Civility

It has been our policy to moderate only when absolutely necessary, but that isn't working toward the objective of having robust discussion and debate without it becoming personal and nasty. From this point forward, we will decline to publish posts that are nothing other than personal attacks. There is an element of subjectivity in making those calls, but given the deteriorating environment, which I have to take responsibility for, bloggers here will have to live with that.

Howard Elliott

Managing Editor

Comments

[Ryan McGreal]

I have some experience dealing with incivility and personal attacks in blog comments. Rather than censoring unwanted comments, another option is to establish clear standards and create a mechanism to allow community moderation based on shared awareness of which comments are inappropriate.

I've written more about this here:

http://quandyfactory.com/blog/54/

(Blogger's note: Ryan, thanks for this. Our new site being launched this summer will have new and improved functionality, and should allow for a degree of user moderation, along with the ability to comment on stories. All opinions are welcome and will be considered.
Howard Elliott
Managing Editor)

[Allan Taylor]

Sue you are correct, people should read how you and others have been interacting. Its been horrible both ways

[Peter Michael]

Jamie, I agree but I must provide this famous quote;

"Who's the more foolish: The fool, or the fool who follows him(or her)?"

[Jamie]

Well put Mike! I agree, if someone is being a fool, we should be able to point it out! Heck, I'd expect the same to happen to me! Besides it's THE INTERNET! Lighten up.

[lalala]

Fantastic. Too bad they won't censor disgusting anti choice rhetoric.

[Sue-Ellen M.]

It's not about censoring. Please inform yourself as to what's been going on lately.

[CityNeedsNewLeaders]

I can't beleive the Spec has bowed to pressure to now begin censoring comments. You must realize that the very lifeblood of newspapers will, in the future, rely more and more on their on-line versions. And without active reader participation - good or bad, the Spec will die.

For a lesson on how to promote a good open, reader-supported on-line blog, check out CBC news.

I would suggest Howard that you moderate at your own peril.

[Sue-Ellen M.]

As far as this issue concerns me, it's not about hurt feelings and it's not because people weren't agreeing with me. It's got nothing to do with censoring free speech.

I wish those of you who know nothing about the issue would refrain from making uninformed remarks, and especially refrain from calling the managing editor a "Nazi".

[Mike Russell]

My gawd, this is already the tamest forum of any I have seen on the web. If you censor any more you might as well shut it down.

I myself, self censor more often than not but sometimes you have to be able to tell an idiot that they are just that, an idiot. We are all grown ups and should be treated as such. If someone gets their feelings hurt because of it thats just too bad.

[JOHN CHUCKMAN, TORONTO]

Good.

I guess that just about eliminates any future posts in support of Sarah Palin.

[John]

Good, but what will the weenies who use the anonymous internet to say nasty things do now ? I suggest they go to a biker bar and make fun of the patrons. And newsflash, there is only an allusion of "free speech", and opinions have always been censored. Did you really think otherwise ?

[Jamie]

LOL...you already censor so much content..why waste you time even writing this up?

[ernest]

personnel attacks against others' opinion then no ;bad choice. personnel attacks against others ;good choice. There is a difference.
eg... you are stupid because i don't agree with you_________(insert name here) good or bad?....answer ...good.
you don't like my opinion meet me down at so and so location and we can discuss why you are trying to intimidate me with names and expletives because you don't agree with my "opinion". pretty sure we don't need some vile name calling and disrespect over opinion that you wouldn't dare say face to face(unless you would).

[Peter Michael]

Feels like being in kindergarten again but let's be real, The Spec could already have been censoring all this time.

If this gets rid of some of the 'forum trolls' of late then good. If this has been done by The Spec to appease the feelings of some being hurt by others disagreeing with their opinions, then shame.

Time will tell.

[Brenda]

Howard Elliott...I love exactly what you wrote and exactly how you wrote it. I am in total support of your determination to decline personal attacks, as they serve no purpose other than the author's sad and pathetic satisfaction.

[maw]

Typical Spectator -- Dalton McGuinty's favourite paper in the nanny state. The web is for grownups. Babies should stay home.

[kathy hagan]

Civil discourse does not harm free speech and so I feel moderating these blogs for personal attacks are necessary. We all have differing views and we must always respect the other persons right to air views without name calling.

[Tom Robertson]

Howard...I think this is a good idea. I know I have been guilty of allowing them to drag me down to there level.

[gary]

Politically correct garbage. I'll take my free speech to another place. A newspaper isn't supposed to be about censoring opinions

[Clark Da]

Talk about your no win situation. You moderate to enforce civility, you're a freedom of expression nazi, and if you do not you're allowing poor people to get their feelings hurt. Sheesh

[Allan Taylor]

Its about time. Hopefully everyone is included in this policy

[ANSWER TO 1984 IS 1776]

Promotion of "civility" is often perverted for means of censorship. Congrats to thespec.com on going red for good.