In all seriousness, any argument against it seems like a case of hand wringing. So really, why not? The tone of the board will catastrophically change? Bullshit. Why is everyone* so terrified of adding another (actually useful) sub-forum?
Adding Elections was a fantastic way to filter out the signal-to-noise in Great Debates. And adding the Game Room really cleaned up the Cafe Society and MPSIMS.
Wouldn’t adding a Debunking forum work the same for General Questions and even Great Debates? If not, why not?
*everyone: it’s only an expression.
I’m advocating a Link List sub-forum, btw. If it’s called something like Debunking, it runs into the sort of party-line problems expressed by njtt. If took that route I would address those concerns by making clear in the forum descriptions and perhaps the title itself that the subforum is the opinionated playground of the editor only. Then choose an editor who has feet planted firmly on the ground.
Still, I concede that woo advocates deserve their own link list. I prepared it over the weekend: at one entry it’s possibly a little long but I think we can manage it:
Collection of Links Exploring the Supernatural and Unexplained Mysteries From a Sympathetic Perspective
www.crank.net
An occasionally updated compendium of links covering, “Web sites by and about cranks, crankism, crankishness, and crankosity.”
Still, the broader link list framework would permit coverage and description of frequently recurring topics of concern such as computer issues.
cmyk: Here’s why this is unlikely to happen. The editor must have 3 qualities:
a) time and motivation,
b) organizational ability,
c) the temperament of a fine moderator.
Zotti takes (c) pretty seriously which is why this board didn’t flame out years ago. But it narrows down the candidate list pretty drastically. Plus, there’s no reason why someone couldn’t build a template at their own website.
On a historical basis (it hasn’t been refreshed for quite awhile), Peter Bowditch’s “Quintessence of the Loon” is a compendium of crazy web woo.
To counter that, he has a up-to-date site called “The Green Light”, which is a collection of 462 websites for countering the crazies.
But what about our crazies. They’re ours, and nobody loves our crazies more than we.
Maybe we ought to go the other direction and have a Woo Forum. Don’t try to talk the loons out of their lunacies, just put 'em in a room together. Combine ant-vaxers, conspiracy theorists, Truthers, Witnessing, and whatever other bullshit that some people take way to seriously into one place where that will de-clutter the other forums and not lead to claims of suppressing ideas and thought.
Plus it would be a convenient place for those of us with a certain sensibility to get our daily chuckles.
Oh yeah, and we can call it some more respectable sounding, like “Speculative …”
It would lead to howls of protest because 99.9995% of them think that their beliefs and “facts” are just as valid as yours. I don’t think you could hire a moderator for that forum, let alone get one to volunteer for it.
Hell, I’d moderate it if needed. Other than punishing personal insults, I’d leave it as basically a free-for-all.
And would you be the one deciding which threads are woo?
Oh, no … it’s the moderators of other forums who decide if a thread doesn’t fit, and if not, where to send it.
I for one would like to welcome our new crazy-determining moderator overlords.
And you’ll be the one getting all those angry PMs from posters demanding that you put their threads back “where they obviously belong!”
Sitting back and letting it all go? Not on the Moderator Description List, I’m afraid. 
Are you kidding? I’m a Libertarian, marketplace of ideas kinda moderator!
I don’t think the other forums are cluttered with woo and I don’t think that concentrating the woo in one place would fight ignorance particularly well.
When you think about it, the internet is a rather woo-tolerant place. This board differs in that there’s an expectation of substantiated argument. (Interesting, arguments are more likely to be weak because they fail along the lines of rules of evidence; logical fallacies are less of a problem.)
Going back to the OP, yes a Dubunking or even List Compilation forum would be contentious. I could imagine a moderator emeritus like the former David B might handle it. Heck, we might even be able to rope Czarcasm in, though we’d probably have to offer him certain amenities like cloth pads on the shackles or maybe the occasional beef jerky to go with his bread and water.
A new forum proposal that makes the most sense since Great Debates or Elections, and it’s being poo-pooed for lack of a scary mod position?
This is the internet. You brush it with your elbow and mods fall out.
-
If this is merely about an all-about-woo forum, then I think GD handles the topic fine.
-
If it’s about consolidating references and links in one place, then I support it. I imagine an expanded and better organized version of the sticky in GQ.
2b. Though an enterprising member could [del]easily[/del] create a proof-of-concept in their blog. Just saying.
-
And I am not poo-pooing the idea FTR. (No worries: I just don’t want to be misunderstood.)
-
But locating SDMB mods has been a challenge ever since the rooftop Cecil Signal went on the fritz.
I’m not railing at anyone in particular, and you seem to have been for it all along. I’m rooting for a debunking (not a woo) sub-forum, that makes use of board stickies to help ground any conversation in readily available cites within that sub-forum.
As for mods, I’ve volunteered before, and didn’t mind not making the cut then, but I can’t be the only volunteer here. There’s been others offering right in this very thread.*
*And yes, I get it’s a thankless and sometimes annoying job.
Ahhh… but that’s the very act of debunking, is it not?
A group effort would be had time and time again in the threads, I’m sure. Which is why a debunking forum is so necessary.