problem is that thumb up or down would be given to the poster rather than the post all time time.

What about the f-mod attributing points to poster for his or her good arguments presented in a thread and deducting points for insults, harassment, trolling, etc..?

Could the points be attributed anonymously by mods?

ho about an invisible point system that simply counted the ammount of insults, slander and after 5 points they would be banned for a week or so. causing them to consider when they insult and if they do.

How about simply forum blocking/banning people for excessive slander and insults.

Even in politics there has to be a line that cannot be crossed. I mean, what are we, the British House of Commons? I think not!

Heh... Render your not a nice person.

Chris... not working with Xeno yet... so...

How about a courtesy requirement? That would nullify 90% of the crap. No degenerating ones intelligence, name calling, or calling one a liar without an appropriate counter.

Examples

1) Name Calling/Intelligence degeneration
You're an idiot
You're a moron
You're stupid

2) Calling one out
Person A posts a post with five supporting links. Person B dismisses all links without proof of why all links are bad (he/she could have provided link evidence supporting their claim, provided some content as to why they dismiss the links, etc)

Dismisses a legit source is also bad. If I use www.foxnews.com dismissing immeadiately as 'biased' is factually wrong. Most of their news is either generated by AP, Reuters, or other sources or is generated with actual news teams of their own and dispersed to other news orgs which then show it as news as well.

Some very specific problems also exist... where some ignore evidence that their theories are wrong and yet continues attacking using their current line... where one will inflate a post to monster size with no actual content other than attacks...

Those need a warning or three with forum bans in the specific cases

If one is going to be active in their/a thread they should not neccessarily ignore counters. If they stop being active in the thread it is a different story.

If one is going to post a disagreement they should be civil in the disagreement and lay out a case.

Case in point I will single myself out. I targeted Wornstrum when he posted about water temperatures. I said specifically that he fell into a trap. I did not need to denigrate him in that manner (though it feels good sometimes and other times I use it as a foist to get attention) but instead could have changed the post significantly to just counter his.

For example it could have said "sorry Wornstrum the NOAA published info showing unusual cooling as well (link) and the results support...." Less hostile, same counter.

I will say this with a firm line in the sand. Xeno must be told not to threaten lawsuits in the forum. No one should ever use threats of legal action to silence another. If you wish to sue... do it but don't announce it at all! To attempt to silence people with threats of lawsuits like that is to engage in criminal behavior in some areas and IC should under no circumstances tolerate it. They should treat it like me providing details how to hack a computer and damage it, like someone providing steps to make a bomb and offering to pay someone to make it, and so forth. ANY CRIMINAL ACTIVITY SHOULD BE INSTANT BAN!

For lesser offenses say two weeks. For greater... up to lifetime bans. I think Xeno deserved a ban... I don't care if Kemp was pushing him and his personal issues with such pushing. Threats and intimidation is a thing we should not tolerate.

So a courtesy requirement could work in my opinion.

/me drops some GHB in Chris's soda. Drags Chris to a closet, duck tapes him thoroughly, locks the door behind himself and promises to release Chris when the forum is opened with better rules than Chris offers.

You were clearly using a threat of suing, on false grounds no less, to harass another person into complying with your will on his freedom of speech.

He is entitled to his opinion, as am I, that you are a communist with strong communist theories and that if you ever succeed with them it will require the deaths of millions of people.

In no way does our opinion require your silence, nor does it prevent others from thinking otherwise of you. We are not sending to the entire web entries (where you wont find them for a while) calling you a Soviet type Communist, nor are we telling prospective employers. In no way are you materially hurt by our accusations and our personal beliefs.

Your ability to gain employment has not been hurt by us, your ability to get a political position is not impacted by us, you are unable to show any material damages...

Yet you continuously threatened us both with lawsuits. In fact you specifically sought a means to have me arrested and called me much worse than a mere communist.... But did I ever threaten lawsuits on you? No.

You are incapable of understanding the true meaning of slander or of any other sort of written or oral misrepresentation as pertains to legal levels. I am a novice as far as the law and skill goes in the arena as I do have a degree. The only true experts are lawyers and judges themselves with veterans perhaps the legal assistants in life (like Chris). I only say this because otherwise you would not have threatened lawsuits but instead called Kemp out for trolling and using distraction methods.

It does not matter if you talk about Gypsies, Blacks, Hispanics, Whites, Poor, Rich (which is an oppressed group), or some religion (aka Jews)... He can say his case and he can stand by it and you should not be trying to make him stop via threats of lawsuits.

I am just defining the background enough to validate my "Idea" for the IC forum. Threats of legal action, aka intimidation tactics, should result in bans.

There is no justification for any such behavior.

heh, I will do anything it takes to get the best education. Nuff said.

Simple solution -

make every poster in politics forum hidden.  people bash each other rather then debate on a personal level,  so take away the personal information and bring back the debate.