I’ve been chewing on this for a while for how to best respond. Replying to Steve and Tim, but intended for all …
This is the reality of moderating an online community. I faced the same problem of consistency moderating an atheism community. There were didn’t have the problem of balance with theism, but we still enforced rules of respectful discussion for all. Here we have an Apples & Oranges situation between different worldviews - there is no equivalence, and a moderator can only make a judgement call. Judgement calls are hard, and someone is generally left unhappy about it, including the moderator.
Enforcing respectful discussion offers more room for improvement.
- People sometimes state opinions as if they are facts.
- Others argue against opinion as if it were fact.
This is what I’m getting at with “the wrong argument”. The first may be a false premise, and the second is accepting a false premise as the basis of argument. This is where people start talking past each other and the argument goes south. It’s not so much a moderation issue as it is an education issue for the desired tone of community discussion (also a responsibility of the mods).
As for who decides, anybody can ask for clarification of what another meant. Mods not following a discussion aren’t even likely to spot the opinion/fact confusion as comments are approved. I’d like to see a lot more users taking the initiative to good discussion instead of taking the bait to argument, and this is not the first time I’ve tried to get the point across.
Good moderation is (IMO) primarily a matter of educating people to the expectations of the community. When users understand the expectations, the mods don’t need to make so many tough judgement calls.