Comment on [META] New moderator, and changes to the comm
Zagorath@aussie.zone 15 hours ago
I like the name.
As for rules, I think something vague like requiring it to have some sort of specific relevance to Australia. Restricting it to anything reported by an Australian news outlet would be an easy rule to adjudicate in an unbiased way. Outside of that it would get trickier.
If you wanted it to be based in the type of content, maybe something like only news that relates to major Australian trading partners or multinational bodies we’re party to, or stories that relate to prominent conflicts we’ve been involved with or with an obvious domestic connection like disasters where our media has reported extensively on Australian citizens who were involved. But that would be very fuzzy and difficult to consistently moderate.
eureka@aussie.zone 9 hours ago
Good thinking. The relevance rule is currently up to my interpretation, which isn’t ideal.
Those are useful suggestions for ways to make it clearer what is relevant. I think relevance is too complex to put into any hard rules without there being exceptions (e.g. Australian outlets also report on global news such as SBS on Californian earthquakes at least three times[1][2][3], USA is one of our major trading partners, some people may believe the Pacific or all of Asia is our region) and so I suspect the best approach is to use those factors as soft guidelines (e.g. “If your article is not from an Australian or Oceanian news outlet, and the article doesn’t mention Australia in it, it’s probably not relevant to this community.”)