Common Courtesy…
Over the past few weeks, I have been reading all of the comments on the PACR blog, and I have a few things to say:
1. Please refrain from attacks that are directed toward any particular person. I understand that many of you have strong opinions about certain issues/individuals, but I will not allow this blog to turn into a negative free-for-all. You can properly express your opinions without the use of dergatory speech. A certain decorum is expected on this site, and comments that are considered to be especially distasteful will not be accepted.
2. Please make sure that the comments you are making are actually associated with the post you are commenting on. Questions that have nothing to do with the topic at hand will be removed, as they seem to do nothing but cause trouble and detract from the original purpose of the blog, which is to create discussion around the topic at hand.
3. Please remember that people are busy. If you post a comment and do not receive an immediate response, you are not being ignored; the author of the post is probably just making sure that their school work (which should be the top priority of any college student), is being completed.
All of that being said, remember this: We’re all adults… I shouldn’t even have to post something like this, but I feel it necessary. If you have any questions, comments, or concerns, please feel free to contact the PA Federation of College Republicans at pacollegerepublicans@gmail.com
Sincerely,
Jessica Thompson
2nd Vice Chairwoman
PA Federation of College Republicans
Tags: Jessica Thompson
September 2nd, 2008 at 5:28 pm
Evidently, an informational post is not good enough for some people. If you feel the need to defend yourself (as a few posters have stated), that is fine.
My whole reason for posting this entry is because I am sick and tired of seeing postings that have nothing to do with the actual blog entry under which they are posted. If you have anything to say, then post it here…
September 3rd, 2008 at 7:55 am
could you be more specific. has anything i have ever written violated any of the above rules? all comments have an individual link on this site (just click on the date and time stamp), so please give me an example if there is one.
and actually, i have a question about #2. sometimes the conversation drifts away from the original topic if there is a long comment thread. my sense is that a comment is still “on topic” as long as it is responding to the point in a comment above it. is that right? and if not, doesn’t that reward off-topic comments because the commenters who are trying to follow the rules can’t publish a response?
thanks for opening the comments on this.
September 3rd, 2008 at 6:16 pm
The blog entry I made was general and was not specific to any one particular individual. However, I will say this… We have had constant inquiries about individuals on our board, how to contact them, their personal beliefs, etc. There is a contact form on the website for such inquiries, and I think it detracts from a coherent discussion when off-topic posts begin to appear. And yes, I do realize that sometimes conversations do drift away from the original topic, but when comments begin to come from (and please excuse the pun) left field, I think it starts to defeat the purpose of the original post. In addition, there have been derogatory comments made about or toward a few individuals who have posted articles on this particular site, which is uncalled for.
And I don’t understand exactly what you mean by this statement: “[My] sense is that a comment is still “on topic” as long as it is responding to the point in a comment above it. is that right? and if not, doesn’t that reward off-topic comments because the commenters who are trying to follow the rules can’t publish a response?” My belief is that you are certainly following the rules if you are trying to make some point that directly relates to the topic under which you are commenting. However, I’m not quite sure what you mean by saying that we are rewarding “off-topic” comments by “…commenters who are trying to follow the rules” cannot respond?
Please let me know if this clears things up… All I’m asking is for everyone to be respectful.
September 4th, 2008 at 11:21 am
And I don’t understand exactly what you mean by this statement: “[My] sense is that a comment is still “on topic” as long as it is responding to the point in a comment above it. is that right? and if not, doesn’t that reward off-topic comments because the commenters who are trying to follow the rules can’t publish a response?” My belief is that you are certainly following the rules if you are trying to make some point that directly relates to the topic under which you are commenting. However, I’m not quite sure what you mean by saying that we are rewarding “off-topic” comments by “…commenters who are trying to follow the rules” cannot respond?
i’m sorry if my question wasn’t clear. it’s kind of hard to explain in the abstract. but i’ll try again.
what i’m saying is that sometimes if a longish discussion gets going the discussion drifts a bit off the original topic of the post. so if the post is about lebanon and someone leaves a comment relating the poster’s point to recent developments in israeli-lebanese relations. and then someone else leaves a comment pointing out that israel’s stance with regard to lebanon is being driven by their domestic politics because they’re heading into an election. the next thing you know, we’re all discussing the israeli election, and not lebanon.
it seems to me that if there is a good discussion, often it’s because the topic relates to a lot of related interesting issues. and so the “drift” i was describing in my example is only natural.
but if we relate that back to your rule #2, would participant’s in my hypothetical comment thread be writing off topic? my sense is that the answer should be “no.” if one comment is on-topic, and the next comment is on the topic of that comment, and comment #3 is on-topic of comment #2, comment #3 is still permitted even if had drifted away from the original topic of the post.
but that’s just how i think it should be. i don’t make the rules here, which is why i am trying to clarify this.
September 4th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
…would participant’s in my hypothetical…
Sorry for the incivility, but Noz just failed.
September 4th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
Oh, John… How am I not surprised that you are the first person to make a random comment on the thread about staying on topic… LOL
You and Noz may think that I don’t have a sense of humor, but I’m really just trying to make sure that this site is run efficiently and respectfully.
September 4th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
It wasn’t random, it was related to the preceeding comment, which as established herein, is acceptable. And this site hasn’t had many new topics recently, so we’re making do with meta.
September 4th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
john’s right. pointing out a grammatical error in my comment actually illustrates my point pretty well. his comment was on-topic with regards to my comment, and my comment (i think) was on-topic with regard to the original post. but did john violate rule #2? he’s in the chain of on-topicness that runs from the original post to my comment to his comment. but if he posted that comment before mine, it wouldn’t be on topic because it wouldn’t have related to anything above it.
so what’s the answer? is john a #2 violator or not? i think the answer should be not.
or is this all a load of #2?
September 4th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
I also vote not a rule #2 violator. But this raises another question: Is the boundary of acceptable topic now all meta related discussion, or is it limited to the narrow discussion of what is on topic?
September 4th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
My goodness… You two obviously have nothing better to do than come on this site and make arguments out of nothing. Previously, I commented on the fact that John made a random statement in the thread about keeping on topic. Also, it was followed by the letters “LOL.” If you are not familiar, the letters “lol,” when used together, stand for “laughing out loud.” The fact that the letters were capitalized means that the individual who was laughing out loud (i.e. ME) was doing it more loudly than usual.
Once again gentlemen: This post was written for the sole-purpose of making sure people stay on track. Who cares what John says about a misuse of an apostrophe by Noz? All I’m asking is that you stay on track. And once again, you are making something out of nothing. Just follow the logical flow of the discussion and don’t make constant attacks about individuals in the thread of an article that they have not written.
Wow… I never thought asking people to be polite and to stay on task would be so difficult…
September 5th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
we’re not being polite? i’m just asking for clarification.
oh and unless i’m right on how rule #2 should be applied, i think your last comment is off topic.
with utmost politeness,
upyernoz
September 5th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
oh and unless i’m right on how rule #2 should be applied, i think your last comment is off topic.
Perhaps, but this is her post, and so presumabley any topic changes coming from her cannot be off topic, by definition. The author sets the topic. We just get to comment on it.
September 5th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
Noz,
I feel like I am beating my head off my desk with you. As I have previously stated, “Just follow the logical flow of the discussion and don’t make constant attacks about individuals in the thread of an article that they have not written.” I don’t think that is too much to ask. And as I also previously stated, “My belief is that you are certainly following the rules if you are trying to make some point that directly relates to the topic under which you are commenting.” Therefore, as long as you are following the general flow of discussion, you are fine. Also, my last comment is not off-topic, as it references the original post.
Let’s do this… If you get off-topic, I’ll let you know…
September 5th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
sorry, i guess you did think you answered my question. i didn’t read it like that.
thanks for the clarification.
September 7th, 2008 at 10:47 am
hey while we’re going all meta here (and considering that you’ve put up yet another post where you seem to be afraid to let people comment), can i ask a question?
why do the pa college republican people, in response to my or john’s comments, so often ask “don’t you have something better to do than comment here?” or the the equivalent (see, for example, this comment from jessica from this thread, as well as this comment from another thread, and this comment from an even older thread). it seems to come up again and again, all from different PA college repub. people. are you really so surprised that people would want to comment on your posts? if you didn’t expect comments, why have a comment button at all?
i just want to add that i think this comment is relevant because it is on the topic of the comments, at least in the general sense. i also think it’s a fair question.
September 7th, 2008 at 10:48 am
hey, why is my prior comment “awaiting moderation”?
September 7th, 2008 at 10:56 am
Noz,
Your prior comment is no longer “awaiting moderation.”
As for your comment about why several PACRs often ask you if you don’t have anything better to do: It often seems that when you come and post comments that are not responded to in a time frame that you see appropriate, you and John both feel the need to criticize the individuals that have not replied to your comments. Please remember that we are all college students and are doing our best to respond to you in a timely manner.
In addition, it is often frustrating when you post constantly… The example I will use is this particular post. I stated in what I thought were clear terms that we are asking everyone who posts on the threads to be polite, stay on topic, and not harass our bloggers. You then chose to turn something very simple into an extremely long discussion.
I hope that this answers your question. As always, if you have any direct questions, comments, or concerns, you may contact the PA Federation of College Republicans at pacollegerepublicans@gmail.com
September 7th, 2008 at 11:20 am
Noz, regarding moderation, the pattern that I’ve noticed is that if you include more than 1 hyperlink in a comment, it requires approval from a moderator. It’s an anti spam measure no doubt.
It was particularly tiresome when I would explain, with great patience and careful sourcing, why these CR’s were hilariously misinformed, and because I linked to a few sources my comment was trapped for hours.
Jessica, I have a question about when you write “you and John both feel the need to criticize the individuals that have not replied to your comments.”
As I remember, the only time I’ve ever “criticized” anyone for not responding was when I was arguing with LaDuca about energy policy. Specifically, he wrote a number of boneheaded things (which I doubt many of the CR board would even defend on the merits) and didn’t like my reply, writing “So nice of you to reply to all my rebuttals. Lack of confidence, perhaps?”
So I wrote a more thorough rebuttal, and when he hadn’t replied 8 hours later, I wrote “Hey Adam, remember when you wrote ‘So nice of you to reply to all my rebuttals. Lack of confidence, perhaps?’ And then you stopped responding? That was funny.”
He replied that he didn’t have time because he works and doesn’t collect welfare.
Is that what you were referring to when you say I criticize people for not responding on time? I’d like another example if you have one.
By the way, please go read that thread with LaDuca, available cached here. Since LaDuca is no longer on your board, you can tell us what you really think of his “arguments” without offending a fellow board member.
Do you agree that he had no idea what he was talking about, or do you think he was right? I’d really like to know your impression.
September 7th, 2008 at 11:20 am
Noz, my last comment also got stuck in moderation, and it had only 1 link. It must be a function of both links and comment length.
September 7th, 2008 at 11:24 am
Comments are required to go through moderation when hyperlinks are included. As John stated, this is to prevent spam messages from going onto the board and cluttering things. As for comments that have been made: A comment was made in Jacey’s post about Obama/Biden saying that Jacey was evidently too busy to reply. These are the type of things that I am talking about. I just wish that everyone would realize that we are all busy. I, for example, am working on a graduate degree, so I cannot often answer posts as quickly as I would like to. However, people in general are more willing to answer questions posed if they feel that their opinion being respected.
As for your comment asking for my opinion of Adam LaDuca: An official statement has been made by Michael Ubbens, and I stand by Mike’s statement. I do not feel it is appropriate to expand on the statement that has been released. As previously stated, if you have any questions, comments, or concerns about the PA Federation of College Republicans, you are more than welcome to send an email to pacollegerepublicans@gmail.com.
September 7th, 2008 at 11:42 am
Jessica, sorry for the confusion, but I wasn’t talking about any of LaDuca’s racially offensive stuff. I was referring to stuff he wrote on this blog about oil drilling and global warming. IF you click that link I left you’ll see the thread I’m talking about. I’m not interested in hashing out LaDuca’s racist statements.
Also, ragarding Jacey’s post, I just checked it out and I want to note that no where did I say anything about her failure to respond in a timely manner. The only thing that came close was when Noz said “somehow i suspect that jacey will be about as good at answering my last question as she is at html.” Crucially, however, his post didn’t refer to her not posting, as she had posted a repsone recently, but rather that she didn’t address the substance of his question.
But that’s neither here nor there. I’m more interested in your take on the discussion with LaDuca, specifically regarding global warming and energy policy. Thoughts?
September 7th, 2008 at 11:46 am
To clarify further, I’m not interested in what you think of Adam LaDuca, I’m interested in what you think about the opinions and claims that he wrote on this blog, in that linked thread, about global warming and energy.
I think it’s a fair question because I though they were astonishingly silly things to say, and none of the CR members here jumped in to disagree with him. So I’m asking if that was because you all were being respectful towards another exec board member, or if you actually agree with his sentiments?
September 7th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
In addition, it is often frustrating when you post constantly… The example I will use is this particular post. I stated in what I thought were clear terms that we are asking everyone who posts on the threads to be polite, stay on topic, and not harass our bloggers. You then chose to turn something very simple into an extremely long discussion.
why is it frustrating? don’t you want discussion of the points you raise? isn’t the whole idea of having a comments section to foster discussion, long or not?
i just don’t get it. and i don’t think i’ve ever been impolite (though i have occasionally tried to crack jokes), been off topic or harassed anyone. above i asked for examples of me doing that and you declined to give any. i assume that meant you didn’t have any examples to give.
A comment was made in Jacey’s post about Obama/Biden saying that Jacey was evidently too busy to reply.
hey, maybe that’s the example i was looking for? my comment in the obama/biden thread was poking fun at jacey for claiming in the “ann coulter” thread that she was too busy to reply to my yes-or-no question and yet, without answering my question, she wrote a whole other post about obama/biden. while i recognize that jacey could have been quite busy, it strikes me that if she had time to write a whole post, she certainly had time to tap out 2 or 3 characters to say “yes” or “no” to my question in the ann coulter thread. i think that’s a fair point, don’t you?
I just wish that everyone would realize that we are all busy. I, for example, am working on a graduate degree, so I cannot often answer posts as quickly as I would like to. However, people in general are more willing to answer questions posed if they feel that their opinion being respected.
to address this point: i work full time as a lawyer. i’ve been a college student and a law student in the past. my wife, who is currently a college professor, got her phd while we were living together in chicago. based on that experience, i can say that we’re both waaaay busier now than we were when we were college or grad students. it’s funny, at every stage, at that time, i would think i was crazy busy. that’s what i thought in college, that’s what i thought in law school, and that’s what i thought about my wife in grad school. but nowadays we look back at that time quite differently. it’s only in retrospect that we realized the free time we had in college was much more more than we ever would have again in our life.
and yes, even at the deepest darkest moments of law school (say finals, or when i was studying for the bar after law school), i still would have had time to tap out y-e-s or n-o in response to something i wrote online. that, plus jacey’s ability to write entire new posts despite her claims that she lacks time, is why i don’t take your “we’re all college students, we have no time!” claims with a grain of salt.
no offense intended, of course. i’m just speaking from my own experience.
September 7th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
John,
Please give me the chance to review the threads that you provided through the cached page. However, please let me know how to contact you directly, as I do not feel that my opinion on those particular items have a place in this thread.
September 7th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
Take all the time you need. I leave my email in the comment submission form, but if you can’t access that I’ll type it out in a comment.
Thanks Jessica!
September 7th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
Noz,
I respect your opinion that you may be busier now than you were in college, but please remember that the majority of us do not have another frame of reference other than our current collegiate experience.
And I do want discussion and I do want to encourage people to have a spirited debate, but I just would like to remind everyone that we are all busy. In reference to Jacey not answering your yes-or-no question: Perhaps she didn’t see it. We all tend to miss things from time to time, which may have been the case in this instance.
Also, I’m speaking in generic terms when I’m asking that people be polite. As I stated previously, I am speaking broadly, and my comments are directed toward everyone who posts on this particular blog, not just you.
September 11th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
why did you censor my last comment when it didn’t break any of the rules?
is every comment moderated these days, no matter how many links are in the comment?
September 11th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
Yes, thanks to your input, every comment is moderated.