Here are some standards of proof from Wikipedia "Legal Burden of Proof", listed from easiest to most stringent:
Some credible evidence...
The "Some Credible Evidence" standard does not require the factfinder to weigh conflicting evidence, merely requiring the investigator to present the bare minimum.
Preponderance of the evidence...
Preponderance of the evidence, also known as balance of probabilities is the standard required in most civil cases. The standard is met if the proposition is more likely to be true than not true.
Clear and convincing evidence...
To prove something by "Clear and Convincing Evidence", the party with the burden of proof must convince that it is substantially more likely than not that the thing is in fact true. This is a lesser requirement than "Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt", which requires that the trier of fact be close to certain of the truth of the matter asserted, but a stricter requirement than proof by "Preponderance of the Evidence," which merely requires that the matter asserted pass the 50% threshold of being more likely true than not.
Beyond a reasonable doubt.... This high standard is used in criminal court because someone's freedom is at stake....
It has been described as, in negative terms, as a proof having been met if there is no plausible reason to believe otherwise.If there is a real doubt, based upon reason and common sense after careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence, or lack of evidence, in a case, then the level of proof has not been met. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore, is proof of such a convincing character that you would be willing to rely and act upon it without hesitation in the most important of your own affairs. However, it does not mean an absolute certainty.
Beyond any imaginable doubt This one isn't in the wikipedia article, but describes a game some people play here.
Wikipedia does discuss Beyond the shadow of a doubt
Beyond the shadow of a doubt is the most strict standard of proof. It requires that there be no doubt as to the issue. Widely considered an impossible standard, a situation stemming from the nature of knowledge itself, it is valuable to mention only as a comment on the fact that evidence in a court never need (nor can) reach this level.
While Skeptics is not court -- no one gets paid any money, and no one goes to prison -- there is also no point in reinventing the wheel if one or more of these standards of proof can apply in understanding our duties to upvote only the best answers and downvote the poor answers.
It seems we have some participants who use "enjoyed the post" or "Some credible argument" (not Some Credible evidence..., since evidence means a citation) as their standard. Preponderance, without evidence, is also pretty close to "a credible argument". I even confess to have upvoted some of these. Others are using Beyond the shadow of a doubt or Beyond any imaginable doubt (e.g. have we REALLY been to the moon, what if there is no moon? what if the gubermint lies? the earth could be created 4000 years old).
Somehow, we need to convince users to adjust their standards towards the upper middle (e.g. clear and convincing evidence) of this scale or define some other standard of proof not shown here.
Is Clear and convincing evidence the best standard to adopt on Skeptics, or is some other standard more appropriate? (either picked from the above list or invented here)