Because I had important tasks waiting, I was searching the web randomly like a dog with its nose to the ground. I came across a story about Air New Zealand doing a safety video with hobbits. Whatever.

The story was in the Herald-Standard, based in Uniontown, Pennsylvania. I’m not a fan of safety videos, and I’m sick of hobbit-based whimsy, but I was impressed by the Herald-Standard‘s unusual comment policy.

Here’s the policy:

Welcome to the Discussion:

By commenting on this article or blog, you agree to abide by these public rules of conduct:

1. Ad hominem attacks against other bloggers, commenters or people featured on this Web site will be deleted.

2. Racist, sexist or hateful comments will be deleted.

3. Excessive self-promotion or promotion of a blog, Web site or other entity will be deleted.

4. If you break Rules One, Two or Three repeatedly, you will be banned from commenting altogether. If you want to be removed from the banned list, you can e-mail a personal and sincere apology. We will post it publicly and remove your ban. [Bold type added.]

5. Opposing opinions are most welcome, as long as they are in conformity with Rules One, Two and Three and are generally respectful of the views of others.

How about that Rule number 4? Trolls are banned – unless they apologize!

This seemed brilliant. Who thought of this? Does it work? Where could I see apologies that had been posted? What a gold mine for SorryWatch! (This totally justifies idle web-rambling!)

I spent weeks persecuting current and former employees of the Herald-Standard by email, telephone, and Facebook. (I don’t get by Uniontown much, so I was unable to pop into their offices or howl under their windows.) I communicated with Joanne H, Barb D, Mark O’K, Terry S, bemused people at Town News, and Lori S, trying to find out where the policy came from and what its results have been. I reported the hell out of this thing.

But apparently this policy FELL FROM THE SKY when NO ONE WAS LOOKING. Lori S, no longer at the Herald-Standard, was probably the one who put it in place, and she told me “I actually think I found this online somewhere and just kind of copied it. However, I cannot, for the life of me, remember where I saw it.”

Apparently this policy works so well that no one ever posts an apology. I couldn’t find any. Lori S hadn’t seen any.

Can it really be true that it keeps the peace? No one posts “u suck h8ers, chk out http://usuck.com & choak on ur own bile” because they don’t want to be banned and have to post an apology to rejoin the community of decent southwest Pennsylvania folk?

I can dream.*

Actually, it turns out people are more apt to comment on the Herald-Standard’s Facebook page than on the actual site. On their Facebook page, I recently read some rather spirited discussion (pervert priests! get a brain! my book group says she was guilty of murder! all the Marcellus shale workers I’ve met have accents! no local can pass a drug test! the Herald Standard won’t tackle the hard-hitting issues!), but no apology policy is posted. Alas.

*Here’s what I dreamed:

<theremin sounds>

To all Herald-Standard readers who read my previous offensive posts, I apologize. Sincerely. At first, when I was banned for ad hominem attacks, hateful comments, and excessive promotion of my website, I was outraged. It seemed so unfair that I could no longer unfold my thoughts for my Uniontown neighbors. “Area man’s free speech stifled,” I snarled cleverly. To myself.

The idea of apologizing to be reinstated began to seem possible.

Ad hominems? I genuinely did regret saying that the members of the council who voted for the anti-skateboard measure have non-consensual sex with groundhogs. Hateful comments? I truly wish I hadn’t called them sparse-haired killjoys whose painful deaths from groundhog wounds I would happily video. And I’ve moved beyond the necessary ALL CAPS artistic phase.

But I was still kind of proud of writing, “They came 4 the sk8ers & I said 0 because I was not a sk8er….” I gloated that I had defended myself craftily when I was then accused of proving Godwin’s Law of Nazi Analogies – I felt that turning their assumptions on their heads, and attacking Godwin’s Law was a bit of brilliant jiujitsu rhetoric.

But then I discovered that I had misunderstood what kind of law we were discussing. A law in the sense of an observation, rather than a law in the sense of a regulation? Uh oh. Apparently my slogan, “Repeal Godwin’s Law,” actually makes no sense. Leaving me free to apologize! I am so sorry! I was stupid and obnoxious and wrong! I’ll never do it again! U-TOWN PEEPS! DID U MISS ME?

(I will be dismantling repealgodwinslaw.com as soon as I sell the rest of the Tshirts. Children’s sizes still available, as well as XXL.

</theremin sounds>

Okay, the hobbits. If you must.

Air New Zealand also does wacky safety videos without hobbits, such as this one with British celebrity adventurer Bear Grylls, which I tolerate for the sake of the giant moa at 1:00, 1:41, 2:54, and 3:57.