Posted by Kendall Raine on July 24, 2002 at 15:48:28:
In Reply to: Re: BBS user poll posted by CB on July 24, 2002 at 12:27:19:
It is ultimately the call of the editor to define the boundary of whatever rules are set. The fewer the rules, the less editing is needed and the fewer editors are needed. The fewer editors, the less difficult it is to establish uniformity across editors.
The point of "profanity is profanity" was it is easier to set and apply consistent standards for swearing than many other rules. I said it was objective. It is, once you set the standard. If the standard includes implied profanity, and you consider "bitch" profanity (it is profane only in certain context) then your quote would qualify. I think it's worth noting most people who use swear words could, if they really tried, come up with another word which would suit the context just as well. Hence, prohibiting them from swearing (express or implied) does not constrain content for people with a decent vocabulary. Prohibiting personal attacks and non-dive related subjects does restrict content and creates more grey area. Ultimately, the owner/editor sets the rules and the rules define the complexity of his task. The greater the complexity, the more work for the editor and the greater the chance the editor has be being accused of subjective editing.
Since you asked what I would do if I were the editor, I would not have any rules and assume no responsibility to edit. There would be profanity and off topic exchanges, true, but over time those who can't communicate without foul language, stay on the topic of common interest, avoid gratuitous insults or craft a coherent sentence would find themselves ignored anyway. If you look on scubadivernet.com, that is exactly what's occured. Some of the most prolific posters are uniformally ignored or discounted. They hurt only themselves and their message.