A note on the recent 'evidence standards' debate — from the mod team

Hello all. Firstly, thanks to everyone who has continued to make Quirk Reports a genuinely worthwhile corner of the internet - we know there are approximately nine thousand other places you could be spending your time online, so the fact that you're here arguing about footprints and orb photographs is appreciated. Genuinely.

Right. To the point. Over the last few weeks there has been a noticeable uptick in threads and replies where the debate between sceptical and believing members has tipped from robust into unpleasant. We've had to remove a handful of posts and issue warnings to three accounts. We're not going to name anyone because that's not the culture we want here, but we did want to address the underlying dynamic publicly.

The position of the mod team is this: Quirk Reports has always been explicitly a community for both believers and sceptics, and we think that's actually what makes it good. A forum where everyone already agrees is just a group chat. The sceptics keep the believers honest. The believers keep the sceptics curious. That balance is worth protecting, and it requires both sides to engage in good faith. Calling someone 'clearly mentally ill' for reporting a sighting is not scepticism - it's just rudeness. Equally, accusing someone of being 'a paid disinfo agent' for asking for better evidence is not defending your experience - it's also just rudeness.

We're not introducing formal new rules right now because we think the existing ones cover it. We're just asking everyone to take a breath before hitting post. If your reply would embarrass you in a pub conversation with the same person, don't send it here. More details on what is and isn't acceptable are in the Community Guidelines sticky, which several of you have clearly not read. You know who you are. Cheers, and carry on.

Fair enough and well said. I'll put my hand up - I was probably one of the people who pushed a thread too far last month and I did get a warning, which was deserved. I get frustrated when I feel like serious reports are being laughed at rather than engaged with, but that's not an excuse for how I responded and I knew it at the time. The pub analogy is a good one actually. You wouldn't behave like that over a pint.

Appreciate the measured tone of this announcement. For what it's worth from the more sceptical end of the membership: the vast majority of us are here because we find this stuff genuinely interesting and want to engage with it properly, not because we want to make people feel stupid. When someone posts a blurry photograph and insists it proves interdimensional beings are monitoring the M6, the urge to be a bit sharp about it is understandable, but it's not helpful. Point taken.

Can I just say - the 'paid disinfo agent' thing. I have been called this twice in the last month on two separate threads. I am a retired teacher from Shrewsbury. The closest I've come to government work is jury duty in 2017. If anyone is paying people to lurk on British paranormal forums and gently suggest that photographs of clouds are photographs of clouds, they are getting absolutely terrible value for money.

A forum where everyone already agrees is just a group chat.

This is actually a really good line and I'm going to steal it for other contexts if that's alright. Also genuinely glad the mod team addressed this directly rather than just quietly deleting things - the transparency is appreciated. Some forums just let this stuff fester until the community splits or the interesting people leave. Good to see someone paying attention.

One practical suggestion if the mod team is open to it: could we have a dedicated 'Evidence Review' subforum where posts are subject to slightly higher standards - structured write-ups, stated methodology, that sort of thing - while keeping the main boards more casual? That way people who want proper rigorous discussion have somewhere to go, and people who just want to share a weird experience don't feel like they're being put through a viva every time they post. Might reduce some of the tension around evidence quality arguments because they'd be happening in the right context.

The subforum idea has actually come up before in the team's discussions - noting it here so it doesn't get lost. No promises but it's on the list for the next proper review of the site structure, which we're tentatively planning for September. If anyone wants to put forward a more detailed proposal in the Site Feedback thread, we'll read it properly.

Thanks everyone for the constructive responses to this. This is exactly what we mean when we say the community is worth protecting.