• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Greeting MD Claimants

Uncayimmy

Banned
U
Joined
Oct 14, 2008
Messages
7,345
Chillzero, is there a thread where we can discuss how best to deal with MDC applicants? I think you make a number of good points that are not specific to Connie. Mocking claimants is like shooting fish in a barrel - I don't know why some people feel like they have accomplished something by doing so.

More importantly I don't think it's productive, but that's because I may have a different definition of productive. I want the claimant to learn on his or her own the flaws in their thinking. If the environment is too hostile, they might just take their ball and go home. To me that's an opportunity lost. How does anyone benefit by that?

In the grand scheme of things we should want applicants to take the test rather than get ticked off and leave. I would much rather be able to say that 500 claimants took a test and failed than to day that 500 applied, but 495 never got tested. Of course, if we can get a claimant to test themselves first, that's great, too. It would be even better if they shared the results of their self-testing with us. We need to provide an environment where they feel like they can do that.

If you want to move this post somewhere else and/or cite me for being off-topic, that's fine.
 
Split as per request.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jmercer
 
Some comments:

1. Re the OP: Hear, hear!

2. This thread was split from the CONNIE SONNE, Dowser thread. The posts by chillzero that the OP refers to are between posts 105 and 111 in the original thread, which with default post-per-page are on page 3 of the thread.

3. This thread is for discussing discourse between members and MDC claimants. Naturally, specific claimants and claims are likely to be mentioned as examples, but please try not to let the thread get derailed by these. It would be best to take extended discussion of any specific claimant or claim back to the appropriate original MDC Challenge thread.

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
UncaYimmy said:
Chillzero, is there a thread where we can discuss how best to deal with MDC applicants? I think you make a number of good points that are not specific to Connie. Mocking claimants is like shooting fish in a barrel - I don't know why some people feel like they have accomplished something by doing so.

More importantly I don't think it's productive, but that's because I may have a different definition of productive. I want the claimant to learn on his or her own the flaws in their thinking. If the environment is too hostile, they might just take their ball and go home. To me that's an opportunity lost. How does anyone benefit by that?

In the grand scheme of things we should want applicants to take the test rather than get ticked off and leave. I would much rather be able to say that 500 claimants took a test and failed than to day that 500 applied, but 495 never got tested. Of course, if we can get a claimant to test themselves first, that's great, too. It would be even better if they shared the results of their self-testing with us. We need to provide an environment where they feel like they can do that.

If you want to move this post somewhere else and/or cite me for being off-topic, that's fine.
Click to expand...

I agree that diplomacy is important. Apparently, the majority of people in the U.S. believe in stuff like angels, and ghosts and talking to the dead. If we mock them or are too quick to discount what they say, I believe we're hurting our own cause. IMHO we should be bend over backwards to be respectful when a potential applicant or other believer in woo participates in the forum. Preaching to the choir doesn't help the cause.

I'm not saying that we should agree with their woo beliefs of course, just that it will help our case if we're polite and tolerant. I would rather engage in a discourse with these folks then scare them away. Of course it's not so easy, as there are people that come here who have an axe to grind, or have ridiculous arguments, don't listen, etc. But personally I'd like to err on the side of not alienating people.
 
If an applicant is sincere - e.g. Achau Nguyen - he should be treated with utmost respect; which I think is exactly what happened in this forum.

If an applicant in on the fence - deluded to some extent but willing to listen, e.g. Beth Clarkson (forum name: Beth) - s/he should also be treated with respect.

If an applicant behaves ignorant and says things like You must also know, that NOTHING can keep me away from what I`m doing, eventhough someone are trying to convince me, that I`m wrong!, there is nothing one can do to enlighten them. Forum member edge comes to mind.

By enlighten I mean: Point them to evidence - ideomotor effect, cold reading, blind testing - not act as a missionary. If they refuse to at least look at it: Game Over.



I am always willing to look at new evidence from properly done tests.
 
One thing that comes to mind, I know that the difference between the official JREF and MDC on one hand and the Forum members on the other is presented to applicants. I'm not sure if the distinction sticks.

Even though we can talk about the best way to approach claimant threads, this is a diverse community, and people will post what they like within the limits of the MA (and sometimes breaking it)

It might be useful to bend over backwards to make it very, very clear to applicants that posters in this forum in no way speak for Randi, the MDC or the JREF. It could be easy for a claimant, not familiar with any of this, to lump everything together into "those skeptics".

Maybe an official mod box disclaimer could be added to MDC threads, maybe claimants can be sent an email specifying the distinction (I don't know what information they already receive privately)
 
GzuzKryzt said:
If an applicant behaves ignorant and says things like You must also know, that NOTHING can keep me away from what I`m doing, eventhough someone are trying to convince me, that I`m wrong!, there is nothing one can do to enlighten them. Forum member edge comes to mind.
Click to expand...

What if we look at Dann's first post to Connie? His greeting was to accuse her of self deception and to call her delusional. Fundamentally, I don't disagree with Dann's assessment. But I have a simple question:

What good does it do to greet someone by saying those things in such a confrontational manner? Eventually it's probably going to lead to something like what you quoted, which came about 40 posts later. And then where does that lead? Oh, I know. A bunch of "Can not!" "Can so!" Can NOT" "CAN SO" posts.

I'm sure with some claimants it's going to head that direction anyway. But if it's going to be a peeing match, let the claimants pee first and give them a couple of chances to zip up for joining them.

Does anyone (Dann?) think something productive is going to come from such an aggressive greeting? If so, what? Any examples? I'm genuinely curious.
 
Are members of this message board supposed to act as ambassadors for the MDC, even if we hold the opinion that a particular potential claimant is a freakin' nutcase? Now, I get it that we should treat serious potentials that have a viable claim with a degree of respect, but not everyone is going to have the same opinion as to which potentials should be treated with respect and which should be treated otherwise.
 
Czarcasm said:
Are members of this message board supposed to act as ambassadors for the MDC, even if we hold the opinion that a particular potential claimant is a freakin' nutcase? Now, I get it that we should treat serious potentials that have a viable claim with a degree of respect, but not everyone is going to have the same opinion as to which potentials should be treated with respect and which should be treated otherwise.
Click to expand...

If the JREF felt that we were supposed to act as ambassadors, this wouldn't be an open forum with a thread discussing how claimants are greeted. Nobody is telling anybody how to behave...yet! :D Seriously, I'm not suggesting that the JREF come up with specific guidelines we must follow.

I am saying that once the thread takes on an aggressive and disrespectful tone, the chances for enlightenment are greatly diminished. Not only that, it's pretty hard to get the thread back to being "productive" once it reaches that point. In a sense it is disrespectful to fellow members taking a diplomatic approach when other members call a claimant out on the carpet. Is it permitted within the terms of the membership agreement? Absolutely.

It's also permissible to suggest that as a group we at least give a claimant the opportunity to engage us openly and critically before backing them into a corner, so to speak. Where that line is can be hard to determine, but I think that the topic of this thread tells us where the line is not: Greeting MD Claimants.
 
How long should we keep up a charade of respect for someone who says she/he is a claimant, but gives us a constant runaround and/or treats questioners with obvious disdain and/or (through simple research) can be shown to be jerking us around through comments on other websites?
 
Czarcasm said:
How long should we keep up a charade of respect for someone who says she/he is a claimant, but gives us a constant runaround and/or treats questioners with obvious disdain and/or (through simple research) can be shown to be jerking us around through comments on other websites?
Click to expand...

For me, at least, I don't have to have respect for someone to treat them with respect. Conversely, I have treated people I respect disrespectfully. I doubt I'm alone on the second one. Sometimes I've not been proud of doing so. Other times I did it deliberately because I believed it was the only way to get through to them.

In a way I think you've answered your own question. If someone is obviously giving us the runaround or treats us with disdain without provocation, that's usually a pretty good indicator that things aren't going to get better. If they are clearly jerking us around, that, too, is an indicator that things are going into the crapper.

But as I said, there's no clear line. Personally, I would prefer to err on the side of engaging someone too long. Calling them delusional or ridiculing their claims is incredibly easy. If it wasn't, there would be no MDC in the first place. I can start hounding them at any time. Once I do that, though, there's not much chance of turning back. Actually getting through to someone is difficult and time consuming. I want to give that a fair chance.

Again, personally I don't see the point of even engaging the type of people you describe if there's no chance of enlightenment. Obviously others do. Or maybe there's no point other than a sense of what goes around comes around. I happen think the best way to aggravate those people is to stay respectful and focused on the message. I prefer to be the guy kicking the fence rather than the dog who is barking.

But it's all subjective. Everything is a situation. In terms how I would prefer to behave (reality is another matter), if I see someone pursuing a diplomatic approach with a claimant, I'd let them keep going, even if I had my own diplomatic approach I'd like to take. If the claimant had really ticked me off and I felt I needed to fire a salvo, I'd like to think I would wait until the diplomats had given up. Even money says that I would probably fire my salvo when I think the diplomat should have given up.

Let me ask you this: How important is it to you for a claimant to either take the MDC or test themselves? To me it is extremely important. I want to take steps to make that happen. If I can't do that, I at least don't want to take steps that get in the way of that happening. I think in most cases, but certainly not all, calling someone delusional from the get-go isn't going to help.
 
UncaYimmy said:
Let me ask you this: How important is it to you for a claimant to either take the MDC or test themselves? To me it is extremely important. I want to take steps to make that happen. If I can't do that, I at least don't want to take steps that get in the way of that happening. I think in most cases, but certainly not all, calling someone delusional from the get-go isn't going to help.
Click to expand...
It is important to me for a serious claimant who shows a willingness to at least try understand and follow the rules of the MDC to get a decent chance. It is also important to me not to give easily identifiable jerks an open forum and protected status to show their friends how easy it is to jerk our chains, because(as I think has been shown just recently, IMHO) their buddies will come in and do the same thing if given half a chance. Such people should get as much respect as they give.
I believe there are honest contenders for the MDC, and I also believe they shouldn't have to stand in the same line as those who are here just to have fun at our expense.
 
I think the forum has an important role. We should give them rope. As much as they can use. If they use it to hang themselves then we have done the job. However if they use it to demonstrate their powers then they should take the MDC.

To put it another way. We should ask them questions like

1. What can they do?
2. Media exposure.
3. Experience?
4. Do they make money from their powers?
5. Life story in relation to their powers.


Their answers should be enough to expose most people who do not have a real ability. I cannot remember any person who has come onto this forum actually then taking the test (edge maybe is an exception?). This would have saved JREF and the applicants a lot of time and expense.
 
I think the main thing to be certain we do not do, is to drive any claimants, or potential claimants, away from the test, due to intimidation or rudeness here. I can't imagine how frustrating it would be for the JREF to put all the required effort into ensuring an applicant is serious about taking the challenge and is able to respond to the JREF in some form of recogniseable language and grammar, only for them to sign up here and (apart from being immediately on the defensive anyway) have any inclination to deal with the test removed beause they are accused of being either fraudulent or insane / delusional. Some are clearly new to internet forum interaction, and aren't really given a chance to discuss their claim and protocol in a reasonable manner. They have a large batch of skeptics picking carefully into every tiny detail of their claim and overloading them with questions. Perhaps we could give them more of a chance.

There was a suggestion raised before that this section be fully moderated, and/or restricted to a small group of 'representative' members who would engage with claimants. I'm in two minds about such restriction, but if claimants are being continually harrassed, then I'd support it. After all, what is the point of a forum section actually working against the goals the JREF are trying to acheive with the MDC? There used to be criticism of the tone Kramer sometimes took with claimants, and yet now we have RemieV being impeccably polite and clear in dealing with them, and the forumites are often aggressive.

As the MDC will be ending, this is maybe moot anyway, but I think criticism of claimants should be witheld for as long as possible. We ought to be supporting the JREF and the MDC, not frustrating their activities.
 
People should expect the claims to be scrutinized, regardless of whether or not they have come to this forum, or whether or not they have applied for the Challenge.

Nobody is forcing them to make their claims.

Nobody is forcing them to apply for the Challenge.

Nobody is forcing them to sign up here.

On this forum, claims are scrutinized, and the consequences of those claims are pointed out. It has always been like that.

If members are being continually harrassed, then it is a matter of applying the rules as they are today. Just because a member happens to be an applicant does not mean that that member should get preferential treatment.

It is a very bad idea to start making up rules about whose claims we can scrutinize, when we can do it, and how we should do it.
 
Nobody is saying their claims shouldn't be scrutinised. Only that such scrutiny should be done in a respectful and polite manner.

And yes, actually, claimants do deserve some preferential treatment. They are not here as standard members. They are here as guests of the JREF, in a way, as claimants for the very public MDC, and as such our interactions with them should be beyond reproach. Each claim, claimant, and the progress of each claim plays a large part of the JREF's history - perhaps of world history should someone someday pass the MDC (unlikely as that may seem to most of us). Our comments should ensure that this is a positive experience and event, and no one should be able to legitimately say that forumites were the whole cause of them not undertaking the challenge in the end.
 
Last edited:
I agree with CZ. People who are on the fence may come here later and read what is here. If they see that the applicant made a fool of himself in some way AND we were polite and trying to help then they will then know the facts. If they see we are rude to them then they may believe the excuses of the applicant.

That is why I say give the applicants rope. I think this does include giving them a little slack with the rules. No special rules, but anything marginal should go in their favor. Of course if they clearly break the rules then yes, put their name in public notices, but leave the post in situ for the world to see. Then the whole world can see what the applicant really is like.


Does anyone have any examples of the members treating any applicant badly? Enough to discourage him from continuing. This is without him being exposed for what he is first?
 
Last edited:
After all, if it weren't for the MDC, this forum may not have been here at all. This section deserves to be handled differently for that fact alone.
 
rjh01 said:
Does anyone have any examples of the members treating any applicant badly? Enough to discourage him from continuing. This is without him being exposed for what he is first?
Click to expand...

It's hard to say when often the first post to them - or about them before they join - accuse them of fraud or delusion. Who knows how differently any of these claims may have gone if that had not been the case?

However, cases such as The Professor are used by them and other detractors to demonstrate a hostile environment here. Yes, often they have to stretch the truth, but it would be even better if some of the quoted posts hadn't been made in the first place. If there was abolutely no ammo they could use against the JREF (not against us, remember) then bad publicity for the JREF and MDC would be tougher for them to compile.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom