Content Rating Support

Two things about the change in rating for what was written. "kill" was used in a purely metaphorical sense, as in a metaphorical death and not a physical one. Can I write in a story "we were killing time"? Or have someone say in a fit of laughter "You're killing me!" and not have the rating changed to a 13+ rating? Would the title "To kill a Mockingbird" be an instant 13+ story without actually having to read the story?

"Dammit" is the least of swear words that can be found. Could I have had him say something softer like "darn it!" or "fiddlesticks!" or "fudge!" in a fit of anger? Sure. Then it wouldn't have been as realistic.

I'm trying to figure out how "hell" is even a bad word that having it in a story in the context it is in requires a 13+ rating. If you could explain why "hell" is a curse word, I'd be grateful. Considering young people hear and see and say whole lot more than what I wrote, I find changing the rating harsh. What was written was far from slicing and dicing people up, or putting God's curses on others, or literally ending up in the place of fire and brimstone. Words are only bad in the context you use them. And to use blanket coverage of certain words to say they're bad isn't helpful without explaining why. "Just because" isn't a reasonable defence.

Second, as I had put my work up for public review, I'd have much preferred the somebody who changed the rating to have actually reviewed it first. Just my dumb luck too, one of the few reviews I get is that it might be offensive to sensitive under 13 year olds ears and sensibilities.

I didn't say I wouldn't abide by the ruling (I mean what other choice do I have?), or fight against it, but I do find it puritanical to a point.