Difference between revisions of "Debate:The 90/10 rule exists soley to squash debate, and should be eliminated"

From Conservapedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 6: Line 6:
  
 
Of course it does. It's just another way to silence debate and give an excuse to block those who are a problem. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 14:34, 7 June 2008 (EDT)
 
Of course it does. It's just another way to silence debate and give an excuse to block those who are a problem. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 14:34, 7 June 2008 (EDT)
 +
 +
yep, its only original pupose may have come from good ideals however, now its become a false pretense
  
 
==No==
 
==No==

Revision as of 02:13, June 20, 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. --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)-Greenmeanie 22:55, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

I absolutely agree that the 90/10 rule serves only as a rationalization for the arbitrary 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. --AndrasK 10:26, 6 June 2008 (EDT)

Of course it does. It's just another way to silence debate and give an excuse to block those who are a problem. Ultimahero 14:34, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

yep, its only original pupose may have come from good ideals however, now its become a false pretense

No