sotnd conservaleaks

2008-12-25 ZB1 MERRY CHRISTMAS
2008-12-25 ZB1 Public corruption
2008-12-25 ZB1 opinion on the 90/10 rule
2008-12-26 ZB1 A high traffic defense of Christianity website linked to CP's atheism article. The high traffic website ranks #5 for atheism At Google and Google UK
2008-12-28 ZB1 other teachers here? recommendations for night editing?

opinion on the 90/10 rule

kara...@gmail.com, Thu, 25 Dec 2008 14:07:07 -0800 (PST):

http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/Kmcheng

If you notice, this user restricted himself to the debate pages,
meaning he violated the 90/10 rule by not providing edits or additions
to the articles, and therefore should be removed.  However, user
Kmcheng not only is posting opinion reflected by us, he is being
respectful to the site as well.

In my opinion, short of scrapping this rule, we should modify it a bit
to where civil, respectful debate by users should not be grounds for
removal if the user did not add anything substantive to the articles.
Such debate should be limited to actual debate pages set up for that
purpose.

In addition, these two areas also should not be grounds for banning:

Respectful talk in article talk pages which is meant for the
improvement and accuracy of the article itself;

Respectful, friendly talk and banter between users restricted to the
individual user talk pages.

Just keep in mind this is my opinion of what the 90/10 rule should
be.....

Andy <Aschla...@aol.com>, Thu, 25 Dec 2008 14:25:00 -0800 (PST):

The 90/10 rule is discretionary for anyone with blocking powers.  I
think PhilipJ was in violation of it and no one blocked him.  Similar
courtesies can be extended to other legitimate contributors.  But an
exercise of non-enforcement does not require changing the rule, as non-
enforcement is basic to the criminal justice system in many respects.

Merry Christmas again,

Andy

Geoffrey Plourde <geo.p...@yahoo.com>, Fri, 26 Dec 2008 01:28:48 -0800 (PST):

I think this is one of those times where we need to look at the spirit and not the letter of 90/10. He is not being unproductive or wasting peoples time, therefore he is not in violation.

"Philip Rayment \(home\)" <PJRaym...@Yahoo.com.au>, Sat, 27 Dec 2008 15:47:46 +1100:

In fact, Ed did block me.  I unblocked myself on the grounds that the block
was invalid.

But this highlights problems with the implementation of this rule.  Some
time back, Ed said that edits on debate pages didn't count as unproductive,
but at the same time, Andy's /actions/ indicated otherwise.  So one problem
is we don't know how this rule is to be understood in this regard.

A second problem is with determining over what time period this is to be
measured.  That has never been clarified.

Another problem is with the determination of "unproductive".  For a little
while, it is true that all my edits were on talk pages.  However, I disagree
that they were unproductive edits.

Philip J. Rayment
Skype: PhilipAndRebekahRayment

"Brian Macdonald" <kara...@gmail.com>, Fri, 26 Dec 2008 22:54:51 -0600:

It's like I said above, and it could be easily seen by anyone: if a user is
respectfully using the talk pages to explain his own position or opinion, or
if he's showing additional facts or ideas meant to improve an article, then
we should not have to block him for the added talk.

On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 10:47 PM, Philip Rayment (home) <

Temlakos <temla...@gmail.com>, Sat, 27 Dec 2008 09:47:12 -0500:

Here's my tuppence:

For me the chief value of the 90/10 Rule is that it gives me an official
"pass" to allow trolls to rant and rave from now until the Rapture
without dignifying them with a response. "Please Do Not Feed the Trolls"
ought to be our watchword. I remember getting hot and heavy in debates
with AmesG, for example, and in retrospect I regard every word I wrote
on all those Talk pages as a waste of time. That I engaged in it was
only because I thought that I was expected to provide a defense.

The law, as Andy surely knows, is a troll's paradise. (At least, so it
is here in the States; I do not know whether the law is such a troll's
paradise in the Commonwealth.) Any troll can file a lawsuit and get an
Order to Show Cause, and if such an order is unanswered, a judgment will
be issued by default. AmesG is a student of the law, and was trying to
be a lawyer (read "barrister" in the Commonwealth), and in typical
lawyerly fashion (present company excepted, of course) was filing
"motion" after "motion" to "force" people to answer his arguments.

The 90/10 Rule means that we can always say, "Sorry, but our time is
proportionately limited, and your arguments aren't worth our time." Now
none can call us cowards for failing to respond, because we are under a
time limit. At the same time, the trolls risk blocking if they keep
repeating the same old, same old, and by implication try to suggest that
we have turned "chicken."

Let me share with you how Chris Ashcraft handles trolls: if they want to
argue the general principles of creation or origins, then he has created
two mailing-list forums just for that purpose:
CreationT...@yahoogroups.com, and OriginsT...@yahoogroups.com. He does
not allow any, repeat any, of the kind of pointless discussion that so
clogs our Talk pages, on /his/ Talk pages. Andy is being very generous
in continuing to allow such access to a class of users who will never
get into the spirit of the thing and are here to make trouble, and for
no other purpose. I'd suggest that the 90/10 Rule is a policy that those
in favor of "open access" might much prefer to the far more restrictive
policies at work on CreationWiki.

TerryH

"Brian Macdonald" <kara...@gmail.com>, Sat, 27 Dec 2008 11:01:02 -0600:

You got a good point, TerryH!

Geoffrey Plourde <geo.p...@yahoo.com>, Sat, 27 Dec 2008 11:01:17 -0800 (PST):

So its kind of like our vexatious litigant rule?

Temlakos <temla...@gmail.com>, Sat, 27 Dec 2008 15:38:38 -0500:

You'll have to describe the vexatious litigant rule so that I can make a
fair comparison, but it sounds logical.

TerryH

Geoffrey Plourde <geo.p...@yahoo.com>, Sat, 27 Dec 2008 15:12:38 -0800 (PST):

vexatious litigant= one who is wasting the court's time. People declared vexatious litigants are required to obtain permission from a court before filing a lawsuit.

Temlakos <temla...@gmail.com>, Sat, 27 Dec 2008 19:05:48 -0500:

Well then, I'd say that that's close. Or maybe it's just a matter of a
judge deciding that a certain number of chances to talk are enough.

TerryH

2008-12-25 ZB1 MERRY CHRISTMAS
2008-12-25 ZB1 Public corruption
2008-12-25 ZB1 opinion on the 90/10 rule
2008-12-26 ZB1 A high traffic defense of Christianity website linked to CP's atheism article. The high traffic website ranks #5 for atheism At Google and Google UK
2008-12-28 ZB1 other teachers here? recommendations for night editing?

Last updated 12 Apr 2011 by Georg Kraml.