Posted 2 months, 17 days ago in 
Loading ...
As expected, Community.GJSentinel.com has been the focus of much attention since it was established in mid-February, particularly when the inevitable happened and some participants started engaging in debate that was more … well, let’s say “spirited” than one might commonly want to encourage. We’ve talked about this a lot, tested the waters of moderation a bit, and then decided to put together a group of Web-savvy staffers to take a close look at the community site with us and let them establish guidelines for all of us to follow.
These guidelines were established May 1. So far, they have appeared only on Editor Denny Herzog’s “View from the Newsroom” blog, and on one reply to a letter. We thought it was time to make them more prominent for the people who are most interested.
1) Community.GJSentinel.com should be moderated to a degree only because it is tied to The Daily Sentinel/ GJSentinel.com brand.
2) If a comment meets any of these conditions, then it may be taken down:
— Profanity.
— Words that incite violence or criminal behavior.
— Libel.
— Hate speech.
3) When a comment violates any of the above conditions it may be taken down with no explanation.
4) Registered Community users may express concerns or questions regarding other member comments. Do that by hitting the “report this comment” link or e-mailing community@gjds.com.
5) We don’t edit reader comments. If we decide a comment is inappropriate, it is deleted, not altered.
Of course, it’s likely that issues will come up in the future that aren’t covered by these guidelines. When they happen, we’ll address them on a case-by-case basis.
44 Responses to “From the editors: The rules we follow”
Posted May 7th, 2008 at 10:01 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Frankly, I could never understand why these guidelines weren’t published on the board before for all to see. Let’s face it, Denny Herzog’s blog isn’t the most popular one around (Mike Saccone’s is much more interesting).
This is a good start, but doesn’t go far enough. Elevating the level of many of the comments will take more forceful rules than these.
Posted May 7th, 2008 at 10:08 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
i agree, proteus…i believe that personal attacks and insults should be left out as well as innuendo’s towards a person’s character
Posted May 7th, 2008 at 10:28 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
I agree.
Leave out the character assassination, posts dedicated to personal destruction of one with an opposing view, and the incessant “I’m smarter than anybody else” attitude.
No belittling of an ‘opponents’ intelligence.
Just stick to the issues, stay on topic and no “sniping” from the sidelines.
Treat all other users with courtesy and respect.
Posted May 7th, 2008 at 10:40 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
WLJ says;
Leave out the character assassination, posts dedicated to personal destruction of one with an opposing view, and the incessant “I’m smarter than anybody else” attitude.
That is not going to work! John B, bobby fron Delta and some of their cronies would not be able to write anything then!
Posted May 7th, 2008 at 10:43 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Now you are being negative Rexall.
Even old geezers can learn to show respect as well as courtesy.
I give respect when I get it.
Posted May 7th, 2008 at 11:05 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
WLJ writes: “Leave out the character assassination, posts dedicated to personal destruction of one with an opposing view, and the incessant “I’m smarter than anybody else” attitude.”
“No belittling of an ‘opponents’ intelligence.”
“Just stick to the issues, stay on topic and no “sniping” from the sidelines.”
“Treat all other users with courtesy and respect.”
Isn’t this the same Willis Leon Johnson who referred to me in an earlier post as “classless”?
Talk about being hypocritical!
Posted May 7th, 2008 at 11:33 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
classof52 and rexall, these are the type of personal attacks that i’m talking about….my grandaddy told me, “if ya can’t say anything nice, keep yer trap shut”….he was the smartest man in the world…we should drop the past, or forever be doomed to repeat it
Posted May 7th, 2008 at 11:44 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Unfortunately, Rexall, I think some of those you mentioned will be unable to refrain from condescending, arrogant remarks. Let’s hope they realize that their constant condescending, arrogant remarks makes them appear unintelligent and small-minded rather than intelligent and highly educated as they profess to be.
I, quite frankly, am tired of reading it and had decided I was no longer going to waste my time even though I have always enjoyed reading letters to the editor. People who live and work in an area usually have good constructive ideas and comments for the community as a whole. This forum has been reduced to name calling and contention.
Maybe I’ll stick around to see if it is truly better monitored and managed. We’ll see…
Posted May 7th, 2008 at 12:02 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Sue, I totally agree with you.
Hitech, all I did was state an opinion and I am quite sure it is shared by more people than not!
Posted May 7th, 2008 at 12:07 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I, too am hoping for a better outcome. I was not going to post anymore either. I am so tired of being put down because my opinion differs from theirs. Here’s looking for a better tomorrow.
Posted May 7th, 2008 at 12:42 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Well, cool, so I guess everything has changed from this point forward and we’ll all drink from the same pool of happy thoughts and opinions. Assumes we’re all white, free, and well-fed, however.
But, will there be a dress-code also? Or, can I still sit here in my boxer shorts & NASCAR hat (flipped backwards, natch) and critique ____________ (fill in the blank [Christian Wrong, Bush & Co., Metha County])?
Posted May 7th, 2008 at 1:41 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
To post here is to invite criticism of what you write. If your “opinions” are based in ignorance, fear, or bigotry, you can expect to be roundly chastised. In a free forum such as this, where we put ideas forward to argue one way or another, ideas and statements that are wrong, flawed or based on assumption or tainted evidence will be pointed out as such. If you find well formed and elucidated arguments to be “condescending and arrogant,” and you if you reject things like scientific consensus, perhaps you should find a forum where everyone “believes” the same things.
Posted May 7th, 2008 at 1:50 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Amen!! This is either a serious place or it is an entertainment site to see who can have the best stinging one sentence sound bite comment. We’ll see how it goes.
Posted May 7th, 2008 at 2:15 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Well, according to post # 12 and # 13, nothing will change.
The ’super intelligent’ crowd has weighed in with their typical, ” We are smarter then you, and nothing you present will be acceptable! ”
But, it was worth a try I suppose.
Posted May 7th, 2008 at 2:39 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Toaaronuu hs got it right. Apparently some people on here regard it as an insult if you disagree with their contentions. That is, they take as a personal attack any comment which points out the fallacy of their argument. A forum such as this one is the place to present ideas and vigorously debate their merits. So long as the debate is over the evidence and the soundness of the presented arguments and not about the writer of the piece, it meets the criteria of this forum. Indeed, it is perfectly permissible to characterize an idea as “ignorant” (a conclusion which ignores readily available evidence to the contrary for example). It is quite a different and unacceptable proposition to characterize the writer of the idea as “ignorant”. If I were to present some comments on just what a “hemi” motor consists of, those in the know would be justified in referring to my comments as “ignorant”.
Posted May 7th, 2008 at 2:56 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
‘52, that even may be taking it too far. I mean, ideas aren’t ignorant, the person who voiced the idea is ignorant. Right? To call someone ignorant isn’t always an insult, but merely statement of fact. To call someone hypocritical isn’t always an insult either, but again a statement of fact, usually easily proven by the offending person’s previous statements. To call someone a jerk is entirely different, usually a matter of opinion. I would rather draw the line closer to the ‘calling it as it is’ side, rather than the ‘feel good don’t hurt anybody’s feelings’ side.
Posted May 7th, 2008 at 3:07 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
It’s not merely being disagreed with that is an insult, it is the manner in which said disagreement is presented. If it is with a condescending tone or an arrogant, “I am smarter than you so I know I’m right” attitude, then it becomes insulting. The person presenting such a tone has no clue what the person’s education is, or their profession or their IQ. No one likes to be called stupid… whether it’s up front or implied. That’s childish high school stuff that we grownups are supposed to get past when we move on to the real world.
Irregardless, I believe constructive debate is a wonderful way to learn more about those around us. Cheap shots are not. There are far too many cheap shots thrown about here for the debates to be learning opportunities and that is very unfortunate.
Posted May 7th, 2008 at 3:48 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Sue, what if on this forum, you and someone else were arguing about something, and that person told you, “I’m right, you’re wrong, and I can prove both.” And then they went on to prove whatever it is. Would you be offended?
Posted May 7th, 2008 at 3:54 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
USAGE NOTE Irregardless is a word that many mistakenly believe to be correct usage in formal style, when in fact it is used chiefly in nonstandard speech or casual writing. Coined in the United States in the early 20th century, it has met with a blizzard of condemnation for being an improper yoking of irrespective and regardless and for the logical absurdity of combining the negative ir– prefix and –less suffix in a single term. Although one might reasonably argue that it is no different from words with redundant affixes like debone and unravel, it has been considered a blunder for decades and will probably continue to be so.
—From answers.com
Posted May 7th, 2008 at 3:55 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I’m afraid that some recieve any information that they don’t agree with as “condescending”. And sometimes that information is in response to a previous condescending or sarcastic remark. Context means everything. I’ve already noticed a number of comments on two or three letters today that I would describe as condescending, sarcastic, taunting or just plain rude and inflammatory. They had no element of disagrement for cause but merely throw-away, smart — remarks. I reiterate, is this a serious place or a means for entertainment?
Posted May 7th, 2008 at 3:59 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Todd - are you, Laurena, Bob, Denny and Alex reading this? I hope so. Are you willing to enforce reasonable rules? For the sake of community.com board and the online edition of the Sentinel, I really hope so!
Posted May 7th, 2008 at 4:02 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
toaaronuu, you will probably be reported now for a condescending and tone of superiority comment. It was perfectly civil and informational but is exactly the kind of thing many people in this space take offense to. I understand what your motive was but you will be suspected of looking down on a “lesser person”.
It’s sad but a fact of life hereabouts.
Posted May 7th, 2008 at 4:27 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
That was a cheap shot, but gads I hate that word…
Posted May 7th, 2008 at 4:31 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Odd, this deteriorated to the gutter with hardly a peep from me.
Amazing, simply amazing.
Posted May 7th, 2008 at 4:45 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Yep, we’re watching the conversation. No comments have been deleted so far and, sticking with the guidelines above, none that have been posted will be.
Posted May 7th, 2008 at 4:51 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
If you would , Willis, will you explain how that comment is taking us to the gutter. It is a fact that some have in the past felt like an explanation of word usage or grammar has been considered to be condescending and a retort followed indicated just that fact. My comment was neither derogatory or rude, it was just a fact. It was not meant to belittle anybody but just say that it has happened in the past and you have to be very careful how you make the explanation.
Posted May 7th, 2008 at 4:55 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Toaaronuu is correct about the word “irregardless.” The correct usage is “regardless.” One interesting, but disturbing fact about the deterioration of language in this country is that persons 25 years old and younger have an average vocabulary of approximately 5,000 words which they use in everyday communication. Less than 30 years ago, the average American utilized a vocabulary of slightly more than 30,000 words.
Posted May 7th, 2008 at 5:07 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
toaaronuu, If you considered my comment a cheap shot ,I apologize. I meant it to be a fact that such an explanation as you made has garnered derision in the past. If people were offended in the past, they will probably still be offended. These are the same people and I’m sure they did genuinely feel offended and any new rules won’t change that. None of us percieve the same words in exactly the same way.
Posted May 7th, 2008 at 5:14 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Todd - I think you slightly misunderstood what I was trying to say in comment #21. What I meant to say was if you and the Sentinel “brain trust” were listening to what your customers are trying to tell you about community.com (think of this exchange as sort of a mini “focus group”).
Posted May 7th, 2008 at 5:37 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
John B, I was referring to my cheap shot at Sue. I’m in agreement with you, and I keep thinking about Laitres’ eloquent letter about ‘beleivers’ and ‘thinkers’ and how that plays into who takes offense at what.
Posted May 7th, 2008 at 6:23 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
i have no problem whatsoever with anybody disagreeing with my statements….what i do have a problem with is the lack of evidence or belief brought to the board in a respectful manner…in example, i give you willis and rl….i agree with much of what both say, yet to read their posts, it’s like a flashback to the elementary playground with verbal pushing and shoving….i feel it’s entirely possible to debate in a respectful manner without resorting to insults and name calling…if i seem to present an argument in a disrespectful manner, then i fully expect to be called on it and will attempt to handle it in an adult manner, regardless (good call on the vocabulary lesson all) of whether i agree with the opposing stance or not.
Posted May 7th, 2008 at 7:00 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Debates are much more fun if conducted in a vigorous and high spirited manner. If I present an idea which is based on flimsy evidence or easily refuted by other evidence, I hope that it will be done in a forthright and good spirited way. If I use wrong grammar and misspell words (not typos), then I hope it will be pointed out since such wrong usage interferes with good communication. But I could not care less about whether or not the other writer is “respectful” towards me. He or she should say something like: “Class that is a bad idea and here’s why”. You should hear the way scientists challenge one another’s ideas during a meeting. You would think that they are enemies but then they go out afterwords and have a beer together. Vigorous disagreement and exploration of ideas need not be personal.
Posted May 7th, 2008 at 7:37 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
i agree class, but you can have greatly vigorous debate without getting personal….that’s my whole point…it doesn’t harm anybody one whit to be respectful towards others, and it makes it much more likely that they get respect in turn
Posted May 7th, 2008 at 8:23 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
hiteredneck: The direct messages between Willis and myself to which you refer did not consist of debate, but argument. In order to have a meaningful debate about anything, the minds must be open.
One also never questions the motivation of the other, and never ascribes evil intent to the position of another. One questions neither the sincerity of the other party nor that the other person really believes what he is saying or writing; i.e. being a hypocrite or liar. Such words are never used in civil discourse.
That being said, permit me to also state, that while my patience is great, it is not infinite. And, when that has been pushed to the limit, it is like a bent branch, it will come back and smack you.
Willis has every right to post what he will but, as one of our former officials found out two years ago, there is not way that I will tolerate any questions upon either my truthfulness or my sincerity.
If he wishes to engage in “stalking”, and makes it a point to refute everything which is posted by myself or others, he should take great care as to what words he uses, and the Daily Sentinel, while I believe is providing a good opportunity for public discourse, they may wish to exercise greater care as to what it allows on this forum.
I will not engage Willis any further, and will not enter into argument unless provoked.
May I also suggest that, instead of pointing fingers at others as examples, some may do well to examine their own posts.
Personally, if someone misinterprets what I post, and it is my fault, I will apologize. When the misunderstanding arises due to misinterpretation or distortion by the other party, I will clarify. However, when the other party deliberately distorts a post, I owe neither explanation nor apology, nor will any be forthcoming. If they wish to view that as somehow considering myself “superior” or “elitist”, that is not my problem, but theirs.
For those who have attached emotional meaning to terms, then proceed to argue based upon what they “believe” them to mean, they should take the time to learn them. Those who are unwilling to do so should probably not use them. The choice is entirely theirs.
Posted May 7th, 2008 at 11:49 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Whatever!
How there could be 34 replies “debating” what was clearly laid down in the OP, I’m not sure. But y’all ARE overachievers …
Posted May 8th, 2008 at 9:41 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
We are paying attention to these responses and more. To be honest, what I’m reading here and in the direct communications we’ve gotten from members don’t indicate to me that people are clamoring for rigorous moderation of the site. Some even seem to think we’ve gone too far to set any guidelines at all.
Posted May 8th, 2008 at 10:12 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
In my post #14 I made the remark that nothing will change.
The ‘usual suspects’ had already came out and declared that they will ridicule and demean any opinion that they deem to be ” based in ignorance, fear, or bigotry, you can expect to be roundly chastised.”
And they even get to name themselves as the sole arbiters of what meets those criteria.
And then the head cheese pops in with what amounts to threats.
” That being said, permit me to also state, that while my patience is great, it is not infinite. And, when that has been pushed to the limit, it is like a bent branch, it will come back and smack you.”
” Willis has every right to post what he will but, as one of our former officials found out two years ago, there is not way that I will tolerate any questions upon either my truthfulness or my sincerity. ”
” If he wishes to engage in “stalking”, and makes it a point to refute everything which is posted by myself or others, he should take great care as to what words he uses ”
And my favorite,
” and the Daily Sentinel, while I believe is providing a good opportunity for public discourse, they may wish to exercise greater care as to what it allows on this forum. ”
to begin…
” Such words are never used in civil discourse. ”
Seldom have you, Mr. Laitres, engaged in civil discourse. If another person opinion, or even facts, disagree with you, or your opinion, you go into attack mode and do your best to destroy any civil discourse that may have arisen.
I always choose my words wisely, and if I couldn’t prove it in a court of law, I wouldn’t have said it. But, if you care to follow through on your threat, please feel free to do so.
The Local papers will be glad to cover the trial…
As to your threat against the Daily Sentinel, this is a private enterprise, and it’s use is theirs to choose.
If they decide to view your thinly veiled threat as something they would choose not to expose themselves to, they can declare you to be persona non grata, and deny you access to, or use of any of their facilities.
Re-registering under an assumed name would be a criminal offense.
So perhaps it would be best if you followed your own advice and started choosing your words wisely.
I don’t “stalk”, and refuting your positions is what debate is all about.
ie; the purpose of this forum.
Y’all have a nice day now, ya hear?
Posted May 8th, 2008 at 10:18 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Todd - Compare the general tone of responses written the past 24-30 hours versus what was the norm before, and I think you will agree that things have changed. Why is that, do you suppose? Could it be that the public publication of a set of rules (a good start, but far too gen-x politically correct) has played a role? For many potential contributors, community.com is still a joke and not worthy of their time and effort. Much time and goodwill has been lost because of numerous blunders made by the Sentinel in the launching of this online product. Time, and vigorous enforcement of the rules, will tell whether community.com can recover from its self-inflicted wounds.
Posted May 8th, 2008 at 10:40 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Thinkers and believers…
Posted May 8th, 2008 at 10:56 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Willis,
I am still waiting for an apology to the slam you dished out in post#5 under the title ” Human dominion shouldn’t mean killing for fun” or something like that. It isn’t that I am thin skinned. I frankly don’t care what you think.
However, your comments above have a very hypocritical ring to them in light of the frequent gratuitous insults you seem to enjoy delivering. You can be as mean and insulting as you like. Just don’t pretend to be something you are not.
Posted May 8th, 2008 at 11:03 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
DC, I have no problems extending my most abject apologies to you for my unseemly inclusion in the aforementioned post.
By using the wrong 2 letter handle, I accused the wrong person and I am apologetic.
Wanna go have a beer and laugh it off?
I’m not into kissing and making up…..
Posted May 8th, 2008 at 11:11 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Nor I, and, I promise, I will not take my disappointment to my grave.
I am actually a pretty “live and let live” kind of person. Thanks for the apology. Henceforth, I will try to be nicer, myself.
Posted May 8th, 2008 at 11:20 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
For what it’s worth: We don’t believe the launch of Community.GJSentinel.com has been exceptionally problematic. There have been a few bumps, but nothing we didn’t expect and I’m happy with the approach we’ve taken to addressing the issues.
Community is drawing many more visitors and page views than we ever saw on our old “Letters to the Editor” page. Readers made more than 1,000 comments in April … and believe it or not, a lot of what they had to say was good, productive conversation.
Overall, we believe Community.GJSentinel.com is doing great so far. We hope to build on it, preferably with lots more input from the folks who use it, and even the folks who don’t.
Posted May 8th, 2008 at 4:37 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Todd - the raw number of comments is irrelevant - the important thing is how many different people made those comments, and what the demographics of those who made the comments are.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.