It's so cute when knowledgeable people feign ignorance. Note that I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming that you're merely being disingenuous rather than incompetent.

Example (paraphrased):
"Players who don't curse win 31% more games"

You're honestly pretending that you presented this correlation WITHOUT the express purpose of leading people to infer causation between refraining from cursing and winning? Really? Are we going to pretend that selectively presenting non-contextual data isn't a favorite trick of the advertising industry (and everyone else an agenda)?

Don't play dumb. As a psychologist, you're well aware that the same data can be presented in any number of ways, and that the presentation of data, particularly data taken completely out of methodological context (as in the above example), affects its interpretation. This goes doubly for laymen who aren't primed to be critical of data. The way in which you present this data demonstrates precisely that you are not only aware of this lack of critical thinking, but that you intend to exploit it. The natural tendency of people to conflate perceived patterns with causal forces is well-studied.

Of course, you're exploiting this tendency for a noble purpose. However, that doesn't change the fact that you're going about it by dishonest means. It reminds me of the misleading ads that TheTruth.com used to generate in its anti-smoking campaigns--their entire strategy was to combat misinformation from the tobacco industry by misinforming people themselves, albeit in the opposite direction. Similarly, in order to curb negative behavior (foul language) you're engaging in negative behavior yourself (misleading players).