Block, SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit, rollback
907
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 16:
Line 16: + +
Debate:The 90/10 rule exists soley to squash debate, and should be eliminated (view source)
Revision as of 05:56, December 28, 2011
, 05:56, December 28, 2011→Yes
Wasn't Conservapedia created as a learning resource? Openly debating is the best way to learn because it forces you to really look at your arguments and justify them. If you want to become a faster swimmer, would you jump into a river and swim with the current or against it?--[[User:CainR|CainR]] 13:30, 4 October 2010 (EDT)
Wasn't Conservapedia created as a learning resource? Openly debating is the best way to learn because it forces you to really look at your arguments and justify them. If you want to become a faster swimmer, would you jump into a river and swim with the current or against it?--[[User:CainR|CainR]] 13:30, 4 October 2010 (EDT)
:And why should we have open debates with individuals who are openly wrong? There's a difference between right and wrong, and we're not going to waste time with those who openly push the wrong stuff. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:46, 18 October 2010 (EDT)
:And why should we have open debates with individuals who are openly wrong? There's a difference between right and wrong, and we're not going to waste time with those who openly push the wrong stuff. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:46, 18 October 2010 (EDT)
My viewpoint on this issue is not a simple one. On the one hand the rationale is obvious and legitimate, the (at least stated) objective of the site is to create an encyclopedia, not a forum for talking about politics. On the other hand it does appear that the only time a 90/10 block is given is when a person who disagrees with a senior admin is making points that the senior admin is having trouble refuting. I have never seen a person blocked under the 90/10 rule who was in substantial agreement with a senior admin. Therefore, in my opinion, the rule itself is a good one, but its application is very often used as a means of censorship. It may very well be that Conservapedia should simply declare that a certain POV is a prerequisite for membership, rather than taking this route that is so obviously open to criticisms of hypocrisy. In short, I would have to say that my opinion is a qualified YES. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 00:56, 28 December 2011 (EST)
==No==
==No==