This Web site was designed to promoted and facilitate lively discussion and we want to keep it that way. We value the feedback from our readers and realize that most of the "news" generated by the Times is derived from the commentary after every post. But even here in the "blogosphere", it is important to have boundaries.
Since the Times first went online in April 2007, we have published the vast majority of comments submitted by our readers, unless they contained personal attacks, profanity or contained blatant factual errors. A few were not published because they were incredibly off subject or were direct comments to the Times staff.
As the Times' readership has grown, we feel we owe readers a more formal comment policy.
Since this Web site will still publish almost every comment submitted by readers, let us clearly state what type of comments that will not be posted, as established by the nine staff members of the Times:
- Comments containing personal attacks. (Constructive criticism of decisions by public figures, including elected officials or members of the media, will be permitted as long as done tastefully, without libel or "unverifiable hearsay.")
- Posts using racial, ethnic or religious slurs; or obscenity or profanity (including expletives with dashes/symbols).
- Abusive, threatening or inappropriate remarks.
- Incoherent communications.
- Spam and unsolicited advertisements.
- Posts with absolutely no connections to the topic of the Times story.
- Comments intended for the Times staff.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of this blog. However, we do not want comments to become bogged down with discussion of the Dorchester Times, so we will moderate accordingly. (We plan to offer an "open forum" from time to time, so readers may leave comments pertaining to any issues weighing on their mind.)
Also, if you wish to receive a direct response from the Dorchester Times, please e-mail us at dorchester.times@gmail.com. We will not and cannot always respond to blog comments.
It should be noted that all comments on this blog are the responsibility of the commenter, not the Times staff or its editors. By submitting a comment to the Dorchester Times, you agree that the comment content is your own.
In early 2007, we wrote that the success of this Web site would be determined by our readers. We still maintain that philosophy. It is our goal to continue to provide substantive reader commentary for area residents and others with Dorchester ties. By posting our criteria for reader submissions, Times readers can be assured of a healthy exchange of intelligent and informed ideas that will better our community.
We hope to hear from all our readers -- and often -- in 2009.
The owner(s) of those buildings that have been abanonded must belong to someone. As such it is
ReplyDeletetheir responsibility to tear down
and remove the debris. If they refuse then a lien should be placed
against the property and when sold
as part of the estate at time of death the village of Dorchester
would receive some money. Surely, taxes are being paid on these
properties by someone. If not then once again a lien is placed on the property.
When the owner or next of kin realizes they have a losing situation then and only then will
the problem be resolved.