Something like?...
"All tests are designed with the participation and approval of the applicant, however, you may be at a disadvantage if the test is set near the success rate you think you have. It is to your advantage to perform controlled tests to help you choose a success rate you are likely to pass. Forum discussion can be very helpful in this regard."
All you really need is the last sentence.
Again you really don’t want to be making explicit statements that could be construed as going to intent. Sure it may be an unwritten rule of contract negotiation, but no one wants to put it in writing or see it in writing on the contract or the paper work outlining the negotiation process.
“In negotiating this contract we will seek any possible advantage such that the resulting agreement will screw the ever-loving ******* **** out of you.”
Intent is difficult to infer, but if you make explicit statements (in the documentation) going to your intent that do not indicate a fair intent (or you acting in good faith) you’re much better off not including those statements. Unfortunate though it may be, if that leaves a somewhat naive person to figure out the potential ramifications of the agreed success rate on their own, but again this is not an ideal world.
I agree that there is a substantial number for whom it will make no difference. And that includes the audience, as well. I am thinking of the few where you can actually make a difference (and I think Pavel is one of them). I have been a teacher, so I know what it's like to keep trying to get through over and over and over again. But those few times that you do are all the reward that you need.
Indeed if it reaches just one it is easy to say it is worth it, but there may be other factors to consider (particularly as I mentioned before legal ramifications) when entering into a contract. Rightfully so, those matters are up to the attorneys and the administrator of the MDC.
ETA: I have selfish motives as well, as I am interested in pursuing claims of anomalies in a way that would allow for real progress. Identifying skilled individuals is one way to pursue this, so I don't want to miss an opportunity to do so.
Well data is collected, I don’t know how readily available it is, but I don’t see why the JREF can’t have its cake (the prize remains unclaimed) and eat it too (get good and useful data even in a failing tests).
I think the points that you raised can serve as an incentive, though. If you make it clear to the claimant that it is their fault if the protocol is not fair, by telling them that they shouldn't assume that it will be fair just because both have agreed to a particular success rate, maybe that will get them to take a step back from defensive mode into active participant mode. I don't know.
Again rough ground legally, fair is what both parties agree is fair, unless of course one party specifically makes assertions that go to intent and that intent being to deliberately deceive the other party. Nothing makes the understanding of the success rate by one party the responsibility of the other party, but once you start inferring an intent, or just the potential, to obfuscate a potential lack of fairness by the agreed success rate you leave your self open (I think) to matters of legal redress. As long as you don’t make that assertion explicit in writing, its caveat emptor when it comes to the success rate (for both parties). Once you do start claiming not only a potential lack of understanding by the applicant of the implications of the success rate, but also explicitly remark to a potential, or intent, to use that lack of understanding in a way that you also explicitly state goes to the fairness of the agreement, you’ve just opened up a very big nasty can of worms and dumped them all over yourself (again I think, since I’m no lawyer).
If you give them cause to mistrust what they are attesting to?
Linda
Not really sure what you are asking here, but the one they really should not be trusting is themselves and that is whom they need to be given cause to mistrust. Again it is most likely that lack of mistrust in themselves that has brought them to this juncture in the first place.
My own disclaimer.
I am not a lawyer nor do I have any connection nor affiliation to or with the JREF or the MDC, other then simply being a member of this discussion forum.
Dan “The Man”.
)
