by Ceiling_Squid » Wed Jul 22, 2015 9:37 am
This seems a bit too exacting, too precious. The topic started very vague and tense at first. It ran smack dab into generally apathetic ears, including my own.
I get the need for some standards, but I don't think I've ever had much issue with mods making personal calls. It hasn't been an abused responsibility or anything, so I don't think there's much need to codify so many specifics. And I don't believe I've come across anything objectionable, in terms of sheer inanity. Though maybe my bar is set a little low about what I'm expecting from CAaSS. I get that Aviel seems to be under the impression that CAaSS needs to be a place for notable serious business news, and I can respect that. I suppose it is implied by the title.
All right, I'll play ball. Maybe this is just something to benefit the mods and make their job easier, rather than the community members.
So I'll chime in - Last 90 days seems appropriate, so I concur with Damiana on that. Blatant speculative topics or shaky rumor ought to be moved elsewhere, so definitely a verifiable or reputable source for said news.
Noteworthiness is much harder to define. If you want, perhaps you can suggest a place for celebrity/entertainment (and I lump sports in with "entertainment") news to actually go, then? That seems to be a point of contention. Personally, I'm just not that picky or concerned about its presence, so I really can't advocate for such a move myself. But hey, I'm not a mod. I guess you need to draw the line somewhere, or not at all.
You mentioned the social justice thread was a problem as far as CAaSS goes. I somewhat agree, but only because it may not be appropriate to do a running topic that continually catalogs multiple cases on CAaSS. I think its still a valid subject of discussion, and that certain events that might be noted therein are viable topics for CAaSS, but we can't guarantee that a thread which continually compiles and debates many different events (all of varying noteworthiness) won't eventually stray from whatever standard you want to set.
It's handy, but it might go better in another forum. Probably not a bad idea to keep to one major event (plus any other directly-related events) within an individual thread, instead of bringing together several dozen occurrences connected only by subject matter.
I'm rather tired, so hopefully that post made sense.
Last-minute post-script: Damnable additional posts that popped up while I was typing - oh boy, now we're going to argue about what constitutes a "semi-reputable news outlet"? Do we need a dissertation on what disqualifies the vast majority of outlets, or can we think for ourselves and be mindful about sources as we read about the subject?
...okay then, perhaps an event is notable once it's been picked up by multiple outlets? Or at the very least, we can just leave it to the judgement of the actual people discussing the thread about whether there are inherent biases or problems that need to be addressed with the source? Some things don't need to be agonized over, geez. This is where I think we're getting way too anal-retentive.
We can rule out most obvious stuff. Daily Mail, various tabloids, obviously-satirical sites. As for the rest, I think our mods are discerning enough to make that judgement call on a case-by-case basis. I would like to think I can trust them with that degree of freedom.