An invitation to participate in intelligent debate

In June 2013, less than two weeks after David and Vicki Legge purchased this newspaper, a new policy was established concerning reader comments posted to our website. That new policy required those who wished to comment on our articles and editorials to register first and agree to have their names attached to their comments.

The reason stated for this policy change had to do with personal accountability, something in which this newspaper believes strongly. Anonymous speech is, as we stated last year, an invitation to irresponsible speech. Under the cloak of anonymity, people often become petulant, crude or unkind in ways they would never consider if their names were associated with their remarks.

Beyond the issue of accountability, we had hoped the new policy would encourage more thoughtful and intelligent discourse on our website – and that has happened.
Almost immediately, the “IQ” of the forum rose substantially. Most of the reader comments on our website (caymancompass.com) these days are impressive in terms of their respectful sincerity, their thought-provoking observations and cogent analysis.

Take, for example, two comments made on the “One man, one vote” lead story in last Thursday’s newspaper: One reader, Mack Boland, commented that if the new voting system allowed Cayman Brac and Little Cayman, as well as North Side and East End, to have fewer voters than other single-member constituencies, we would “be going from one system of inequality to another system of inequality,” a point that seems to have been missed in the one man, one vote debate thus far.

Another reader, Twyla Vargas, also made a point that, in the heat of all the debate on the one man, one vote issue, is often overlooked: Education on the pros and cons of single member constituencies is needed because many voters “do not have the slightest idea of what it is all about” or how the change will affect them.

What is also happening on our website is that readers are engaging each other in debate on issues, and we welcome that. Sometimes our readers agree with each other, sometimes they disagree, but the common thread is that the debate is always respectful.

We do moderate the website, meaning that not every submission is published – but most are. Reasons for rejection usually involve gross inaccuracy, potentially libelous commentary, straying into areas that violate “sub judice” or other legal constraints, or an overabundance of ranting, raving, foul language or obvious bad taste. We want this forum to be a welcoming – certainly not threatening – gathering place for diverse ideas and vigorous debate.

We do include a “thumbs up” or “thumbs down” option for readers to register their overall impressions of posted commentaries, but, frankly, we don’t pay much attention to them. They’re too easy to access (a single click of the mouse) and are about as non-scientific as a poll can get.

Occasionally, however, they might be worth a second look. Whenever we write critically about the landfill or public education, our editorials elicit responses that are overwhelmingly supportive of our positions (say, 75 thumbs up, 2 or 3 thumbs down). If we were politicians planning to run for office in 2017, we would pay attention to the lopsided public sentiment on these critical issues.

In any event, consider this an invitation to join our reader forum. One-time registration on our site takes only a moment.

With so many important issues – from privatization of government entities to increasing levels of crime – facing these islands, we encourage you to make your voice heard and your views known – responsibly, forcefully and fearlessly.