ATSNN: Something has to happen!

Making A Difference

You know, maybe Jakko should run for ATSNN Councilor.

Originally posted by Jakko
10 retards have the power to secretly screw up the news.
How much sense does that make?

After a commment like that you wonder why the voting has to be anonymous? Just because someone may not agree with you does not make them a "retard". And I might have voted "No, introduction" on that one also -- Because the instructions clearly say that you have to have an opening paragraph and you had and opening sentence. And then I would have checked back to see if it was corrected so that I could vote yes. Maybe you could have u2u'd a friend to read the article and get back to you with why they thought you might have gotten some of the no votes. Remember that most of the no votes are ones you can try to fix and then the person may vote yes.

Now, you might believe this means I agree with the way the voting system is set up right now -- but if you have read any of my comments about it in the past you know that I don't exactly like the no vote system myself. I have in the past tried to fix a story according to the types of no votes I got and drove myself nuts -- so now if I felt the article was exactly what I wanted to say I would leave it alone -- if I felt that the voter might have a point that I just can't see - I would u2u someone to get an opinion from a friend - then try to correct it.

Personally, I would like to see something that gives the writer a tally of yes and no votes because when you get all the no ones you can get discouraged but if you saw that you had 10 yes votes you might feel better. And I would also like to have a chance to preview my article before I submit it - as I don't always catch mistakes - or might change the way it is written to try to get my point across better.





[edit on 3-10-2005 by justme1640]

In regards to choosing how to vote, I vote YES as the default, but switch to one of the various 'no' votes if

1. There is an older story on precisely the same subject, not just sorta the same thing but exactly the same thing
   
2. The source is really, really, really, horrible. Like Worldnutdaily, or IndiaDaily, or globaljihad.mwahahah.com, or Weekly World News, Pravda. But not, say, aljazeera, fox, the washington post, or even xinhua, etc.
   
3. The story is completely inapproriate for ATS, likesay entertainment news or celebrity gossip or some types of human interest stories
   
4. The submission looks like there was no effort but into it, there's only a few sentences, no supporting links, very basic comments, etc, (ie a 'crappy' submission
   

But short of that, I don't see why anyone should be voting 'NO', certainly not because you disagree with the message of the article or because you saw a few speeeeling erars.

Originally posted by Nygdan
But short of that, I don't see why anyone should be voting 'NO', certainly not because you disagree with the message of the article or because you saw a few speeeeling erars.

I can think of two reasons, Nygdan.
The first being the cited mention of "vote no if simply do not like the story or you think it isnt right for ATS"
The second is that we all have different opinions, thoughts, and the ability to make a choice. If still in doubt, refer to the first reason. Besides, if there was no reason to vote 'NO', then why have the option at all?





seekerof

Originally posted by Seekerof
the cited mention of "vote no if simply do not like the story or you think it isnt right for ATS"

Well yeah there's allways that *smacks forehad*

if there was no reason to vote 'NO', then why have the option at all?

I'm not saying that this is what everyone is required to do, its just how I go about it. I often vote 'yes' on submissions that report on an event that can be interpreted as 'pro-somethingI'magainst", short of it being obvious propaganda.

[edit on 3-10-2005 by Nygdan]