Hi Caitlyn, I'm always happy to speak with communicative students. And, I hope this reply answers a number of your questions. A 75% is not the worst grade on the first forum. Obviously, you strike me as a student who wants to do better, and I'm sure you can. You are correct. You met the initial post deadline. Good. But your math breaks down. You posted four times total for the week. Perhaps you assumed that every single post what are in excellent three point score. That would've given you the max. A more cautious student would have figured to earn one or two points a post. Still, at two points a posts, and making four, would've given you the eight points for the week. I hope my instructions were clear, in that students should be aiming for far more than the maximum. Therefore, any posts that fall short, could still result in full credit. Does that make sense? The more significant problem is that you decided to only post on one of the two topics. You were banking on earning all of your points in just half of the material. True, your initial post only needed to be on one topic, but since both topics are fair game for exams, students should always participate in both at sometime throughout the week. Below are your posts, followed by my thoughts while scoring them. How It All Connects by Caitlyn Lloyd - Tuesday, October 6, 2015, 9:39 PM In the video "Why Vietnam" I saw many connections to the book "America's Longest War". The video made sure to touch on a lot of key points, where as the book explained those points. In the video, the Geneva Conference gets brought up. It is explained as what divided Vietnam into two, and giving the North over to the communists. The book agrees with the video, however it explains it much more in detail. In the video, it does not talk about the Geneva Conference being the "out", but in the book it is explained on page 45 as "The British, Soviets, and Chinese took the lead conference an sought mainly to end the war and there by avert U.S Intervention." To someone who knew nothing about the Geneva Conference, they might be confused when reading this passage if they had only seen the video. The video felt like more of a summary to the Chapter One reading assignment. Though, I do not see the book and video contradicting each other, the book does go into much more of the important details of the Geneva Conference. Such as, what is was about. To some it was ending the war, to others it was to end the war with U.S intervention, and to some it was about splitting Vietnam into the North and South, but mainly it was about restoring peace in Indochina. Sum of ratings:2 (1) After having the chance to re-read this post, I have re-scored it as a 3. You cited a specific event and included a book citation. What caused me to pause was your mention of the book including "much more detail", but including very little. Then the vague parts about a recap of Chapter 1 and another mention of "much more detail". Your last sentences was also vague in that you refer "to some it was", but never really say what evidence caused YOU to choose and/or support one of these interpretations of the Geneva Conference. Make sense? Re: Ho Chi Minh by Caitlyn Lloyd - Thursday, October 8, 2015, 8:38 PM I noticed that too! The book made Ho Chi Minh look like he was fighting for freedom, and genuinely wanted a positive outcome. He came across in the book as someone who takes care of and really cares for their country, thus the reason he was called Uncle. When I watched the video, I was sort of surprised at the "hostile take over" he was planning. At 6:50 in the video they describe Ho as "The communist leader of North Vietnam, who plays the kindly, smiling grandfather, but behind the smile is a mind which is planning a reign of terror in South Vietnam in which children and adults alike will be the victims." I noticed the book really didn't describe him in this way, but I do agree with you in that book seemed to have more credible facts than the video. Sum of ratings:2 (1) Good, score of 2, but this reply basically restated what the original poster said. You did cite you specific source (6:50 video), ALWAYS a great idea, but your conclusion left me wondering where you stood. In short, you said the book didn't describe him that ways and that you believed the book more. If you had addressed "why?", it would have probably earned 3 points. Re: Minh was a Communist by Caitlyn Lloyd - Thursday, October 8, 2015, 10:19 PM Hi Rachel, I do tend to side with the book a little more too. I believe the facts presented are more credible. I was sort of surprised that Ho Chi Minh was described the way he was in the video, since I had first done the reading. The book portrays Minh as a Nationalist like you had pointed out. He is presented in a way that suggests that he really wants unification throughout Vietnam. So, when I saw in the video that he was planning a reign of terror on the South I was a little confused. Like you, I tend to agree a little more with the facts that the book presents, and also agree that Minh was a Nationalist first and a Communist second. Sum of ratings:1 I assume, when put together like this, that you can see that this reply is essentially a repeat of what you said earlier. Thus the reason for the 1 point. Clearly not horrible (you can't earn a negative score), and "coupled" with your reply above, they do equate to 3 points. Re: Local Elections - A conflict between America's Longest War and Why Vietnam? by Caitlyn Lloyd - Sunday, October 11, 2015, 11:12 AM There are so many great points here! The matter of free elections is a big one. Thus far we have been learning that the communists were awaiting a free election, for the simple fact that they would win. I wish the film touched on it more, but it just gave us a quick snip saying "In the South, free elections were taking place." I do agree with your claims of the narrator or narration being biased. The whole time I was watching it I was thinking it sounded like a propaganda film. I like how you pull out the term "Communist-war machine", I would like to point out that the described Ho Chi Minh's invasion of the south as a "reign of terror over the south." A lot of your writing points out what I was thinking in the back of my head while watching the film. As I stated to a different classmate above, I do learn more toward Herring as far as credibility. I enjoyed reading what you had to say! Sum of ratings:1 (1) This reply (first half) is "almost" a reply to your own (first) post on Geneva. It also falls into the "good post Justin" category, since mainly repeated what he had written. Feel free to do this in the future, (congratulate other students), but make it worth a point or two MORE by adding in your agreement or disagreement about the elections and/or "reign of terror", and including a page number from the Herring textbook which would prove that you're praise for Justin is correct. For example, were free elections taking place in the South? Did Ho terrorize the South? I don't know were you stood, based on what you wrote. Also, in your last sentence, you even admit that you are repeating a bit (You believe Herring) to what you said in a reply to a previous student. That's it for a quick overview of your first forum posts and replies. Was it helpful? Still have questions? Do let me know. I'm looking forward to your second forum interactions with your new group members.