Caltrops - Site Comments - Content Submission Info

Forum Overview :: Site Comments

by Bill Dungsroman 02/19/2003, 1:42am PST

The Purple Junta has been deliberating for about a day now and we've come to a conclusion: we need to fix our content submission organization. That is, as far as organization is concerned, we need to have some. So, we're thinking about two changes, both of which are to be implemented shortly (and were suggested during laudablepuss' severely hijacked Columbia thread). I was wondering what everyone thought about these changes:

1. A forum for editing material that is up for submission. This was Zseni's idea, and it's a good one. If you'd like to submit a review or article, but think maybe you need some help in composing it properly, a forum will be put up to allow for that. Think Cabaret Voltron for stuff specifically for the site. Think college writing workshops, whatever.

2. An Editor in Chief. EiC will serve as the bottleneck for insuring submitted material is adequately proofread (whether or not it goes through the edit forum; indeed, it need not if the author doesn't wish) so it doesn't just end up in Fussbett's inbox to be put up on the site. If you wish to submit a review, it will go to the EiC (unless you want it to go to the forum first, or both at the same time) who will see that it is edited no less than twice by two different people for technical corrections. If quality is an issue, the EiC will solicite opinions from no less than six other site contributors regarding whether or not disapproval is necessary. To qualify to be a "judge" for quality, you must have an article published (or be ES or SB) on our site, and be willing to be contacted by me via email.

Unless there are strong objections by the gang here, it is the opinion that I should be EiC. And I will. The whole point of this position is to ensure that everyone who wants to contribute gets fair consideration, assistance, and treatment by the folks who run the place. Also, that the stuff that goes up on the site is as professional-looking as possible in regards to niggling grammar and punctuation corrections, which I personally can't fucking stand. I am not, especially at this stage of the game, attempting to be the Arbiter of Funny. My aim is to get everything that anyone wants to submit put up on the site. There's no particular bar for hilarity (obviously) for our stuff. I'd prefer sincerity over JOKEY-JOKES anyway. We've agreed in the past that we should start there, and let TEH FUNY come as it may. IRL Bill isn't at all like Caltrops Bill and definitely not like OMM HSW; I hold no grudges, I will never act out of some gay forum motive. Indeed, if anyone feels uncomfortable with me editing their material, it will be handled by someone else, we have the more-than-capable volunteers to assist in those instances. Additionally, I will never bring up on this site whatever transpires via email in my capacity as EiC without the express permission of the person I'm working with. There will be no "Oh yeah, well I REJECTED your stupid article on shaving your nuts HSW HAHAHAHA you can't write your way out of a wet hotel hallway" from me. Especially as far as all the people who come to this site regularly are concerned, I'd hope you all would put at least one review in. Let me put it this way: I'd take an article from I need clarification, even (maybe especially) if it was an article on why Caltrops sucks. Even an article on why I suck. Why not, when's the last time you something like that on a fucking website?

Anway, all opinions are welcome on the matter.

BDR