New forum rule about evidence posts—please read

Alright, after about six months of moderating the Photo/Video Analysis and Personal Encounters forums, we've noticed a pattern that's making those spaces less useful:

When someone posts what they believe is paranormal evidence (photos, videos, audio, etc.), the replies immediately split into two camps:

1) People who dismissively explain it away without engaging seriously ("that's just a shadow").

2) People who treat it as definitive proof without considering alternatives ("clear paranormal activity!").

Neither approach is helpful.

New guidelines for evidence discussions:

• If you're skeptical, explain WHY you think there's a mundane explanation. What specifically makes you think it's a shadow/lens flare/pareidolia? Be specific, not dismissive.
• If you believe something paranormal is happening, try to think of alternative explanations FIRST. Show you've done that thinking.
• Everyone: ask clarifying questions before concluding anything. Time of day? Camera type? Lighting conditions? Weather? These matter.

We want Quirk Reports to be a place where people with different perspectives can actually learn from each other, even when they disagree. That means treating each other's posts with respect and engaging seriously.

Posts that are just mockery or dismissal without substance will be moderated. Full details in the pinned post below.

- Mod Team

Good call. The quality of discussion in those forums has been declining for months. Too many people just showing up to "win" rather than actually investigate. This might actually make things better.

What happens if someone posts an obvious hoax though? Like, genuinely clearly fake? Do we still have to treat it seriously?

Because I've seen some photos on here that are obviously doctored and pointing that out isn't being dismissive, it's just being factual.

I appreciate the intent here but this feels like it's going to slow things down massively. Part of the fun of paranormal forums is the quick back-and-forth, not everyone having to write a thesis every time they disagree.

This is probably necessary but I'm also slightly worried it will just make people less willing to post evidence at all. Nobody wants to have their photos analysed to death. Maybe there's a balance between respectful engagement and not making the process feel like testifying in court?

Love this. The Personal Encounters forum has basically become unusable because every post gets swarmed with either ". Nice story, definitely ghosts". Or ". You're credulous and here's why science." Actually trying to figure out what happened is impossible.