Debate:The 90/10 rule exists soley to squash debate, and should be eliminated

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

Yes, it seems a convenient way to kick off people who aren't vandals and are making legitimate oppositing points. CraigC 10:00, 7 September 2008 (EDT)

Problematical. If Conservapedia does not have some measn of keeping the Wikipedia fanatics off it, won't it just turn into a clone of Wikipedia? What would be useful is for anything included in an article's text to have an ongoing percentage-user-agreement indicator. Speaking as someone who has been persistently blocked from Wikipedia merely for making contributions that were factual but against its agenda, I think that their system is hypocritical. Their homepage announces that anybody can edit it. Yet there are anonymous "administrators" who promptly block, silence and censor anybody whose views they disagree with. Just below what I am writing it says that contributions may be "edited, altered or removed by other contributors". What then is the point of contributing knowledge? I definitely think there is room on the web for ALTERNATIVE articles on a wide range of subjects, particularly those which are overtly political and religious. Is there any such thing as objective truth? Good question. Meanwhile, what we need is CHOICE. HenriettaVanLaer 07:52, 25 May 2010 (EDT)

No

The purpose is to encourage development and growth of CP. This is an encyclopaedia, not a discussion forum or chat room, and although some debate over articles can be necessary and welcome, to allow endless round-the-block-and-back-again arguments is counter-productive, does not resolve disputes, and is a distraction from the main purpose of the site. Also, the 90/10 rule is quite generous to 'talkers' as it stands. Bugler 04:17, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

Exactly. This is not AIM, this is an encyclopedia. #1denverfan 20:56, 24 September 2008 (EDT)