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…