Should Bigfootery Have An Ethics Board

[Incorrigible1]

What was promised? Is miscomprehension your thing?

 

So you're evidently able to discern true reports from false.

[Guest DWA]

No, but I can discern who has read them, and thought about them...and who has not.

 

A logical mind, having done those two things, could not say what you're saying.  (A reason everyone applying science to this topic *is a proponent.*)

 

Is skipping school your thing?

Edited May 5, 2016 by DWA

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

You can interview to determine if there is deception present during the interview.

The CIA has the best stuff for spotting deception during an interview.

https://youtu.be/-y8m695bYMU

Edited May 5, 2016 by Cryptic Megafauna

[bipedalist]

There was that guy that turned out to be a chicken farmer.

 

With stolen valor, it was the SF research that outed him.  

[hiflier]

Hey Crowlogic, check out post #34 and tell me honestly and without bias what you would do or what you would expect to have done with the hypothetical member who fabricated the encounter report. Can't seem to draw any proponents to address it.

That poster would get banned.  It is good politics to nip it in the bud....

 

The more perplexing question is what if the liar/hoaxer was highly regarded pillar of the bigfoot community?....

From the BFF "Rules And Guidelines":

"Any member who claims to have disingenuously presented evidence of Bigfoot or that proof from others has established that they have perpetrated a hoax of evidence for the existence of Bigfoot shall be banned from participation on the Bigfoot Forums (BFF). The terms “Hoax and Hoaxing†as they pertain to this section shall be defined as:

1. An act intended to deceive or trick."

So this brings up TWO issues perhaps. One is regarding a member of the BFF. The other is regarding a high profile person who is or is not a member. How would an ethics board deal with each? Obviously the BFF guidelines pretty much takes care of the member side of things but what about a non-member? Can't ban a non-member. Mr. Standing and Mr. Dyer for all intents and purposes have been severely sidelined as people NOT to trust. How far should an ethics board reach in an effort to keep hoaxed information or out and out lying exposed for the purposes of credibility for itself as well as that of the community? Is the community and it's image worth the effort? Or is operating in fear of the "stigma" of being a believer in BF not that bad? Scientists are constantly portrayed as not wanting to get involved in research because of the stigma. Witnesses don't come forward because of the stigma.

Would part of the job of an ethics board be to keep liars and hoaxers exposed in order to maintain a level of credibility in that the community has an "official" committee that polices it's own? If so would there be a limit to how far the board can go to maintain that credibility? I other words could, and should, ANY hoaxer or liar no matter who it is be subject to a ruling from the board?

Edited May 6, 2016 by hiflier

[hiflier]

Thank you for you input.