Conservapedia talk:Standing Rule

TK also frequently uses that argument, although I'd have to do quite a bit of digging through old discussions to find a good example.

And combined with the whole "Reasons for blocks are not offical ones, merely short hand for the Sysop doing the block." (by TK, same section as Andy's "Standing Rule") gig, this only adds yet another layer of obscurity. All very convenient for sysops who don't want to answer uncomfortable questions (like "Is there any evidence that all people banned on May 16 under the Sock/Vandal cover are really socks or vandals?").

What would that look like in real life? Would the Police bust into my home and drag me into a court to face murder charges even though I only got a ticket for speeding? And if my parents asked them if I really killed somebody, would they be told "You are not involved. You have no right to ask us about our reasons"? --Sid 01:58, 23 May 2007 (CDT)

CP would do well to have an appeal process. Otherwise, I agree with the "no standing" argument. If they respond to every question, it becomes disruptive toward their goal. HG HeartOfGold talk 02:01, 23 May 2007 (CDT)


 * The problem is that they also count simple queries about bans under that rule. And combined with the "The public reason is not the official reason is not the real reason" issue and the Secret Laws, it is completely counterproductive to prevent others from even asking questions.
 * I agree that allowing such questions might open the door to disruptions, but right now, the cleverly engineered structure allows for sysop abuse without end (May 16 mass bans, anybody?). And in my eyes, that's way worse than sysops having to answer questions (heck, Conservative said that sysop duties are very light, so a few questions surely can't max them out). --Sid 02:23, 23 May 2007 (CDT)
 * If the sysops could be trusted to administrate the site in a fair and impartial manner, there would probably be no problem at all. Unfortunately, experience teaches us otherwise. --AKjeldsen 03:31, 23 May 2007 (CDT)

TK also frequently uses a "this isn't a court lol" line, which kinda contradicts the "like in a court, there are rules of standing" line Andy used here. --jtl talk 03:57, 23 May 2007 (CDT)
 * And I quote: 'LOL! You mean you are "just" discovering there isn't equal protection under the law? How quaint! It is almost like teaching Social Studies. In my mind their are rules for actual people, and then there are rules for non-humans'. His words. --Wik i nterpreter '''Talk?

Dancing with the Devil
I think I'm with CP on this one, but for reasons other than some nonsense standing articulation. Andy ran "standing" when asked a fairly benign question about Richard's block. The standing doctrine exists to keep people from asserting legal rights that have no legitimate impact on them. In this case, it didn't appear that HG was trying to defend Richard in any way - he was just curious. Standing doesn't affect curiosity.

Ultimately, however, I'm with HG. As we've all seen at a few times, the Sysops at CP don't really have to answer to anybody. Even the peon Sysops are given seemingly unfettered discretion in the determination of who stays, and who goes. They've never answered to us, and they don't plan to. Do we really expect that to change? Better question - with all the fun we're having at their expense, would we want them to? --Huey gunna getcha 07:42, 23 May 2007 (CDT)


 * (HG -> GofG? Feel free to erase this line if you correct it or if I'm just missing something...)
 * The last point is an excellent question. I would love to see change there, even if it meant to have less to point and laugh. The entire "Sysops aren't responsible for ANYTHING" gig is a good case study, but not terribly much fun. At least that's my personal view. --Sid 10:51, 23 May 2007 (CDT)


 * As I mentioned earlier, such abuses occur at WP. At WP, they often simply accuse new users who do not have a secular world view of being socks of banned users, and all but admit (they strongly intimate) that the reason is it is less work (no check user, no RFC, etc.)  Now, such tricks don't work on experienced users (but how do you become experienced at WP in the face of such abuse) but the ultimate crime, in my opinion, is failure to encourage new users to comply with WP guidelines without backing the new users into a world view corner.  10,000 articles at CP...other than being a curiosity, they are a long way from becoming a notable contender worth fretting about.  They are going through some growing pains.  Some of the sysops and contributors at CP are in my esitmation caricatures (perhaps malicious imposters).  But what is the fun of knocking down CP or their policies?  As I recently said in the abortion debate (and I am not trying to get a debate on abortion going), some see the *small* problem of hypocracy in the pro-life/pro-death penalty stance of conservatives as more important than the 3000+ aboritions that are performed each day in the United States.  Likewise, while CP may have room for growth in regard to bias, capricious banning, and lack of a discrete appeal process, WP is a much greater offender when it comes to running inexperienced conservatives out of town, via baiting, specious sock puppet allegations, etc.   HG HeartOfGold talk 11:19, 23 May 2007 (CDT)