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

[Guest DWA]

Hello All,

OK, this is more like it. Thank you. I think someone mentioned that limiting posts might result in posts becoming bloggish in length. I'm beginning to wonder if any official framework will rectify the problem. It's why I say the issue of long unwanted debates on existence, which is the primary issue, can be addressed right away, TODAY, if OP's manage their threads like I've been trying to do with this one. The method is to keep steering the dialogue back onto topic.

Sure, it's work, and requires some consistent diligence, but it works. It may take some effort when dealing with those more locked into their methodologies as you've recently witnessed but as a course of action monitoring threads and directing the focus back onto the subject of a thread is effective. It simply takes practice.

Both the moderators and the posters share responsibility here.  It always pays to use that report function; to use Ignore...or to post oneself, if one cannot do the prior two things, to get threads back on topic.  You can be a moderator.  No, you can.  Don't take bait and stick to the OP.

 

Some people may not believe you create your own reality, but here on this forum everyone has that power. You talk about making people disappear from the forum, you have that power. You do not want to argue with the same person over and over then draw the line and use your power and start your ignore list. My ignore list is very short because I can mentally ignore the occasional posts by denialists and scofftics. If they get to nasty for me to even look at I put that person on ignore. This is not only for knowers to put all scoftics out of their view. I consider my self in the knower category and have to admit that the first person I put on ignore was a proponent that I just could not stand to read their posts anymore. We need to not rise to the bait like big fat trout.

Not asking you to take me off Ignore    but...yep.  (And I have a long Ignore list.  Up to the individual.)

[David NC]

It was not you DWA.   I also automatically put on ignore anyone that runs around multiple threads with the one liner potshots (even if they are not aimed at me) like "If the shoe fits wear it". " I ain't buying it" , and other quips that are just not productive in any conversation. I just do not want to see it or spend any time, even if it is just seconds, reading that.

[Guest DWA]

It was not you DWA.   I also automatically put on ignore anyone that runs around multiple threads with the one liner potshots (even if they are not aimed at me) like "If the shoe fits wear it". " I ain't buying it" , and other quips that are just not productive in any conversation. I just do not want to see it or spend any time, even if it is just seconds, reading that.

 

I have found that even if it might take one a considerable while (and go very strongly against one's instincts for fun), building the Ignore list on people with whom one cannot have productive conversations is a good way to stay out of trouble oneself and focus one's energies on the things worth talking about.  My biggest worry about addressing the OP problem with mechanical restrictions like # of posts or $ of contribution is The Law Of Unintended Consequences.  We can police our own; I know this because of the multiple sites on which I have seen the membership do it almost effortlessly.  It is not only possible, it is the only way to go.

[hiflier]

Hello David NC,

Others I'm sure share in what you're saying. If the OP is on the ball then those kinds of responses can be dealt with to. For example: "I ain't buying it" actually says a lot. Rather than blow it off it might be good to ask for a breakdown of why someone isn't buying it. Sometimes it's just a normal comment for some folks and they don't realize that some explanation may be asked of them. I'm not so naïve as to think these kinds of comments are always innocent so don't get me wrong. If an OP sees something like that directed toward a poster on the OP's thread then maybe zeroing in a bit will send a signal that some elaboration may be expected as a follow up to the comment.

I know, I know stuff just happens but I think an OP who's focused on the thread's subject will easily spot odd comments that are irrelavent. All it takes is weighing a post against the topic with some give and take to keep the conversation on more than less on track.

[salubrious]

@Bonehead- my little demonstration sparked some comments! It was in fact an example of exactly what the problem is.

 

In my view there is an issue of what rises to the level of trolling. IMO I feel that Crowlogic is doing this a lot. I placed a comment, one that he has never refuted, and sure enough he responded although didn't refute it. Its the same sort of comments he makes on nearly all threads on which I have seen him post. No proof, blah blah.

 

So there is the issue of how strict we moderators are to be about trolling. When I am involved in a thread I am more reluctant to ding someone with whom I am in a debate; I refer those comments to others.

 

But in moderating a lot of threads one thing I see over and over is the existence/no existence debate. In fact nearly every thread devolves (some quite quickly) to this point. Now a thread can get derailed, but when that is always where it derails to, then we have to think about whether a rule should be in place or something. I don't think the 2 post thing is going to do it. I think instead we need to stop trolls when they occur- and if the thread is not about existence/non existence then we need to consider that all posts that simply go that way are probably trolling by definition. Right now that is not built into the forum rules and when I need guidance that is where I look. When I have my moderation hat on, I don't care what side of the debate a person is on. I just go by the rules.

 

IMO that is where we need to look so we can have more in-depth discussion without being constantly derailed.

[hiflier]

Hello DWA,

Thank you. I've seen it too. And it works out surprisingly well. Like I said, not perfect, but in the short and long run it's pretty effective. It took some doing to get this thread on track but for the effort the rewards could be very satisfying and far reaching for many of us. Maybe even all of us depending on any realizations that it really is up to us to make things better.

Proponents and denialists will get there shots at each other. And it's not a bad thing IMO. But they'll also get a shot or two across the bow from an OP who would rather not have an existence debate end up on their thread about something say like Tree Peeping.

[Guest ChasingRabbits]

<sigh> I give up. You folks are hopeless.

 

Thank you very much.

 

Based upon my observations here in this forum, I gave you my opinion "why folks JUST AREN'T GETTING that those questions, even though they may appear on threads, don't mean that proponents need to weigh in and become a party to the inevitable, unwinnable debate about existence to the extent that the original topic of the thread becomes all but obliterated."

 

My apologies for taking up your time.

 

(PS, your response is an example why it's to post or contribute here.)

[hiflier]

Hello Chasing Rabbits,

 

You missed the meaning of my reaction. The reaction stemmed not from what you said which was very valid indeed and eloquently stated. My response was because it didn't at all address the issue of how to keep existence debates off of threads where the debate itself only uses the thread only as another a staging ground for more existence arguments which have nothing to do with the topic of a particular thread.

What you said was absolutely fine and very succinct. But technically it was off topic. I truly hope you can se the difference and not take what I said as a negative response to the content of you post; something I had no issues with whatsoever. You post was very relevant to some of the issues seen on the Forum but it wasn't relevant to the spirit of this thread's topic. I apologize if you thought it was directed at you. My response was a general one regarding at least a half dozen posts before you (and yours) which spoke about everything but the problem of existence debates popping up on threads.

I very much hope this clarifies things between us?

[Guest DWA]

@Bonehead- my little demonstration sparked some comments! It was in fact an example of exactly what the problem is.

 

OK, I am writing what I am here to solicit comment - particularly yours, as a moderator  - more than anything else.  But.  If a moderator is perceiving a problem...cannot the moderator act?

 

In my view there is an issue of what rises to the level of trolling. IMO I feel that Crowlogic is doing this a lot. I placed a comment, one that he has never refuted, and sure enough he responded although didn't refute it. Its the same sort of comments he makes on nearly all threads on which I have seen him post. No proof, blah blah.

 

To me, rules of the BFF totally aside, "no proof" as a repeated club is trolling.  It is *THE ONE THING ON WHICH WE ALL AGREE.*  What is the point of saying it?  From a strictly scientific standpoint...absolutely none.  It is only relevant to the extent that, great!  Let's go get proof!

 

So there is the issue of how strict we moderators are to be about trolling. When I am involved in a thread I am more reluctant to ding someone with whom I am in a debate; I refer those comments to others.

 

Is there not an obligation to a poster to act both as a poster and as a moderator?  I am really curious to see more on how moderators who get involved in discussions see this.  (I"d probably issue at least 20 warnings a day, from what I see, were I a moderator.)

 

But in moderating a lot of threads one thing I see over and over is the existence/no existence debate. In fact nearly every thread devolves (some quite quickly) to this point. Now a thread can get derailed, but when that is always where it derails to, then we have to think about whether a rule should be in place or something. I don't think the 2 post thing is going to do it. I think instead we need to stop trolls when they occur- and if the thread is not about existence/non existence then we need to consider that all posts that simply go that way are probably trolling by definition. Right now that is not built into the forum rules and when I need guidance that is where I look. When I have my moderation hat on, I don't care what side of the debate a person is on. I just go by the rules.

 

BUILD THAT INTO THE FORUM RULES.  That is one mechanical restriction I could live with.   (Hell, enthusiastically support.)   It is a ridiculous thing to debate!  DUH!  We *know* the society isn't convinced!

 

IMO that is where we need to look so we can have more in-depth discussion without being constantly derailed.  YEP YEP YEP.

Edited August 27, 2015 by DWA

[hiflier]

Hello DWA,

 

To me, rules of the BFF totally aside, "no proof" as a repeated club is trolling.  It is

How to put this tactfully I don't know but countering a denialist with "BF exists" as a repeated club is trolling too even though this Forum isn't technically an anti-BF Forum. This cuts both ways. Showing up on threads and constantly telling people they don't read and don't look at the evidence IMHO is trolling.Proponents and denialists have the same evidence One says no existence and the other says yes existence- ad infinitum.

Tell you what (getting back on topic now here ) bring that debate onto a thread that is about something else NOW and see what happens. See if it's tolerated. My guess is that it won't be. My guess is that members are starting to get this.

Edited August 27, 2015 by hiflier

[Guest DWA]

But the reason that this argument keeps coming up really is that the denialist has not considered the evidence.  There is nothing remotely like what is going on here happening in any other scientific field.

 

To point out *why the evidence clearly points to existence and it does* isn't trolling.  To just respond, nope....

 

IS.

 

When scientists with directly relevant expertise have clearly made this case, and they remain unaddressed:  to say 'no' without showing *why* they are wrong....

 

...is trolling.  Nothing like this is tolerated in any other scientific field.

 

"Proponents and denialists have the same evidence"...and science says there is a rational way to look at it ...and a way that gets shut down.

[David NC]

There is one flaw with handling the trolling issue by mid/long term members here with the ignore feature. That is that any new people will be left out to learn some very hard, maybe to hard a lesson for them to continue to share, from trolls attacking them because the mid/long term members are not responding to them anymore. This may be something to keep an eye out for.

[Guest DWA]

(The "rational way to look at it" is, BTW, the way the Forum rules look at it:  the evidence clearly supports further investigation.  Because it points clearly to what proponents say it does.)

[Old Dog]

IMHO, it's kind of simple.

 

If within a post a person goes off topic and starts going down the rabbit hole, they can be called out for it by whom ever.  something along the lines of quoting the post and tagging with :

 

*** This Post Is Off Topic ***

 

and reported to a mod.

 

If the person continues to post after being told it's off topic, you simply lock them out of the thread.

 

I'm not sure if that is possible on these forums, but it is possible on other forums I'm on.

 

If it's not possible here, you can give them a general three day time out from the forums.

 

Second offense in 30 days gets them a one week time out.

 

Three strikes in 30 days and your gone permanently.

 

That would keep both side of the debate equal.

 

Same rules could apply to people who are being insulting and offensive in their actions towards others.

 

 

Just a thought.

[Guest ChasingRabbits]

Hello Chasing Rabbits,

 

You missed the meaning of my reaction. The reaction stemmed not from what you said which was very valid indeed and eloquently stated. My response was because it didn't at all address the issue of how to keep existence debates off of threads where the debate itself only uses the thread only as another a staging ground for more existence arguments which have nothing to do with the topic of a particular thread.

What you said was absolutely fine and very succinct. But technically it was off topic. I truly hope you can se the difference and not take what I said as a negative response to the content of you post; something I had no issues with whatsoever. You post was very relevant to some of the issues seen on the Forum but it wasn't relevant to the spirit of this thread's topic. I apologize if you thought it was directed at you. My response was a general one regarding at least a half dozen posts before you (and yours) which spoke about everything but the problem of existence debates popping up on threads.

I very much hope this clarifies things between us?

 

Technically it wasn't off-topic. And technically, you blew it off. With your experience of 2900+ posts on this forum, you should know the difference between responding to an individual and to "the general forum". I

 

 I agree with the posts up-thread that 1. the moderators need to be more involved and 2. the thread participants (including the non-posting readers) need to be involved in keeping the thread on topic/reporting posts. With out this kind of joint cooperation, this forum will remain a mess.