By Brad Rourke

At an online community I co-manage, there's a conflict.

The community in question is a forum for people to discuss local issues, and we've set it up intentionally so there are a few hoops people need to jump through before we allow comments. It's supposed to be an antidote to some of the uglier things that go on in the public square these days -- the kind of place where you don't say what you wouldn't say to someone's face.

Recently we discovered sock-puppetry among some of the commenters. That's when you create an alter-ego and post as both yourself and the fake person. The sock puppets were, as you would imagine, fairly uncivil customers. But, by and large, they stayed just on this side of the line, so we allowed some of their comments even though we wished they would not have been made.

Things were a little more heated than usual because there were municipal elections going on and one of the races was hotly contested, with a bitter division between candidates.

Once we discovered the deception going on, we put a stop to it by banning those individuals from any commenting, and we tightened up our comment policy. But there are those who are now curious as to who these sock-puppet trolls might be. They want us to out them so they can be known.

The Dilemma Of The Trolls

As an online civic community manager, this is a real dilemma. On the one hand, it's very tempting to divulge who it is (especially since I am personally angry about it). And there is a good argument to be made for outing the people who were engaged in this behavior: "If someone is using multiple aliases, odds are they are up to no good. We ought to know who can’t be trusted," wrote one commenter. Indeed, sock puppetry is seen as criminal by some.

"Do Not Feed The Sock Puppets"

But on the other hand, just as the trolls made the community less inviting to people by their comments, so, too, would the inevitable vigilantism make the community less inviting.

Resolving Public Dilemmas

In thinking about whether to "out" the person, we need to focus on the purpose of the online space itself. It exists to be a virtual public square, a place for civil discussion. What action best supports that? Put another way, what's the right thing to do here?

My old friend Rush Kidder points out that there are three main ways to resolve ethical dilemmas.

One way of resolving the dilemma asks what the rule ought to be. If the same thing were to happen again, to another person in my shoes, what should they do? This way of resolving the dilemma might suggest that the person ought to be "outed" because, after all, they were breaking a commonly-accepted norm, repeatedly and over time.

Another means of resolving ethical dilemmas is to use the Golden Rule. It's no accident that some version of this rule appears in every one of the world's major religions. This way of thinking about an ethical dilemma urges me to put the shoe on the other foot. How would I want to be treated if things were revered? This approach would suggest that the community managers don't say who was responsible – just being banned might be enough for the people to learn their lesson.

Another way focuses on the greatest good for the greatest number. What is best for all concerned? Here we've got to decide who we mean by "all." If "all" is just the people who had been criticized by the trolls, and a handful of other readers, then speaking up might be the best course.

But, if we expand the "all" to include all who might enter this virtual public square in the future, a new answer emerges. Public life is cheapened by vigilantism as well as by bad behavior. Our chief responsibility when it comes to this particular community, in this case, is to make sure the conditions are right so that it can invite more people into public life who might otherwise not step forward.

Public leaders may well want to keep similar ideas in mind. As much attention must be paid to the conditions of public life as to who is winning and the content of people's arguments.

Because it is ultimately the conditions of public life that last, once the arguments and personalities have faded into memory.

 *     *     *

Brad Rourke writes Brad Rourke's Blog and is president of the Mannakee Circle Group, a firm that helps organizations engage better with their publics. He is an expert on public life. In addition to his blog, he can be found on Twitter (@bradrourke) and Facebook.

Photo credit: dichohecho