• 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

First, it is imperative that we all remember that it has always been very, very clear that JREF was not responsible for what members of the forum posted. I do believe this is still the case.

If it is a matter of being uncivil, we already have a rule about that. Simply apply that, instead of making up new rules that favor certain members.

Whenever such favoritism has been suggested in the past, it has always been met with the very sensible answer: All members should be treated equally. No special rules for anyone.

Abandon that principle, and you open up a can of worms. Who gets preferential treatment next? Who gets unfavorable treatment?
 
As Admin:

Just as a "FYI" - when the last lot of changes were made to the Membership Agreement the Mod Team were told to be strict about applying the changes to this section, so it is treated slightly differently than other sections especially in regards to moving off-topic material.

Also the Mod Team have been given specific instructions from the JREF regarding some applicants, for instance when The Professor was still in the frame for applying for the MDC he was allowed to breach his Membership Agreement to a certain extent.

If we can try to keep this discussion away from, if you like, the "official" rules and just concentrate on making suggestions as Members I'd appreciate it, otherwise the discussion will end up in Forum Management.
 
The MDC is a challenge.

Not tea and biscuits with the vicar.

Respect is earned not given.

An MDC applicant should expect sustained scrutiny of their claim and protocol. Gentle discussion is for other places on the forums.

As CLF said, no one is forcing them and if they think that coming here is going to be an easy ride and massage their egos, they are more deluded than usual.

They have chosen to jump into the lion's den and should expect a few scratches.

It is a hostile environment and known to be so for those without evidence to support their claims. Scrutiny is almost guaranteed.

This "nicey-nicey, softly-softly" approach to trolls and now MDC applicants is becoming a little nauseating.

The bright light of good evidence reveals all.

If they don't like it - they shouldn't be here.

Finally, when the day comes that who I show respect to and my actions are guided by fear from the likes of repugnant characters such as The Professor and his activities - Please shoot me - - - Twice.
 
Last edited:
If there is going to be preferential treatment for some posters over others that is going to be enforced by "rules" then you can ban my account immediately. You can stuff that.

I fully advocate that good manners and tolerance be strongly encouraged, especially to newly arrived visitors. But once you start enforcing a rule-based caste system, the spiral will go inwards around the plug-hole, not upwards to the stars. Count me OUT.
 
I really don't think that anyone in their right mind would ever claim that the entire membership here consisted of a homogeneous group of skeptics who spoke as one voice. Nor that it should.

Sure, we have heard such claims from some woos, who really wanted to paint us as a monolithic force.

Not true. Here, we have all sorts of people. It's one of the good things about this forum. Always has been.

Now, we are all supposed to march in line, singing the same song? This herd of cats? Yeah, right. Try to make that happen... :D
 
As Admin:

Let me repeat what I said:

If we can try to keep this discussion away from, if you like, the "official" rules and just concentrate on making suggestions as Members I'd appreciate it, otherwise the discussion will end up in Forum Management.

Also:

There are no current plans nor has the JREF raised it as an issue that we should look into making any changes to the rules in this or any other section.
 
H3LL said:
They have chosen to jump into the lion's den and should expect a few scratches.
Click to expand...
Or perhaps they have chosen to accept the MDC, and are simply looking for assistance in going through the process. There should be no 'enemy' here. I'll repeat that I view claimants as guests of the JREf, and a large part of why this forum exists at all, and as such we should endeavour to treat them the way the JREF lead by example. I see that as with utmost politeness and patience.

H3LL said:
It is a hostile environment <snip>
Click to expand...
Why?
Why should it be?

I'll point you to the banner here, that states it's a place for discussion "in a friendly and lively way". I see nothing there about hostility.

As an example, we all know Randi himself can be hostile and sarcastic. However, watch how he handled the 'baby mindreader'. When it comes to the challenge, he is calm, patient and respectful. I think that should send an important message.
 
Last edited:
I view claimants as people with claims that should be scrutinized.

It should be remembered that all forum members are guests of JREF. Not just those members who are also applicants.
 
Chillzero, what part of the word "Challenge" is giving you trouble?

They are not "guests", they are here to directly challenge Randi's position on the paranormal etc. and take his money.

These are not "guests" I want at any of my parties.

Using critical thinking and sound methods, Randi is also going to challenge their claim and protocol.

Any challenge is inherently hostile - How could it be anything else.

The level of hostility can be very different. Chess and boxing are both hostile challenges, rules dictate the level of that hostility.

I would agree 100% with Zep above that the level of control on hostility here is way more than sufficient already.
 
chillzero said:
As an example, we all know Randi himself can be hostile and sarcastic. However, watch how he handled the 'baby mindreader'. When it comes to the challenge, he is calm, patient and respectful. I think that should send an important message.
Click to expand...

Not according to Ogilvie and I'll bet every woo who saw the documentary. To Ogilvie, Randi was cold and hostile and out to make things as difficult and stressful as possible. He also, according to Ogilvie, didn't give Ogilvie a chance and the whole test was tilted to ensure that Ogilvie failed.

It really doesn't matter all that much how respectful and pleasant we are to the woo claimants here because they're all going to cry boo-hoo nasty closed-minded skeptics as soon as it becomes clear that their claim is either untestable due to no possible agreement on a protocol, or that their claimed ability just doesn't exist. To them, we're all nasty, rude skeptics who treated them harshly.
 
Reno said:
Not according to Ogilvie and I'll bet every woo who saw the documentary. To Ogilvie, Randi was cold and hostile and out to make things as difficult and stressful as possible. He also, according to Ogilvie, didn't give Ogilvie a chance and the whole test was tilted to ensure that Ogilvie failed.
Click to expand...
But it's easy to see this as a lie.

Reno said:
It really doesn't matter all that much how respectful and pleasant we are to the woo claimants here because they're all going to cry boo-hoo nasty closed-minded skeptics as soon as it becomes clear that their claim is either untestable due to no possible agreement on a protocol, or that their claimed ability just doesn't exist. To them, we're all nasty, rude skeptics who treated them harshly.
Click to expand...
But why feed the flames? Why make it any easier for them to make such claims?
 
chillzero said:
But why feed the flames? Why make it any easier for them to make such claims?
Click to expand...

This is suggesting that the existing rules are ineffective at preventing such behaviour.

Where, within the current rules, are you unable to moderate inappropriate behaviour to an MDC applicant, such as insults or off topic comments?

Why do you think MDC applicants deserve special favour?
 
H3LL said:
This is suggesting that the existing rules are ineffective at preventing such behaviour.

Where, within the current rules, are you unable to moderate inappropriate behaviour to an MDC applicant, such as insults or off topic comments?

Why do you think MDC applicants deserve special favour?
Click to expand...

As has been repeated several times already, this is nothing to do with the rules, it is to do with how people think people should behave. You may be as nasty as you like to applicants, within the bounds of the membership agreement. The point that UncaYimmy, Chillzero and others are making is that there is no good reason to act like that, and plenty of reasons not to.

If you want to discuss the forum rules then, as Darat already said, please take it to Forum Management.
 
Let's discuss how such restrictions on discussions about claims pertaining to an application for the MDC would work.

What are the qualifications for a member to be accepted in the group of "representative" members to carry out the discussions?

Who decides what these qualifications are?

Who decided who can make that decision?
 
Any discussions about rules will be taken to Forum Management section. Final warning.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Cuddles
 
New thread about the qualifications for "representative" members to discuss with applicants here.
 
As far as treating prior claimants we have no easily found previous bad history on with respect, I say certainly, but the ones that refuse to even read the rules of the MDC or can be shown to be jerks with a prior(or current, in the case of a couple of recent cases) bad faith history should be jerked out of this forum a lot sooner than is currently the habit, in my opinion. Yes, we do somewhat represent JREF, but do we really want to be used to show the outside world that any type of woo should be treated with respect?
 
Members do not represent JREF in any way. The membership consists of all kinds of people, from all parts of the world.
 
CFLarsen said:
Members do not represent JREF in any way.
Click to expand...


Claus, I disagree to an extent with your position on this; while The JREF officially has stated that they are not responsible for the content of the posts in the forum, the forum itself bears their name, is paid for by them, and is ultimately managed by them. While we may not officially represent The JREF, what we say and do reflects on The JREF (and skepticism in general) if we claim to be skeptics that support the goals of the JREF. Yes, we don't represent The JREF. but anything posted here that's hostile toward a claimant may be held up by them as "proof" that The JREF does NOT operate in good faith with claimants - even if that's utter nonsense. Better to not give them an excuse to point to us as the cause of their failure.

The refutation of a claim is inherent in its failure when tested; no further rhetoric is needed when that elegant and irrefutable proof is rendered. We should be doing everything in our power to help these people reach the point of testing... because that's the definitive, public, documented and successful approach to disprove their claims.
 
Last edited:
Reno said:
...snip... To them, we're all nasty, rude skeptics who treated them harshly.
Click to expand...

I agree with what you say but why act in a way that panders to their distorted perception? Why not act in a polite and rational manner in our interactions, it costs us nothing, may in fact sway some fence sitters and lurkers that "we" aren't the nasty ones?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom