179
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 2:
Line 2: + + +
Debate:The 90/10 rule exists soley to squash debate, and should be eliminated (view source)
Revision as of 14:26, June 6, 2008
, 14:26, June 6, 2008→Yes
I really don't see what other purpose it serves. Saying that it's to 'save bandwidth' or 'conserve server space' doesn't really hold water, as a single graphic takes up as much space as a long page of heated, footnoted, scholarly debate. --[[User:Gulik|Gulik]] 14:21, 26 May 2008 (EDT)
I really don't see what other purpose it serves. Saying that it's to 'save bandwidth' or 'conserve server space' doesn't really hold water, as a single graphic takes up as much space as a long page of heated, footnoted, scholarly debate. --[[User:Gulik|Gulik]] 14:21, 26 May 2008 (EDT)
:totally agree, although you should put enough edits in that it doesn't matter, but it is a bit mean (although they just block people for other reasons while debating)-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 22:55, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
:totally agree, although you should put enough edits in that it doesn't matter, but it is a bit mean (although they just block people for other reasons while debating)-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 22:55, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
I absolutely agree that the 90/10 rule serves only as a rationalization for the abritrary banning of users who present legitimate arguments and foster debate within the conservapedia community. We have all seen that the majority of users don't abide by the 90/10 rule (including Sysops and admin). This rule serves only as a means to authoritatively monitor the site. --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 10:26, 6 June 2008 (EDT)
==No==
==No==