Greeting MD Claimants

[chillzero]

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.

Very well said.

 

[Uncayimmy]

The MDC is a challenge.

Not tea and biscuits with the vicar.

<snip>

That's all justification for taking an aggressive and adversarial position. For me, at least, that position is stipulated.

But here's the question I'd like to see answered: What will you accomplish by taking such a stance immediately with a claimant? Or more broadly what do you personally hope to accomplish when engaging a claimant?

 

[CriticalThanking]

To me, one of the exciting parts of this particular subforum is to help applicants refine a potential protocol. Pointing out that a particular protocol step helps prevent self-delusion is one thing. Suggesting the applicant test him/herself first to see if there is some self-delusion going on is great. I do not see calling someone deluded as helpful in any way towards developing a protocol. What percentage of people do you know that learn well being told they are deluded/nuts/stupid?

I have always been in awe of posters like JackalGirl, Jimtron, and others who remain helpful to the last possible moment. One vote for each of us being personally responsible for being as helpful as possible to those that do not attack first.

CT

 

[Moochie]

That's all justification for taking an aggressive and adversarial position. For me, at least, that position is stipulated.

But here's the question I'd like to see answered: What will you accomplish by taking such a stance immediately with a claimant? Or more broadly what do you personally hope to accomplish when engaging a claimant?

UncaYimmy, there are folks here with decades of experience in seeing what a person is actually doing, as opposed to what they claim to be doing. Some will call "shenanigans" earlier than others. I think it just comes with the territory.

That said, I would hope that claimants are treated with civility and respect, whatever their peccadilloes, and that they are given every opportunity to express themselves clearly and fully.


M.

 

[Uncayimmy]

UncaYimmy, there are folks here with decades of experience in seeing what a person is actually doing, as opposed to what they claim to be doing. Some will call "shenanigans" earlier than others. I think it just comes with the territory.

I don't disagree. But what is the goal calling shenanigans in this particular forum where we're dealing with an applicant? It's a sincere question. I'm interested in understanding the various goals and discussing the best way to reach those goals.

 

[Darat]

I can think of a few examples when calling "shenanigans" would be appropriate. For instance if there was an applicant stating that they were genuine and someone then finds that on another forum the were actually claiming that they are not genuine in their application I can't see how that would be wrong to call them out on that type of "shenanigans". Likewise if a Member here discovered that the applicant had lied about something.

 

[Uncayimmy]

I can think of a few examples when calling "shenanigans" would be appropriate. For instance if there was an applicant stating that they were genuine and someone then finds that on another forum the were actually claiming that they are not genuine in their application I can't see how that would be wrong to call them out on that type of "shenanigans". Likewise if a Member here discovered that the applicant had lied about something.

Let me rephrase my question because I'm not sure I'm being clear. I have no issues with calling out someone who is clearly lying or not being genuine in their application. What I'm driving at is how best to approach the situation. What might you say?

For example, somebody could say, "Liar! Check out this link. You're just another shyster woo artist scamming people just like all the other psychics." Somebody else might say, "What you have claimed here seems to be in direct contradiction to what you said on this website. I see no need to proceed any further with you until you have addressed this contradiction."

What I'd like to see is the collective "us" as not being ruffled by the cranks. Not only doesn't it hurt "us" when dealing with future non-cranks and the fence sitters, it also gives the cranks exactly what they are after: attention and vitriolic reactions.

 

[rjh01]

If an applicant posts something that undermines their case there is no need to call them liars. Just post the link and an excerpt and leave it up to everyone to come to their own conclusions. After all there may be an innocent explanation.

 

[H3LL]

Am I missing something?

It seems Zep is too.

Is this thread about preferential treatment of MDC applicants or not?

If not, it's just a condescending thread on how to be nice to people.

I can't mention rules, but as suggested before, there is more than sufficient moderation already in place to prevent overly rude responses to MDC applicants.

What exactly is the issue here?

 

[chillzero]

The bottom line is this:

• The forum is owned by the JREF.
• The priority of the JREF is not to pander to members, but to get applicants through the testing process.
• The JREF banner states "friendly and lively", not "hostile and aggressive" (I note there's been no response to this being pointed out before).
• Applicants rarely come here for the same reasons skeptics do - they do not usually come for debate and discussion. They usually just want assistance/guidance with getting through the MDC process and are only interested in their own case. Most of them seem incredibly internet naive, and often have less of a grasp of english than most members, and it's like throwing a chick to the wolves here.
• The JREF lead by example, as can be seen by Randi's restraint and politeness with Derek Ogilvie, or by Jeff's patience and politeness with Rosemary Hunter as well as other examples. Several applicants who made it to the test have remarked that although disappointed with the failed results, they were impressed with the professionalism and respect shown by the JREF staff.
• Members here do not speak for the JREF: however, RemieV and Jeff Wagg do. Jeff has asked (more than once, iirc) for people to show a little more restraint and respect when dealing with applicants.

Why any member here would think it is right for them to deliberately defy the simple and clear requests of those who run the forum is beyond me. It seems to be an act of sheer disrespect toward the JREF, who so many claim to be here to support.

 

[H3LL]

The bottom line is this:

• The forum is owned by the JREF.
• The priority of the JREF is not to pander to members, but to get applicants through the testing process.
• The JREF banner states "friendly and lively", not "hostile and aggressive" (I note there's been no response to this being pointed out before).
• Applicants rarely come here for the same reasons skeptics do - they do not usually come for debate and discussion. They usually just want assistance/guidance with getting through the MDC process and are only interested in their own case. Most of them seem incredibly internet naive, and often have less of a grasp of english than most members, and it's like throwing a chick to the wolves here.
• The JREF lead by example, as can be seen by Randi's restraint and politeness with Derek Ogilvie, or by Jeff's patience and politeness with Rosemary Hunter as well as other examples. Several applicants who made it to the test have remarked that although disappointed with the failed results, they were impressed with the professionalism and respect shown by the JREF staff.
• Members here do not speak for the JREF: however, RemieV and Jeff Wagg do. Jeff has asked (more than once, iirc) for people to show a little more restraint and respect when dealing with applicants.

Why any member here would think it is right for them to deliberately defy the simple and clear requests of those who run the forum is beyond me. It seems to be an act of sheer disrespect toward the JREF, who so many claim to be here to support.

Well to prevent the poor little chicks being thrown to the nasty wolves I would strongly suggest that future MDC applicants that choose to enter the den be moved to a 100% moderated thread. Only authorised posts visible.

Problem solved.

Expecting some MDC applicants that come here with claims that make some member's blood boil and hoping that all members are going to be nicey-nicey is naive in the extreme. With or without "requests" from RemieV and Jeff.

 

[chillzero]

If you want to discuss moderation of this section, as previously mentioned that should be done in the Forum Mgt section.

I would also suggest that if you think the JREF are wrong to make such simple requests, and that members on their forum should not have to comply with their wishes, you take that up with Jeff.

 

[Cuddles]

Expecting some MDC applicants that come here with claims that make some member's blood boil and hoping that all members are going to be nicey-nicey is naive in the extreme.

The problem isn't with those "some". While I agree with UncaYimmy in general, when someone is clearly being deliberately dishonest I have no problem with calling them out. The problem is that many people call out every single person, regardless of their actual behaviuor and attitude. Expecting everyone to be nice may be naive when people come along with certain claims, but it would be nice if we could expect everyone to behave like mature adults the rest of the time.

 

[chillzero]

Why do some people feel it is so much more important to be able to protect their ability to attack others, than to ensure the JREF can acheive their goals of getting people into tests?
Each test is part of a bigger picture whether it's a fail or not, and that's important to remember.

 

[Darat]

That's assigning motivation to people rather unfairly Chill, many folk will just disagree with (for example) your interpretation that they are being aggressive or attacking, they may think that they are "plain speaking" and so on.

Rather then attack motives I think a better route is to try and explain why a different approach will be better for all.

 

[chillzero]

You're probably right, Darat, although I feel that the reasoning for a different approach has been pretty much covered. I wasn't meaning to assign motivation to all and sundry, but on reading some comments (long before this thread actually), it's a question that often perplexes me.

 

[H3LL]

Why do some people feel it is so much more important to be able to protect their ability to attack others, than to ensure the JREF can acheive their goals of getting people into tests?
Each test is part of a bigger picture whether it's a fail or not, and that's important to remember.

Now I'm completely confused.

And, apparently, we're attacking the poor little chicks now.

Yet again, what are the issues you are trying to discuss here?

Are they:

Asking all members to be nicer to MDC applicants? This is all well and good and very nobel ... but it's not going to happen. That's pretty much self evident.

New rules to to force members to be nice? - Not needed, we have enough rules that seem to work just fine, IMHO and apparently this is the wrong place for rule discussion.

Special status for MDC applicants? - Unless there is an intention to 100% mod their threads to protect their poor, delicate feelings (borderline acceptable), this stinks BIG time. We have enough religious "special pleading" in RL without having to tolerate it from all manner of woo-woo in this haven.




If the intention of this thread is to educate members on how to be polite and respectful, it's an education that, I for one, neither require nor desire and will leave you all to it.

If a Silvia Brown wannabe comes in as an MDC applicant, I'm well aware of how to be polite and respectful and may choose to be polite but there is not a snowflakes chance in hell that I will have even the tiniest smidgen of respect for the repugnant bottom-feeder and don't take too kindly to anyone that suggests for one minute that I should.

As said before, the MDC is a challenge. Members should be able to challenge them as agressively and with as much hostility as they choose (within the rules). The existing rules are quite sufficient to control "bad" behaviour.

If they choose to gently educate them, that is also their choice.

 

[chillzero]

Perhaps you missed my response to Darat's comment on this. I withdraw it for this thread, although it does make me wonder from time to time on the forum in general.

I personally had hoped people would respond to the previous posts though.

 

[H3LL]

I personally had hoped people would respond to the previous posts though.

Did you mean this bit:

I would also suggest that if you think the JREF are wrong to make such simple requests, and that members on their forum should not have to comply with their wishes, you take that up with Jeff.

on referring to this bit:

....Members here do not speak for the JREF: however, RemieV and Jeff Wagg do. Jeff has asked (more than once, iirc) for people to show a little more restraint and respect when dealing with applicants.

(My bold) - I think I did.

Never going to happen with me for some applicants and I suspect other members may feel the same way.

Respect is earned, not given.

 

[H3LL]

Would you be so kind as to address the points that are confusing me:

Yet again, what are the issues you are trying to discuss here?

Are they:

Asking all members to be nicer to MDC applicants?.......<snip>

New rules to to force members to be nice?.....<snip>

Special status for MDC applicants?..........<snip>

If the intention of this thread is to educate members on how to be polite and respectful......<snip>

Just so that I know whether to aggressively attack you with much hostility or politely leave the thread to avoid muddying the water further.