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

[Guest ChasingRabbits]

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  

 

This is off-topic and my last post on the subject....

 

I replied to your post (specifically "But what I truly, truly, don't understand is 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.")  and within context of your post. If my reply was "off-topic" so was your entire post.

 

Secondly, if you wanted to make a general comment addressed to every single member/reader, you didn't have to single out my post to do it.

 

Thirdly, back to discussing the topic.....

[Guest DWA]

 

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.

 

 

That in blue although it's all good, that in blue particularly.

 

Ignore works for me.  But it leaves a badly polluted forum for newbies to navigate whose chance of learning much about this topic is dwindling toward minimal.

[norseman]

^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.

I said a denialist "loaded" subforum......I do understand the difference between a denialist and a skeptic.

It's my opinion that most proponents are just going to avoid the place like the plague, because nobody has a bloody corpse to offer up.

But I will take your proposal to the SC for discussion.

[Old Dog]

  This thread has become a microcosm of the problems befalling the forums.  Hopefully you guys figure out what you're about, and what the forums are about before it's too late and it ends in forum death.  Right now, as the situation stands, I'm not holding out much hope for any sort of peaceful resolution as both factions are doing nothing but finger pointing.  Deflection will not solve the problem.  Good Luck.

[Guest DWA]

And the funny thing about it is the culture that seems to be causing it:  all opinions are created equal, no matter what play-testing them reveals.

 

Let's all play nice...becomes this, when people whose basic style is not to are considered to be.

[MrSkwatch]

The very nature of this mystery is what causes the chaos. Almost everything being discussed is unproven. Throwing flying or paranormal bigfoot into the mix is like adding fuel to the fire.

[Guest DWA]

Well, see, I am not disagreeing.  We have, precisely, what evidence for those?  And what evidence that they're genus Homo, never mind sapiens?

 

When the discussion focuses on the evidence - and not "that's unproven" but "people are seeing hearing smelling and finding this.  What does that mean, and how does one search on it?" then we are starting to go somewhere.

[hiflier]

Hello MrSkwatch,

 

Yes, there is chaos. And as long as staunch opponents and proponents don't hijack threads to duke out the existence issue then all should be well. This thread was for how to deal with it should it occur in order to maintain the integrity of a thread topic somewhere in the Forum.

[WSA]

We do suffer from an unhealthy overdose of relativism here usually, as DWA says.

 

When we do descend too far into that we are left with no choice but to treat an opinion that no evidence exists the same as the opinion that all of the reported footprints, photos, witness accounts and all the rest mean, well, something.

 

One of these is of greater weight...no, on second thought, one has weight, the other is only avoidance... and no amount of relativist indulgence will change that. Ever. 

 

While going to extraordinary lengths to make sure these are treated the same, you pull the teeth out of something otherwise very useful if you want to get to the bottom of a mystery like this.  My failing, as is DWA's failing, as is the failing of many of us here, is we refuse to allow that to be the basis of the conversation. We reject the entire premise for that, as we all should. Make no mistake, somebody relentlessly advocating there is nothing to see here  will not, as some of you seem to believe, ennoble your discourse with the purity of  unbridled rationality. It will only ensure you do nothing productive.

 

In no other area of endeavor are you permitted to participate in a discussion of the evidence by merely repeating there is none. In what other serious (and this is...we have to agree on THAT at least) conversation would this kind of nonsense be permitted? If the Forum is not willing to allow itself at least this smidge of self-respect for the topic, it does need to die, sooner the better.

 

This is the only outcome possible when you allow others to dictate the terms of the  conversation when you have defined it as something else entirely.   

[Cotter]

*bangs head*

 

(That is NOT off-topic!)

[Bodhi]

Hello DWA,

"This kind of thing" is of your own making. YOU'RE why the OP started this topic. YOU and your "opponents" over the years who have blistered more threads as fast as anyone could write them. Taken them over with ridiculous unwinnable existence debates that has ruined thread after thread after thread. Halted OP discussions, ignored members trying to sustain an unbroken line of thought and more or less been a bully. You, DWA, are a chief reason this topic was ever even necessary. Truth.

PLUS PLUS PLUS  I'm out of positive votes for the day but WELL said sir. Thank you.

[Guest DWA]

In no other area of endeavor are you permitted to participate in a discussion of the evidence by merely repeating there is none. In what other serious (and this is...we have to agree on THAT at least) conversation would this kind of nonsense be permitted? If the Forum is not willing to allow itself at least this smidge of self-respect for the topic, it does need to die, sooner the better.

 

Really.  I've been told that this isn't a scientific discussion.  If it is not...it is a joke.

[hiflier]

Hello Bodhi,

 

Thank you, but what I said goes for the far other extreme of the existence debate spectrum as well as we all know. And it's not that I'm against such debates but threads that don't start out as one shouldn't end up with one simply because two extremely opposite poles need a battle ground. Take it somewhere else. 

Hello Cotter,

Same old arguments, different thread.


*also bangs head*

[Airdale]

This is a simple issue that has been hashed through, around and tangentially to death and beyond. The simple solution, mentioned over and over, is to use ignore. I firmly believe that the issue will resolve in short order as those who are ignored tire of bloviating in a vacuum and seek greener pastures. The problem is that a few simply won’t or can’t stick with that; two posters in this thread have freely admitted that, for different reasons, that shoe fits. They are not the only examples but are at least forthcoming about it.

 

One is concerned that the “newbies†will be subjected to the wrong information. Ironically, that is the reason at least one of the denialist/scoftics has presented for his participation in the forum. If this continues unabated that will become irrelevant as there will be no newbies to educate or indoctrinate if there is no forum.

 

The other thinks it fun to intellectually dominate the denialist side and sometimes can’t resist tweaking them. I don’t recall seeing the targets of such a tactic squirming in discomfort, in fact they appear to enjoy the mudslinging equally well. The only victims (other than the forum itself) are the bystanders left with the figurative dry cleaning bills.

 

From my viewpoint, those who acknowledge the problem but cannot or will not exercise the restraint necessary to see this strategy through or, put another way, be part of the solution, are then part of the problem. It follows then that they also be placed on ignore. At best the denialists will tire of only talking to a handful of people and go elsewhere, at worst the rest of us can let the antagonists duke it out in limbo. This should have the added benefit of not adding to the workload of the moderators.

 

For those of us truly interested in resolving the issue one way or another, this strategy will do it if there is majority participation. Otherwise, we’re tilting at windmills. For myself, I’m implementing it from this point forward in each thread I follow and/or participate in.

[WSA]

It might be worth asking: What hope do we have of the world treating this question with any degree of seriousness when we ourselves don't? By that, I mean: If we think the question is so pregnant, what is the purpose of hosting a venue for those who would say we are only delusional? If you hope to see this field legitimized, you have to begin to act as if it is legitimate. A good step towards that is to show those who have nothing but contempt and disrespect for the topic the door. By that I do not mean to just purge the membership roll...I mean only to adopt a policy of bluntly challenging those who would naysay any evidence until they are either banned or just leave.

As I said, no place else do you see this allowed in any conversation on any serious topic. It is as if the Royal Shakespeare Company were performing Hamlet while the audience boos and throws rotten fruit, and the theater manager does nothing to intervene for fear of limiting the "expression of opinions". At some point (long since reached here) the damage has to be acknowledged. Your tolerance has et your purpose.