Tired of politics as usual? Vote Washington outsider Garbageman as Media Coordinator
Posted: Wed Feb 08, 2017 12:39 pm
Gentlemen and gentlemen of PBSL,
It is with great humility and a sense of civic duty that I, Garbageman, throw my hat in the ring to run for PBSL Media Coordinator. For far too long, PBSL has suffered under the media coordination of stubborn insiders who put the interests of lobbyists ahead of those of the people. There is great unrest in certain areas of the Media Relations board, and that unrest cannot be settled without a fresh, outside perspective.
I may be new to the league, and I do not know (or care) who most of you are. This outsider take leaves me in a unique position to be freer from bias in media coordination decision-making. As most of you don't really know (or care) who I am, allow me to introduce myself via my qualifications:
* As an graduate of the University of Illinois with a B.A. in English, I have the education to differentiate between a good article and a great article.
* As a writer and editor for the now-defunct Gearwire.com (2007-2009), I have plenty of experience both moderating and producing a high volume of content.
* As a current reports programmer and data analyst for zZounds.com, I possess the ability (and drive) to really consider the value of a point and the value of an article, and I will work to optimize the balance between the two to help produce a better cache of articles for fair point prices
* As a longtime dude who just likes to rip a bong or two and chill on the couch, I have plenty of time to handle the solemn responsibility of coordinating media
But enough about me, let's talk policy:
POINTS FOR ARTICLES, NOT AUTHORS
In response to 5-on-5-gate, I think it makes more sense to award points to the articles rather than the authors. If an article has 5 authors, it should get the requisite amount of points, and the authors--who best know how the work was divided--should split the points up themselves. If the authors cannot agree on something of as little consequence as how to split up the points, they should probably stray away from cooperative exercises like writing articles with other people.
A RE-EXAMINATION OF POINT CAPS
The point system is a point (no pun intended) of contention in that it seems to be somewhat arbitrarily imposed. I am in favor of raising the point caps per article and per season, but only within reason and only after a careful survey of the value of a point. We don't want folks abusing the system by blasting out article after article of little interest in order to rack up spending points. For now, I think 15 points a season does have room to grow, but it must do so incrementally in order to safeguard against abuse.
PER ARTICLE SCORES AND ARTICLE QUALITY
Not all articles are written equally, so points should be distributed over a graded system as judged by a jury of the authors peers. I am for raising the per article max score from 5, but with that willingness comes a responsibility to grade the articles slightly based on the value they generate. This can be looked at in terms of the conversations generated by the articles or even a poor man's upvote-styled system. In any case, clearer definitions on what makes one article worth 5 points and another article worth 1 point are needed, and I will not set such guidelines without finding a just compromise between the opinions of all interested parties.
AUTHOR ANONYMITY TO PROTECT GAMING
One idea that goes hand in hand with the grading of articles is author anonymity. This could be solved with articles being sent to a single account to post with credit being given to the author once the points have been awarded.
YEAR-END ARTICLE AWARDS
Another way we can improve the longevity and importance of media contributions is to hold year-end awards to ration out additional points to the best articles and authors over the course of a season.
Again, many of these ideas are open for discussion, but I think they prove that my dedication and fresh perspective would be a welcome breath of fresh air.
Love,
Garbageman
It is with great humility and a sense of civic duty that I, Garbageman, throw my hat in the ring to run for PBSL Media Coordinator. For far too long, PBSL has suffered under the media coordination of stubborn insiders who put the interests of lobbyists ahead of those of the people. There is great unrest in certain areas of the Media Relations board, and that unrest cannot be settled without a fresh, outside perspective.
I may be new to the league, and I do not know (or care) who most of you are. This outsider take leaves me in a unique position to be freer from bias in media coordination decision-making. As most of you don't really know (or care) who I am, allow me to introduce myself via my qualifications:
* As an graduate of the University of Illinois with a B.A. in English, I have the education to differentiate between a good article and a great article.
* As a writer and editor for the now-defunct Gearwire.com (2007-2009), I have plenty of experience both moderating and producing a high volume of content.
* As a current reports programmer and data analyst for zZounds.com, I possess the ability (and drive) to really consider the value of a point and the value of an article, and I will work to optimize the balance between the two to help produce a better cache of articles for fair point prices
* As a longtime dude who just likes to rip a bong or two and chill on the couch, I have plenty of time to handle the solemn responsibility of coordinating media
But enough about me, let's talk policy:
POINTS FOR ARTICLES, NOT AUTHORS
In response to 5-on-5-gate, I think it makes more sense to award points to the articles rather than the authors. If an article has 5 authors, it should get the requisite amount of points, and the authors--who best know how the work was divided--should split the points up themselves. If the authors cannot agree on something of as little consequence as how to split up the points, they should probably stray away from cooperative exercises like writing articles with other people.
A RE-EXAMINATION OF POINT CAPS
The point system is a point (no pun intended) of contention in that it seems to be somewhat arbitrarily imposed. I am in favor of raising the point caps per article and per season, but only within reason and only after a careful survey of the value of a point. We don't want folks abusing the system by blasting out article after article of little interest in order to rack up spending points. For now, I think 15 points a season does have room to grow, but it must do so incrementally in order to safeguard against abuse.
PER ARTICLE SCORES AND ARTICLE QUALITY
Not all articles are written equally, so points should be distributed over a graded system as judged by a jury of the authors peers. I am for raising the per article max score from 5, but with that willingness comes a responsibility to grade the articles slightly based on the value they generate. This can be looked at in terms of the conversations generated by the articles or even a poor man's upvote-styled system. In any case, clearer definitions on what makes one article worth 5 points and another article worth 1 point are needed, and I will not set such guidelines without finding a just compromise between the opinions of all interested parties.
AUTHOR ANONYMITY TO PROTECT GAMING
One idea that goes hand in hand with the grading of articles is author anonymity. This could be solved with articles being sent to a single account to post with credit being given to the author once the points have been awarded.
YEAR-END ARTICLE AWARDS
Another way we can improve the longevity and importance of media contributions is to hold year-end awards to ration out additional points to the best articles and authors over the course of a season.
Again, many of these ideas are open for discussion, but I think they prove that my dedication and fresh perspective would be a welcome breath of fresh air.
Love,
Garbageman
