Comments of the Week: We need human commenters
Last week, Vox wrote in depth about landlord rating site Roomr, talked about the opening a bike store-coffee shop hybrid, covered a philanthropic shirt company opened by Georgetown alumni, and brought back Vox Pupuli for the beautiful, warm, sweaty, and sticky D.C. spring.
After news got out that Georgetown is co-hosting an event with Vatican’s global “Courtyard of the Gentiles” initiative, Azazel found a silver lining in some of the more intense pro-Catholic events:
If the vatican holds more events here, people will start to forget that Georgetown isn’t catholic enough.
Vox didn’t get all too many comments last week, so some budding consultants, like posicionamiento web en google, decided to give our newly-minted sister blog Halftime some editorial advice going forward:
If your domain name isn’t catchy, go buy one that is and see if it makes a difference to your site traffic. Author is an associate editor for website designing service. With solid captions for most images on your site, you will see your rank rise on search results pages.
As GUSA continues its discussions with the administration about a third year housing requirement, @former goose had some wisdom for the University trying to fill the beds that it is creating for the campus plan:
that would work if the school had the funds to build nice facilities. Unless they are complete idiots (possible) it appears that they just don’t have any money, otherwise we would have good food, less rats, etc. I’ve seen pipes in nevils that just drain right into other rooms, not connected to the sewer system at all. If they build nice dorms students will be paying $1300 per month in rent or more because Georgetown just has no money
Finally, FormerGUSAer prophesies the takeover of Georgetown (and the world?) by GUSA:
The University trying to spin the One Georgetown, One Campus referendum into rationale for a 3rd year requirement is frustrating. Georgetown students overwhelmingly want to be on this historic campus, so why doesn’t the University give those Georgetown students the opportunity to live here by building desirable on-campus beds? The trust needs to go both ways – trust that the students want to be on campus (which they showed in 1G1C) and trust that the students will respond to positive on-campus addition of beds by filling them.
I don’t think the student body is stupid. The University put itself into a difficult position with the Campus Plan and is now committed to filling x number of beds. But by being honest to the student body, both parties can work together under the current environment? I imagine an honest and productive conversation going something like this:
Robin Morey: We need to build beds to meet the campus plan and you students forced us to build them here on campus. We can’t invest >$100 million without knowing students will fill the beds.
GUSA: We understand your dilemma, but don’t believe a 3rd year requirement is the only way to get this done.
Robin Morey: So what do you suggest?
GUSA: Give us a year. Let us jointly announce to the students the tough position the University is in and let’s incorporate student interests to make the new beds something they actually want.
Robin Morey: We want to give you, the customer, what you want. However, that doesn’t remove the risk of investing a ton of money and still getting empty beds that comes without a requirement.
GUSA: Let’s announce to the student body that we need to build – and fill – beds on campus, and that if 80%(85/90/02%) of the beds aren’t filled after x years (1 year?) then we’ll have no choice but to require. In that year, we can make on-campus beds what the students want, and you get what you want (beds filled) without a requirement!
Robin Morey: You guys are smart. Do you want to do my job for me?
Does anyone think this wouldn’t work? Real cooperation and valued input from all sides involved?