Jean's been gone now for 10 years. Ten. I had to count it out. I still think she's coming back. And no, I do not count this time traveling child form - I mean the real Red.
I must be either getting old, or too practical - because Clint's outfit is in no form as combat-able as his previous ones. I don't know if the jacket will carry some tactical explanation or not - but I hope so.
@wildvine: Again, I don't think I'm communicating the intent well enough as unfortunately none of what has been described answers my questions.
Whereas no one would argue that the staff has a priority/precedent to break certain information - having another thread open wouldn't in it of itself be a problem given the headline space given to staff posting their articles to the front page. It's like being able to have a 30 second spot during the Super Bowl versus someone using local access in a rural area.
But no, the request/discussion isn't that the original post by @oreoassassin be linked inside @inferiorego 's ; merely that it would be a polite mention inside Matt's own article that it had already been broken (referring again to what I mentioned about AP/Reuters stories). Were the thread not locked I would go so far as to say that no mention at all would be necessary; it would simply be like many other similarly themed threads - all competing for clicks.
But truly, arguing the necessity of this redundancy isn't really the point. It's that a contributing member of the site broke a story before the staff and had their thread locked. There's been mention of some form of acknowledgement - but again that was limited to a one line statement indicating that the staff had written another article.
Perhaps this seems like wasted motion - but the staff thought enough to lock the thread so then there was a reason for that. Because let's face it; there are many, many threads all throughout this site that deal with the same topic(s).
Obviously though you are all the moderators and staff so there's little to nothing which can be done if your position is entrenched as such. It would appear I've already made you somewhat upset over my line of questioning despite my best attempts at being cordial and for that I do apologize. However I do feel like if a thread is important enough to lock so that the staff may push their own material - then a small acknowledgement (specific to that person/persons) isn't too tall of an order.
@wildvine: I don't think we're saying the same thing, unfortunately. In other media (print or digital) when someone scoops or publishes a story first (See AP or Reuters) they are credited with having broken it on whatever forum it's introduced to.
My point is that if a member goes through the trouble of breaking a story - it seems like it would be a polite tip of the cap to mention that member doing so in whatever staff run article gets published. It's a fairly simple and unobtrusive measure.
I will do a double take through the rules & regulations again to see if this is a part of the process. However I will say that if someone like @oreoassassin or others goes to the trouble of bringing good discussion to the site then they should be credited for it when the staff chooses to lock said thread.
Log in to comment