General discussion of moderation procedures: The Consecution

Randman has taken to repeating the "not enough fossils" rant everywhere he posts. In the couple of threads discussing that a lot of effort was put in to help him develop his idea and arrive at some support for "not enough" as a number and offer his answers to all the mechanisms which can make fossils rare or hard to find.He stopped working on the problem and left a lot of questions unanswered. I think we have heard enough from him about his personal beliefs on the issue and will require very detailed reasoning and support. It is reasonably clear he is either incapable or unwilling. There's been more than enought time spent.

No, I'd say not. What is requied is to voice ones objections to it clearly, to explain those further when asked, to build your objections on reasoning that starts from verifiable evidence and logic.These are, I agree, pretty stringent requirements. If it was actually possible to manage such then YEC'ers etc would be doing it a lot and even making progress in having the science changed.However, when asked to do this those objecting don't seem to manage these things and a lot of them don't even understand the requirements.

That post is out of place. This is not the place to discuss such issues.

I disagree with you on this.I think the division into to classes of debate is a reasonable compromise. It is really only a reduction in the threads where the guidelines are enforced.We have been giving all comers a reasonable chance to participate in the scientific debates. By being clear about the need for some discipline in part of the site it saves those debating in good faith from wasting too much time.Once it is clear that an individual is uninterested or unable to carry on a fact based, reasoned discussion it isn't useful to waste the time they can easily consume.

It isn't so much his questioning; it is the childish comments that he makes while standing on a base of utter ignorance.

The issue was heading off into a discussion of the accuracy or reality of the geneologies. The general idea for an example is ok bit it wasn't the best choice of specific example; too distracting.

I understand but it is too much of a diversion from the main topic. If it is necessary to argue it out then take it to a another thread as a side issue.There are lots of times when an issue comes up that, while pertinent to the main topic, is too big and too far afield.