What's the consensus on gun threads?

[Tracer Bullet]

Now that the site is owned by someone that isn't Geoff, are gun-related threads allowed?

[Goldblum]

I don't see why not. Out of curiosity, what thread would you like to start?

[Tracer Bullet]

I'm looking to get some information on shooting ranges.

[X]

Shooting range questions are fine. But how long will it take to turn into a gun discussion? We still don't want those right now.

[spainlinx0]

Well, what's the ruling on gun discussions? New owners. Why not new rules regarding topics?

[X]

I just relayed the ruling. We discussed it and we're leaving the current no gun discussion policy in place.

[10-7]

Is there any reason the forum rules can’t be changed to clearly state that no gun discussions of any kind are allowed? No offense to IB, X, or anyone else in power here, but it doesn’t really do any good, and only causes confusion, when the rules are arbitrary.

This is a good example. The discussion Tracer Bullet wants to have would be within (written) forum rules, IMHO, even if the discussion did turn to firearms.

ABSOLUTELY NO:
• Posting links or information about where to purchase or sell drugs, guns or ammunition

I know I haven't been around long compared to many here, so I likely don't know the background of the rules, but I find it strange that the "no gun discussions" rule has never been made official by putting it in The Forum Rules.

[X]

Good point. I'll see what can be done in that regard. The rules do need a bit of updating.

[matta]

Without Geoff, how are the rules made or changed? Is it left up to admins or does IB have a say?

[Lemdog]

It can't be an IB rule. Hell, they own a hunting forum where guns are discussed at length.

HuntingNet.com

[Rockmjd23]

Lame.

[matta]

I propose a new rule that gun threads are allowed on DVDTalk.

All Members of the DVDTalk Senate please vote.

I propose a new rule that gun threads are allowed on DVDTalk.

All Members of the DVDTalk Senate please vote.

Yeah.

Motion passes with 100% of the vote.

Will the President of Otter please make a determination as to whether to sign the bill into law.

Will the President of Otter please make a determination as to whether to sign the bill into law.

The president vetos the bill.

The president has vetoed the bill. All members of the Otter Senate now please vote on an override.

The president has vetoed the bill. All members of the Otter Senate now please vote on an override.

I vote to override.

The motion passes with 100% of the vote. The presidential veto is overridden.

As President, I therefore must sign this law and enforce it.

There you have it. The forum rules have been officially changed to allow Gun Threads. Go for it.

[Seantn]

Now I see why you have over 15,000 posts on DVDtalk!

[big whoppa]

matta=sybil

[Tracer Bullet]

Shooting range questions are fine. But how long will it take to turn into a gun discussion? We still don't want those right now.

Okay, I'll guess I'll start my thread, then. If it gets locked, so be it.

[spainlinx0]

I still do not understand the rationale behind not allowing gun threads. Especially in light of IB owning a hunting site.

[benedict]

Now I see why you have over 15,000 posts on DVDtalk!Got to love the new software's "merge posts" function ;)

[matta]

Got to love the new software's "merge posts" function ;)

Actually, that does make it look better and I can now reference a single post regarding the newly passed rule.

Padding is so 2002.

[nemein]

Got to love the new software's "merge posts" function ;)

I've found in some situations the tried and true "delete" function works better though -ptth-

[spainlinx0]

So, why aren't gun threads allowed if Geoff no longer runs the board?

[X]

So, why aren't gun threads allowed if Geoff no longer runs the board?Because, as much as possible, we want to maintain the tenor of the board the way Geoff set it up and developed the community.

[IB-Dick]

Because, as much as possible, we want to maintain the tenor of the board the way Geoff set it up and developed the community.

Perfect answer, X.

[matta]

So why are mods removing posts related to this topic? There was a serious discussion in otter that was just deleted. Not to mention a followup asking where the discussion went that was deleted.

So mods insulting posters is OK, but posters discussing rule changes is not?

[spainlinx0]

I just don't get how gun threads change the tenor of the board. Geoff obviously had a personal bias about guns which was the reason for the ban. The people and moderation are what makes up the board. Sure, I understand limiting stuff like nudity for a work environment, but guns?

[IB-Dick]

So why are mods removing posts related to this topic? There was a serious discussion in otter that was just deleted. Not to mention a followup asking where the discussion went that was deleted.

So mods insulting posters is OK, but posters discussing rule changes is not?

Where were posts deleted? [edit: nevermind, I found them]

[matta]

The mods are a little sensitive about any questioning their treatment of GatorDeb in this thread:

http://forum.dvdtalk.com/showthread.php?t=537886

Where they mocked her US citizenship application, called her fat, and refused the close the thread despite many, many requests.

[El Scorcho]

Because, as much as possible, we want to maintain the tenor of the board the way Geoff set it up and developed the community.

Even if the tenor of the board (at least regarding those threads) was based on the founder having completely ridiculous and paranoid beliefs regarding guns?

Gun threads should be allowed. Threadcrappers entering threads and firing up gun control debates should be dealt with just like any other threadcrapper. Discussion of non-legal ways to acquire firearms should be dealt with just like DVD bootleg discussions are.

I'm not sure what is so damn difficult about this. The "tenor of the board" reason is a very weak and lame one, imo.

[spainlinx0]

Said it better than I did. He wasn't a God. There is a great board here, but not everything is perfect, and we shouldn't accept something just because Geoff did it that way. If all it takes to make a great board is have Geoff make a list of rules perhaps Xcritic would take off. It's the people here who set the tone, and who make the board great.

[Lemdog]

I just don't get how gun threads change the tenor of the board.

I do not either. Maybe we can get some further information about this.

[NoirFan]

ABSOLUTELY NO:
• Posting links or information about where to purchase or sell drugs, guns or ammunition

If members are allowed to post about using drugs, without discussing where to purchase them, then members should be allowed to post about using guns, without discussing where to purchase them.

[Houstondon]

I just don't get how gun threads change the tenor of the board. Geoff obviously had a personal bias about guns which was the reason for the ban. The people and moderation are what makes up the board. Sure, I understand limiting stuff like nudity for a work environment, but guns?

Yes, women in bikinis or showing some breasts are soooooooooo much more harmful than guns...

The way I read this discussion, the Admins, Mods, and folks at IB, have made a conscious decision to maintain DVD Talk much like it has been for the better part of ten years. I personally have no problems with guns, lawful gun ownership, or their responsible use so whenever I feel like talking about those topics, I can slide on over to http://www.huntingnet.com/ and do so. There have been changes based on the new ownership taking over (most of them related to adult material) but the "gun rule" has been a basic principle of the community (much like on Craigslist) and I'd rather hear a better argument for changing it than any of the usual website detractors have presented.

[NoirFan]

Yes, women in bikinis or showing some breasts are soooooooooo much more harmful than guns...

Most people would get into deeper trouble at work if caught viewing the former, rather than the latter.

[Houstondon]

Most people would get into deeper trouble at work if caught viewing the former, rather than the latter.

When they change the title of the website to "DVD Talk: For workplace viewing only", I'd find this argument more convincing. Otherwise, I don't think the standard for the website should be strictly based on what some folks do at work other than actually work.

The decisions about what is allowed on a forum are a big part of what sets the tone or culture of said forum so to reverse ~10 years of precedent, you'll need all new reasons to convince others (especially since adult content was so prevalent until a year ago with the move).

[fumanstan]

I don't see a problem with allowing some people to discuss guns. Nor do I see how allowing some discussion changes the "tenor" of the forum. I can't imagine there would be more then one or two threads on it periodically, or perhaps just one general gun discussion thread.

I don't even like guns. :shrug:

[Rockmjd23]

The decisions about what is allowed on a forum are a big part of what sets the tone or culture of said forum so to reverse ~10 years of precedent, you'll need all new reasons to convince others (especially since adult content was so prevalent until a year ago with the move).
They already did reverse 10 years of precedent with the removal of adult to xcritic.

[Houstondon]

They already did reverse 10 years of precedent with the removal of adult to xcritic.

Actually, while adult links were part of the original DVD Talk, a conscious decision to remove them was made when the website was still new in 1999. As economic times changed, adult material was reintroduced back in 2002 and it became such a major part of the financial picture that the owner kept it for the spin off website. All those ads that some of you hate are an attempt to replace the revenue formerly brought in by the porn.

Back on topic though, while I think gun discussions may well be allowed in the near future (reading between the lines of some answers above), there is no clear "consensus" as asked in the topic title, at least by the folks in charge of the forums (Admins, Mods, and IB) to change it right now. It wouldn't bother me in the slightest to allow such discussions and I agree (gasp!) with Fuman that they probably wouldn't amount to much if allowed but those of you that truly want change might get it sooner if you show patience. Just sayin'... :)

[Rockmjd23]

Actually, while adult links were part of the original DVD Talk, a conscious decision to remove them was made when the website was still new in 1999. As economic times changed, adult material was reintroduced back in 2002 and it became such a major part of the financial picture that the owner kept it for the spin off website. All those ads that some of you hate are an attempt to replace the revenue formerly brought in by the porn.
That's nice but adult talk is gone now so my point stands.
It wouldn't bother me in the slightest to allow such discussions and I agree (gasp!) with Fuman that they probably wouldn't amount to much if allowed but those of you that truly want change might get it sooner if you show patience. Just sayin'... :)
Who's being impatient? People are asking a legitimate question to the people in charge of the site (not you).

[El Scorcho]

When they change the title of the website to "DVD Talk: For workplace viewing only", I'd find this argument more convincing. Otherwise, I don't think the standard for the website should be strictly based on what some folks do at work other than actually work.

The decisions about what is allowed on a forum are a big part of what sets the tone or culture of said forum so to reverse ~10 years of precedent, you'll need all new reasons to convince others (especially since adult content was so prevalent until a year ago with the move).

Dude, do you honestly have the capability to espouse your own opinions from time to time or can you simply only function as a "yes" man? Honestly.

It's hilarious that you think precedent trumps common sense and the wishes of people. If everyone thought like you, we'd all still be in England right now!

[El Scorcho]

Yes, women in bikinis or showing some breasts are soooooooooo much more harmful than guns...

The way I read this discussion, the Admins, Mods, and folks at IB, have made a conscious decision to maintain DVD Talk much like it has been for the better part of ten years. I personally have no problems with guns, lawful gun ownership, or their responsible use so whenever I feel like talking about those topics, I can slide on over to http://www.huntingnet.com/ and do so. There have been changes based on the new ownership taking over (most of them related to adult material) but the "gun rule" has been a basic principle of the community (much like on Craigslist) and I'd rather hear a better argument for changing it than any of the usual website detractors have presented.

If I want to talk sports, I could easily go over to espn.com's message boards.

If I want to talk music, I could easily hit up about 1000 message boards on the internet

If I want to talk TV, there's plenty of those sites to go to too.

But that's not the point, chief. People obviously want to discuss various topics with the people they've been posting with for years.

I still think that if Geoff originally setup a site requiring all members to type "BAWKBAWKBAWWWWWWWK" at the end of every post that you'd be defending that retardedness too. :lol:

[The Cow]

That fucker DTSC has it spot on.

(and no damn it, I'm not being his 'yes man'. 'ES!' for the win!)

Don, seriously, do you ever look at your posts here and just wonder why pretty much all of them are trying to defend someone else???

[Houstondon]

That's nice but adult talk is gone now so my point stands. Who's being impatient?
I was merely clarifying that the porn was not here from the beginning but the gun rule was. You are a late comer to DVD Talk in that regard so I was merely pointing it out. Further, this is not the first attempt to alter the gun rule, hence my comments about patience.

It's hilarious that you think precedent trumps common sense and the wishes of people. People obviously want to discuss various topics with the people they've been posting with for years.
The wishes of very few people given the limited responses in favor of the change. As far as discussing the topic, you haven't been allowed to for almost ten years, why is it so important now (important enough to make repeated postings about it, unless padding your count was the true intention)?

...do you ever look at your posts here...
Cow, compared to a few of you, I have very few posts and I've been here almost since Day One. As far as defending "someone else", it isn't about defending a single person or entity so much as defending various principles. If you find that offensive, by all means use the "ignore" button but just because I don't have tens of thousands of posts musing about my favorite videogame, complaining about whatever cause of the moment I pick up, or something else that is trivial, doesn't mean my logic is any less reasonable. Some people want very specific changes to the website, changes that I doubt are being demanded by more than a few people. Is asking why the sudden need to make said changes all that bothersome?

God Save The Queen! ;)

[benedict]

The original question was answered by (http://forum.dvdtalk.com/showpost.php?p=8897770&postcount=6) X on behalf of mods and admins AND IB. A follow-up was posted with regard to IB input and an IB rep has since expressed his agreement (http://forum.dvdtalk.com/showpost.php?p=8899307&postcount=22). With regard to tangential issues, clarification has been provided along the lines "Shooting range questions are fine...."

It now seems appropriate to close this thread, particularly given the fact that it has moved on to become more about bashing people with alternative/unpopular opinions than discussing the original questions i.e. pretty much along the lines of so many of those selfsame "difficult"/"hot button" threads beloved of this board's moderators.