ATS News submission failure

The ATS new News submission will fail and here are the reasons why.

1. Sally submits a news story. A member with 25 or more submissions flags the story for something, meanwhile Sally has gone to another website or decides to read the entire John Tutor thread and doesn't know that her story has been flagged. Until she comes back to ATS or changes the page, she will not know that she has a u2u message waiting for her. While she was gone, Bart has submitted the same news story and it has been accepted therefore in effect stealing any points Sally may have earned for her efforts.

2. Mike who has 25 or more submissions feels that he has gone below his personal comfort level of points and needs more. Mike sees that someone has submitted a story that has a very good point potential, flags the submission, waits thirty minutes to see if the original poster corrects the story... they haven't so he rewrites the story more "fashionably" or less "conservative" and gets it accepted.

This is already happening....

Maybe I'm stupid or it's that I just got up...but what are you complaining about exactly!?

EIDT...yesterday you were complaining aboutt a news subbmission you tried...what's up?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 3/11/2005 by LadyV]

ATSNN will be successful because any pro-American or conservativly opinionated (in the last section) gets shot down by most of ATS and replaced with a liberal version. As a result, all the people get to read what they want to believe and never have to face any opposition.

You know, like NPR, except the government doesn't pay for ATS.

Originally posted by junglejake
pro-American or conservativly opinionated (in the last section) gets shot down by most of ATS

Conspiracy communities (with a high volume of US members) tend to lean against whatever political pole is currently in the White House. It's much more pronounced today in our hyper-divided culture, but it's been an observed phenomenon since the early 1980's.

The CompuServe Political Conspiracies forum was considered heavily conservative during Clinton's time, and heavily liberal during the Bush Sr.'s time (without much change in the forum population). It's a natural thing for those who look deeper behind the political curtain to lean away from the White House ideology of the day. I've even been called a "raging conservative" during Clinton's White House... and today, people call me a liberal lover... go figure.

Today, it's much more intense... part of the -- "If you're not with us, your against us" B.S. mentality.

Originally posted by junglejake
ATSNN will be successful because any pro-American or conservativly opinionated (in the last section) gets shot down ...and replaced with a liberal version.

This is SO funny. ...My perception has been that exactly the opposite happens. Not that I don't accept your side of the story - I do. ...I just didn't see it before I read this thread.


ScepticOverlord




Thank you for that perspective and such a detailed response. And for opening my mind. ...I now see that there are two sides to this "bias" story. Really didn't before.


.

1. Sally submits a news story. A member with 25 or more submissions flags the story for something, meanwhile Sally has gone to another website or decides to read the entire John Tutor thread and doesn't know that her story has been flagged. Until she comes back to ATS or changes the page, she will not know that she has a u2u message waiting for her. While she was gone, Bart has submitted the same news story and it has been accepted therefore in effect stealing any points Sally may have earned for her efforts.

If Sally really cared about her story and she used a bit of nouse, she would keep an (any) ATS page open while she browsed elsewhere and hit F5 to refresh it every 5-10 minutes to see if she has received a U2U to confirm upgrade or request editing.

2. Mike who has 25 or more submissions feels that he has gone below his personal comfort level of points and needs more. Mike sees that someone has submitted a story that has a very good point potential, flags the submission, waits thirty minutes to see if the original poster corrects the story... they haven't so he rewrites the story more "fashionably" or less "conservative" and gets it accepted.

If Mike already has 25 ATSNN submissions he should already have more points than a 12-foot tall porcupine (25 x 750 = 18,750). If he still schemes for extra points in such a manner, then poor Mike needs to get a life. I haven't noticed this, and I think maybe you're assuming too much by thinking it is intentional. I've had stories flagged for editing and while I was doing so, another member posted the same story and theirs was upgraded. Them's the breaks.

But seriously, ATSNN is there to provide a news-gathering service, not as a "points mine" for members. The points is just a little added bonus and encouragement for your efforts and contribution. If Mike cared about the issue being reported, he would be happy that it is up on ATSNN regardless of who the submitter may be, and he can then post his opinion or analysis of the matter to increase the knowledge of the rest of the community.

I agree with soficrow that I often feel daunted by the apparent abundance of "conservatives" (I hate the black & white labelling, newsflash: the world is shades of gray) jumping on my submissions to shake their fists at me. There is one particular staff member who is sometimes, shall we say "less than polite" in his refutations, which can be somewhat distressing form a member's perspective. My thanks to SO in this regard for his post above clearing up some concerns.

I am actually offended that members think that some of us with ATSNN under our names would try to cockblock another members submission for points.


maybe you're not aware of this, but some of us here, actually share links and stories to be covered just because we want the story covered and points is the least of our concern.

I was going to say alot more, but I had to bite my tongue, some members here seem to thrive off of creating drama and I'm not going to be one who encourages it.

btw I totally agree with SO, I have been called conservative to liberal and everything in between, it's stupid imo to try to label a person as anything since opinions can vary depending on the topic.

why was this thread not accepted?

i was sent a U2U telling me there was a problem with the link. i replied to this U2U asking for clarification, because the link worked fine for me. i later recieved another U2U identical to the first one, 'there is a problem with your link'. the next U2U was from banshee, telling me that my story had been moved, and the area of the mod form where you write what the problem is, was left blank.

SO, why was the story, which is available on MANY sites, and is therefore true, not 'worthy', and why was i provided with such poor notices.

Originally posted by billybob
why was this thread not accepted?

It seems to be a combination of both a somewhat unreliable source and heavily biased intro section. We'd like the intro to simple summarize the facts of the story, without conclusions of opinion. Then, any specific analysis and opinion of yours can be put into your summary below the news snippet.

i would gladly modify the item, now that i know the 'problem'.
i have a problem with the problem, personally. it seems that a source becomes true or false as a function of URL, instead of truth. the meat of the story is true, and both sides of the political spectrum have supported the fact that scott ritter said these things.
i care about the story, but not that much. it seems to be relatively common and accepted knowledge. good.
it seems odd to me that, not only was the story downgraded, but it was done in a gitmo-style 'disappeared' kind of a way. the message i recieved informing me of a 'problem with my link' was far to vague, if the intention was to slight the source. i thought it was a technical issue, by the 'tone'(complete lack of, actually) of the U2U.

when rules are made, is the wording more important, or the spirit? if an 'unreliable' source says something true, is it less true?
if the source is 'unreliable', then why not notify me in the notice?
why was the reason feild left blank.
if my opener was too opinionated, then why not notify me in the notice?

all's i got was, 'there is a problem with your link'.

does this exchange illustrate good communication between the administrative branch and the populace of ATS?

Originally posted by billybob
if an 'unreliable' source says something true, is it less true?

It's doubted... unless you can provide more than one source... which is encouraged by the very nature of the news submission form.

No system is perfect, but at least in our case, material is not removed from review, just moved to a different area.

well, i rewrote it to correct the 'problems', and i'm still getting, 'there is a problem with your link". i have linked to the SOURCE of the story. my intro is completely unbiased.
my personal drama meter is starting to rise. i expect ATS to be totally unbiased. the neocon "unpopularity" of scott ritter is my guess as to the reason certain mods don't want this to be seen as 'news'. yet, it clearly IS news, and it is clearly true that scott ritter said these things. there is no doubt.

if i am wrong, please inform exactly what is 'wrong' with my link that needs to be 'fixed'?

edited to withdraw baseless accusations.
please except my apologies.

[edit on 13-3-2005 by billybob]