Letter to the editor: Nov. 6, 2012

Re-evaluting our commenting policy

Over the past five years, The Daily Princetonian’s comment boards have earned the reputation as the most active compared with those of the other Ivy League newspapers.

Despite the sheer volume of comments and the fact that many of them are productive and valuable, the ‘Prince’ comment boards also consistently feature comments that are off topic, mean-spirited and offensive.

We are in the midst of a yearlong review of our web presence and in the process of developing a new website, and we have the opportunity to completely restructure how people comment on our website. But first, we need to have a conversation with our readers: What do you want in ‘Prince’ comment boards? How good or bad are they currently? Should we change our policies?

We are seeking the campus community’s input on these complicated issues to see what kind of commenting environment you would like. In order to frame the discussion, I want to present several questions for consideration:

First, are the comments too offensive? To be sure, one person’s offensive is another person’s constructive, and we don’t aim to remove all negative comments from all articles. That said, should we restrict the “anything goes” attitude for the ‘Prince’ comments, which sometimes devolve into personal attacks?

Second, should we aim to keep comments more “on topic”? And, if so, how?

Third, what is the value in anonymity? The ability to comment with absolute anonymity is a distinctive element of our current commenting system. We don’t believe that anonymity inherently precludes a high-quality dialogue online; anonymity can allow commenters to discuss sensitive issues or express unpopular views. But anonymity also makes it easier for some commenters to shirk accountability and decency.

What do you think? Please Tweet at us, Facebook us, email me or comment on this article. We will also accept signed letters to the editor, which can be submitted at dailyprincetonian.com/feedback.

We look forward to the conversation.

Henry Rome

Editor-in-Chief

Get the best of the ‘Prince’ delivered straight to your inbox. Subscribe now »

Editorial on residential colleges was misguided

Regarding “Improving Residential Colleges” (Monday, October 22, 2012)

The faulty reasoning and conclusions in the editorial on improving the residential colleges were disappointing.

The editorial critiqued the college council selection without basis. First, every college council currently includes at least one upperclassman. Second, no evidence was presented that students would feel much more connected to an elected council or attend its events in greater numbers. Third, if the students knew the prospective council members well enough to cast an informed vote, that connection would be present even without a democratic process. Finally, the appointed college councils, besides being groups of students themselves, reach out to students and seek out input, so the idea that the appointed councils are inadequately aware of student needs is absurd.

The premises of the discussion of upperclassman involvement are vague. Why is it important that upperclassmen remain involved in the residential colleges if they — for the most part — voluntarily live and eat elsewhere? Many college events are open to all classes and former residents, but, speaking from experience, relatively few former residents attend. Responsibility does not lie with the residential colleges but with upperclassmen who choose not to remain engaged with their college, which is not necessarily a problem in the first place. Furthermore, there is a very compelling reason that non-resident upperclassmen do not receive gear or access to college trips: They do not pay college fees.

There is room for growth in the residential college system, but that growth should be the product of reasoned decisions backed by solid evidence.

Brian Reiser '13