Why? What’s the point of “cooling interpersonal jets” on the SDMB? What trouble does a little interpersonal interaction cause?
When I first made that observation, I noted that it wasn’t entirely logical.
Not really – GQ continues to provide an additional source of material for the column.
As far as movie reviews, etc, the comparison might be valid if reviewers paid the Reader to publish them, and dozens of tiny reviews were fit into each issue.
There’s a direct overlap. The Chicago Reader pays to maintain a webpage where people can post and read personals online, and that webpage produces a revenue stream for them.
Apart from advertising, everything else in a newspaper costs the publisher, and are only there to attract readers. Readers are only desirable because they make advertising space more valuable. Offering similar features in co-owned organs doesn’t create the same kind of conflict that allowing free advertising in one organ while charging for advertising in another does. The SDMB doesn’t have a measurable negative impact on the Reader’s circulation.
Of course, only a small subset of SDMB posters would find the CR personals a useful resource, but there is a clear community of interest: Some members are Chicago residents. Those members might use the CR personals if they’re looking to hook up.
I can see why an administrator might ixnay a thread that duplicates a service that the Chicago Reader makes money from, even if most participants are unlikely to use the Reader’s service instead.
I still think it sucks donkey balls, but them’s the breaks.
Can we have a personals thread for non Chicagoons (?) only? That would not have any possible confilct with the Chicago Reader’s own personals pages.
The distinctions you draw are true, Larry. Competition could be the source of the closing.
It might also have to do with recent spates of sex offenders and a desire to not host meet n’ greets.
Official policy has been that The Chicago Reader, moderators, representatives, et al are in no way responsible for real-life meetings since 2002.
However:
This means that they allow threads for DopeFests. A broader interpretation may put singles threads under the umbrealla of ‘other discussion’, even if IRL meetings are not planned.
Do you also want to address the part of my post that said: “recent spate of sex offenders”??
Oh, please. :rolleyes:
It ain’t a joke buddy.
We wouldn’t even be discussing this if Tuba had kept her big fat mouth shut.
“Not angering the bosses” indeed.
What’s a ‘spate’, then? One guy?
Oh, I’ll let the mods answer. Do tell:
How many different IPs/posters were banned because of pedophile/rapist concerns?
Whoa, whoa, whoa. What recent spate of sex offenders? What are you guys talking about? Please fight my ignorance on this issue.
Please, let’s stop this hijack. Otherwise, the thread will be closed.