The Vanguard encourages open and meaningful discussion on important issues. To maintain a respectful and productive space, we ask that all commenters follow these guidelines.
1. Posts Cannot Be Anonymous
• All comments must be posted under real names
2. Relevance and Productive Discussion
• Comments should aim to advance the conversation through thoughtful discussion, analysis, or respectful debate.
• Comments that do not contribute meaningfully to the topic at hand may not be published. This includes:
• Repetitive, inflammatory, or off-topic remarks.
• Personal attacks or unnecessary hostility.
• Misinformation or baseless speculation.
3. Moderation and Discretion
• Moderators reserve the right to close comment sections if discussions become overly contentious, off-topic, or unproductive.
• Commenters who consistently disrupt discussions or engage in personal attacks may face moderation or removal.
• Disagreement is welcome, but civility is required. We encourage debate but will not tolerate harassment or hate speech.
4. Final Authority
• The Vanguard reserves the right to determine which comments are published and to update this policy as needed.
5. Limitations
• The Vanguard reserves the right to limit the number of comments per article per person (generally to three) and to shut down comment threads that have gotten out of hand.
New comment policy! I haven’t read it yet, but will later. Can we comment on comment policy or is that against comment policy? (I guess I’ll find out)
Do these rules apply to every article?
Or are you still going to have “special” rules for national articles?
You know where slinging pejoratives was allowed by some commenters?
These are the rules for every article
Thank you, that’s a good start.
The problem I have with the new set of rules is it opens the door for a moderator’s personal biases to determine whether a comment is posted or not which has been a huge problem in the past.
Can you guarantee that won’t happen. It’s too easy for a moderator to deny a comment saying one of many things listed:
Your comment didn’t advance the conversation
Your comment didn’t contribute meaningfully to the topic
Your comment is misinformation (an example is when my comment with a link covering the Biden laptop)
You’ve submitted too many comments but then we see others are allowed more
David, you know all of these things have been problems in the past over the fairness of how the rules were applied to some and not others.
I of course, can’t guarantee anything, but my goal is to not let it happen
You do know I will hold you to that.
And that’s fair
Serious comment: you have made exceptions in the past to anonymity, like if someone is involved in court case I think was one example, which seems reasonable. Since it says ‘no’ anonymous, could you clarify what the exceptions would be here, so there won’t be questioning of that.
Other than the “soft” 3-comment limit (not sure if that applies to David himself), how is the new policy any different than the old policy?
And if it’s not much different, how was the exchange with a particular commenter allowed the other day? (Pretty sure you know “which” commenter.) Actually, it wasn’t even an “exchange” – as that would imply that something other than personal, unprovoked attacks that were initiated by that commenter – and not the first time. Nor is that the only commenter who has been allowed to do so.
Also, since a lot of the policy is subjective, do commenters have to “guess” why a particular comment may not be posted? I ask because I’ve previously/periodically submitted comments that weren’t posted, but which clearly did not break any rules (old, or new). I could provide an example of a recent one here, to see if you can tell me the rule that you think it violated. (I’ve taken to saving some of my comments, in anticipation of possible non-posting.)
In fact, one recent unposted comment was complementary of a comment from someone whom I normally don’t agree with.
I’ll go ahead and post it, below. (My comment was in response to Ron G’s comment, regarding kids needing to use the restroom at school – in regard to locked classroom doors.)
Maybe you can tell me how the comment below violated the old policy, OR the new policy? There was a comment prior to this one as well that wasn’t posted (which also did not violate any policy). I only submitted the two, as I recall – neither of which was posted.
Ron O says:
May 2, 2025 at 8:33 pm
Your comment is awaiting moderation. This is a preview; your comment will be visible after it has been approved.
Comment of the day – I love it.
In any other situation (e.g., a workplace) – they’d install a security system with electronic cards (or some other device) to allow/prevent entrance/exits. (Not that they are “foolproof”, either – however. Especially with kids.)
Take a chance in life – your kids are probably at much greater risk from their own actions (or from “everyday” assaults from other students, depending upon the school system).
Great question Ron,
“Also, since a lot of the policy is subjective, do commenters have to “guess” why a particular comment may not be posted?”
When a comment isn’t posted I think a reason why should be given.
Also, one of the moderators has already said they don’t post my, Ron’s or Alan’s comments, that was up to David himself to do so. So how do we know if it’s simply David hasn’t seen our comment or that our comment has been denied?