Concerning The Ongoing Debate Over Skeptic /scofftic/denialist Participation On The Bff And Proving Bigfoot's Existence

[hiflier]

Hello All,

 

A solution? Yes, I already stated it sometime back. It's not perfect but it's a start. The OP should be the one to nip things in the bud. Remind the participants that the thread isn't an existence debate thread and to try to address and keep the topic. It would be up to the OP to determine this on the basis of the subject the OP initiated. The existence debate may stop right then and there. If it takes up again then either a post can be reported or the choice made to again remind the posters that the thread isn't for debating existence.

 

I do think that the message will be obvious to hardliners on both sides of the fence that the playing field will be getting smaller and smaller as more members who initiate new threads and others who comment on them see the improvement in the flow of though and conversation. This can all be done in a nice way and the real/not real battles will become fewer and short lived. Threads even now don't see the disruptions and with some diligence things could end up a whole lot better.

 

It comes down to if I don't want the existence debate on my thread I'll just say so. Sometimes the debate eases off slow and by the time one realizes it it's in full swing. But it'll get better as more members get tuned to it. One thing to note though, proof debates are not the same as existence debates although one can spill into the other and attract those at opposite existence poles. So be wary is all. We're grown ups, we can do this. 

Edited August 27, 2015 by hiflier

[ohiobill]

MIB/Trog - I don’t understand the 2 posts a day per thread, at least not for paying members without warning points. Why limit those who are apparently following the rules and supporting the forum to boot?  I can see it being a deterrent step though for those who have had problems much like the new poster daily limits have limited trouble in the past. I like the idea of a warning point for complaining rather than reporting a violation. I also think there’s a benefit to limiting the amount of threads that folks can start so mods can more easily check out new threads or combine them with already existing threads.

 

Bueller – Do you think it would be helpful to acknowledge, in the rules and/or in each forum header, an expectation of what the forum considers evidence and proof? It seems to be what most of the disagreements are about. Definitions in the paranormal section and the general forum could be different but maybe we could agree we shouldn’t be having debates over whether or not sighting reports are proof in the general forum? Could we ever agree that without DNA or a body recognized by scientists we all have to admit that biggie is possible but not proven to the world? Maybe we could even agree to the expectation that evidence like a footprint is evidence like the track Adam brought forward today? Then maybe we could talk about what made it rather than whether it is evidence or proof.   What do the mods think will make things better? They see it from a whole different perspective.

[roguefooter]

 

Quite a persecution complex you have there. You are either being purposely obtuse or just don't get what we were talking about.

 

 

Well why not just explain then? Is it better and more productive to just focus on a person's "complex" or personal inabilities? Why always so much focus here on the arguer rather than the argument?

 

The whole complaint about a person 'bothering' to post on the forum based on their views is obviously rooted on wanting that person to leave the forum- nobody would care otherwise. I certainly don't care if they're "bothered" or not, even though I don't agree with a lot that they say. It wouldn't be much of a debate if discussion were only one-sided, or if the standard social views of the existence of Bigfoot were off limits. My point was that their ideologies aren't going to go away by getting people to leave the forum.

Edited August 27, 2015 by roguefooter

[hiflier]

Hello roguefooter,

 

Again we had two people here claim that there is proof of existence, but the 'problem' only came about when I stated that there is no proof of existence. I become the bad guy- everyone else becomes the victim. How does that work?

 

There seems to be an incredible bias on this forum.

I already said you were right and I apologize for my error. But I do have to say that you missed that the "proof" was a personal conclusion based on a personal analysis. It was plainly stated. Many of us agree that only a body would be proof. For some though an analysis of the data is proof. It was stated and explained that the analysis constituted all the proof needed for that one person.

One persons belief in what proof is though doesn't mean it's accepted by all. BF "proof" by extension signifies existence. The whole matter was a mini existence debate and I didn't see it until now. Did anyone else?

I also don't see any push to get people to leave the Forum. How did you come up with such an idea? debate is healthy. But that's not what this thread is about is it. AGAIN, it's about how to keep existence debates from commandeering a thread- any thread. How about putting you energy there? Got any suggestions? At least this is a chance for you to get onto the topic of the thread if you care to. Or anyone else for that matter.

Edited August 27, 2015 by hiflier

[roguefooter]

^The claim that there is proof of existence (which is a patently false claim), and everyone who doesn't accept it is in denial (and compared to flat world believers) goes well beyond just a personal analysis of any evidence.

 

If the people want to avoid an unwanted discussion like existence, then don't instigate one. Especially by prodding people with personal jabs.

Edited August 27, 2015 by roguefooter

[beerhunter]

I am just throwing this out here, can we all try to act like adults? Is there any reason for a skeptic not to have an open mind? Is there any reason a know-er can't be skeptical of claims. Just like the things stated about Dr. Matt J..  Can't we at least consider maybe he saw something that might have done a number between the ears? Maybe we should feel sad for the guy and not ridicule him. I am standing in the middle on the BF issue and I get mad when folks know BF doesn't exist simply because there is not one single person or group of people that can be everywhere and see every creature in existence. You would have to know all and see all to make a claim that BF isn't real. If you base the existence of BF on hard evidence then skeptics and proponents agree things need to improve. Tonight I am headed to Northern Wisconsin and the U.P. of Michigan for some night driving with a dash cam. Call me a fool if you will, but I am trying to find out an answer for myself. We all should consider giving more input from our own unique perspectives without all the hardliner dogma. Take this for what it's worth - both sides also agree hoaxers and money grabbers are crippling the subject.  Who wouldn't love to go on a search of the woods along with Crow and  DWA  - that would be both fun and funny!  

[hiflier]

Hello rogueooter,
 

^The message is still the same- that there is proof of existence, and everyone who doesn't accept it is in denial (and even compared to flat world believers). That goes well beyond just an analysis of the evidence.

It's one person's conclusion. You're blowing this way out of proportion. It's NOT EVERYONE"S MESSAGE- pay attention.
 
The best way to avoid an unwanted discussion is to not instigate one, especially by prodding people with personal jabs.

That's the best way to avoid an existence/non-existence discussion with all it's own set of jabs as well. So..any ideas for stopping the existence debaters from derailing threads?

Hello beerhunter,

Who wouldn't love to go on a search of the woods along with Crow and  DWA  - that would be both fun and funny!  

 

Ooooo, pinch me now, LOL. Sounds like a blast. Can I sit in the middle? It's where I usually sit anyway

 

Do you have a solution for helping to limit existence debates from threads?

Edited August 27, 2015 by hiflier

[roguefooter]

 

 

It's one person's conclusion. You're blowing this way out of proportion. It's NOT EVERYONE"S MESSAGE- pay attention.

 

 

I never said it was everyone's message- I don't know where you got that from. I said that two people made the claim, not everybody. The claim was false, so I responded that it was false. That was it.

 

 

That's the best way to avoid an existence/non-existence discussion with all it's own set of jabs as well. So..any ideas for stopping the existence debaters from derailing threads?

 

 

Existence will always be the big elephant in the room so I don't see it ever stopping altogether. As long as dubious claims are made in a debate then the elephant will let everyone know it's still there.

[Patterson-Gimlin]

What was this thread about again ? Ten pagers later  . I forgot. I read them all. Somewhere along  in the midst of all of this.

I felt remorseful and the need to apologize. I am guilty of the accusations  that describe  a scoftic and denialist.

Please forgive me. I will try to do better .

[Guest]

I hope the two posts a day suggestion is not being seriously considered as I think that would kill any discussion or debate.

 

I do find the scofftic's and denialist's sniping and derailing annoying, but I just ignore them and don't reply to them.

 

The only suggestions I can think of is to maybe have new threads await a mods approval to check if it's a baiting one or have a mod for every single thread. The first wouldn't make much difference and the second is impossible.

[roguefooter]

You could always just create new forum categories that would separate the head clashing, by maybe creating general categories like 'evidence supported' topics and 'anecdotal' topics.

 

That way one area could focus on the presented evidence pertaining to a video/encounter/whatever, and discussion/conclusions would be expected to adhere to backing of claims, etc. The other area could focus on purely an anecdotal viewpoint, knowing, etc., with no fear of having to provide evidence to back any claims.

 

It may not satisfy the scoftic issue completely but will at least give people a more suitable area to stand on their soapbox. Just an idea anyways.

Edited August 27, 2015 by roguefooter

[Guest Stan Norton]

^^This may have legs. Further discrimination between topics may lead to less off-topic wandering. For example a thread devoted to the empirical study of purported footprints. Only discussion allowed would related to measurements, foot anatomy etc. Still I expect that some will continue to argue whether the correct ruler was used, or whether every possible variable was measured.

Edited August 27, 2015 by Stan Norton

[roguefooter]

^Just to add to what I'm thinking about would be the two areas:

 

Evidence/Science- based Area

(Theme would basically be 'extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence')

 

subforums:

- General Discussion

- Film/Videos/Photo/Audio

- PGF Film

- In The Field

- Conferences, etc

 

Anecdotal Area

(Theme would basically be a free/uninhibited Bigfoot discussion area)

 

subforums:

- General Discussion

- Sightings

- Media

- Paranormal

 

That's just my idea of how it could be laid out. I think it would require mostly reorganizing.

Edited August 27, 2015 by roguefooter

[hiflier]

Hello roguefooter,

 

It's one person's conclusion. You're blowing this way out of proportion. It's NOT EVERYONE"S MESSAGE- pay attention.

 

I never said it was everyone's message- I don't know where you got that from. I said that two people made the claim, not everybody. The claim was false, so I responded that it was false. That was it.

And I never said you did, that's why you don't know where you got it from And the important thing though is that for salubrious the claim of proof is not false. After reading the explanation given to Rockape for why salubrious arrived at that conclusion it should have been plain that to slam the claim again was uncalled for. And salubrious' claim isn't a big problem on the Forum at all. But you still insist on being off topic on this thread- and THAT's a big problem on the Forum that many are guilty of. This isn't about one person so don't make it such.

 

 

Existence will always be the big elephant in the room so I don't see it ever stopping altogether. As long as dubious claims are made in a debate then the elephant will let everyone know it's still there.

Letting some know is fine but when the debate takes center stage on a thread then it isn't. Simple. And the term dubious means questionable- which is more opinion than something cast in concrete so the "elephant" needs to be more like a pet dog. If someone wants to debate existence I have no issues with it so......START A THREAD FOR THE DEBATE. Don't bring it onto thread after thread after thread.........there, we're back on topic, see how easy that was?

@ Patterson Gimlin,

 

What was this thread about again ? Ten pagers later  . I forgot. I read them all. Somewhere along  in the midst of all of this.

I felt remorseful and the need to apologize. I am guilty of the accusations  that describe  a scoftic and denialist.

Please forgive me. I will try to do better .

No need to "do better" and although it may sound like it from some this thread isn't for denialist bashing. It's to find a solution for keeping or moving or stopping circular existence debates on threads where the OP doesn't want the disruption.

Edited August 27, 2015 by hiflier

[Guest DWA]

I hope the two posts a day suggestion is not being seriously considered as I think that would kill any discussion or debate.

 

There should be NO limit on the serious voices, and SERIOUS limits on the uninformed flamers.  I'd give my Ignore list one post per topic.  (No more would be needed for them to say their piece.)  (And yeah, that's why I will never be a moderator here:  I want a serious scientific discussion, with people who either aren't serious or serious about the wrong stuff essentially shut out.  That is how they do it in the sciences, people.  If your information is not equal to mine it is a solid bet your contribution won't be.  Unless your contribution is asking good questions. )

 

I do find the scofftic's and denialist's sniping and derailing annoying, but I just ignore them and don't reply to them.

 

l've essentially gone to this.  So now I see cascades of blue lines on each page.  And the ones who either are telling me they post less, or I can see they do, constitute a serious loss to this board.

 

The only suggestions I can think of is to maybe have new threads await a mods approval to check if it's a baiting one or have a mod for every single thread. The first wouldn't make much difference and the second is impossible.

 

Either the mods must grab - or WE must REPORT - the first post that goes off the rails on a topic.  On the vast majority of topics here, "no, because these aren't real" constitutes trolling and should be reported.

Edited August 27, 2015 by DWA