One way we are trying to manage this here is by treating those with credential and/or contributions (e.g. @kirk, @Agauger, @Art, @evograd, @bjmiller, @Joel_Duff, @deuteroKJ, @jongarvey etc.) different than those who are anonymous, without credentials, and/or without contributions. I’m going to take, for example, a disagreement with @Kirk differently, giving him the benefit of the doubt (as much as I can). A random anonymous poster on the forum with no evidence of comprehensions, not so much.
Of course, in some cases random people on the internet can demonstrate that they do have real competence, even outside their field. See for example (@PdotdQ and @structureoftruth here: The Pilot Wave Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics). However, at base line, random people have to earn the right to have their ideas engaged at the same level as @Winston_Ewert, @glipsnort, or @John_Harshman.
Of course, even those with knowledge here can be wrong, and in disagreement. At least that way the disagreements can be informative to everyone.
Is that a good strategy? Is this a good rule to guide @moderators?
Is this good enough basis to kill interminable back and forth exchanges that sometimes plague forums like ours? What do you think?