A late response, but this topic is still on the first page of the Debate Corner.
This is assuming HawkHost has no issues with the mentioned practices.
The very nature of this topic is disregarding the fact that we are talking about modding or hacking or whatnot. We may not be telling each other "how", but for people who have no clue on what we are talking about, then searching it on Google, then practicing it, FP serves as a medium for such practices. Therefore we cannot be disallowing links to sites which discuss such practices as we merely are one step less in the middleman process for the end user to practice modding, hacking etc.
This is really an ethical issue on our side, a legal issue on the other side. Should Google be taken to court because they allow searches for modding, hacking, scripting etc.? No, because they serve as a medium of information, and technically, not obligating people to practice such and such. There is no illegality for users visiting any of the mentioned sites, and only when they practice such things, will then be a legal issue.
Again, we merely serve as a medium of information, whether legal or not, FP should not feel obligated to police other ToS'. To place responsibility on users, if this was allowed, users should make a note wherever, to say that this link will indeed contain such things.
Also note that we merely reduce our middleman process by blocking such sites, but consider if you were to allow this person's forum, and this person's forum linked to an "illegal" site, doesn't FP and that other site merely serve as a middleman of linking to such and such. No matter what, FP will have an extrinsic linkage towards illegal sites, by the very nature of such topics.
Some older links may now have become sites for such practices, and they are buried in the archive, but people can still open them and really, it defeats the purpose of the rule. I may have a link which redirects and advertises modding, but now we are out of the jurisdiction of FP, so why should FP be controlling what users can be linked to or not? In such ethical matters, the onus of the final decision to practice such things lies on us, and not on FP, so FP should have no reason to disallow such links.
Then consider the social issues. Would linking to a modding site be any better or worse than someone searching it up on Google? Would the wellbeing of a child be diminished because of FP, or really, would they have known about it prior to FP, from other sources, other people or through their own research? I believe there is a contradictory social issue here on FP, which sort of defeats the purpose of responsibility. If COPA is indeed applicable to FP, then minors would require the permission from their parents or caregiver, thus responsibility lies on the parents as they have given permission to use FP. Modding/hacking or whatever would only be a social issue for minors, as adults would bear the responsibility themselves because they are not under the authority of their parents anymore, so by contradiction, the onus lies back onto the parents if their child practices hacking.
I think FP should allow promotion of such sites, but within other subforums, discussion should not occur about such practices. Disallowing a thread where users on FP discuss modding and its fine details would be appropriate; disallowing a thread for promoting a link would defeat the purpose of FP.
FP should promote not police.
I don't know if any of that made sense.
