Has the time come to ban comments on the Traveler? That's not a philosophical question or a parlor game, but one driven by concerns among readers that constructive conversation is hard to come by on the site.

By and large, the volume of comments on the Traveler is dominated by a very, very small handful of individuals. And they can, at times, take things to extremes and give no quarter. More than a few times various commenters have accused others of being trolls, simply lurking out there, waiting to bait others into an argument, or made gratuitous comments, and worse.

And a handful of times a year we get private emails complaining about this behavior. Here's just the most recent example:

The NPT comments section has long been hijacked by conservative/libertarian trolls like ecbuck to the point that many of us who would *like* to engage in conversation and intelligent discourse regarding park issues are dissuaded from doing so by the truculent, confrontational, repetitive and axe-grinding nature of such ideologues. I am disappointed in your feckless moderation of the comments section because the parks are my passion and I would love to contribute, but I have come to the realization that I should take my participation -- and views of your ads -- elsewhere.

Now, whether Traveler's moderation of the comments queue is feckless is a matter of opinion. But we can tell you that we lack the manpower it takes to moderate on as strenuous a basis as some might hope.

What begs a question is whether there would be greater reader participation if the comments weren't seemingly monopolized by a handful of readers, some unafraid to wield an ax? With nearly 1.7 million readers a year, and less than a dozen regular commenters, you have to wonder.

Frankly, nothing would be more welcome to us than to see more reader involvement in the site.

The only lasting solution would be to bring an end to comments, which would be unfortunate, as we truly believe conversation is key to understanding, and possibly solving, some of the issues that the national parks face. Over the years we have reached out to those most criticized, have tried "no follow" buttons, and even banned folks, all to no avail.

So, how would you handle this situation?

While you ponder that question, let us repost our Code of Conduct for those who comment:

Code of Conduct

The blogosphere is a pretty free-wheeling place. As a result, it has developed a persona, right or wrong, of playing fast and loose with facts, with running roughshod over some posters, with allowing anonymity to serve as a shield for attackers. Some bloggers have called for a code of conduct for the blogosphere, and we at the Traveler support that movement.

As I mentioned recently, we view the Traveler as more of a web magazine than a blog. But that doesn't lessen the need for a code of conduct, both to guide the Traveler's writers and to let those who desire to comment on our articles to know there are limits as to what is appropriate.

For those who might immediately jump to the conclusion that we're implementing a measure of censorship, that's not the case at all. Rather, just as there are accepted norms for what can be broadcast and printed in mainstream media, there are accepted norms for the interchange of ideas on the Traveler. All we expect from you is a measure of civility. Here's how Colin Rule, director of the Center for Internet and Society, addresses the expectation of civil discourse:

So is it true that civility and politeness should go out the window when confronted with deep and intense feelings? Well, not to sound too much like "Mr. Manners," but I think it's at that point that civility and politeness come to matter more. When emotions get the better of someone, and that person uses language intended to incite and shock rather than reason, it creates an easy target for the other side; the most likely response becomes a similar provocative statement, and then the exchange becomes focused on the excesses of each statement rather than the issues at hand.

Beyond an expectation of civility there are times when, quite frankly, just as radio and television moderators feel a need to redirect their guests back to the subject at hand, it might be appropriate for us to steer the flurry of comments back to the topic at hand. And we won't hesitate to do that, as we have a very well specified mission statement that guides this patch of cyberspace.

With that said, here are some general guidelines that will guide the code of conduct for the Traveler (with the understanding that they could continue to evolve):

* The authors of posts take responsibility for their words.

* Abusive comments and personal attacks will not be tolerated and will be deleted.

* Those behind abusive comments and personal attacks will be contacted privately and asked to be more constructive in their comments. If the comments and attacks persist, the author will be blocked from the site.

* Don't say anything online that you wouldn't say in person.

* If a subject of a post feels they have been wronged or simply wishes to respond in a post as opposed to a comment, that will be allowed.

In general, we at the Traveler have been pretty tolerant of comments. That's been evidenced most recently by some made this past weekend that were allowed to stand. We do not want to sanitize this forum, nor do we want to create the impression that it tilts one way or the other politically or philosophically. Yet there is a line, one that should not be crossed, in the common decency of civil discourse. If all you can do is throw stones and slurs, take it elsewhere.

Anonymous comments will continue to be allowed because there obviously are times when whistleblowers want to shield their identity, when the topic is political dissent, and when the individual doesn't want his/her comments attached to the organization they work for. That said, we encourage those who do not fall under those situations to be up front with who they are and not rely on what's been termed "drive by anonymity" to attack someone.

Regardless of how you decide to identify yourself, you are expected to adhere to the points above.