Possible technical/editorial flaw in LBN rules?

[gulliver]

I don't know if this is the place to bring this up, but I think I see a couple of flaws in the LBN rules that I believe will "mechanically" lead to poor content. Please delete this thread if bringing this up is inappropriate, mods.

Rule 3 states: "NO duplicate posts of stories that have already been posted." This can lead to problems.

The typical way a dupe is handled is simply to lock the dupe. When that happens, I would argue, the original should be kicked. Unless this is done, a news story that spans even a couple of hours will be erased from LBN. The new reference to the story (which very often comes from a better source) is locked, and the old reference is left to fall off page 6 because it isn't bumped.

Second, there should be some editorial judgement concerning the (virtually always) second-hand sourcing of the story. For example, if Drudge posts one of his 15-minutes-ahead-of-time "previews" of an important NY times article, is it a good idea to lock the real article posting when it comes out (15 minutes later). It may seem elitist to say that some sources are better than others, but it's just a fact, IMO.

A good way to deal with this might be for the article with the closest possible connection to a "real" source to be kept. So, if Drudge reports that the NY Times is going to report something, then the real report would take precedence.

Just a thought. Maybe it belongs somewhere else?