Invitation To all interested parties to convene a Jury of Review in order that we might consider issues pertaining to Site Rules • Case: Site Rules v. Dr. Lou Natic (04-001) • Accusation: Inflammatory topic post in violation of Site Rules. • Advocates (As of February 20, 2004): For Site Rules - Tiassa For The Defense - Dr. Lou Natic, Thefountainhed Notes on Jury Voting - I'll figure something out; voting should not take place while arguments are being posted. Notes on "Conviction Standard" - Obviously, Innocent until proven guilty should suffice. Notes on "Sentencing Phase" - I do not propose a ban, and do not necessarily propose any direct administrative or moderating action at this time. Part of the purpose of this topic is to explore both the issue of inflammatory posts and what to do about them. Necessary Information Objectionable Topic: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=33218 ("If you don't believe in evolution, you also can't believe in ...") Site Rules: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=20345 or http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=20363 Principals and Accusation: The Site Rules have been in effect since April, 2003. Dr. Lou Natic has been a member for one year. The Objectionable Topic takes place in the Religion Forum, long known for acrimonious disputes. Dr. Lou Natic now stands accused of devising and posting an inflammatory topic post in violation of the Site Rules, which read, in part: Schedule: Undetermined, experimental. Future challenges include invocation of a Jury Poll, establishing relevancy protocols, and what comes next in the event of conviction. A Personal Note: By and large, I have little--if anything--against Dr. Lou Natic as a poster or in my impression of the greater human being on the other end of the network. But I must put my foot down at some point. Thus I request to convene this discussion in order to examine inflammatory posts and their effects in the Sciforums community. Quite frankly, I enjoy Sciforums, except of late for the other posters around here. On the one hand, without them, there wouldn't be anyone to discuss anything with. To the other, even with them around, the same problem applies. And given the Ban Wars, the tirades against posters, and of course the tantrums about the eventual moderation, I'm officially curious. Lastly: Accused, Dr. Lou, of posting an inflammatory topic post. I'm sick of that sort of topic around here, and except for the chance to bash ideas that escape knowledge and understanding, I don't see that other posters like them much either. And, yes, I do have an extended purpose tucked away in a mayonnaise jar, though not in the custody of Price-Waterhouse. For now, determining whether or not such a topic post is inflammatory is all I need. I'll give anybody interested in this exercise some time to think it over. Arguments can commence sometime this evening, if we like. I intend to begin with a discussion of site rules and principles, an evidentiary presentation with interpretive comments, and considerations of degrees. Postscript: Apparently, there has been a six-hour delay in posting this topic as I never clicked the "submit new thread" button before tying myself up in domestic duties. As such, I'll probably worry about the opening argument tomorrow morning.