I think a small number of posters agree with you. That’s unfortunate, but we’re not going to manage this forum to fit their tastes. Even though it seems like we have to post a reminder about it every couple of weeks or so.
Well, some people enjoy slapping other people in this forum. They must enjoy it because they do it so much.
It does not say “slap people you disagree with.”
This forum should be about civil discourse. You can discuss most anything About This Message Board, you just need to do so politely. There’s other places on the board where you can take on other people in stronger fashion and that’s fine. But it’s not this forum.
It doesn’t really bother me, but it seems a little odd that the thread would get approved.
From the registration agreement:
Yes, but two sentences later we say we’re willing to make exceptions on a case-by-case basis as long as people ask for permission first.
Yes, for “worthy causes.” I wouldn’t have thought a sleazy reality TV show would qualify. If it does, what isn’t a worthy cause?
Czarcasm’s commentary aside, the show doesn’t strike me as being particularly sleazy. And yes, this is a first-time and maybe one-time thing. But we’ve made exceptions for charitable appeals and other things with social value and also for surveys and things we thought posters would find interesting.
Well, we dunno, because YMMV.
Reality shows are as common in these times as CrackerJack – and has much the same appeal. 
Thought it might be of interest in some fashion on the board. The fact that it’s generating comment proves we made the correct decision.
We do not vouch for anything with these outside situations – we simply allow them to present and what you do with that material-- within the confines of the rules in forum areas – is up to the Teeming Millions. Read it or not, respond or not, comment or not, your choice.
I agree with these posts as a general proposition, but the SDMB has, over the years, made clear that it does not want to simply be a medium for commercial appeals (which is exactly what this is), particularly when they come from an entity with no prior history on the boards.
When posters are given permission to plug their own stuff, those posters are usually people who have a history on the Boards, who have contributed in some way, and who have made clear, over time, that their main purpose in being here is NOT simply to flog some product or other. By contrast, our friendly reality TV producer is using the board for nothing but his and his employers’ own pecuniary gain. Period.
Where was this bizzarro, alternate-universe TubaDiva when regular TubaDiva and her colleagues were shutting down threads for any number of reasons over the years?
People have argued, on numerous occasions in discussions about thread closings, that threads should be allowed a life of their own, that they should rise or fall based on whether or not people want to participate, and that if you don’t like a thread you can simply choose not to read it or post to it. Yet this argument has often been dismissed by the powers-that-be, on the grounds that some threads just aren’t appropriate.
And yet here we have a thread, started by a for-profit company and that operates purely for commercial gain, and we’re told that if you don’t like it, you shouldn’t post to it.
Well, yes, but isn’t that kind of the point? The very least you could have done, if you wanted to allow their thread, is make them cough up $15 for a membership, and then post it in the Marketplace.
Guys, Tuba said Ed approved it. It doesn’t sound like he consulted with her before he did so. So what’s she gonna do? She can’t shut it down against the boss’s wishes, and if she thinks Ed was wrong to allow it, she can’t tell us here. It’s not her fault and there’s probably nothing she can do to fix it.
I don’t like that it’s here either, but lay off of Tuba.
Just for the record, I’m not blaming Tuba for anything, and I’m not bothered by the thread. It just seems weird.
If permission was granted by the Owner of the house, what is to discuss. We are GUESTS not admin.
The casting company contacted Ed and asked if they could post the notice here.
Ed didn’t see any harm. We occasionally get calls from various sources to contact the Teeming Millions on any number of things, surveys, studies, polls, whatever. We figured this was yet another of this sort of situation and that users could decide for themselves if this was something they wanted to participate in or not.
If the casting company had just come to the site and thrown their offer up without getting permission first, it would have been removed as spam. But that’s not what happened.
FWIW, none of the reality shows ever produced has the same amount of appeal to me as just one box of Cracker Jack. That includes the shitty prize they put in the box anymore.
Okay I’ll ask, who is Ed? Not shy to be the newbie.
Yes, but a box of caramel-covered popcorn with peanuts AND a prize is pretty happening.
He’s the guy that oversees this place for the Chicago Reader (Sun Times) and occasionally drops in to change the rules here. Also something something Barn House forum.
Ed Zotti is the editor for the Straight Dope column. In addition to other roles, he is the controlling person - and the one we mods report to - of this message board.
Thanks GW and Jonathon.
Good to know.
Well, maybe the sleazy reality TV show will mention the Dope in the credits at the end of each program. That would really give us something to be proud of here. Why not refer them to Stormfront where they are much more likely to find that kind of family relationships.
Sorry, but TubaDiva is [del]the[/del] a* representative of Ed and the rest of the Board’s administrators.
If she’s not to blame for allowing the thread, then she’s not to blame. I’m cool with that. All she had to say was, “Not my call, and i had no say in the matter,” and i would have left it there.
But if she’s going to come in and actually defend the decision, and make observations about board rules (e.g., about the Marketplace) in order to justify it, then i don’t think it’s unreasonable to respond to those observations.
- Edited to change from definite to indefinite article