most anger in their hearts - then they'll lose the chance to engage with anyone else. You either have a civil and worthwhile discussion between rational people debating particular issues, or you let the trolls go nuts and drive everyone away. To a certain extent you have to choose. You might not want to - you might hope for an online utopia where the rational and civil outnumber the abuse-hurling children and can ignore them - but if you don't, it'll be made for you.
I'm not sure about this condition though:
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.
I think you'll drive some worthwhile commenters away with that one, because there are many people who do not feel free to discuss politics freely if they can in any way be identified. They may work with people or in industries that they suspect are not compatible with their views, and may fear that publicly expressing those views could cost them work or their whole jobs. Making them use "a valid email address" would drive them away. On the other hand, they could set up an anonymous gmail address and comment under a pseudonym which would (a) allow them to keep their identities secret whilst (b) still deterring the drive-by trolls (it still takes a few minutes to set up such an account).
Anyway, to a certain extent I apply such a code here already, albeit fairly loosely. Perhaps I let the trolls go a little long, but hopefully that hasn't driven too many people away. Sometimes I immediately delete abusive comments; sometimes they make the commenter look so ridiculous that I figure it's more of a punishment to leave them up.
The point about the code, I guess, that's different from what most bloggers are doing already, is that it comes WITH A COOL SHERIFF'S BADGE ICON. The point of which is that showing the icon would be both an invitation and a warning to people coming across the site for the first time. You'd know that you weren't going to be personally abused just for having a political opinion, and you'd know not to waste your time trying to do that to someone else. There'd still be the lawless, wild, anarchic blogs, but you could tell which ones they were very quickly and avoid them - or at least make sure you put on your flame-retardant pants before entering.
On this blog, I AM THE LAW!
Still, whilst I trust my judgment in not using all the power and authority bestowed by a cheap gif image for evil, perhaps it's dishonest to use the symbols of impartial authority to describe what a blog owner does when moderating comments. Because there is no right of reply, and we're not answerable to anyone else.
Besides, the code sounds like a promise to moderate comments regularly and vigorously, and I've got much better things to do with my time. So maybe not.
