Important Questionnaire #24: RF Rule 6

[Sunstone]

This questionnaire is important to me: I am gathering member feedback to help me make better policy decisions. Please help out by responding to it.

RF Rule 6 reads in its entirety:

6. Illegal Activities
Advocating or discussing personal engagement in illegal activities or criminal organizations (such as hate groups or terrorist groups) is prohibited in all areas of RF. Illegal activities are defined based on United States law, and include but are not limited to: drug use, theft, piracy, vandalism, and all violent crimes. Voicing opposition to illegal activities and criminal organizations, or debating changes to current criminal law, may be acceptable at the discretion of the RF staff.

How strongly do you agree or disagree with this statement: "Overall, RF Rule 6 is reasonable."

Please pick which one of these five options is closest to your views. If you do not see an option that suits you, please accept this poll was not designed for you, and move on.

OPTION ONE: I strongly agree with the statement.

OPTION TWO: I mostly agree with the statement.

OPTION THREE: I neither agree nor disagree with the statement.

OPTION FOUR: I mostly disagree with the statement.

OPTION FIVE: I strongly disagree with the statement.

 

[February-Saturday]

I would also feel more secure with this rule if "terrorist groups" and "hate groups" were defined a bit better, because they seem like incredibly subjective terms. Are you going off of any specific list for these?

Does this also ban stories like, "I used to traffic drugs but then in prison I turned to Jesus?"

 

[The Hammer]

I picked option 2, somewhat agree. While I agree with it mostly as is. I would like to hear input on what should be done regarding the discussion of medical and recreational Cannabis. While not legal at a federal level. It is medicinally legal in many States (& D.C.), and decriminalized in others, not including the States (and Canada, and Mexico) that now recognize it as fully legal.

https://disa.com/map-of-marijuana-legality-by-state

 

[dybmh]

Very reasonable. I strongly agree.

 

[Curious George]

Is there a way to allow moderation of that without this rule? Or can this rule be narrowed?


I have often thought it interesting that RF worries over discussions of drug use considering the highly entangled relationship mind altering substances have historically had with religion.

However, I suppose one could argue that hate and terrorism also have an entangled history. I suppose i should point out that membership or affiliation with a group alone is not illegal.

Lets be real, we are on the internet. There is always some creepy guy, (or gal), willing to share some disturbing story whether real or fantasy. I don't think that helps RF fulfull its mission nor do I think members should have to sift through snuff.

As written, i think the rule should minimally distinguish between felonious and petty activities. However, i think the forum would do better to draw the line at discussion of personal engagement in, or advocacy of, violent felonies, but leave open the door for moderation, either deletion or removal to a different area of the forums, the rest of the subject matter that currently falls within rule 6.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I picked option 2, somewhat agree. While I agree with it mostly as is. I would like to hear input on what should be done regarding the discussion of medical and recreational Cannabis. While not legal at a federal level. It is medicinally legal in many States (& D.C.), and decriminalized in others, not including the States (and Canada, and Mexico) that now recognize it as fully legal.

https://disa.com/map-of-marijuana-legality-by-state

That debate has never been resolved.

 

[Heyo]

I mostly disagree,
not with the intension, but with the wording.
1. As already pointed out by @February-Saturday, as it is worded now, it discourages stories of getting out of criminal activities. ("Advocating or discussing personal engagement")
2. RF is a pretty international community. So it's a bit narrow thinking to bind the rule to US law. (I don't know enough about US law. I especially don't know if there is a law that demands such a rule of a US based site.)

Not advocating violence or criminal activity is a good thing to enforce but as it is worded now Rule 6 goes far beyond that.

 

[Ponder This]

This questionnaire is important to me: I am gathering member feedback to help me make better policy decisions. Please help out by responding to it.

RF Rule 6 reads in its entirety:

6. Illegal Activities
Advocating or discussing personal engagement in illegal activities or criminal organizations (such as hate groups or terrorist groups) is prohibited in all areas of RF. Illegal activities are defined based on United States law, and include but are not limited to: drug use, theft, piracy, vandalism, and all violent crimes. Voicing opposition to illegal activities and criminal organizations, or debating changes to current criminal law, may be acceptable at the discretion of the RF staff.

How strongly do you agree or disagree with this statement: "Overall, RF Rule 6 is reasonable."

Please pick which one of these five options is closest to your views. If you do not see an option that suits you, please accept this poll was not designed for you, and move on.

OPTION ONE: I strongly agree with the statement.

OPTION TWO: I mostly agree with the statement.

OPTION THREE: I neither agree nor disagree with the statement.

OPTION FOUR: I mostly disagree with the statement.

OPTION FIVE: I strongly disagree with the statement.

Does this apply to discussions of civil disobedience (which is an illegal activity by definition)?
What about riots? We can talk about them... but only if we voice opposition to them? What about the news in general?

What's the intent of this rule? Is it to keep people from using RF as a means to assist or engage in illegal activity? Or is it to prevent discussion of sensitive topics?

 

[Brickjectivity]

Mostly. I think its about legal liability. A lot of things allowed in free speech may nevertheless cause an expensive lawsuit.

 

[sun rise]

My mostly agree was because I'm not allowed to write something like: When I was 16, I smoked a joint but quickly realized that illegal drug use was terrible because I was mentally messed up for a year afterwards and spent time in a mental institution.

And would I be allowed to mention pot use 30 years ago now that it's legal in my state?

Another example would be me being convicted for a crime, doing time and reforming myself. I would not be allowed to discuss that here.

(An extreme exaggeration. of course, but it illustrates the "mostly".

This is not a great way of expressing how it might be changed, but it captures most of how I feel about this rule:

"Advocating or discussing personal engagement" would to me be better expressed as "Advocating, promoting, or discussing current personal engagement..." "Voicing opposition to illegal activities including as a result of personal..."

 

[Secret Chief]

Mostly agree, same sorts of reasons already expressed - past history, discussing protests etc.
Perhaps the words should be rather more broad brush and general in some way and then the mods have the wiggle room to apply their wisdom in specific cases? Stop laughing, I mean it.

 

[Samael_Khan]

This questionnaire is important to me: I am gathering member feedback to help me make better policy decisions. Please help out by responding to it.

RF Rule 6 reads in its entirety:

6. Illegal Activities
Advocating or discussing personal engagement in illegal activities or criminal organizations (such as hate groups or terrorist groups) is prohibited in all areas of RF. Illegal activities are defined based on United States law, and include but are not limited to: drug use, theft, piracy, vandalism, and all violent crimes. Voicing opposition to illegal activities and criminal organizations, or debating changes to current criminal law, may be acceptable at the discretion of the RF staff.

How strongly do you agree or disagree with this statement: "Overall, RF Rule 6 is reasonable."

Please pick which one of these five options is closest to your views. If you do not see an option that suits you, please accept this poll was not designed for you, and move on.

OPTION ONE: I strongly agree with the statement.

OPTION TWO: I mostly agree with the statement.

OPTION THREE: I neither agree nor disagree with the statement.

OPTION FOUR: I mostly disagree with the statement.

OPTION FIVE: I strongly disagree with the statement.

Why would this:

"Voicing opposition to illegal activities and criminal organizations, or debating changes to current criminal law, may be acceptable at the discretion of the RF staff."

Subject to the discretion of RF staff?

 

[stvdv]

This questionnaire is important to me: I am gathering member feedback to help me make better policy decisions. Please help out by responding to it.

Does this gives us "Carte blanche" to give our opinion on Rule 6. So we need not worry about getting a warning, violating Rule 2?

 

[stvdv]

How strongly do you agree or disagree with this statement: "Overall, RF Rule 6 is reasonable."

OPTION FIVE: I strongly disagree with the statement.

Thank you for asking us about our opinion about the Rules. I agree with most of the rules, some are too much fear-based IMHO

I strongly disagree with the statement. But anyway, whatever the Rules ... I always play by the Rules

 

[Revoltingest]

<Mostly disagree>
Rule #6 is overly strict as worded.
It should be modified to allow for some illegal civil disobedience.
It's been tacitly allowed, eg, draft dodging, impeding traffic during protests.
And voicing opposition to illegal activities & organizations should be explicitly allowed.

 

[dybmh]

Is there a way to allow moderation of that without this rule? Or can this rule be narrowed?


I have often thought it interesting that RF worries over discussions of drug use considering the highly entangled relationship mind altering substances have historically had with religion.

However, I suppose one could argue that hate and terrorism also have an entangled history. I suppose i should point out that membership or affiliation with a group alone is not illegal.

Lets be real, we are on the internet. There is always some creepy guy, (or gal), willing to share some disturbing story whether real or fantasy. I don't think that helps RF fulfull its mission nor do I think members should have to sift through snuff.

As written, i think the rule should minimally distinguish between felonious and petty activities. However, i think the forum would do better to draw the line at discussion of personal engagement in, or advocacy of, violent felonies, but leave open the door for moderation, either deletion or removal to a different area of the forums, the rest of the subject matter that currently falls within rule 6.

All good points. However, shouldn't something of this nature be at the discretion of the owner of the website?

I would not want my own website to be the reason that a child learns how to make the pot-brownies that ends up poisoning a batch of their classmates.

@Sunstone , have u consulted with @Twilight Snowflake on this specific rule?