FFS Update: Rule #4 Clarification

Due to recent debates on the nature of Rule #4, it has been revised to more clearly state the objective standards of behavior to which it applies.  The new text reads:

4) Threats of physical violence, stalking and inciting violence are not allowed. Do it and you’ll get a (note the singular article “a”) warning.  Do it again, you’ll get banned. The standards/definitions are:

“Direct threat”, to wit, “to place any person in fear of imminent serious bodily injury”.

“Stalking” is “any person who intentionally and repeatedly follows or harasses another person and who makes a credible threat, either expressed or implied, with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm”.  This standard may be used in conjunction with the standard of persistent disruptive behavior found in Rule #1 as a reason for banishment.

“Incitement” is “urging or instigating other persons to riot or commit crimes and/or acts of violence”.  This does not mean the mere oral or written (1) advocacy of ideas or (2) expression of belief, not involving advocacy of any act or acts of violence or assertion of the rightness of, or the right to commit, any such act or acts.

Your cooperation with and understanding of the rules of this forum are appreciated.

Gene Howington, Editor-in-Chief

About Gene Howington

I write and do other stuff.
This entry was posted in FFS Update(s). Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to FFS Update: Rule #4 Clarification

  1. Screw you… And if you were closer I’d beat your ass…. Does that comply…..lmao….

  2. You’re such a dork. 😀

  3. I forgot to follow….am I stalking me….

  4. lol . . . If anyone I know would be capable of stalking themselves, it’d be you, AY.

  5. Anonymously Yours says:

    The voices in my head are in agreement and disagreement. We will see which one prevails…

  6. buckaroo says:

    Guys, the solecism is contretemps

  7. RTC says:

    Further point of clarification: Do you mean stalking someone here or stalking someone, generally?

  8. RTC,
    Stalking anywhere is generally a bad idea, and should not be tolerated. However, we have no control, and with a few special exceptions, no knowledge of what goes on at other forums or blogs. We do try to keep up with what goes on here.

    After re-reading my explanation, it appears that I have muddied the waters sufficiently to confuse everyone.

  9. Anonymously Yours says:

    RTC,

    I don’t think it applies to cornfield stalks…… The remains gotta be buried somewhere….

  10. RTC,

    I meant here, but certainly if we had reliable information that a poster here was stalking another poster (or editor/author) in real life or around the web in general? I think there would be simply a humane obligation to act on that information as well.

  11. Oky1 says:

    Gene, Mike S,

    Yes it’s late again & I’m tried, but I like to clean house before I sleep.

    Recently you two gave me a strike one for thread jacking. You can keep it & do with it what you will. I completely reject it as I was arguing principle. I feel sad for you two you were unable to grasp the concept I was aiming for, but there are plenty of uninformed around these days & many will we will not be able to reached with reason.

    Now I could just leave this site, but by your count Gene I’ve got at least 2 strikes left unless you find it within yourself to either let the strike one go for no reason given or admit you were wrong for giving a strike one for myself correctly arguing principle.

    You likely could have nailed me for something real if you wished to, but you failed to do so & went with the fake stuff instead.

    Whatever you do is fine by me, this is just for my record.

    The only reason I came back again was learn from your arguments, but maybe I should learn elsewhere.

    After all what in the hell is Professor Turley doing debating John Yoo, a known Traitor to the USA!

    Some people’s Kids, what are we to do with them?

    There’s still time to Redeem yourselves men, Do it!

    Thank You for your consideration.

  12. Oky,

    Strikes can, depending on their nature, expire over time. For example, the direct threat discussed above has no expiration date. But let’s be clear, you were indeed nailed for something real; derailing a thread that literally had no connection with vaccines to rant about vaccines. You claimed now, as you claim then, that there was some relevant principle you were arguing and yet you failed then (as you did above) to demonstrate exactly what that principle was and why it might be relevant to the conversation in context.

    What I (we) look for on most of the rules like the highjack rule is a pattern of behavior. Part of that pattern is frequency, not just amplitude. You do indeed have a pronounced habit of going off on tangents, Oky. Sometimes they have a point, other times? Not so much. The way you present your thoughts can be a bit . . . disorganized.

    If you think you have a point and that others are not understanding it? Get to it directly and plainly as possible or realize that either your point is not being communicated well by you or that others simply do not see your point as rational and/or relevant.

    If you want to learn something about argumentation? There’s a good lesson right there.

  13. Oky1 says:

    Gene,

    Thank you for your reasoned response. I agree you in many areas. IE:

    ** If you want to learn something about argumentation? There’s a good lesson right there.
    **

    Regardless that the conversion didn’t go exactly as anyone expect even me, I’m glad it happened & I saved some of the better pieces to my Vax file.

    The reason behind my post ** Oky1 says:
    September 17, 2014 at 12:55 am **

    1st of all as I mentioned many times before, if I’m banned from a website let it be for arguing principle. That aside you are the final judge here.

    When I write on these msg bb I address the readers mostly & not so much the website owners or authors as the readers are much like the ultimate jury.

    But also like in a court room, opposing counsels come in, argue & often the judge rules against one of the lawyer’s position & the jury isn’t allowed to hear that argument.

    You ruled against me, I lost, fine & accept that.

    All I’m left with is appealing the case back to you for a different outcome, the final judge.

    And short of figuratively kicking the dog, I’m left Kvetching about it & moving on past it.

    So, I brought it up, spoke my piece & you can do with it what you wish & I’ll attempt to move on & attempt to argue principle without being accused of jacking threads.

    Enjoy your day.

  14. Oky,

    1) You were asked nicely not to highjack more then once before you got a slap on the wrist.
    2) This isn’t a court and if it were the appropriate time to appeal would be if you got banned, not chastised for disrupting the proceedings.
    3) It’s not as if the rules aren’t published and you were not familiar to them.
    4) One shouldn’t complain too much about self-inflicted wounds. It’s like the old joke:

    Patient: Doctor, it hurts when I play the piano. What can I do?
    Doctor: Don’t play the piano.

Comments are closed.