www.roanoke.com

A recent comment from Other John prompted us to do some serious thinking about the tone of conversation on this blog. Our assessment: We don't like it. OJ summed it up too well: "Most of what I see is sniping, snarky language and negativity from people on all sides of the spectrum, and it's just not worth wasting time here any more."

As a result, we are instituting a new set of Terms of Service for participating on the blog. You can read them here. Comments that violate these guidelines will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be banned.

The guidelines can be summed up this way: Ask yourself this, always, before you press the "Submit Comment" button: "Does this comment add anything of value and substance to this conversation?" If you cannot answer in the affirmative, do everyone a favor and delete it.

If you don't, there's a good chance we will.

After the jump, you can read a preview of my Sunday column on this topic.

Read more »

We have encountered some technical difficulties with Thursday's editorial content appearing online. We hope to have it resolved soon and will post everything as soon as possible. Thank you for your patience.

Update 2:20p: Alas, our technical folks will not be able to bring today's content online until the next sweep of all content, and that won't take place until after midnight. In the interim, we'll be posting placeholder posts so that people who have read the material in the printed edition may discuss.

Update 2:25p: We'll post the full content of the single guest column and the editorials here on the RoundTable now.

The comments section of this blog has become host to quite a conversation. We're excited here at The RT to see the active exchange of ideas and attitudes that's taking place here daily.

In any conversation, participants often refer to what others have said. Lately, that's become a little problematic in the comments section because it isn't always clear when a comment is quoting someone else or is original.

To help clarify that, here are some guidelines we hope participants will follow:

• Preferably, don't quote at all; instead, refer to the comment by number. Many people are already doing this, using the Twitter @ convention, i.e. "@Dan #9:" followed by a comment.
• Quote briefly, using the method above: "@Dan #9:" followed by the quote. This is a good method. It can be even more clear if you start the quote with <em> and end it with </em>. That will set the quote off in Italics.
• If you know a little bit of html markup, you can create a link to the comment you're referring to. To do this, first copy the link: Right-click on the time stamp of the comment and select "Copy Link Location." Then code the link: <a href="PASTE LINK HERE">@Dan #9:</a>.

The key is to quote as briefly as possible, and only the relevant portion of the comment you are replying to. Do what you can to make sure the quote is distinct and easy to differentiate from the comment you are making. In the future, we will not approve comments that contain quoted material that is not clearly identified and attributed.

And, as always, a reminder to keep it civil. The RT can and should be a place for people with different viewpoints to discuss issues civilly and respectfully. Personal insults will not be tolerated. If you see a comment that you believe is out of bounds, e-mail me and I'll look into it.

A truly good book teaches me better than to read it. I must soon lay it down, and commence living on its hint. What I began by reading, I must finish by acting.

What are you acting on today?

The poster who has been commenting as "DT" used a fraudulent e-mail address (i.e., not his own) for his posts. As a result, he has been banned from this blog.

As a reminder: All comments must include a valid e-mail address so that we can contact posters with questions, concerns, etc. Posts with invalid e-mail addresses will be deleted.

While on the topic of rules, here are a few others to keep in mind:

Please pick one screen name and stick to it in order to avoid confusion and other issues.

Please do not post comments consisting solely of links to other sources. Give some context so people know what they're clicking on and why it is relevant to the topic at hand.

Please do not post others' words as your own. If you are citing another source make that clear by using quotation marks and linking to the original.

Above all, remember that The RT is intended as a place for respectful, reasonable and reasoned dialogue. Keep debates focused on issues, not individuals. Personal insults or attacks against other participants in this blog will not be tolerated.

Adherence to these rules will make the blog a more pleasant place for all.

Thanks.

"I have enjoyed the occasional well-crafted submission, but they are usually drowned in a fetid soup of blather equivalent to standing in the middle of a room as a dozen boorish people shout inanities at one another."

That's one talk show host's view of unmoderated online comments. He says it would be like him going on the radio, "sharing a news story and then allowing the first 20 random callers to rant for 30 seconds each, without the slightest filter for coherence or civility"

His solution: "Comments sections deserve to survive only in an atmosphere of accommodating, responsible supervision."

I don't think we've ever reached the "fetid soup of blather" level on our comment section, though we do some have some level of moderation. What do you think would make online comments better, or do you think they're fine the way they are?

The RT blog started twittering a while ago. Blacksburg has gotten into the fun. Check out their twittering for informative town updates.

The Raleigh News & Observer has banned all comments from unregistered posters. Actually, my headline's a bit misleading. Commenters may still use anonymous screen names, but before they can post they must register with the newspaper so editors have their real names, e-mail addresses, phone numbers and zip codes.

If we had the software capability to do that here, that's the system I would prefer and a standard I believe all newspapers should aspire to.

Some day.

Just a reminder: If you wish to comment on a blog post, we require a valid e-mail address. The address is not visible to the public, but we need it to verify comments, weed out those trying to comment under multiple screen names, etc.

If we discover an invalid e-mail address, we will treat the comment as spam.

Thank you.

Our spam filter appears to regard any comment with more than one link as potential spam. If you have a comment with several links in it, and it doesn't show up right away, instead of repeatedly attempting to post it (which only convinces the filter further that the post is spam), e-mail me and I'll mark it as "Not Spam."

Speaking of spam filters - anyone catch the Dilbert sequence from a couple of weeks back when his companies spam filter became self aware?

Funny stuff.