[rfu-automation] Re: [RFU] PSA re-writes

[Mike Lehman]

I think that it's putting a burden on on limiest volunteer base to 
presume that we'll edit submitted PSAs. Whether we should put them into 
the system as is or simply reject them, I'm not sure.

Is there a PSA Faq somewhere we can crib from as a reference? This could 
give people a guide to what makes a good, readable PSA for the air if we 
put that info on the PSA page.

Since we don't promise anyone that their PSA will be read, we could 
simply state that PSA's not in a format ready to read on the air are 
likely to be rejected.
Mike Lehman

Noel L. Vivar wrote:
> So there have been a couple of written PSA submissions that are in the 
> form of fliers, not a proper PSA. They just give info in bulleted 
> format, not written *exactly* how the airshifter should read, e.g. a 
> script (as it is now written on the webpage).
>
> How do we want to handle this? Should we reject the PSAs? Should we 
> attempt to re-write the PSAs? Something in-between? I did have a 
> thought that we could re-write PSAs for a suggested donation...
>
> While I do have time to update the webpages and /sometimes/ edit PSAs, 
> I don't have time to consistently re-write completely all the 
> submitted PSAs. If PSAs continually come in malformatted, there will 
> also be a substantial delay as to when they get on the webpage.
>
> Just curious what everyone's thoughts are.
>
> Thanks. -Noel
>