This may surprise some people, but I too believe that on a case-by-case basis, some words we ban could be appropriately used in certain posts. Not even all of the Moderators agree on some of the words on our version of the “no-fly list,� so let me give some insight as to why we have drawn the proverbial line-in-the-sand where it is.
The short answer is consistency. Most people’s opinions about what is proper or improper, vulgar or acceptable would fall somewhere between the opinions of Billy Graham and Larry Flint. But where would that line be drawn? Should my personal standard be used, should it be one of our Baptist ministers, or should we let George Carlin decide what language can be used? While some people would argue that a form of “community standard� exists (not a TexasCHLforum standard), I respectfully disagree. There are some words any honest person would agree are vulgar and/ or offensive, however, there is a wide gulf of opinions on many many others. Few if any TexasCHLforum members would intentionally use language they believed was offensive to others, but it really depends on who is reading the post. Can you imagine how many complaints we would receive if we allowed the use of a given word that one member finds offensive, while that member’s post is edited or deleted for using a word or phrase he believed was no worse than others that were not edited?
TexasCHLforum has over 1800 members of various ages and backgrounds and from all walks of life. We have men and women, boys and girls, tea-tottlers and hard-drinkers, Believers and atheists, and the list of opposing views goes on. It would be impossible to develop a standard that accommodated such a wide spectrum of opinions, beliefs and values. Recognizing this, we have taken the only option open to us; to ban any words or phrases that could possibly be found offensive or vulgar to even the most gentile of our members. (We have a stated goal of recruiting just such people into our community.) This will necessarily result in some people feeling the standard is unduly restrictive, others will feel it is just right, and still others will fall somewhere in the middle and accept it for what it is – the best we can do under difficult circumstances.
I’d like to end this explanation by quoting a portion of the TexasCHLforum Mission Statement that deals with the language issue.
Chas.
I am very serious about getting more women and young people involved in TexasCHLforum. While I’d rather not read off-color language in posts, for the most part I’m not personally offended by language I see on other forums, so long as it’s not part of a personal attack. However, many women are quickly turned off by foul language and will avoid what can be an excellent resource. (Also, parents will not refer their kids to a web site that allows or tolerates vulgar language.) The members represent a wealth of training, experience and expertise that can be invaluable to the ladies, but we have to make them feel welcome. Many of the members know me personally, many do not. Among those that know me, relatively few know why getting more women involved is more than a goal for me, it’s a quest. So, if we guys have to refrain from using some of the more colorful language we’d use over beer and burgers, then so be it. It’s for a good cause. (We can use the more descriptive language when we meet at the range and swap lies about our shooting prowess!)
I hope this helps to explain the goals for TexasCHLforum and why I believe we have to operate by a bit tighter standard.
