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

[Guest DWA]

[he weeps]

 

If folks would get up  on the evidence, now that wouldn't be necessary, now would it.  So get up on the evidence, and stop arguing something you don't have a shred of evidence to back 'cuz it's all on my side!

 

[ducks]

[hiflier]

Hello DWA ,

 

You should be ducking right now. I'll risk warnings and being banned at this point rather than let you slide.

[hiflier]

Hello All,

 

My apologies to the Forum and all members for my outburst. And it appears that half the reason for the existence of this topic has left the conversation. 

Edited August 28, 2015 by hiflier

[roguefooter]

^I won't do it again. I promise.

[Redbone]

I'll bet that the next 15 pages of this thread will probably look an awful lot like the last 15 pages, rehashed over and over and over...

 

Here's an idea... Once the back and forth starts, the bickering parties can move their brawl to a separate Mud Pit thread, where they can hash out the back and forth exchanges. This thread can exist only for the sake of argument, although we already know what the main subject will be.The Mud Pit can be a kinder gentler alternative to the Tar Pit, meaning regular forum rules apply. Once they've had the 15-20 pages of "I must have the last word" dialog then they can return to original thread with a summary. The benefit is that the rest of the people don't have to wade through the muck to figure out where the conversation stands.

Can I patent the term Mud Pit?

[beerhunter]

hiflier, you asked for solutions to the derailment issue so here are some of my thoughts.

 

1. Can the OP request the topic to be locked by a Mod for a cool down period of 1 to how many ever days if the thread gets too far off-topic? 

2. Perhaps there needs to be an Official Exists vs Doesn't thread so others who are actually following the original topic of the tread can tell those who attempt to derail the thread with their off-topic comments to take it there?

3. Maybe all involved with derailing can realize they can quote the other-sides position verbatim and really need not rehash the same old debate - see #5 below..

4. For newbies, how about two threads, one for Proponents only and one for Denialists only so newbies can read up on the pros and cons without all the back and forth arguing.

5. Have two threads where the Proponents and Denialists are asked to give their best shot at convincing folks of a viewpoint of BF totally opposite of what they believe.

[norseman]

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.

OK so flesh this out for me for your idea on the "extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence" subforum.....

Who is posting in this forum? If the proponents have their own sub forum, why on earth would they post in a denialist loaded sub forum? They just get their teeth kicked in with every post.

The only extraordinary evidence that denialists will accept IS proof!!!

No offense but if I've found proof of Bigfoot, I'm not taking a picture and posting it in the skeptics corner of the BFF. I'm driving to the Biology dept of the nearest university and calling CNN enroute, right?

Most proponents are not here to debate existence with denialists, maybe DWA is an exception I'm not sure. We just do not need the BFF for that sort of venue. We can get that most anywhere.

Instead the BFF shines like a beacon in the night for people wanting to learn more about the subject, network with other proponents, compare notes, etc......

So boiled down to brass tacks what are denialists going to talk about in a denialist subforum on the BFF, with no proponents around? Honest question.

[roguefooter]

^I gave a basic idea of what I was talking about here-

 

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/52013-concerning-the-ongoing-debate-over-skeptic-scoffticdenialist-participation-on-the-bff-and-proving-bigfoots-existence/page-10#entry922882

 

I never said it would be a "denialist subforum"- if you think that everyone with a skeptical viewpoint is a "denialist" then I can't help you there. I specified it as being for scientific debate and evidence- basically what the skeptics and fence sitters on the forum are wanting. Yes denialists do exist here, but it's meant for the general arguing on the forums as a whole- the science versus anecdotal arguments. Denialists are the extremists on both sides and the current rules already don't tolerate their mentality. If your only real concern are the denialists then you need to focus on those guidelines being enforced.

 

But like I said before- there are more problems on this forum then just them. There are people looking for scientific evidence and proof, and there are those that aren't interested. You may have proof to satisfy yourself but there are other people that are interested in seeing acceptance advance beyond the personal level- with the science community. 

 

Right now we have proponents not interested in scientific debate or people asking for tangible evidence, and we also have skeptics not interested in anything anecdotal. These viewpoints clash like fire and water, and since we have no way to separate them it spurs a lot of fighting. I think they would be better separated- one area for scientific debate, another area for anecdotal. People on both sides would be happier not having to deal with the other every single day in every single thread, but they would still have the choice to interact with the other whenever they chose to.

Edited August 28, 2015 by roguefooter

[WSA]

This thread has been helpful for me, thanks. As I stated earlier, the tool to deal with this issue is contained in the Forum's mission statement. The purpose (among others) is to discuss the EVIDENCE. Those who feel the way to discuss evidence is to deny that it IS evidence of the presence of BF, are violating the Magna Carta of the BFF, no more, no less. Any member who sees this happening in any thread, has the tool to make it stop.

[Guest Crowlogic]

[he weeps]

 

If folks would get up  on the evidence, now that wouldn't be necessary, now would it.  So get up on the evidence, and stop arguing something you don't have a shred of evidence to back 'cuz it's all on my side!

 

[ducks]

Those who withhold or hide evidence have no business demanding anyone to get up on the evidence.   The question needs to be asked yet again.  Is there anything that is leaps and bounds better than what makes it into publication and media?  Did Ketchum somehow refuse better samples?  Did Sykes somehow refuse better samples?  Did they both somehow botch the samples they had?  Did Todd Standing actually have the real thing but at the 11th hour decided to make a muppet movie?

 

Indeed I follow a few of the better bigfoot research efforts that publish regularly.  Anyone can see this stuff.  It is beyond reason that somewhere there is this mountain of monumental evidence.  I find it curious that one of the loudest voices of study the evidence is in league with an organization that has published essentially junk .  Yes the evidence is out there I get to see some of it as found by these seasoned researchers I follow and even enjoy.  It amounts to the occasional possible track and the operative word is possible track.  However the scenery can be impressive  yet nothing has changed.

[Guest DWA]

This thread has been helpful for me, thanks. As I stated earlier, the tool to deal with this issue is contained in the Forum's mission statement. The purpose (among others) is to discuss the EVIDENCE. Those who feel the way to discuss evidence is to deny that it IS evidence of the presence of BF, are violating the Magna Carta of the BFF, no more, no less. Any member who sees this happening in any thread, has the tool to make it stop.

The thing to remember.

 

There are a number of us and I won't name other names (but look at those P/G threads!) who rise to the bait because it's fun and gives us a chance to air it out.  But it's gotten old, this trying to pry open rusted-shut cans, and I am down to three things now (for the most part; for some fish bait just tastes good):  Ignore; Report...and talk to the folks it's fun to talk to.  We can all do that and no modifications required.

Edited August 28, 2015 by DWA

[WSA]

That is a conversation I'd be willing to have Crowlogic. Those kinds of conversations that objectively discuss if THIS particular piece of evidence is credible, or not, is healthy and the best use of this board, in my opinion. BUT, when your (or anyone's) discussion strays into rehashing how we don't have enough evidence, or "the clock is ticking", yada, yada...you are then OT for this entire Forum, as best I can tell. Ditto as to the fall-back rebuttal included in the last-refuge rejoinder we see so much. It is: "BF is not proven, so ____can't be real." The failure to acknowledge that evidence can exist independent of proof is the root of much evil around here. Yet, it is the "go to" of so many nonetheless. I'm just saying, "enough already."

[Guest ChasingRabbits]

 

 

 

 

 

 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.

 

 

If a thread generates several reports, I think the moderators should monitor it more closely than waiting for an email. I'm a moderator at a non-Big Foot forum. We are volunteers too. But we check in at least once a day. If there is a potential problem brewing in a thread, we post it in the moderator's forum, discuss it, and any action we might undertake.  Additionally, posting a potential problem thread alerts other moderators and administrators what's going on so they can look in when they are on-line. You probably have this system or a similar system here.  If you do and there still are problems, your system might need to be tweaked.

 

We also know the posters who are more vitriolic and provocative. We don't give them a pass, but we don't let them get carried away either. I think some posters here get carried away because they know they can get away with it. Hence the total disregard for forum rule #1 Behave like adults. "Imagine the forum is run by a bunch of people who have invited you over for dinner - we expect sensible, well thought out conversation. If you start getting personal with other diners, you are likely to be ejected. This not your house after all, you don't have a right to sit at someone else's table and disrupt things."  And what's the advice given if someone does get personal or disruptive on the threads? Put them on ignore. The rules say one thing, but the reality is different. Rule #1 might as well be "behave like adults, but feel free to use the ignore button because we won't do anything about it."

 

my 2 cents.

Edited August 28, 2015 by ChasingRabbits

[Guest WesT]

I haven't voiced my opinion yet so here goes. I'm one of those people that try to see the good in everyone. But some that come here to debate are up to no good.

This website is considered a "fringe" site by mainstream "critical thinkers". Look up "too rational" and watch what happens. So like a moth to a flame here they come in an attempt to acquire bragging rights. So that is one thing we'll just have to deal with ourselves.

But yes its hard to get a word in edgewise sometimes because of the constant back and forth over proof of existance which every thread seems to devolve into. If the polar opposites want to dukeit out over existance we could incorporate Redbone's mud pit idea... Which I kinda like. A place where getting the last word in is just a post away. There, they can snipe and flame each other to thier hearts content.

Edited August 28, 2015 by WesT

[Guest DWA]

That is a conversation I'd be willing to have Crowlogic. Those kinds of conversations that objectively discuss if THIS particular piece of evidence is credible, or not, is healthy and the best use of this board, in my opinion. BUT, when your (or anyone's) discussion strays into rehashing how we don't have enough evidence, or "the clock is ticking", yada, yada...you are then OT for this entire Forum, as best I can tell. Ditto as to the fall-back rebuttal included in the last-refuge rejoinder we see so much. It is: "BF is not proven, so ____can't be real." The failure to acknowledge that evidence can exist independent of proof is the root of much evil around here. Yet, it is the "go to" of so many nonetheless. I'm just saying, "enough already."

 

Yeah, come on.  You gotta know how reality works, gang.  And people who otherwise probably do seem to forget that when they come here.  If bigfoot is real it is as real as Reese Witherspoon, as real as Barack Obama and Swiss cheese.  It operates by the same rules other reality does, period.

 

(The clock is NEVER ticking, folks.  The search can start whenever it feels like it; and as long as the evidence keeps pouring in, ain't nobody working against time here.  Other than, you know, extinction, which doesn't seem to be coming for this critter anytime soon.  Come on.  Reality, gang.)

 

Personally I think that the "THIS piece of evidence" discussions are of limited utility.  None of those will ever come close to doing anything unless there is concerted follow-up - in the field and not on the Internet - on that piece of evidence.  "Throw it on the pile" is the best we can hope for, for any *single* piece of evidence.  The pile is what is important; it tells us where to search and what to look for.  If you haven't begun to figure out how to assess the pile, you aren't playing, and that is all.  You will always be stuck, and always be wrong, if you assess THIS piece separately from that pile.

 

And you will keep getting stuck in the precise kind of derailing threads we are talking about here,  Raise game, please.