Take a quick perusal through some of them... GIA starts threads condemning virtually every religion except his own, and then goes off on a tangent upon anyone who dares to threaten his precious. He doesn't invite, nor tolerate, dissent, and isn't looking for discussion any deeper than praise. Perhaps your view is different because you haven't been privy to the multitude of reports he has generated over the years? Okay... Indeed, it isn't... because we have rules and a method by which to enforce them. I'm not sure what you are digging at here... EG, you want a subforum where the rules don't apply? That's... probably why they came to SciForums, and not, say, "Post random stuff" forums? You are claiming the fringe sections are exempt from the requirements of evidence and standards... they aren't. Aye, and the Administration established the rules, and picked the Moderation team to help enforce them... So in one breath, you say it's the admin's call... then in another, you want to dispute the call they made? There is black and white on this - either an argument has good supporting evidence, or it doesn't. Now, that evidence doesn't always take the same shape or form - case in point, historical evidence that we cannot go back and validate because the source no longer exists, but has already been validated. All said - there is a specific rule stating that extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. Some dude with a 10 dollar RCA camcorder and a beer can seeing an unknown object is not exactly the extraordinary evidence required to claim that aliens have come for his sheep, to make the exaggeration plain. Then if that is what you wish to suggest, I would recommend taking it up with the Administration, as they are the ones able to implement these ideas. One could say the same thing about such topics as promoting antisemitism / white supremacy / misogyny or a host of topics that are simply not acceptable (such as supporting the mass execution of an entire sect of peoples). One would think the same about someone making utterly unsupported and unsubstantiated claims over and over in the face of overwhelming evidence that they are wrong... Yet, without someone to actually enforce the rules, those topics continue to live, with the claimant simply restating his or her initial position without ever validating it, whilst demanding ever greater levels of evidence from those showing how they are wrong. Simply put - trolls exist. They get shut down in real life because, much like that Nazi sympathizer in Seattle, people can take action to stop the from soap-boxing their damaging rhetoric... on the Internet, though, there is nobody who can do that. That is why someone needs to exist to enforce the rules. If you disagree with the rules and/or approach that has been used since before I even joined SciForums... then I would suggest taking it up with the administration.