SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
1,134
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 154:
Line 154: + + +
Conservapedia talk:Guidelines (view source)
Revision as of 21:30, September 4, 2012
, 21:30, September 4, 2012→Proposed Rewrite of 90/10 Rule
::::Personally I feel this way too, but the site does have a specific purpose of conservatism, and I see nothing wrong with that. It's Andy's site and if he wants to ban users for liberal arguments on talk page discussions that's his call. I recognize moderators like JamesWilson ban others for liberal beliefs on evolution or other topics for saying anything they consider objectionable. I personally disagree strongly with evolution, but for me it's a fairness issue. If we're going to allow banning for comments supportive of evolution by new users, per JamesWilson's recent blocks, then we should at least make sure the guidelines clearly state what the rules are, so people don't get banned without knowing what they did wrong. And it definitely shouldn't allow banning of people who state such opinions in debates - and I have seen users blocked for their opinions in debates before - which is obviously wrong. --[[User:JZambrano|Joshua Zambrano]] 15:41, 4 September 2012 (EDT)
::::Personally I feel this way too, but the site does have a specific purpose of conservatism, and I see nothing wrong with that. It's Andy's site and if he wants to ban users for liberal arguments on talk page discussions that's his call. I recognize moderators like JamesWilson ban others for liberal beliefs on evolution or other topics for saying anything they consider objectionable. I personally disagree strongly with evolution, but for me it's a fairness issue. If we're going to allow banning for comments supportive of evolution by new users, per JamesWilson's recent blocks, then we should at least make sure the guidelines clearly state what the rules are, so people don't get banned without knowing what they did wrong. And it definitely shouldn't allow banning of people who state such opinions in debates - and I have seen users blocked for their opinions in debates before - which is obviously wrong. --[[User:JZambrano|Joshua Zambrano]] 15:41, 4 September 2012 (EDT)
:::::The blocks were placed, as I said on another page, because he was trolling. He was adding evolutionary POV knowing full well this is a Christian conservative site, and his talk page edits were not productive at all, hence 90/10. --[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 17:19, 4 September 2012 (EDT)
:::::The blocks were placed, as I said on another page, because he was trolling. He was adding evolutionary POV knowing full well this is a Christian conservative site, and his talk page edits were not productive at all, hence 90/10. --[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 17:19, 4 September 2012 (EDT)
::::::Conservative can mean different things to different people. You're assuming he knew that. But why would he have gone to so much trouble explaining himself and even using edit summaries if he was just trying to cause trouble? And why ask on Andy's talk page? I'm not convinced he was aware he was doing anything wrong. He might be conservative on other issues and just not on evolution. The edits show signs of someone who didn't understand what the policies were on this issue.
::::::The Conservapedia Commandments and guidelines don't make it all that clear what the site considers to be Conservatism, and what editing policy is. It's easy to see how a new user could've not realized they were making a mistake. That's why it's necessary to change the guidelines so people know what the rules are. He did make at least one productive edit that I can see, and therefore did not violate 90/10.[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Galaxy&diff=prev&oldid=1001820] --[[User:JZambrano|Joshua Zambrano]] 17:30, 4 September 2012 (EDT)