N A W A C - Field Study Discussion

[Cotter]

It's my assessment that, once again, the cost-benefit ratio of continuing to participate in this conversation has tipped into the red for me. I won't be contributing to this thread until there's something new to report. 

 

Looking forward to what you are willing to share!  Bring on spring!

[Guest Suesquach]

Me too, Cotter!

[Airdale]

Roughly three dozen of the last 50 plus posts in this thread are either from members who generally scoff at the idea of Bigfoot/Sasquatch/Wood Apes in general and N.A.W.A.C.'s work in X specifically, or are in response to those posts. I've put a number of said members on ignore, yet it seems useless as I see their opinions quoted by other members whose posts I otherwise appreciate and often learn from. The only way that I believe this thread can be kept on track for those of us actually interested in and supportive of Brian and N.A.W.A.C.'s work is if as a group, we utilize the ignore function. I understand how personally satisfying it is to post a thoughtful response to an irritating one, yet it simply tells the other member that they have gotten under your skin and encourages further agitating. I'm sure to be roundly criticized by certain members for this post, but I won't have to worry about seeing any of it unless it is as a quote.

[Guest DWA]

^^^Hey Airdale:  tell me whom you have on Ignore, and I'll stop quoting 'em!

 

Seriously, gang.  The mental relaxation generated by the Ignore function beats any retreat you have been to.  The folks I have on Ignore aren't contributing anything useful; they say the same things over and over and over and...etc.; they never back up a thing they say and are always badgering everyone else for proof.

 

Know what I say about them?  See my LightBlueQuote.  Why continue to go there?  No reason.

[Guest Stan Norton]

Airdale, you make a sound point and I am one of those who, despite my better judgement, occasionally find it impossible not to chip in and as a result fuel the fire. Its a shame though because none of us here should be afraid to listen to dissenting views (they should be welcomed), provided they are presented intelligently and courteously. That is sadly often not the case and it just gets everyone's backs up. Ignore is unfortunately a necessary measure.

[Airdale]

DWA,

I was a member for six months or more before I put anyone on ignore. I noticed patterns from certain members across multiple threads that didn't add anything to the conversation, rather they seemed bound and determined to impede what I view as reasonable discussion on whatever the subject, often by trying to agitate other members. I choose to avoid such people in my personal life and I see no reason to encourage them here. Someone has to work to earn my ignore, I don't do it lightly. I would suggest reviewing the last four or five pages of this thread and, using your own criteria, determine who you believe is honestly seeking knowledge and who seems to be more focused on teeing off Brian and casting aspersions on the sanity, knowledge and/or intelligence of other members.

 

Stan,

I appreciate and learn from thoughtful dissent, and many times have incorporated it into my own views. I learned my lesson after a verbal warning for what seemed at the time a witty response to some verbal jabs I received on the earlier iteration of this thread last spring. A moderator thought, and rightly so, that my post aided and abetted derailment of the thread. Hopefully these posts will not be viewed in the same light as my intent is only to improve the flow of useful information. If there is sufficient interest in this topic then a new thread would definitely be in order and Moderator input is welcome.

 

Much of what I see, however, seems to fit the definition of what a good friend of mine, a mental health professional, described as "passive aggressive behavior". As I understand the term, it means to express a verbal or written opinion regarding a subject or person, while actually behaving in a manner contrary to the stated opinion. An example might be something like saying "John Doe is a talented guy, works hard and really deserves to be promoted to manager", while at the same subtly hinting that John has some less than desirable character flaws.

 

On this side of the pond, the Constitution guarantees the right to free speech with minimal restriction, but nobody is guaranteed an audience. If you don't like what the guy on the soapbox is saying, just pass on by. Likewise, within more restrictive guidelines, the BFF allows members to express their opinions, but nobody has to read them. If you believe a member is hindering the purpose of free exchange of ideas on a regular basis and would rather not subject yourself to that, the ignore function can help.

[Guest DWA]

DWA,

 I would suggest reviewing the last four or five pages of this thread and, using your own criteria, determine who you believe is honestly seeking knowledge and who seems to be more focused on teeing off Brian and casting aspersions on the sanity, knowledge and/or intelligence of other members.

 

Don't think I'll need to do that because - based precisely on your description of their traits - I probably have them on Ignore!  LOL

 

Stan,

 

If you believe a member is hindering the purpose of free exchange of ideas on a regular basis and would rather not subject yourself to that, the ignore function can help.

 

My basis for Ignore could not possibly be better stated.

[salubrious]

Y'all can use the report function too. 

 

If there is a post that you think is violating a forum rule, and trolling is certainly a violation, please use the report function. Just click on the link which is at the bottom of every post; in this case at the bottom of the one that you think might have a problem.

 

Don't try to moderate yourself- that won't work. Let us handle it. But for us to do it, we need to know there is a problem.

 

So use the Report link.

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                                                                                                               Its right over here.

[the parkie]

Very well said Airdale. I totally agree and endorse what you say. I too utilise the ignore function.

[See-Te-Cah NC]

Since I'm posting about forum rules and reports, this is a staff statement.

 

The ignore function is a wonderful tool. Unfortunately, the staff can't use it because we have to be able to see and review every post. However, that's nearly impossible on a forum this large. This is why we have a report function on the forum. If you see a post that doesn't keep with the rules you can, and should, report it.

 

Having said that, both sides of the proverbial fence are welcome to participate in the discussion. Note the term "discussion." Members are free to question statements and conclusions made by other members, but they're not free to do so in a disrespectful manner. They're also not free to keep pounding the same question(s) at another member repeatedly if the member doesn't answer, or if the member doesn't answer the question to their satisfaction. That's antagonistic behavior, which is trolling. No member of the BFF has an obligation to answer any question, particularly when the question is intended to imply misdeeds or wrongdoing by those skeptical of their efforts or of their intentions.

 

We welcome skeptics on the forum, but not when they are cynical about it. To constantly pound a member because you want to imply that they're somehow wrong or hoaxing is not cool. If you find proof of this, then yes, it's fair game, and a member can actually be removed from the BFF if the evidence shows that they were involved in a hoax.

 

My staff hat is now off. These statements are my own.

 

It's perfectly legal to apply for and benefit from a tax-exempt status. Your standard of what should be tax-exempt isn't necessarily that of the government. I fail to see how this even comes into play in this discussion other than to attempt to imply that the member is doing so in a fraudulent manner. This is nothing more than an attempt to cast doubt onto someone's character, which I find to be rather weak and underhanded.

 

If someone is abusing their tax-exempt status, that's between them and the government. How it has anything to do with the member and the validity of their claims and evidence is beyond me.

[Drew]

I am in total agreement with See on the Tax exempt status.

 

 

The one tactic I would say to Bipto to try, is the tactic of misdirection that was used in Africa to trick Leopards into approaching a bait pile.

 

6 people would walk out to a blind, make a lot of commotion around the blind, and then 4 people would walk out, leaving two in the blind.

 

This was a trick used to fool the oldest, most wary leopards.  Because as smart as they are, they could not count.  

 

 

As far as cameras, I think you should make a stealth visit to the site, and place some secret cameras out there, with satellite uplink capability. 

One person sneaking in and placing cameras may not alert the Apes to the camera's locations  

[Skookum Chuck]

^^^^^^^^   Plussed See.  Right on!

[bipedalist]

NAWAC was not wrong in using tax-exempt status as they sprung from the Texas Bigfoot Research Conservancy which was (and I suppose still is since it is reformulated now) tax-exempt. 

[Airdale]

Sal and See,

Appreciate your input. I'm guessing at this, but strongly suspect that the "Report" button is viewed as something of a nuclear option and there may be a general reluctance to use it, perhaps out of concern that it might have a chilling effect on free and open discussion. If it is being used in regards to some of the members I have on ignore, I must assume that staff does not agree with the member(s) reporting the post(s) as there do not appear to be significant inroads being made on the number or nature of their posts. Also, my understanding of trolling is that it is defined by a pattern of behavior as opposed to a single post that might be viewed as offensive or disruptive. It would be interesting to know, without revealing any names, how many posts are reported over a given period, say a month, and the percentage of those reports in which some action is taken.

 

A possible solution that might make it easier for the moderators to inhibit trolling, if it would be practical to implement, occurs to me. It would put the onus of researching threads on members and provide staff with more useful data. If there was an option allowing similar questionable posts throughout a thread to be flagged and linked it would present a moderator with a pattern of possible violations and thus make genuine trolling more obvious. An example from this thread might be something along these lines; member X reviews the thread from the beginning and flags each post suggesting that NAWAC is simply being hoaxed. A moderator could review the posts, whether limited to a single member or limited simply by the subject, and any pattern of abuse, repetition, etc., should be fairly obvious. If a feature similar to what is outlined above could be worked out, it would very likely weed out those few members who seem more interested in impeding discussion than advancing it in short order. 

[Lake County Bigfooot]

If we could honestly control the forum through such means all would be well, or would it?  Is not part of what makes this forum what it is all the criticism and banter

that go with it.  If we completely abolish the noise we wish not to hear does that benefit the discussion. I know I have benefited from all the criticism brought to my

own thread, if you guys lose that quality I will exit stage left.  

 

The forum constitution is as good a guide as any, because the founders knew that such critical approach was essential to the overall argument, however

I do not think that Bipto(aka brian) should respond to stupidity.  

Edited February 27, 2014 by Lake County Bigfooot