Discussing "a diving practice" or offering personal experiences does not necessarily mean promoting that practice.
Not so.
Stating personal practices/preferences from a position of authority is a form of advocating something. Experience and/or qualification can create a, by default, authoritative position on a subject. Such statements can easily create a form of influence amongst sub-peer groups.
I could pick a hundred comments from this, and other related threads, that could be seen to advocate practices which industry consensus determine to be dangerous (without appropriate training/qualification/experience).
Agency validation, or not, should be ignored in determining what we can talk about.
In regards to 'Agency validation', it is the agencies that provide the training for divers. They, being the originators of the training, are entitled to determine the specific parameters that the course/s concerned are capable to prepare a diver for. Having trained with 7 different agencies, and taught for 3 of them, I've not seen one example of where agency recommended limitations, or safe diving advice, has been out-of-scope compared to the content of the relevant courses.
There aren't many limits on what you can discuss here on Scubaboard - but 'advocating unsafe diving practices' is one of them. This thread clearly illustrates how the issue of 'unsafe diving practices' can be a very grey area - and context is critically important in determining which side of the line such a debate falls onto. That said, the line does have to be drawn somewhere. It seems abundantly logical to draw those lines at the limits supported by the agencies that train and certify divers. Those agencies have to account for themselves, and their training, legally. Private individuals, posting anonymously on the internet, do not. Having to account for yourself personally, legally and/or professionally does an awful lot to temper a viewpoint. It encourages prudence and a responsible attitude.
Someone saying that he drived drunk one day invites discussion, saying that others should drive drunk is another, and I'd not allow the latter on a forum.
So, if an NFL Quarterback said on a TV interview: "
I drive drunk all the time, I don't see a problem with it. I never had an accident in 6 years of driving drunk. It's not my fault if some people can't handle their liquor. I can. So why should have to pay for a taxi home from the bar. Who are you to judge me and tell me what I can do?"
That's ok? No harm can come of it?
If a platinum selling rap artist wrote for a magazine article:
"I've used heroin and crack for 15 years and I'm fine! I think too many people over-react to the issue of drug abuse, because they've never used it themselves. They don't understand. It should be an individual's right to choose.. and only the person concerned is capable of knowing what is best for themselves."
Still ok? Just a 'discussion point'? Just a 'point-of-view'?
Neither of those statements actually recommends or directs others to replicate their practices... but, given context, they can easily be viewed as advocating them.
Advocate - a person who pleads for a cause or propounds an idea.
Propounds - to put forward (an idea, theory, or point of view) for consideration.
