I have noticed that Syne isn't listed as a moderator any longer. I hope that he's still around as a participant though. I always kind of liked his posts, even if I didn't always agree with them. I think that it's important that there be a variety of opinion around here and I'm not comfortable with this forum becoming an exclusive clubhouse for self-satisfied atheists.
*nods* He is still a member and I would imagine will still be around.
What would I like it to be, ideally? Probably a place that hosts university-level discussions about the philosophy of religion, where 'religion' is interpreted cross-culturally and includes the non-Western traditions.
Thing is, the way I look at it, isn't that what the Comparative Religion sub forum is for, while this is/has been reserved for the less... scientifically appropriate parts of it?
And there's the thing. That forum is seemingly just a slower and perhaps slightly stupider version of this one. The reason, as always, is that Sciforums is a layperson's board. It's probably unrealistic to expect Sciforums threads to look like university class discussions.
I liked it the way it was months ago, before somebody called for more moderation and got their wish. Frankly, in my opinion at least, many of the recent problems here were simply made worse by actions of the moderators. (I'm certainly not including you in that Kittamaru, but I think that with regards to some of the other moderators it's obviously true. And I'm
not just talking about Syne.)
Indeed, we are hoping with Summer approaching the forums will pick up again. As far as the heavy-handed moderation goes, yeah, it's something we as a whole are trying to remedy (as well as I personally) - it's a bit of a double edged sword; it seems heavier than normal because rules are being enforced where they hadn't been before, but as a result there is more conflict resulting in more moderation... catch-22 in a way.
I'm not sure why there are two religion fora either. I guess that somebody, at some point, wanted to separate the grownups' university-level discussions from the incessant atheist-theist battling. Unfortunately, that seemingly didn't work as planned, because there weren't enough people here able to keep the grownup's forum going as intended.
Fair enough observation 
Regarding the 'mosh pit' thing, I don't see that as a big problem. It's what makes the religion forum one of the more active fora on Sciforums. It's what catches people's attention, gets them emotionally fired up and motivates them to post.
If I was a moderator, I'd basically let threads go where their participants want them to go. Obviously some threads are going to be rather stupid and perhaps intentionally provocative. Or at least some people will perceive them as being that. That's inevitable.
Which is approximately where I am with stepping in as the new Religion moderator.
The way to address that, and the way to raise the forum's tone, isn't to heavy-handedly close threads and ban participants. I'd only do that rarely, as a last resort, if somebody is being an over-the-top bully (that might earn a warning, and if repeated, a chill-out break) or if some content in a thread represents some kind of legal risk to Sciforums. But it would have to be pretty bad.
The best way to address juvenile and stupid posts is to post an intelligent and adult reply to them. The kids will either have to raise their game or else they will end up looking stupid and inferior in comparison. It needn't always be the moderators doing that. Sciforums attracts a pretty bright crowd and threads are often kind of self-righting if given a little time. If somebody says something dumb, then somebody else is probably going to subsequently point it out.
Indeed - the general consensus "in the back room" seems to be that Comparative Religion should be held to the typical forum standards, where as Religion would have the standards of burden of proof, preaching/proselytizing, etc loosened, but the standards regarding personal attacks, insults, and general vulgarity enforced as normal. To me that sounds fair, and if that is okay with everyone else, that will be the standards I follow
First, I would like to thank you for even asking that question. It's very cool and believe me, it's appreciated.
Not a problem mate. We've already seen what happens when someone comes in and starts making changes without feedback... it gets, at best awkward, at worst downright ugly
Again, I don't think that the 'religion' forum needs a whole lot of heavy-handed moderation. Less is more in most cases. Just an occasional nudge to dial flamers in (and maybe a time out now and then if they don't comply).
I'd like to see moderators being the 'voice of reason' in threads, to the extent that's possible. But... it's going to be hard for moderators to speak with any special authority on the subject of religion when they've had no special training in the subjects of religious studies or philosophy themselves.
So perhaps moderators should position themselves as peer-counselors, so to speak, as discussion facilitators as opposed to lecturers. In other words, moderators shouldn't pretend to have the answers when they don't and should largely concern themselves with everyone having the ability to seek answers in as friendly, inclusive, thoughtful and inviting a manner as possible. Keeping in mind that some passion is inevitable and perfectly fine as long as it doesn't descend into bullying.
One thing that's really crucial here is that moderators MUST set good examples. They can't be insulting and flaming people, or posting incoherent poorly-thought-out rants, and then turning around and banning participants for doing exactly the same things they do. The board starts to unravel when that happens.
