When deciding whether or not to publish a particular guest contribution, the Singapore Angle team will be looking mostly at whether the article is argued, reasoned and contributes to or furthers the discussion of some issue, and not merely be an expression of the author's feelings or opinions.

In addition, the team will not bother with any guest contribution containing obscenities, profanities, potentially seditious, libelous allegations and racist remarks. (Neither will ST Forum-styled letters complaining about public services or the Government, in general, be considered.) On the other hand, Singlish (a.k.a. "Basilectal Singaporean English") is acceptable, as long as it is plausibly comprehensible by most Singaporeans.

Submissions should also not be reproductions of articles published elsewhere, both online and in print (though revisions or updating of earlier articles can be considered). We are also fine with cross-posting an article on another blog, though a lag of a few days (say, three) is requested.

It is up to the guest contributors to decide just how much of themselves they want to reveal, whether they want to use their real name or a pseudonyms, etc. But if a contribution is to be published, we will need a working email from the writer so as to enable interested readers to follow up (if you need gmail invites, just ask--most of us have tons). In addition, it will also be the polite for the guest contributors to check the comments and respond appropriately.

Finally, the copyright for any articles posted will remain with the writer alone; and the publication of a guest contribution on this blog does not imply that the Singapore Angle team endorses the views expressed in the article. In fact, the publication of any article on this blog, in itself, does not imply that anyone, apart from the writer, endorses the views therein. We each speak for ourselves and are responsible for our own utterances. More importantly, we don't all have to agree in order for there to be a fruitful exchange of ideas.

We look forward to your contributions (edited for clarity 6 March 2008)

* * * * *

In the interest of transparancy, the "Editorial SOP" for deciding (by votes) if a particular piece would be published is attached below. These are more or less the procedures that we have been following so far, plus some more recent refinements.

EDITORIAL SOP (Version of 31 August 2006; edited for clarity 6 March 2008)

When an unsolicited guest contribution arrives in the inbox, the editor on duty shall give it a first look. If the submission is such that it is very obviously inappropriate for Singapore Angle, the editor shall have the discretion of rejecting it straightaway (with or without consultation with other editors). Note: the editors should not use this power unless it really is very obvious (beyond doubt) that the article is inappropriate; but having the power is useful so that team members don't have to bother with obvious spam, etc. All other articles are considered "received".

The editor on duty shall forward the received submission to the team members, with the name of the contributor removed, without his own vote (he will vote last), together with the following reminder at the top:

Veto.

Nay.

Indifferent. (Also = "abstain")

There are redeeming features (must attach suggestions).

Some editing needed (only brief comments)

Yeah (comments optional)

The editor on duty shall have the responsibility of collating the votes to generate the result. In doing so, he shall use the rules below. Note that lower numbered rules always override higher numbered ones. Within the first 60 hours, the clear-cut outcomes are as follows:

1. The submitted article is rejected as soon as at least one Veto shows up.

2. The article is returned as soon as there is a significant minority of Nay's (1/3 of group = 3) or "there are redeeming features". Where applicable, specific suggestions on how the article can be improved are forwarded, with the encouragement that the writer should resubmit after making the suggested revisions.

3. The article is accepted if there is no veto, no significant minority of Nays or "there are redeeming features", and as soon as there is a simple majority of "some editing needed" and Yeah's (= 6). If necessary, it is first returned to the contributor for editing and any revised version published at the editor's discretion.

If no clear-cut outcome is generated within the first 60 hours (even after the editor on duty casts his own vote), the editor on duty has the discretion to make the best of what votes there are and proceed accordingly (without or without consultation with other team members and editors), including returning the article to the writer with the note that no conclusive outcome has been generated.

Published guest contributions are not to be removed even if there is subsequent internal objection. Instead, the editors are to take cognizance of the objections when considering future contributions.