The Rules According to a Fraternity "Cocksman"

[agzg]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Not really, because the approval process isn't really a Jezebel process - once you're approved for one (which includes Deadspin, Kotaku, Lifehacker, Gizmodo, etc.) you can post to all of them, and Jezebel itself may not even control it. So using that as example of agenda is not the strongest, compared to just looking at what its writers/editors instead choose to post.

I get what she's saying to some degree - since the starred commenters approve pink posts and promote greyed posts their bias shows in terms of what they approve or promote.

And you're not approved for all of them when you're approved for one anymore - you have to be approved at each individual site (the only one I can think of that you don't would be Gawker and GawkerTV). Also, if you're starred on one it doesn't necessarily mean that you're starred on all.

Of course, this is just getting into GawkerMedia's mechanics. I used a Jezebel post because the OP used a Jezebel post. Follow-ups are fun.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by agzg

And you're not approved for all of them when you're approved for one anymore - you have to be approved at each individual site (the only one I can think of that you don't would be Gawker and GawkerTV). Also, if you're starred on one it doesn't necessarily mean that you're starred on all. .

Ah, my bad, I did not realize that had changed - it used to be the exact opposite: any one allowed posting to all, and that was fairly recently (SEE: Deadspin weekend-edited by Jezebel turns into massive tard party when Jezebel posters jump into sports dorks head-first).

The correction is much appreciated.

[Ghostwriter]

Does anyone else see any similarities between this email/letter and the "thesis" that the young lady wrote about her sexual encounters while at Duke University? Not in the content, per se, but more so in the baser nature of the writings/rankings and the explicit sexual content. Wonder whatever happened to her?