Some thoughts on moderation & banning

Greetings all,I've been following this thread for some time, and it was with a great sense of relief that the moderator put us out of our misery by moving it, and WT, here.I am fully in agreement with having WT limited here - his posts were nonsense and he was wasting people's time. In fact, I am rather surprised it was let go that long - and this leads me to argue fore more agressive aaction in future.Now,
This is my favourite forum on the 'net. There are many smart people here from all sorts of fields and we see quality debates on varied subjects - from both the smart young people and the mature experts. (I recently heard that people in the industrialized West are currently gaining about 15% IQ per generation - fantastic go humans go!)Honestly,
its a buzz to come here and see what the smart people are talking about - well done guys And,
one of the strong points of this board is the moderation - typically most forums go off topic within a dozen posts or two - but not here. Even better, the moderation focuses on issues of substance - not silly issues of style like TWeb.Anyway,
it was clear WT was a crackpot very early on in this post - yet very many of the smart people spent a great deal of time dealing with him. A lot of time and brains and patience - for very little result (although its true we did learn a bit about the pyramid along the way.)The thing is,
its sad to see geniuses like Lam wasting time on total crap, or the avuncular Ned explaining the most basic principles over and over and over. I love to read Lam's stuff - but heck he needs all the time he can get to invent faster-than-light travel (or whatever). And seeing Ned's incredible patience and clear communication completely wasted on WT was like having teeth pulled. (Just picking two names at random - I don't know either of these people.)Seriously,
I would support some mechanism whereby we shut this post down nearer 100 posts than 350.So - how about a Crackpot Vote Mechanism?After 100 posts in a thread, or a dozen from the potential Crackpot, or 6 un-corrected rule violations, any reader can ask the moderator to call for a Crackpot Vote. If the case is sound, a vote is so called.After 3 days,
if at least 1 dozen readers (or some number or percentage maybe) cast their ostraka against the possible crackpot, then they are sent to Free for All for a month.Any comments?Iasion{Originally at http://EvC Forum: PROOF OF GOD. Spun-off as its own topic by Adminnemooseus}

Greetings all,Thanks for your replies Indeed, everyone may believe what they want, and of course they must also be free to express their beliefs - I would never argue otherwise.WT is most welcome to believe all that stuff,
WT is most welcome to argue all that stuff.But
no-one is welcome to waste our time with silly stories while playing us all for fools.So,
my argument is this -* This forum has a critical mass of smart, educated people who can communicate the good stuff.* Posts here are RESOURCES - intelligent people spend their time for free here.* One of the strengths of this forum is its moderation.* Good moderation ensures the debates stay on-topic and get to the bottom of the issue.* When a post goes bad we have rules to handle this - as happened with "Proof of God"Now -I argue that the "Proof of God" was an obvious train-wreck LONG BEFORE we reached 350 posts.I argue that this post was an example of moderation practices that are a little loose. (*)I suggest that after about 100 posts we could see WT was in crackpot mode (and that maybe a dozen posters would agree, and that he broke maybe a handful of rules)So,
I propose a mechanism by which we self-regulate such time-wasting posts - by ostracising the crackpot.OstracismIf -
* a thread reaches 100 posts, or
* the OP reaches 10 posts, or
* the OP breaks a rule 6 times
then
any reader may call for an Ostracism.If the Moderators agree a requirement above was met,
then an Ostracism is called, and is open for 3 days.After 3 days,
if 12 or more have cast ostraca against the crackpot,
then the crackpot is ejected for a time.First offense - for 1 day,
2nd - a week,
3rd - a month,
4th - a season,
5th - a year.IasionP.S.
(*) What's happening with "lose" and "loose" in the US? They seem to be merging in usage - very odd.