It used to be people discussed ideas and shared information over the back fence, over a beer at the corner tavern, or over a cup of coffee after church.

Now, we text our I-love-you's and Facebook our birthday wishes. The Internet, for as much as it has brought us together, has also worked to destroy the integrity of honest communication.

This is the paradox in which The Monroe Times finds itself. We encourage readers to post comments in an effort to create an online community where people can discuss ideas and share information. But too often, petty comments and hurtful jabs lobbed by unseen forces have morphed our digital community into an inhospitable environment.

The most common culprit is anonymous posters. Not surprisingly, our policy to allow anonymous postings is the most common complaint we receive.

First, some background: When the Times launched its revamped website in January 2008, we had for the first time a mechanism to allow readers to post comments. After careful consideration, we opted to allow people to post comments anonymously if they so choose.

Our belief was, and continues to be, that allowing people to post anonymously encourages greater participation. We're not alone in our thinking. As the New York Times wrote in its April 12 edition, "When news organizations, after years of hanging back, embraced the idea of allowing reader to post comments online, the near-universal assumption was that anyone could weigh in and remain anonymous."

But problems just like the ones we've seen on our website - and far worse - have hounded news outlets, to the point many are reconsidering their policies regarding online postings. Unfortunately, there's no clear-cut solution.

Some websites are moving to allow only subscribers to leave comments. Some are keeping comments open to anyone, but only if the poster's real name is attached. Some will require anonymous postings if the user registers first.

Each option creates its own set of problems. Channel 3000 in Madison, for example, said in an April 23 story in Isthmus it requires posters to register, but no one checks the validity of the information provided. The Times, as it stands now, is not able to verify the validity of every poster's identity or registration and is unwilling to pretend to do so.

Our compromise has always been to review each comment before it is posted. (Many other news organizations, in contrast, allow any comment to be posted and only remove postings if a reader "flags" it as offensive - with some appalling consequences.) As much as we've tried, in earnest, to weed out inappropriate comments, we've had varying degrees of success doing so.

At this point, we favor continuing to allow anonymous comments, provided they serve as more than cowardly acts of aggression. We firmly believe that people should be willing to stand behind their comments - good or bad - but acknowledge it's impractical to demand full disclosure.

This does not mean anything goes. The Times is committed to developing more exacting guidelines on what constitutes appropriate, and inappropriate, comments.

These proposed guidelines are:

* No profanity or vulgarity, implied or explicit will be allowed.

* No name-calling or slurs against race, ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation will be allowed.

* Personal attacks against individuals, including fellow commenters, will not be posted. Comments should address ideas presented, not the personal characteristics of those writing.

* Comments about elected or public officials should be related to their job duties and/or job performance, not their personal characteristics.

* Comments must relate to the story to which they are attached. Comments posted in the wrong discussion thread will not be posted.

* Comments relating to the guilt or innocence of individuals involved in police, accident or court items will not be posted.

* Comments that contain information presented as a factual statement but cannot be readily verified will not be allowed. The determination of what information is "readily verified" is up to the discretion of the Times editorial staff.

* Libelous comments will not be allowed. Libel is writing something false about someone to damage his or her reputation and it is against the law.

* No external links will be allowed.

* Comments will not be edited. If a comment is otherwise acceptable but has even one objectionable word, it will not be posted.

* The Times will not contact posters if their comments are rejected. Posters with questions regarding why their comments were deleted should contact Mary Jane Grenzow, editor.

Another issue under review is allowing comments regarding specific businesses. Our concern is two-fold. Some comments in which businesses are named are little more than thinly-veiled marketing ploys. We also believe individuals with complaints about specific businesses would be better served to contact the managers of those businesses directly. We'd like to hear your feedback on this issue in particular.

Consider these guidelines and tell us what you think. Have we missed key points you'd like addressed? After hearing what you have to say, we'll review the guidelines and make any revisions needed based on your input. Then, we'll publish the final guidelines so everyone knows the rules.

We will continue to reserve the right to reject any comment, for any reason. The Times is a private business, and we must do what we feel best serves our readers. We adhere to strict standards of professionalism and fairness. As such, we continue to ask our readers to respect our integrity in making the best decisions possible.

By having written guidelines, we expect to be able to better make those decisions. If, after adopting new guidelines, we are still bothered by inappropriate comments, we'll revisit the issue of anonymous postings.

With your help, we expect to ultimately offer a more inviting place for the majority of our readers who want the same respectful, constructive, informative digital community we do.