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

[hiflier]

Hello 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.

 

 

(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.)

Gosh I almost hate to say this because I know you mean well but both of your posts are off topic. So I hope you don't mind if I have no comment on what they're saying.

[salubrious]

 

@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.

 

 

As a moderator I have to go by the rules. If I go off reservation its not good. So if its not in the rules I can't enforce it according to my own viewpoint, especially if I am involved in the debate in question!

 

Let's be clear here: members are not moderators and should not attempt to moderate or direct (that's in the forum rules).

 

 

 

 

 

 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.

 

 

When a post is reported, moderators get an email to that effect. I don't know how we could be more involved; we are all on a volunteer basis (I don't get paid, I do this as its a way I can help out) and all have lives (I run a small business so I know I have my limits...). We are as involved as we can be, and its a fact we could do with more moderators.

[hiflier]

Hello ChasingRabbits,
 

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.

Reread your post and still didn't see anything that addressed how to FIX the problem of existence debates on threads. Good post still though. I'd be glad to apologize a second time if you'd be kind enough to point out what I've perhaps overlooked?

I said and I quote: "You folks are hopeless". That sure looks like the plural of folk to me. IDK what do you think? I do know this though, NOWHERE did I say YOU ALONE were hopeless. And whether it's 29 posts or 2900 it makes no difference in knowing whether one is speaking to one person or a bunch. Yeesh.

 

See? I'm off topic. And you were too. What matters is getting back to the subject without being told to do so. Just like what you did in the second half of your post. Good comments  

Edited August 27, 2015 by hiflier

[hiflier]

Hello salubrious,

 

Let's be clear here: members are not moderators and should not attempt to moderate or direct (that's in the forum rules).

Does this officially mean then that OP's couldn't, or shouldn't, remind existence debaters on their threads that the subject under discussion isn't about existence or non-existence and to please to return to discussing the topic at hand?

If that's the case then it would seem that we are back to square one. Maybe allow one request and then if unsuccessful hit the report button?

Edited August 27, 2015 by hiflier

[Guest DWA]

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.

Well, this is why All Those Blue Lines aren't benign.  They may not be bothering me.  But because I am not responding to them, people trying to learn about this subject aren't seeing what is fatally wrong and unscientific to boot about their stance.

[roguefooter]

Well I added my two cents to fixing the problem. If you guys honestly think that things will somehow work out without some sort of separation (which worked with the Paranormal talk) then have at it. I don't see any rational solution otherwise.

 

I see the problem here going way beyond just trolling, denying, and going off-topic. A lot of people get angry when you bring science, skepticism, or debunking into a thread about an experience. Others get angry when you bring 'knowing' or 'special knowledge' into an evidence and science-based debate. These things are basically incompatible with each other and belong in different areas. The so-called denialists (which exist on both sides) are just the extreme left and right of the spectrum.

Edited August 27, 2015 by roguefooter

[Guest DWA]

There is nothing wrong with separation...if folks enforce it, and we are seeing how hard that is to do.

 

There are enough rules here now.  People policing threads - by noting and reporting off-topic stuff rather than going round that silly merry-go-round yet again - is better than any rule.  

 

Those of us who have gotten sick of the merry-go-round are building our Ignore lists...and reporting posts in violation of the rules.

[hiflier]

Hello roguefooter,

I think you say it best. I don't think any one knows what would be the best route to take. Separating out into sections or taking on the real/not real debaters thread by thread. It may be a combination of several things who knows. Bonehead74 did good to get this subject off the ground and give a place to air some things out and brainstorm suggestions for some kind of solution. It'll probably be a work in progress that hopefully will go slow enough to give us all time to adjust. I've appreciated everyone's input that offered some direct ideas but also I've appreciated hearing about the things that really have irked members about attitude, treatment, and their positions on things.

I don't think I could've helped not stepping on some toes and for that I apologize and in retrospect regret some of the things I've said. I can do better and I'll try to. I do respect everyone here but sometimes walking around in that little neighborhood in my brain gets a little odd

[ohiobill]

See - Totally understood, I didn't mean to imply that the forum, forum rules or forum management were the final authority on vetting any potential evidence or proof. I do feel that the rules could be modified to acknowledge the fact that we are in the 21st century without hampering discussion on anyone's sighting or report(s) or any potential evidence while limiting unwanted off-topic debate.

 

Would anyone be willing to consider something like this?

 

While we encourage the many viewpoints our members hold we are first, and foremost, a bigfoot forum. We obviously feel it's possible bigfoot exists and that discussions involving bigfoot and possible evidence can and should occur in an adult manner. Because the BFF feels it possible that bigfoot is a real flesh and blood animal we feel it only makes sense to treat it as such in the General Forum where interaction is possible between members from different backgrounds. In an attempt to foster common ground posts in the General Forum involve the expectation that a poster acknowledges the possibility that bigfoot exists and also acknowledges that bigfoot will never be widely recognized as anything more than a possibility without the consensus of the scientific community. While we hope members will continue to relate their personal sightings and encounters for the benefit of all members we recognize the impossibility of them being used as evidence or proof for anyone who didn't personally experience the event. We want and encourage spirited debate on all topics in the General Forum but will not tolerate personal attacks - attack the argument not the member! 

 

To prevent further problems and limit unwanted debate the following guidelines are being put in place for the General Forum:  

 

1. Posts that fail to allow for the possibility of bigfoot shall be considered trolling.

2. Posts that purport that bigfoot is or can be recognized outside of the current standards used by science shall be considered trolling.

3. Posts that purport that sightings or personal encounters are evidence or proof to anyone who didn't experience the event shall be considered trolling. 

3. Posts that equate any evidence (video, audio, footprint, etc) short of a body to "proof" shall be considered trolling.

[Guest DWA]

Issues:

 

"...we recognize the impossibility of them being used as evidence or proof for anyone who didn't personally experience the event..."  

 

That actually isn't true.  Virtually all scientific discoveries have been made by scientists who used the experiences of others as part  if not most of their evidence base, supplementing same with their personal experiences and research.  My review of the sasquatch evidence includes virtually no personal experiences.  (And the personal experiences - three, which include no sightings - do not in the slightest impact my thinking or conclusions.)   This absolutely does not matter.  There are and have always been ways for scientists to objectively assess evidence, whether they were there, or not.  The key is maintaining possibility and not ruling things out unless the evidence says one can safely do so.  Then there is simple hard tacks real world come-on-here.  Anyone who has read up on the evidence and said, I can go no further, 'coz it all just could be a crock, is not thinking about this the way a scientist thinks about stuff.

 

2. Posts that purport that bigfoot is or can be recognized outside of the current standards used by science shall be considered trolling.

 

No can do.  What are "the current standards used by science?"  Bigfoot skeptics would say:  proven.  That's all that is acceptable.  Nothing else can be considered.  (I mean, that is what they do here, right?)  If I have seen a sasquatch, it does not matter what science and its standards are, I spit on them, 'coz I am right and they are wrong, and it could not be more obvious.  Dis knowers all you will.  (Admit it, you envy them.) They know, and you do not.  You have to know that the people who have seen one consider the skeptical scientists humorous at best and willfully ignorant at worst.

 

3. Posts that purport that sightings or personal encounters are evidence or proof to anyone who didn't experience the event shall be considered trolling. 

 

Already explained how this could not possibly be more verboten than it is.  Sighting reports and personal encounters are evidence, and we are done.  But I could consider

 

3.  Continued inability to understand the nature and uses of evidence shall be considered trolling.  Sure that.  That would be OK.

 

3. Posts that equate any evidence (video, audio, footprint, etc) short of a body to "proof" shall be considered trolling.

 

Other than the, um, two 3. items, nopers here neither.  Evidence short of a body has served as virtual proof throughout the history of the biological sciences.

 

You can't shout down people you disagree with, particularly when you are wrong.  Implementing these...makes this JREF, a fate much worse than death which must be avoided at all costs.

[1980squatch]

I'm not sure what is worse, skoftics or proponents obsessed with them.  There has almost always been a pinned thread up top (its name would change now and then) where these groups could hash out the existence issue.   Fine.  Now just enforce staying on topic in the other threads a bit better.  No need to ban groups, or limit posts, or cross reference JREF accounts.

[hiflier]

Hello 1980squatch,
 

I'm not sure what is worse, skoftics or proponents obsessed with them.  There has almost always been a pinned thread up top (its name would change now and then) where these groups could hash out the existence issue.   Fine.  Now just enforce staying on topic in the other threads a bit better.  No need to ban groups, or limit posts, or cross reference JREF accounts.

Probably the best course to take for now. Other avenues, if any, will take time to work out and implement. Narrowing the existence debate's playing field voluntarily as long as there's a strong member support base can start anytime as long as there is some allowances from the staff so that members can at least request a reasonable adherence to whatever the topic of a thread happens to be.

I'm not the brightest bulb in the chandelier but after turning this over for a couple of days, and listened to what suggestions have been presented so far, a discussion, any discussion, that can keep or be urged to stay on the topic will go a long way in neatening things up. Shouldn't take much effort in the doing, just consistency, and for the most part reminders will be all most members would endure. Or an explanation of how a post relates to the whatever the topic is. Humor would need no explanation of course

This reminds me of when as a kid I used to get Three Stooges Bubble Gum Cards. On the back was some quote from them or someone (BTW this is on topic Hee-hee). The topic on the back of one of the cards was "Why Are Fire Engines Red?" Answer: "Fire engines are red because three times four is twelve; there are twelve inches in a ruler; Queen Elizabeth is a ruler; Queen Elizabeth is also a boat; boats sail on the sea; the sea has fishes; fishes have fins; the Fins fought the Russians; the Russians are red; and that's why fire engines are red- because they're rushin' all over  

That would not be a great example for how to explain how a comment or post relates to a topic LOL.

Edited August 27, 2015 by hiflier

[Guest DWA]

I've been on more than one board that was kept in line by an occasional HEY GUYS!  No reason it can't work here.

[hiflier]

Hello DWA,

 

Good. Let's do that here too. But it will take a majority in agreement to make it work. Starting off maybe with a few initially remembering to try it though might get the ball rolling smoothly enough that it becomes part of the decorum? Of course we don't know what Admin thinks about this and like this thread they may be taking a position of observation to see if the measure works without any adjustments to the current structure of the Forum Rules and Guidelines.

 

It also may be that now that this thread has been so obviously read by many that most perhaps may know now what to expect from each other? I guess we'll soon see. Now.....as long as my ego doesn't let me forget the report button all should be well. I mean heck! Who knows how many times I was reported in THIS thread?      (The Shadow Do!) 

[Guest DWA]

Baby steps.  And maybe this thread was one.