Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 112:
Line 112: + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Conservapedia talk:Blocking policy (view source)
Revision as of 18:01, August 16, 2011
, 18:01, August 16, 2011→Intro: blocking policy is intimately connected to editorial policy
:It is a bit of a slippery slope because I might make raise arguments about a pages contents and be blocked for trolling under the "arguments for the liberal point of view". The 9/10 rule should be used as opposed to trolling. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 00:04, 5 August 2011 (EDT)
:It is a bit of a slippery slope because I might make raise arguments about a pages contents and be blocked for trolling under the "arguments for the liberal point of view". The 9/10 rule should be used as opposed to trolling. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 00:04, 5 August 2011 (EDT)
::Well, that's virtually the same thing. The key phrase is, "redundant arguments". I'm more concerned about sysops who block people because they are liberal, or obese, or atheists, than because they made repeated pitches for some obese liberal apologetics after it was established criticism of obesity is Christian and family friendly (this is just an example). [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 00:12, 5 August 2011 (EDT)
::Well, that's virtually the same thing. The key phrase is, "redundant arguments". I'm more concerned about sysops who block people because they are liberal, or obese, or atheists, than because they made repeated pitches for some obese liberal apologetics after it was established criticism of obesity is Christian and family friendly (this is just an example). [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 00:12, 5 August 2011 (EDT)
:::There's nothing at all wrong with arguments for the liberal point of view, however frequently repeated. Users may contribute as much as they wish to the [[Conservapedia:Debate Topics]]. Making such points on article talk pages should be squelched.
:::On the other hand, '''descriptions''' of liberal POV do need to be added to a number of our articles, especially on political and religious subjects. This is something Andy has asked me to do but which I have been dawdling dreadfully. I won't wallow in self-reproach because I've spent a lot of time asking our liberal contributors to help with this, but I've met with repeated refusal.
:::It seems liberals don't want their POV to described - carefully, fairly, or accurately. They want it to be '''enshrined''', but only as a replacement for conservative or Christian viewpoints, which they condemn as [[dogma]]. The notion that their own ideas may be equally dogmatic is not something they are prepared to concede.
:::I propose therefore that on all controversial topics we either:
:::#Take a stance, but describe opposing POV; or,
:::#Remain neutral, and describe all majors POVs fairly
:::A "fair" description is one which neither its advocate nor its opponent would say was biased or inaccurate. YECs really do believe that God created the [[Earth]] and [[humankind]] less than 10,000 years ago. Both sides in the Creation-Evolution debate agree that this a fair account. (What they may disagree on is what percentage of Americans are YECs, or whether the RC church is YEC or "evolutionist" or supports [[intelligent design]].)
:::Let us therefore strive to be fair and civil and to avoid censorship. Those who insist on being unfair or uncivil should be shown immediately to the door. All others should be welcomed with open arms. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 14:01, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
===Illustration===
===Illustration===