It may be naïve to think that people will self-organized into a well-order community. Rather off-topic, but stringent policing is there worst way to moderate, IMO. There are gentler ways to influence discussion, such as trying to set a good example. In the long run gentle methods are far most effective than brute force fix-ups, because they are preventative.
Thank you for that.
I may have been rather bedazzled with Joshua’s description of the […] It doesn’t sound like there was any moderation required to achieve the ‘beautiful thing’ that Joshua referred to.
Videos discussions are very constrained in their format, unless you make a video of people in unformatted argument. 
I take a broad view of “good” discussion. Even a fairly rowdy argument can have a good outcome in terms of two people coming to a greater understanding of each other. This is different from “winning or losing” an argument. It’s true that people often act as if argumentation is a Zero-Sum game, but there is a lot more to it than that. Some people will never change their minds for any reason, but if you watch carefully you might see them change their approach or drop certain opinions over time.
As my mother used to warn me, “Some people never change.” Discussion with such are never productive, but it might take a while to identify them.
AND now back to something resembling the original topic.
Have any atheists ever said anything not derogatory about anything ID?
Yes. there are atheist supporters of ID. Not a lot, but they exist.
There bigger problem here is the inherent self-contradiction:
- If ID is a scientific topic, then the atheist opinion carries no additional weight - scientific interpretation should be all that matters.
- If ID is a religious topic, then the opinion of the atheist may be relevant, but perhaps not useful.
If someone chooses to believe in a divine (or alien) Creator, then it doesn’t bother me, and I make this point occasionally. If someone is presenting their religious faith as scientific fact, then there are grounds to object both on religious and scientific grounds.
In practice many ID supporters prevaricate, first trying to make a scientific case, then switching to the religious side when faced with criticism. Every scientific idea should have potential for criticism built in to it - that questions should be testable and at least theoretically falsifiable. Proponents of ID mostly fail to define any way that ID could ever be disproven. Most often they may claim that some proof of evolution would disprove ID, but such proof still doesn’t rule out design that looks like evolution.
The question remains: What evidence could possibly disprove ID?
