So who wants to cover some NEWS in ATSNN?

Originally posted by UM_Gazz
Since no one is really submitting news.. and some of the ATSNN staff have elected to stand back... Who among you will step forward?

Hey, I'll do it... I'll try to figure out where to sign up.... unless someone would be kind enough to spell it out for me. I read the news every day, from a variety of sources, and used to submit to Slashdot all the time. Of course, they only ever accepted one news story, but hey, that's one more than...er...those that never got one...

look up TheLibra
the tab is yellow "submit news" next to memCenter

Originally posted by Truth_Hunter_1976
I tried I am just not a Writer....I will Post some news FOR the writers to write about.......

Ah, well, that's nice, but give it another go! It may take you a little while to get the format, but it won't be bad at all. It'll feel good.


Goooooood.

I just wish people would vote responsibly!

I think a lot of members don't understand that some actual work goes into researching and preparing a properly formatted ATSNN submission. Members who haphazardly vote 'NO' for nonsensical reasons don't help the community, they actually hurt it by discouraging ATSNN contributors and delaying the time between submission and actual publication of ATSNN items. I suggest that when reading an ATSNN submission, people should view a 'YES' vote as the default choice and have to look for a really good reason to change and vote 'NO'. Certainly we have seen totally unacceptable ATSNN submissions, and they should get a 'NO' vote, but myself and others have increasingly saw a pattern of gestapo 'NO' voters who think everything is unsuitable for ATSNN. If we continue down this path, there will be no ATSNN left because these troll voters will have destroyed all the fun in reporting.


[edit on 4/12/2005 by djohnsto77]

Originally posted by djohnsto77
I suggest that when reading an ATSNN submission, people should view a 'YES' vote as the default choice and have to look for a really good reason to change and vote 'NO'.

I agree with djohnsto77 on this one. The aim of ATSNN is to promote the development of news stories, regardless of whether you accept the authors viewpoints or not. Voting NO on the basis that you don't 'like it' despite the fact that the article has been:
1.)Well written
2.)Seen in news as somewhat of a rarity
3.)Clearly breaking news
4.)Pertinent to ATS
5.)The author expresses authentic intent to convey his message

Is immoral.

I would be more into submitting , but I'm just an idea person, I come up with things, telling something about something that already is there seems to be a little out of my means out of 4 or 5 submissions since becoming a member only one actually cut the muster.

I used to sumbit news stories... I enjoyed doing it,, however it seems that over the past couple of months.. by the time I get ready to submit something... it's already been covered..

I can't keep up

elevatedone, DRBR, don't lose heart!

The more common topics are quick to go, gotta give you that, but some of the back pages are easier to hit the spot with. You find a nice science article and feel like telling someone about it, then report it! Or even OP/ED, what could be better? (I must admit, I've not sent anything there, I really should).

WOOHOO! Just got my first ATSNN submission approved

Originally posted by mpeake
WOOHOO! Just got my first ATSNN submission approved

Congrats!

So how's it feel? Good? Good.

thank you! it feels great!

With the new voting system, i have stoped posting news, I was getting "No Votes" for no good reason. I was being told my stories wasnt "ATS Material", thats why i think we should go back to the old system with members being given report status for quality work instead of this voting system that isnt being used correctly.

My status was - Contributor: 44

Then I clicked on confirm status and it dropped to 40? Was the 44 a bug maybe?

Originally posted by Simulacra

Originally posted by djohnsto77
I suggest that when reading an ATSNN submission, people should view a 'YES' vote as the default choice and have to look for a really good reason to change and vote 'NO'.

I agree with djohnsto77 on this one. The aim of ATSNN is to promote the development of news stories, regardless of whether you accept the authors viewpoints or not. Voting NO on the basis that you don't 'like it' despite the fact that the article has been:
1.)Well written
2.)Seen in news as somewhat of a rarity
3.)Clearly breaking news
4.)Pertinent to ATS
5.)The author expresses authentic intent to convey his message

Is immoral.

I agree with Simulacra who agreed with djohnsto77...who lives in the house that Jack built.

Seriously, I agree. I think it comes down to remembering at a personal level that this was important enough for another member (

I agree with Valhall,
WAIT! i always agree with Valhall

*reads up about mind control*

Ahhh, that explains the fish

I'm collecting NO:Bias votes like easter eggs.

I know this has been covered in another thread, even with a U2U to the members, but I still wanted to say something about it, and hopefully get some responses from the members.

I wonder if I'm biased. I mean, I try very hard to make my submissions balanced in the intro section, and then expand with my opinion in the appropriate section. I've had others in RL read my submissions beforehand, and they agree with my estimation that there was no bias (except in the appropriate section).

Unfortunately, come voting time, my stories collect bias votes pretty much across the board, no matter the issue.

So I'm wondering, anyone have any hints, helpful advice, or other information how one could make their submissions less biased? I'm not being sarcastic, I'm really curious if anyone has some pointers, because I'm at a loss. Most people on ATS are probably familiar with my stories by now, and with my style, so I ask you, how biased are my intro sections? (I suspect many people still vote bias on the opinion section, despite the U2U adressing that issue) I won't take offense if you think I'm biased, I really want to better understand the criteria people are using to make their decisions.

Thanks in advance for any responses.

Edit: New votes: CBS lacks credibility Well, okay, maybe they do, but so does every other news source comparitively, so should we scrap the whole idea of news?

[edit on 28-4-2005 by WyrdeOne]

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
I'm collecting NO:Bias votes like easter eggs.

Feel free to u2u me anything you feel like posting. I'll gladly look over it, although for your own sake I suggest you do so when I'm on so I can respond in a timely fashion.

But, as a pointer, look over what you wrote. Is everything in the intro fact? Even if you think it's true, IS it true? The statement "Another alien encounter occured yesterday" is biased. Even if an alien did land yesterday, who said there was a first time?

Can anything be argued in your intro? If so, odds are it's biased, or at least based on false assumptions/truths. Try getting into the heads of people with opposite opinions of yours, pretend you're someone totally different from you. Try an make it so that they read it, and are so inflamed at the topic and how well written it is that they rush to argue against whatever your opinion was.

Oh, and, uh, Deny Ignorance. Just for good measure.

i think im gonna start submitting news

i will be the anchorman just like will ferrell

Amorymeltzer
Thanks for the offer, I just might take you up on it. I haven't seen 'News Machine' FredT around in a little while, so I might be able to take a few minutes without worrying about someone else getting to the story first. (That was a constant problem for me several weeks ago, I'd find a story, do the write up, check back before posting only to find it taken)

Anyway, for the sake of argument, check this intro out.

The number of wiretaps authorized jumped 19% last year, according to the Administrative Office of the US Courts. The increase was greatest in just four states, which accounted for 75% of the total requests, those states were New York, New Jersey, Florida, and California. The reasons for the wiretaps were not disclosed in the majority of cases. This increased surveillance is in line with expectations, but has proved to be a greater leap than in previous years.

This was from a story about an increase in the number of approved wiretaps in '04. The story is getting practically no views for some reason, but that's not the real issue. I received a NO:bias vote for it, as well as a NO:source vote. The paragraph above doesn't seem at all biased to me (with the possible exception of the use of the word 'jumped' and the comment 'in line with expectations'), and the source was CBS news.

I realize some people have issues with CBS, but they are still about as mainstream as you can get. If it's good enough for CBS, it's good enough for the American people by and large, so it's good enough for me. Anyways, I'm really stumped as to how people are voting, and the reasons for their choices.

I tried to ask for voters to let me know, but I got jumped on by a member and some mods because of it, so I stopped asking users to let me know why they voted the way they did.

Instead, I'm trying to take a more overall view, so as to identify patterns in the voting body. So far, like I said, I'm stumped. Is it possible people just click at random? That thought is too depressing...

Is it possible people are accidentally clicking the buttons, or mistaking one choice for another? (I don't see how, but I suppose it's a possibility) Hanging chads anyone?

Is it possible we have hardcore NO voters, who vote NO on every story? I find that hard to understand, but I suppose anything is possible.

What sort of experiences are others having with the system?

Thanks again for your input, I have been trying to play devil's advocate with all my stories, but I still haven't nailed it apparently. Anyway, your comments are definitely appreciated.

Originally posted by phantompatriot
i think im gonna start submitting news
i will be the anchorman just like will ferrell

Good to hear it. Just, less whale genatalia, more news, mmkay?

Wyrde, u2u.