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

[MIB]

Well ... I agree, but the scoftics DON'T think it is legitimate or serious, nothing there of value for them to protect, so there's nothing to entice them to play nicely.   

 

Cooperation of any sort requires agreement on what outcome is desired.   We don't have that.

 

MIB

Edited August 28, 2015 by MIB

[Guest]

I personally think that the forum is just fine the way it is, it's the members who have to change. Being skeptical isn't the problem, everyone here should be a skeptic, the study of Bigfoot is rotten with misinformation, hoaxes and fantasy. The act of questioning claims should be standard procedure. If someone starts a thread about rainbows coming out of Bigfoot's butt, it's OK to ask for proof and when the excuse for why there is none is given, then those skeptical of this claim need to leave it at that. If others want to entertain this subject and discuss the colours or the size of the rainbow, so be it. It's all about forum etiquette, stay on topic.

When it comes to threads where a member is presenting physical evidence they have found, the presenter has to remember that it is *possible* evidence and must be willing to hear other explanations. The collective knowledge of the forum should be allowed to examine a subject and arrive at the facts. That is what we are doing here, isn't it? Trying to solve a mystery. We (well me anyways) are looking for that one bit of evidence that we can't explain, the one that just has to be Bigfoot. The only way we will find it is by questioning the evidence.

[Guest WesT]

The answer is this. Start a thread "Bigfoot, does it exist? or not? That way we have thread to direct those who want to... change the subject in threads that are not about proof of existence. And yeah, pin it!

[Bonehead74]

Done and done. I, for one, anxiously await my inevitable enlightenment.

[Faenor]

I think using pejorative terms like scofftic and denialist to describe those who disagree with you is a great way to kick off serious discussions.

[Bonehead74]

And I think it is an accurate appellation. If one repeatedly denies the existence of a thing by voicing one's skepticism through scoffing in a systematic fashion, one becomes a denialist and scofftic by definition.

Edited August 29, 2015 by Bonehead74

[chelefoot]

I've just caught up on this thread and it has been enlightening.  I often read on other sites that the reason some people do not bother to sign up here is because they feel there are too many rules, the mods stifle discussion, and some have even accused the staff of censorship. Then I read here that the moderating staff doesn't do enough, we need more rules, or as Chasing Rabbits said, the staff "don't do anything about it" (sorry you feel that way. I spend multiple hours a day working here).

 

I guess we will never be able to please all the people all the time. But I'm going to say it again.... we need more mods. (Thanks to the ONE person who has contacted us since I last  asked for messages from anyone interested in volunteering).

 

I don't see a problem with the OP asking for the thread to get back on topic if it has gone off the rails. I think that request can be made in general without violating the rules about leaving moderation to the staff. Message a mod/admin if you want to make sure before you post.

Then if the posts continue off topic, report it or message a mod/admin about your concerns.

 

But yes, reading this helps to raise awareness of the issues so that everyone is hopefully thinking about it when they post...and I know I will be keeping these things in mind more as I read through the threads.

[David NC]

Nakani I agree with you up until you said the dirty word that proponents and knowers are not allowed to use and is something that needs to be looked at, the word PROOF. If Proven by science is what everyone is going to hold over everyone elses head and thrown in the face of every discussion then this and any other Cryptid sight are nothing but a  joke and a waste of time. I and everyone on this forum and everyone in the world knows Sasquatch is not recognized by science so that should not be allowed a reason for stomping down evidence and people here discussing Sasquatch. I see to much here about people can't claim Proof , I and everyone knows according to science that there is no proof, so I suggest proponents and knowers call what they talk about and share personal experiences or evidence in the case of video, pics, footprints and sound and we go from their on the voracity of the evidence. Some people on here have been in a situation that has Proven Sasquatch to be real to them they do not need to have science tell them what they already know. I can understand the skepticism , I was skeptical about Sasquatch existing in NC and just chuckle and never give it another thought until I had experiences of my own.  To sum up and tie this in with the topic I believe that if proponents cannot use the word proof, then denialist and Skofftics should not be allowed to have a parrot setting on their shoulder squawking  prove it ,prove it when they run out of true discussion. It is very much like having your hands tied behind your back  yet the other person can still slap you in the face.   I would be all for banning the word proof on all accounts until we get Sasquatch recognized by science. The people that use this tactic of defaulting to proof or nothing quickly show themselves for what they really are.

[Guest]

David NC

I think you misunderstood me somewhere. What is wrong with wanting to see a picture or a police report or what ever the proof may be? I'm pretty sure extraordinary claims still require extraordinary evidence. Did you miss the part where I said once none is given that people skeptical of the claim should just leave the subject be?

[David NC]

Nakani I did not misunderstand , and all of that was not directed at you, just the part about the word proof. It is the general sensus that I have come across that calling it evidence is ok among all but the denialist and the Scofftic (they do not see anything as proof or evidence).  From my experience here saying the word Proof should not be spoken until science says so.  I am not a fan of it but that is the way it is. I do not have a problem with skeptics, as I stated in my post I can understand them. Some of these problems can be lessened by proponents being aware and minding how they possibly present things, but what I would like to see stop is the people that come here just to mess with other people for the fun of it. I would really like to see the people that truly have an interest in this phenomenon stay and discuss things. No we will not agree on everything and skeptics, fence sitters they are a part of that and a healthy part of that. You will also see proponents and knowers outing as many Hoaxes as anyone else here, we do not like them either.

[Rockape]

Well, after all these pages it looks like all we can do is try to act more civil towards one another and if something bothers you report it; and when you do give them time because I know from experience it takes time to get to a complaint and handle it properly. often it is being discussed behind the scenes so be patient.

 

The few times I have reported posts here they were handled in due time. Try it and see how it works for you or don't complain. The mods can't be expected to read every post on this forum and reporting posts instead of letting them take the discussion down hill is the proper way of handling these things. Chele says they need help modding so now is your time to volunteer.  .

[chelefoot]

We currently have 2 moderators on this forum.

2.  That is no where near enough for a forum of this size.

 

I think if we had more mods, it would go a long way towards making sure that the rules we already have in place are enforced more thoroughly and consistently.

[Bonehead74]

Hyperbole much? Godwin would be proud.

[Guest]

David NC,

What you are talking about is trolling, and yes we don't need that. I don't understand your problem with asking for proof of claims. For example if you started a thread regarding your sighting, I could ask, do you have any proof of your experience? I'm assuming you will say no, and that is all then. That was painless and we let the discussion of your encounter continue, sans Nakani.

[ShadowBorn]

I would be all for banning the word proof on all accounts until we get Sasquatch recognized by science. The people that use this tactic of defaulting to proof or nothing quickly show themselves for what they really are.

 

 

What would that be? for showing proof of some thing that was left behind after a sighting. How can a person in their right mind who has had a encounter not accept the after math of that encounter as proof of what was observed. Just by the mere definition of proof which states: (by which I am using the Merriam Webster definition)

 

a : the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact 

b :  the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning

 

So it is up to the reader of a report of a encounter to believe in what is being offered as proof to make up their own mind. The encounter is just that and will always be just that. What ever proof that is offered in that encounter is only proof to the witnesses who has had the encounter. It is the ability of the witnesses to project his or hers encounter as proof to whom ever is willing to accept what proof is being offered. It is to the subjects whom the witnesses has offered their proof in accordance by the definition with principles of reasoning to accept their proof.

 

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

Proving BigFoot existence with the participation of skeptics is not a problem since there is still hope in them and most are riding that thin line of there being a creature or not.

 

A scoffic/denialist well be prepared since there will be no changing them at all. you will argue and argue and get no where with them, so it is not worth the effort trying to talk to them about the existence of this creature. You would be able to throw a body in front of them and the argument with them will still go on whether they exist or not knowing that there is a body in front of them. a no win situation leading to drinking a lot of beer and wanting to run.

 

Now as usual this just my opinion and am not hoping for any kudo's.