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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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).

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:

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'... :)

That's nice but adult talk is gone now so my point stands.
Who's being impatient? People are asking a legitimate question to the people in charge of the site (not you).

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!

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:

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???

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.

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)?

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! ;)

The original question was answered by 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. 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.