Changes

::The question, as I understand it, is "we do not block for ideological reasons" and "we do block for ... points contrary to the Conservapedia philosophy."  Are these two things clear and distinct?  Will a person get blocked for adding material that paints a more favorable image of something that is currently one sided? Is that ideological? or philosophical? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:53, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::The question, as I understand it, is "we do not block for ideological reasons" and "we do block for ... points contrary to the Conservapedia philosophy."  Are these two things clear and distinct?  Will a person get blocked for adding material that paints a more favorable image of something that is currently one sided? Is that ideological? or philosophical? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:53, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

*Sorry Mtur, not all of life can be defined by specific guidelines, and the more precise and exacting they are, the harder and more cumbersome comes the administration of them.  A person wouldn't be blocked for doing what your scenario suggests, unless and until the user kept reverting it back to their version after being warned that it was unacceptable by a Sysop or Bureaucrat.  That is exactly the same as all sites any of us might use.  That is the whole reason for Sysops and Bureaucrats, to communicate what is and is not acceptable, on a case-by-case basis, if need be, if there is confusion as to what the Commandments and Guidelines mean.  With all functions of authority, just like with religion, comes a leap of faith.  Our charge is to implement the rules and guidelines, maintain civility and order. Users must trust the Administrators to be fair, and the Bureaucrats, and ultimately Andy, watch over the Sysop's to make sure they are being fair. If one cannot make that leap of faith, they are perhaps at the wrong site. But I think it would be difficult, if not impossible to find one without rules, guidelines and authority. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TerryK]] ^{[[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]]} 20:21, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

*Sorry Mtur, not all of life can be defined by specific guidelines, and the more precise and exacting they are, the harder and more cumbersome comes the administration of them.  A person wouldn't be blocked for doing what your scenario suggests, unless and until the user kept reverting it back to their version after being warned that it was unacceptable by a Sysop or Bureaucrat.  That is exactly the same as all sites any of us might use.  That is the whole reason for Sysops and Bureaucrats, to communicate what is and is not acceptable, on a case-by-case basis, if need be, if there is confusion as to what the Commandments and Guidelines mean.  With all functions of authority, just like with religion, comes a leap of faith.  Our charge is to implement the rules and guidelines, maintain civility and order. Users must trust the Administrators to be fair, and the Bureaucrats, and ultimately Andy, watch over the Sysop's to make sure they are. If one cannot make that leap of faith, they are perhaps at the wrong site. But I think it would be difficult, if not impossible to find one without rules, guidelines and authority. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TerryK]] ^{[[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]]} 20:21, 6 April 2007 (EDT)