I've been doing a lot of thinking about civil discourse lately, because it was recently an issue in one of the online communities that I moderate.  The discussion took the form of off-list email, in which the question arose as to whether specific messages posted the group succeeded or failed in meeting a minimal standard of civility. 

This is a complicated question, and I will be pondering it for a long time.  Those off-list emails were quite thoughtful and challenging!  This comes as no surprise, since the focus of the group is on mission-based organizations,which are highly invested in the ideals of civil society.

Here I present, for the edification of all, an excerpt from the group's posting guidelines.  I formulated the guidelines early on in the emergence of the group, and tweaked them with input from the members:

Frame your message in the language of civil discourse, and avoid inflammatory rhetoric. Posts that are simply attacks on someone else's religion, operating system, ethics, ancestry, or attitude are unacceptable in this email distribution list. The rule of thumb is to assume that others are motivated by the best intentions, even when you think that they are gravely mistaken.

Perhaps it just boils down to three words:  "avoid inflammatory rhetoric."

I try to balance the need for free expression with the demands of civility, community building, and mission focus.

At the end of the day, it's basically a judgement call for one or both the moderators. Input is eagerly solicited from members, but when it comes down to it, the moderators are also the arbiters.

Of course, those who object in principle to moderation or arbitration are quite welcome to post whatever they please to the unmoderated version of that particular online community.  The last time I checked, its moderated  email distribution list had over 1,000 members, while the unmoderated version had fewer than ten - this gives me an inkling that moderation does have its fans.

It so happens that I'm a peaceable sort of person (with a background in violence prevention, no less) who is very slow to take offense, and very polite about asking folks whether they'd be willing to soften their rhetoric rather than miss an opportunity to make some extremely valid points.  For these and other reasons, I'm an ususually trustworthy moderator - believe it or not, I even have fan mail to provide it. 

But should a thriving online community, one that is all about pursuing the goals of civil society, have to depend on me as an individual?

This does raise the larger issue of who "owns" an online community, especially one that is not affiliated with an incorporated entity.  From a certain point of view, it's just an email distribution list (and few web features) that makes use of the free technical services provided by YahooGroups and the free facilitation services provided by the moderators. Since YahooGroups requires someone to be the "owner" of every group that they host, and since I created the group, I am that person. 

Do the members know that - in my heart of hearts - I regard participation in the group as a privilege rather than a right?  Do they know that - if they disagree with my judgement calls - they have very little technical, ethical, or legal leverage for redressing grievances? 

I'm going to have to bounce these questions over to the Department of Things That Deborah Doesn't Understand.