Police the objective neutral standards as you like (no obscenity, word limit, etc.) but otherwise treat your readers as competent individuals who can determine on their own which viewpoints are or are not persuasive and who do not need to be shielded from unpopular or controversial opinions.

A simple rule is to keep the comments about the debate/topic, and not the person you are debating.

Accusation of immoral behavior, hate, bigotry, and racism are strong accusations that are sometimes a true definition of a group or person's ideology. Other times these words are hurled at one another to try a make a stronger point. My thought is that if you have a good strong argument, you shouldn't have to throw derogatory accusations at each other to get your point across.

Some moderation can always be expected in a forum such as this. If the goal is to encourage participation, it needs to be fair. Is it fair to allow something that is not true to stand or even be promoted? Does something not germane to the conversation or supported by a faulty premise add to the discussion or take away from it? Why should I give it the same consideration as a more valid argument? Why wouldn't it be beneficial to filter out distractions?

In a perfect world, we should all be adult and not have to worry about moderation. Alas, we do not live in such a world. I am a strong proponant of non-censorship and free speech. That being said, I also realize some things are a no no. (That's the adult in me.) As long as the posts do not degrade into name calling, and personal attacks I say let them or us go at it in an adult debate. As for the truth... The truth can be scewed. What I believe is a truth, and another may not be the same. Or it may be an old truth that is being clung to. Again, it tends to fall on perspective.
I for one have a mother. I don't need another telling me what I can say, nor what I should think, and if I feel it needs to be shared... Well, don't read it or don't respond to it. If I am just plain wrong, then correct me in an adult fashion, and I will also do the same for you.

These are very good comments. I would just add that I have always felt that requiring a commenter to post using identifiable contact information keeps debate civil. It seems that when pseudonyms are allowed, the discussion can get less civil. I propose that Patch and others require users to identify themselves by name, tracked via email upon registration. Naturally someone could pretend to be a different person, but that in and of itself may be a crime. Great question, Patch!

It is difficult in these types of forums to have a balanced discussion because by their nature they tend to gravitate towards what the majority of people believe leaving the minority to move to forums where their opinions are in the majority. This leads to the comments about a particular forum being biased and not balanced.
As has been mentioned we as a society are becoming more politically polarized and even Jeb Bush yesterday made reference to fact that the Republican Party today does not resemble the party of his father or Ronald Reagan, for balance he also said the Democratic party has also become more polarizing.
In my opinion the biggest problem is politics has become another form of capitalism, big money and with big economic opportunities being a politician. Plenty of people have entered politics as part of the middle class and have become economically enhanced in life after politics. For example there are plenty of former politicians and staffers who work as lobbyists in DC. The DC lobbying industry is estimated to bill its clients over $1 Billion a year and as Senator McCain commented last year you can't walk a hall of Congress without running into a lobbyist for Boeing.

I notice that people pass on unresearched information. I prefer facts and evidence when I discuss political differences with people. Repeating what was said on anonymous e-mails is not fact or evidence. Work on critical thinking, do some research at more than one source. Your opinion or belief is worthless without some supporting evidence and one needs to seek evidence at more then one source. These are some good sites for tracking down facts:

Here is a list of places to go to check out rumors, lies, urban legends, etc. It behooves each of us to do a little research when you receive an anonymous e-mail that claims something….. These are all well researched sites with a high degree of credibility.

http://www.factcheck.org/

http://www.politifact.com

http://urbanlegends.about.com/science/urbanlegends/

http://snopes.com/

http://hoaxbusters.org/

http://www.truthorfiction.com/

http://www.breakthechain.org

http://votesmart.org/

While I can agree with the basic premise of requiring people to identify themselves when posting which of course would likely cut a huge number of posting all together and would almost certainly make people far more civil there are two questions I have regarding this type of requirement.

How is Patch or any other site truly going to know if the person is giving their real name?

After all I can call myself George Trumbill which does not mean my real name is George Trumbill and unless Patch somehow asks me to prove my identity I don't understand how this would work. And further if someone posts hateful comments under a system where everyone is presumed to be the real person - well, what happens when some nut job tracks down a person with that name in the community?

As for the issue itself, I have seen sites where posters can essentially choose to "hide" a post and if enough people click "Hide" that post is then hidden and must be clicked on to be expanded to be read. Not perfect but a possibility.

This problem is the same on all online forums and publications that allow public commentary. The relative anonymity of the internet frees people to be as uninformed and crass as they desire. The chances of someone knocking on your door to chew you a new one for your comments here are slim to none even if you show your real face and name. It is for this same reason I feel there should be very little offense taken when reading comments, even if someone says "Hey, Annie, you're a moron".

I don't look for facts in the comment section - that's what the article is for. Comments are just that, coming from people who've done various levels of research, possessing varing levels of intelligence, and more than likely, varing levels of mental health.

Bottom line for me is, the Patch is not responsible for anything said by anyone who is not Patch Staff writing in an official capacity. Unless the content violates the law, or Patch T.O.U., other readers "feelings" are really a moot point, unless you want to get rid of public feedback all together.

It would seem Odd... and since I like to think I have an above average degree of common sense, I would assume immediately that there must be some sort of far reaching circumstances. Perhaps "best" is due to viewing traffic and amount of responses and not specifically content. To assume a reputable business or news agency would delibrately insult me in print on purpose is not only silly, but well no, that's exactly what it is - silly.

I believe using a "real" name would open people up to harassment. Anyone can sign up using a email account created for free on Google mail. A person could use any name that looks real or signing up as a person that is not them. How many times have you seen a CELEBRITY (i.e. Hollywood types) that have to put out disclaimers that they are NOT on Facebook, Twitter, etc. Falsifying can be done. There is not a realistic way to monitor free speech. Identifying a person as "real" on the web is not a surefire way to ensure civility.

I have been attacked all week about Shakopee's proposed backyard chicken raising ordinance by a group of posters (not using their real names either)..and I didn't get defended by the staff at the Patch. I was called names including disgusting because my viewpoint differed and the mayor of Shakopee chimed in to keep things civil. Yet in my opinion that call for civility was itself an attack. The editor of the Patch (Shakopee) posted asking me questions that flamed out to attacking. IF I seemed to take offense and attack...it was in response to what happen first. I don't believe using a "real" name would help.

Hi Shakopee Mom. First let me say I appreciate your comments on Patch. I do think that some of the comments on the chicken story got a little out of hand and that's why I called for a little more respect and referred people to this article, discussing this very thing. I'm sorry if you felt attacked by certain commenters and although I monitor comment threads, I am not always immediately aware of comments made. You can email me directly if you feel something is out of line.

Sethm first off thank you. I have to admit, I mostly agree with you. Also, where I didn't I was swayed just a bit. The only place I an hung up on is where we tend to lean to caution in free speech and for the sake of being politically correct. I think the other Kevins comment were (In my opinion) mis-informed and blatently wrong. I will also defend his right to say it, and not blame others for highlighting that ignorance.
Also, on a personal note to Seth. I do like how you think, and I may play devils advocate from time to time, mostly because I like your style.

Hi Kevin,
I understand your concern about censorship, but the whole 'everyone gets a say' mentality reminds me of this quote from Patton Oswalt's "Finest Hour":
“You know, you gotta respect everybody’s beliefs!” NO YOU DON’T! That’s what gets us in trouble! Look, you have to ACKNOWLEDGE everyone’s beliefs, but you have to reserve the right to say “That is [REALLY] stupid!”" (my edit for content)

Of course people might think that about me too.

I really do know better than to get outraged at every troll posting on the internet, and I do not feel as dismayed now that Caitlin and James have clarified that they reposted Mr. O'Donovan's comment as just one of the voices in the community (flawed though it may be) and not for its quality.

Saw this video today and even though it is specific about harassment of women online, I think it speaks volumes about harassment/name calling online in general. Definitely worth the 3:50 it takes to watch.

www.upworthy.com/nailed-it-if-youre-a-dude-on-the-internet-you-need-to-see-this-video?c=mrp1

Whatever you do, just dont do what the Strib does. There is a reason that the Strib and papers like it have crashed. Yes, the internet does play a role but I believe (MY OPINION) it is also because they are incredibly liberal. One network and one newspaper has continued to see success through the recent years. Fox News and the Wall Street Journal. Why? They dont play the liberal game. When polls show that about 60% of this country is conservative (not republican - conservative) why the Strib continues to play to the left is mind numbing. The ratings for Fox news are monsterous. If you add the numbers of every other cable news station and double it, you get to the numbers that Fox news has. It is no wonder the liberals try to discredit it. Deciding what to report and what opinions to post are subjective. The person in charge cant help but favor opinions that fall in line with his or her beliefs. The letters sent to the Strib opinion section number in the hundreds each day. There is no possible way to print them all. So, the Strib lets some liberal editor wanna be read through them and choose which get printed. Check the Stribs archieves. There is a 4 to 1 majority on letters printed from liberals. Are we supposed to believe that 75% of Strib readers are liberal? When you continue to only print one side of an issue, you end up having only one side of a population read your paper. Readers not wanting the liberal spin flock to other sources. Dont be the Strib.

Not surprising but my comment went way over Emily's head. The Strib's readers are very likely 75% liberal. This is exactly why they are failing. When you only write one side of a story or only one view point, you leave half of your potential audience going somewhere else. The Stribs inability to print even a remote conservative point, caused readers by the thousands to simply stop reading it. There are a ton of people just like Emily who think nothing of knowing that GW Bush was a C student at Yale but think it is perfectly fine that B.Obama has every transcript and grad paper ever produced sealed in secrecy. "Quality" journalism should not be biased. The work put into obtaining every annoying tidbit of information on Bush, should also be spent on Obama. Think about it, we knew every single person Herman Cain harrassed, slept with and cheated on. And, we knew it all in about a week. I contend that if the media did it's job, Hillary Clinton would be president today. Emily might not care for Fox News (big surprise) but obviously a huge majority of the population like it. Ratings are indeed king and Fox is obviously doing something right. The Patch can follow the very unsuccessful liberal spin method of reporting and eventually go away or it can adopt the Fox news style and remember there are always 2 sides to a story. Answer this Emily: Do you really think "Fox Lies" or just maybe is it jealous spin from the outlets you watch trying to entice more listeners or viewers?

Susan, my "generalization" on Fox is backed by that thing liberals hate most, facts. I invite you to search tvbythenumbers.com. Every single Fox program is #1. I dont care if you like the channel. And, my feeling regarding the Strib is irrelevant to my point. Liberal news outlets are failing everywhere. If the Patch wants to go the way of the Star Tribune, it will fail. It is MY OPINION. Don’t agree with me, so what?

Emily, Fox definitely has very right wing programming. Hannity is an extreme example. However, that is not a news program. That is an opinion show. For every Hannity on Fox there is a Rachael Maddow on MSNBC (except that no one watches MSNBC). Do not confuse my assertion that the Patch be more like Fox with some silly opinion show. The Star Trib with the hundreds of letters it receives, chooses to print mostly liberal ideologue garbage. Here is an example: Last fall when Eden Prairie residents were mad about having their kids bussed across town to a different school, the paper editorialized that these parents were racist. They then printed a half a dozen letters echoing how racist these parents were. ZERO letters were printed defending the parents. Dozens of letters were received but ZERO were printed. “Fast and Furious” (google it) has turned into a very ugly situation for Obama. NBC didn’t report on it until this week when they finally had no choice. Fox reported it last year. CBS and NBC ran stories praising the occupy movement. Fox showed it differently. If the Patch wants to take the stance that the voter ID amendment is racist, or those against gay marriage are haters, or that Obama detractors are racists, it will fail. The Patch is a business and needs to make money to stay alive. Whether you like it or not, Fox is king. I gave my opinion that the Patch should follow the successful path of FOX. You don’t agree. Unlike you, I don’t care what you think.

Orono, if Hannity is the extreme example, can you please name the news people who are not? I know Chris Wallace or Juan Williams can be on target with asking hard questions and considering more than one side, but I can't say I've seen others. My perception is that, generally, if someone went on Fox in support of Obama or things like gay marriage, they would be ripped apart. That is not unbiased news reporting.

I think much of the problem with the whole premise of media is that they have to pander to someone. Its not about reporting the news, its about ratings. The fact that people buy into the "ratings are king" mentality lets us know that we will never get any full truths from any media outlet. We have politicized every issue out there, such that citizens feel forced to "have an opinion" about everything, further dividing us. I know this is a difficult concept, but if we stand there and say our pledge "one nation, INDIVISIBLE" and then go on comment sections on newspapers and blogs and rip each other apart, calling names and using labels like "right wing crazies" or "bleeding heart liberals" I think we need to worry about more than the media falling apart.
I get caught up in these discussion (like has happened above) and its like being sucked into a giant online game of roadrage. Its sick, and its dangerous. Sure, we won't all agree on everything, but somehow, we need to reconsider our dialogue. It will never be possible for any of us to stand alone, and it never makes a strong community for the majority to run over the minority.

Wow, Kevin, I think there is no need to address most of your last comment, as I think people will see it for exactly what it is, but I do have one question, where is your proof that homosexuality is a mental illness or chosen lifestyle?

Well Kevin O, you've obviously made it this far in life without the burden of rational thought, so I may be wasting my time, but do you really think rape and molestation are only committed by homosexuals? Do you really think all, or even most, homosexuals are pedophiles? If not, then what exactly is your point?

Rapists and child molesters are motivated by power and control (as are zealots, but I digress). Those deviant behaviors are completely independent of sexual orientation.

Also, not that it matters, but there is absolutely no evidence that sexual orientation is a choice. None. It may be hereditary, or it may be simply one of the many aspects of personality that develop over time. But it is not an illness, and it is in no way correlated, for better or worse, to the quality of one's character (fashion sense, maybe; but not character).

At the very least, if this discussion continues, we may go far in answering this post's original question.

I would be opposed to this or any site censoring peoples comments. I understand and support rewording swear words, or deleting offensive language. My experience at multiple sites is the following, The site admin will alter comments rewording swear words or personal hate speech directed at someone directly however, these sites also post a disclaimer at the bottom of these altered posts stating the admin has modified the original post for the following reasons. If I was to say President Obama's or past Pres Bush policies are extremely damaging to our nation, this is not hate speech, its my opinion of policies and those policies affect on the country. Once our media start randomly changing posts without any accountability or reasoning, the meaning of the subject matter will then become onesided, unreliable, and without credibility. The line in my mind is censorship or reasonable house- keeping with explanations.

If you can't say anything negative about homosexual marriage on this site, I wonder what else is being deleted?

When does an editor become a suppressor of Free Speech? If the Patch only will entertain pro-homosexual marriage propaganda to be shown, why not just have it clearly stated as being your policy? I can understand that you don't accept vulgarities, but when you shut down reasonable argument we all lose, including you. We lose points to consider and the Patch loses readers.

Kevin, I think the problem might be your definition of "reasonable argument". You can disagree...in fact, you can disagree strongly, but when you use derogatory language and blanket bigoted statements about a group of people based on their sexuality, race, or religion you will probably be deleted as this violates Patch's user agreement...an agreement you made when creating your profile.

Where does Free Speech and Hate Speech begin and end. If two valid opinions, both supported by evidence and rationality are expressed, why would one supporting homosexual marriage be considered to be acceptable and the other rejected. News agencies should share information, not suppress it. You cannot have an informed electorate if they are intentionally being deprived of solid information. Uncomfortable facts should not be dismissed. If there is no provable facts, but there is evidence or a reasonable position, why would a news organization be tempted to define the facts? No one knows if homosexuality is an inherited, or acquired trait. Some will find comfort in hopes for an answer that supports their agenda. No one should should presume to know the answer as a definable certainty, until the facts are determined. If warning people of potential dangers is not a function of both good journalism and education, then both institutions are less than advertised. Is a Free Press at liberty to create facts, or advocate on behalf of unproven facts, or does it have a responsibility to share reasonable information, or withhold it? Do we have a Free Society when information is suppressed?

Mr.Warden, The reason for this article has exposed the fact that instead of being a Forum which supports a free exchange of information and ideas, you impose arbitrary limits. This is your right as a manager and operator, but let's not bring up some vague agreement that doesn't support intellectual courage. I support Traditional Marriage. I propose that there are potential and demonstrable dangers to individuals and society if homosexual marriage and homosexual behaviors are sanctioned, endorsed, and encouraged. I have never advocated that people suffering from same sex attraction should be persecuted or be seen as anything less than possessing the full dignity of every human being. I oppose the behavior not the people. The behavior has inherent dangers that should be recognized. Heterosexual people who engage in promiscuous sex, or sex outside of marriage are not good for society. I believe an Educational System that purports to innoculate people from the consequences of this dangerous choice should be exposed for the failure that it is. Statements that challenge conventional wisdom are not Hate Speech. They are offered for consideration and deliberation.

I'd love to hear what the people commenting in this article have to say on this topic:

How Do You Define These Controversial Words?
http://hopkins.patch.com/articles/how-do-you-define-these-controversial-words

The Gay marriage topic is a classic politically correct topic. Recent polls show that about 51% of this country is pro gay marriage. In reality I would guess that number would drop significantly given the opportunity to vote in privacy. People would rather avoid debate than speak up for what they truly believe. LIberals are so quick to paint anti gay marriage supporters as haters, there is no reason to even try and debate it.