h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

My main concerns for role of the UG Editors are that they have subjective veto of UG entries.

By "subjective veto of UG entries," I mean at some point, they should go with gut instinct. It would be nice to spell out guidelines for what makes an acceptable UG entry and where we must draw the line, but with artistic pieces like fiction or poetry or any writing, it sometimes comes down to personal taste. If they don't feel an entry is good enough to qualify for the UG, let them veto it. Gently but firmly, no need to apologize.

You can do this and still be friendly and helpful to authors, trying to explain the problem so they can improve their writing next time. Remember the purpose of the UG is to showcase quality writing, not to coddle authors. Holding them to certain standards will help them become better writers. Lowering standards to make them feel better will hinder them from writing better. Lowering our standards also cheats our readers. Editors should feel no guilt about rejecting an entry if they feel the need.

The attitude of UG Editors should be like Jay Garner, that retired US General who ran the occupation government of Iraq for about 2 weeks before getting canned: "We ought to be beating our chests every day. We ought to look in a mirror and get proud and stick out our chests and suck in our bellies and say: 'Damn, we're Americans!'"

...Well, maybe not quite that confident, but you get the picture.

With two editors, (I wanted three) the other one should be able to limit the other's power - hence 'Limit each other's power'

Actually the whole debate over number of UG Editors should have been limited by Ashley's recommendation long ago that we only have a "couple" of them. He's been trying to bring us back down to two ever since.

I know...

I disagree with him and the other miners on this point, but I respect the decision of the group.

*looks in mirror*

*doubletake*

*looks in mirror*

What!??!?
Aaaarrrrrrggghhhhh......