Well, I have with some interest been following the whole Rose vs. Calacanis debate, mostly because I am really a huge Digg Fan.

As I know it the following has happened:

1) Jason Calacanis, now a hired gun for Netscape — which has “Digg-ified” itself — offers to pay posters to submit articles to Netscape
2) Kevin Rose of Digg (now in its 3rd iteration) doesn’t think this is a great idea, and says so in his podcast (and summarized here).
3) Jason Calacanis rebuts via his Blog.

4) Kevin Rose counter-posts via HIS Blog.

Leo Laporte has weighed in: His vote is for Kevin.

Others have also weighed in: Anil Dash, Steve Rubel, as well as Thomas Hawk. So has Kevin Lim at Theory.isthereason.

And of course, coursing through the comments of a variety of sources, people fall on both sides of the equation.

Here are my thoughts.

Calacanis is offering a tempting proposal — something I think few people would have a tough time saying “no” to if given the opportunity; $1000 / month pays a lot of bills no matter where you are (or who you are, really).

However, I think the only thing its really going to do for Netscape is accelerate a trajectory it may have already been on — which some have argued that, as really an “also-ran” (i.e. Digg clone) — is going to be anemic at best.

Yeah — its going to be a nice shot in the arm for Netscape, because having dedicated and paid posters will probably create better quality (they’ll know where to look, be able to comment up and support differnt articles) as well as quantity (working harder, faster for more posts, news and links).

Its little like going into the free agent market and hiring yourself some players for a year.

But, its not really a winning strategy.<--more-->
No one (Calacanis in particular) wants to put his effort into creating something that’s coming in 2nd (or 3rd, or 4th place).

Social News sites, like Digg, Del.icio.us, or Reddit require a *community* of folks to create a successful website/ service /business. Its the community that will vote up or down stories. Its the community that will voice their opinions in the comments. And its the community that will ultimately drive traffic to the site. In this, I agree with Leo Laporte.

Having a few hired guns to start posting more stuff and better quality stuff is a good start — but if there’s no community *around* it, who really cares? Yes, you will probably start attracting more people because the inherent quality of the “news” stories are better, but how long will *that* take?

And as long as you’re doing exactly what someone else is doing … well, all you’re doing is accelerating mediocrity, right?

This might have other implications as well.
For example, hiring “pro” posters will give you a nice boost, but how will it affect Netscape’s credibility?

If you’ve paid posters to work for you, what’s to prevent you from manipulating their work? Exercising “editorial” pressure on your site to vote up or comment up certain stories? Agendas?

Perhaps a better way around the situation is rather than trying to DIRECTLY hiring posters, to monetize and empower the community that exists currently.

How about taking that $1000 and offer it as a bounty for the top 10 posters as a bonus for their work?
That way, you’d be seen has having no (well, less) control over what your posters are up to, and more in promoting your community, and a healthy competition to provide better stories.

Bottom line: Paying posters may work, but I think it has to be done carefully. While it might provide a quick shot in the arm, it should never be done at the expense of the integrity of that site, because reputation is the only real capital in the blogosphere.