Changes

::::Right now, I think Conservapedia's policy is less honest with users than CreationWiki's, because it doesn't state clearly what its point of view is, allows banning for a non-issue (90/10) that can be applied arbitrarily and unfairly rather than stating banning is for liberal viewpoints (unlike CreationWiki), and it has a debate topics section that portrays itself as more open to discussion than CreationWiki and other wikis when the 90/10 rule policy appears to contradict such a concept. Put it all together, and I think Conservapedia needs to resolve a number of things to be more fair like CreationWiki's policy. --[[User:JZambrano|Joshua Zambrano]] 01:22, 5 September 2012 (EDT)

::::Right now, I think Conservapedia's policy is less honest with users than CreationWiki's, because it doesn't state clearly what its point of view is, allows banning for a non-issue (90/10) that can be applied arbitrarily and unfairly rather than stating banning is for liberal viewpoints (unlike CreationWiki), and it has a debate topics section that portrays itself as more open to discussion than CreationWiki and other wikis when the 90/10 rule policy appears to contradict such a concept. Put it all together, and I think Conservapedia needs to resolve a number of things to be more fair like CreationWiki's policy. --[[User:JZambrano|Joshua Zambrano]] 01:22, 5 September 2012 (EDT)

My main issues are:

My main issues are:

* 2 - Conservapedia allows arbitrary banning using the 90/10 rule for any reason or no reason to compensate for not clearly stating a POV policy - rather than just saying "we ban liberal points of view on X, Y, and Z" you ban based on 90/10, which only leads to resentment because people don't understand why they got banned. You should make 90/10 more specific and just clearly state you ban for certain liberal points of view to stop what comes across as a sneaky way to ban for a non-issue (90/10).

* 2 - Conservapedia allows arbitrary banning using the 90/10 rule for any reason or no reason to compensate for not clearly stating a POV policy - rather than just saying "we ban liberal points of view on X, Y, and Z" you ban based on 90/10, which only leads to resentment because people don't understand why they got banned. You should make 90/10 more specific and just clearly state you ban for certain liberal points of view to stop what comes across as a sneaky way to ban for a non-issue (90/10).

* 3 - Discussion in the debate topics section should be protected from rules like 90/10 which appear to say too much talk is a bad thing; that or the debate topics section deleted. It comes off as contradictory to say too much talk is a bad thing, and liberal points of view aren't allowed, and then have a one-of-a-kind debate topics section. Conservapedia needs to decide whether it supports open disagreement, discussion, and free speech on the issues, or whether it wants to keep all liberals off the site. You can't have both. --[[User:JZambrano|Joshua Zambrano]] 01:39, 5 September 2012 (EDT)

* 3 - Discussion in the debate topics section should be protected from rules like 90/10 which appear to say too much talk is a bad thing; that or the debate topics section deleted. It comes off as contradictory to say too much talk is a bad thing, and liberal points of view aren't allowed, and then have a one-of-a-kind debate topics section. Conservapedia needs to decide whether it supports open disagreement, discussion, and free speech on the issues, or whether it wants to keep all liberals off the site. You can't have both. --[[User:JZambrano|Joshua Zambrano]] 01:39, 5 September 2012 (EDT)