I noticed that Rule #8, which defines what is considered a "fall," has an additional criterion that, I believe, was added recently: "Intentionally calling inappropriate telephone numbers."  (Note that the rule continues to read: "A 'Fall' is one of the following two things"; you may want to change it to read: "A 'Fall' is one of the following things").

www.guardureyes.com/GUE/wallofhonor/WOHRules.asp

Thank you for pointing out the fixes. I made the changes.

I also added "seeking out and reading erotica" to be considered a "fall". Does everyone agree?

R. Guard: There is no question that "seeking out and reading erotica" is an Isur d'Oraisah.  However, depending on the circumstances, it might only qualify as a "slip."  I'm concerned with the downside of causing people to reset their hard-earned counts unnecessarily.

On the other hand, in certain cases, this definition of a fall may be too lenient.  For example, if the individual finds the erotica accidentally, it won't be considered a fall, even if they spend 3 hours reading it (because they didn't seek it out).  Or, a person may spend half the night searching for erotica, but will not have fallen, provided that he doesn't find any (or if he finds it and doesn't read it - an unlikely scenario, to be sure).

You probably don't want to make the rules too complicated, but what about the following?

1.) For someone whose main Nisayon was reading erotica, "seeking out and reading erotica" will be considered a fall, requiring the count to be restarted.  When in doubt (e.g. the person stopped after reading something briefly), the individual should explain what happen and await a "Psak" from R. Guard, who may seek input from other members of the forum.

2.) For others, if the reading was for less than 10 minutes, there is a 7-day penalty for the first offense in a 90-day cycle, and a 30-day penalty for the second offense in a 90-day cycle (second offense must be for less than 5 minutes).  If the first or second offenses exceed the maximum times, or if there is a 3rd offense in a 90-day cycle (for one minute or more), that would be considered a fall.

Such rules, while more complicated, would recognize that, as harmful as reading erotica is, the damage is not as great as looking at pornographic images or videos, and is easier to reverse.

Hope this helps and that others weigh in. 

I realize that it would be difficult to post lengthy rules, such as the ones I suggested.  But how about changing the new category to "seeking out and actively reading erotica"?  Although I don't have a clear definition of "actively reading," I submit that it would preclude most cases where the reading was very brief (that would be a "slip," not a "fall").  When in doubt, R. Guard's "Psak" can be sought; he may choose to be more lenient for first and second offenses, consistent with my previous post.

Thanks for your ideas... See what I wrote below 8.5 on that page. Isn't that similar?

That's true, it is similar.  But it would not cover the following case: "Shmuel" searches for (i.e. "seeks out") erotic literature on the Internet, finds something, and begins reading it.  10 seconds later, he closes his browser in disgust, and says to himself "Shmuel, you're better than that!"  According to my suggestion that would be a slip, not a fall, because, although Shmuel did seek out the erotica, he did not "actively read it."  However, according to the critera found below Rule 8.5, www.guardureyes.com/GUE/wallofhonor/WOHRules.asp, that would be a fall: because he deliberately sought out the erotica, it's a fall even if he stops himself after just a few seconds.  I submit that, in that situation, we consider giving the person a break, at least for a first offense in a 90-day period.  The reason is that, at least in my experience, the effects of briefly reading erotica will wear off much quicker than the effects of briefly looking at pornography.