HT, first, your business, your rules. If it get's to the point of intolerability somehow (which, since I don't play AH for the conversation, is unlikely), I'll unplug. I do appreciate the direct response.
Second; I disagree with your approach by it's basic theory. This is little different from a bookseller deciding not to print content it would find morally objectionable. Given the breadth of things that can be found to be morally objectionable, I simply do not believe this is appropiate as a response. I don't buy hate books. I don't like them, or the authors behind them. So for example that's a simple equasion that would seem easy to dismiss via publisher refusal.
On the otherhand, I have bought Playboy. I'll never buy Hustler. To me there is a difference in tone and taste between the two that makes one occasionally interesting and the other simply demeaning. A book on body art would also appeal, as would a book on tatooing. A book on S&M does nothing for me.
The problem is that all of these things are easy to blanket as morally offensive to some people, and probably not something I would leave on the coffee room table when my friend with his child was visiting. But I don't want to be forced to go to a cum-smeared adult bookstore to find a book on body art or simply Playboy, and that's what I'd be dealing with if these topics were relagated to 3rd string publishers either because the major publishers refused to print them, or because laws were passed that refused their sale in a open environment.
I think you're taking the same approach by making a moral decision for me as the reader rather than letting me do this for myself. You believe that swearing in particular has negitive social effects and adversely affects the game. I believe that swearing is symptom rather than cause, I suspect you agree, and I sense that you are simply trying to treat the symptom as best you can given a lack of ability to reform 2,000 people into social acceptability. So I do understand wanting to damp the tone of obnoxicity, but I firmly believe that it's better to allow the individual to decide what they want to hear and see, than it is to decide for them.
Again, so say Thog, who doesn't know how this whole 'life' thing is going to turn out either.
I guess the thing that I've found really appalling is the sheer number of people who are delighted by all this. I think at best censorship is to be tolerated. Revelling in banning behavior you don't personally agree with shows a remarkable lack of foresight.
Thog
