Are you happy with ATSNN these days?

That's not what he meant, TA.

Staff, in the context of Springer's post was regarding a dedicated ATSNN staff that hunts down articles, not a Moderator, of ATSNN or any other ATS forum. We make decisions about what comes up for voting but the ATS staff are not dedicated to hunting down articles. That would be an issue according to Springer.

Entiende?

Originally posted by djohnsto77
I think the people who upgrade stories from '(pending)' status to '(submission)' should do a better job to stick closer to the ATSNN guidelines here: TO ALL MEMBERS SUBMITTING NEWS or if those guidelines are no longer in effect, a new ATSNN guideline should be published.

We will review it.

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
Doesn't matter if it was you or Helmutt, relative to what Springer said. Please re read Springer's post, and you should get the point.

If you don't mind, spell it out for me. I'm but 1 of about 50 staff members that has about 30 forums to look after, during a US election no less. I don't have the time to jack off, so if you wouldn't mind spelling it out for me so that I can answer your question and move on to a possible problem in one of my other forums. Either that or I'm missing a post that should be applauded.

I'll try to explain this again, without getting into the sleep inducing precedent case jargon.

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
The "staff" at that point made a decision to not accept the piece as written. So I am curious as to how that action does not qualify as "ATS staff editorial control." The staff also makes routine edits on many ATSNN submissions all the time, as is visable in edit parenthesis. Do those not qualify either? \

No they don't "qualify".

We don't have "ATSNN Staff" we DO have ATS staff and as long as we control ATS' content within the confines of the TAC and there's no specificity as to the forum or affiliate site then it's just that, managing our site(s). To have "ATSNN Reporters, Editors" et-al, is a COMPLETELY different category in the eyes of the copyright lawyers because it indicates we are REPORTING NEWS rather than discussing news stories of interest.

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
Hmm, well then maybe for ultimate protection, the copied section should be removed from ATSNN articles, and the submitting member should have to rewrite 2 to 4 paragraphs of the original story, and just provide the link to the original as a reference? For the purposes of quality, if that were to be the concern, then it would seem that the system above I am proposing might actually have some advantages:

The only "advantage" that would give is to the IP Lawyers seeking to sue us for derivative works violations of the copyright laws. That concept is actualy much worse legally than any other possibility because of the utter disdain derivative works are viewed with.

Originally posted by TrueAmerican

Again, not to be a butthead, but how then is it that some staff are still submitting news articles? (and getting away with it).

See above...

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
So in that scenario under forced rewrites, would that not qualify as original work?

See above regarding "derivative works"

Springer...

Originally posted by parrhesia
That's not what he meant, TA.

Staff, in the context of Springer's post was regarding a dedicated ATSNN staff that hunts down articles, not a Moderator, of ATSNN or any other ATS forum. We make decisions about what comes up for voting but the ATS staff are not dedicated to hunting down articles. That would be an issue according to Springer.

Entiende?

No comprendo nada deso porque regardless of who trashed it, it got trashed! And by anyone on the staff, that constitutes current editorial control over a member ATSNN submission. And that contradicts Springer's post, I think. I dunno, lemme try rereading again.

Originally posted by Springer
We don't have "ATSNN Staff" we DO have ATS staff and as long as we control ATS' content within the confines of the TAC and there's no specificity as to the forum or affiliate site then it's just that, managing our site(s). To have "ATSNN Reporters, Editors" et-al, is a COMPLETELY different category in the eyes of the copyright lawyers because it indicates we are REPORTING NEWS rather than discussing news stories of interest.

Ok, that made me understand much better Springer, thanks.

Ok, so after reading the rest of that, and then comparing it to what ATSNN is....ahh, maybe I need to reevalute that. Can you please tell me Springer, just for my own sakes, please, what is ATSNN now?

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
No comprendo nada deso porque regardless of who trashed it, it got trashed! And by anyone on the staff, that constitutes current editorial control over a member ATSNN submission. And that contradicts Springer's post, I think. I dunno, lemme try rereading again.

pues, por que esa materia? es malo. de mal en peor?

regardless, editorial control doesn't seem to be the issue to me, it's dedicated staff dedicated to simply searching the web for interesting stories to post snippets of and then reference. To have a dedicated staff to search out other peoples' work to use on our site is what i understand to be the issue, not that there are people deciding what is quality and what isn't when it comes to member contributions in the post.

Ok, I am getting a fuller picture now, and the reasons ATSNN can never be what it used to be, unless maybe dj's suggestion is enforced. I just get concerned with the quality when I see those posts get through. I hope you guys understand it is just because I care. Forgive. Back to my cave.

If you have issues with quality, by all means tell us. Use the complaint button. Send a u2u. Start a thread.

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
\
Ok, so after reading the rest of that, and then comparing it to what ATSNN is....ahh, maybe I need to reevalute that. Can you please tell me Springer, just for my own sakes, please, what is ATSNN now?

Yes I can...

ATSNN.com is a site that ATS Members can bring interesting news stories, articles and situations to the attention of the Membership for discussion.

The "specifications" required for posting there are solely to protect the copyright of the original author/news service who created the piece being discussed, sort of a "forced IP compliance" if you will. Our staff protects the TAC there in the same way they protect it in any other area of the site.

Parrhesia is spot on, it's all about NOT having a dedicated staff out scouring the web to snag copyrighted stories and present them as our own content. Again, if we had a staff of reporters writing original copy it would be different.

Springer...

I just think people have been lazy as of late with their spelling, grammar, and length and detail of their intro paragraph. And there doesn't seem to be any way left for either staff or members to ask for a fix and no way for members to vote it down.

My $0.02

[edit on 11/8/2006 by djohnsto77]

*pokes head out of cave, gets slapped by Springer and Parr, recedes in humiliation.*

Yep, gotta luv this place.

Dude, if you think that was "slapping" then you aint been really slapped good...

That was logical explanation of the realities of running a medium sized website.

Springer...

Gotta agree.

We weren't even warming up!

Originally posted by TrueAmerican

gets slapped

Originally posted by Springer
The unique quality of ATSNN has always been the Member's discussion that ensues from the "news article" brought to the Membership's attention not the "regurgitated" news article itself.

Having witnessed over the years the evolution of ATSNN I can say the changes have been good and bad.

I wish to use the following link as a particular example of what I want to suggest, but do not want it to be received as "sour grapes", as that is farthest from the truth. Merely a case-in-point for the subject as hand.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It is really hard to have the desire to bother constructing any kind of submission for ATSNN when the Member's discussion that ensues from the "news article" is representative this way.

It doesn't shine very brightly upon the ATS community when that is what is to be expected in response. (I know this isn't a standard of the community but it is apparent more and more these days)

I recall back in the beginning, and for awhile thereafter, ATSNN was held to higher standards overall, and the expectation was always there. I consider that a revisiting of standards may be needed overall to bring ATSNN quality of appearance and expectation back to the forefront.


edit -spelling

[edit on 8-11-2006 by smirkley]

ok then i was bamboozled.

Seriously, thanks for the explains. It helps. Aight, time to dig for the member submission guidelines and keep bumping them. Hmm, any chance of a sticky for a while? Let's get the new members on track. Maybe have SkepticO send auto guidelines reminder u2u's to all members submitting news under 5 contributions or something. Anything.