Greeting MD Claimants

[Cuddles]

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

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

Perhaps the opening post of the thread may help you there. You know, this one:

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.

You did read it, right?

 

[H3LL]

You did read it, right?

Cheeky.

Yes, and UncaYimmy said:

"Chillzero, is there a thread where we can discuss how best to deal with MDC applicants?" ...followed by personal, unsubstantiated thoughts, opinions and rhetoric. You did read it, right?

Rule discussion is not allowed in this thread.

Moderated thread options are not allowed to be discussed here.

I would have thought they were great topics to "..discuss how best to deal with MDC applicants" but I was wrong.

Two things got me going: The implication that MDC applicants should get some special status, eloquently commented on by Zep and the whole respect nonsense.

Other than that a whole lot of condescending twaddle about how to be polite.

So where is the thread going?

Do UncaYimmy and Chillzero want some sort of special status for MDC applicants or not?

Politeness lessons I don't want. Thankyouverymuch.

 

[chillzero]

Respect is earned, not given.

Well, I tend to start with the opposite premise. I'll give anyone respect until they do something to remove it. *shrug*


In the case of the MDC, applicants have a slight additional amount of respect because they - in the midst of all the howls from skeptics of "put up or shut up" - make an attempt to 'put up'. They make a decision to try and prove what they claim, and place themselves in the hands of the JREF to do so. I'll treat them with respect until they do something to remove it; such as lie about the progress of their claim on another forum, for example.

Even if I didn't start from that point, the very fact that the JREF want them to be treated with respect would further compel me to do so. It's their show and I wouldn't want to do anything to muddy the waters.

 

[Cuddles]

followed by personal, unsubstantiated thoughts, opinions and rhetoric.

Because a thread on a public discussion forum asking for people's opinions and thoughts actually containing some opinions and thoughts is such a terrible thing to happen.

I would have thought they were great topics to "..discuss how best to deal with MDC applicants" but I was wrong.

Yes, you were. A thread discussing how members think other members should treat some more other members has nothing to do with the official rules.

Other than that a whole lot of condescending twaddle about how to be polite.

And here we get to the heart of the problem - it seems a disturbing number of people consider politeness to be "condescending twaddle" and "naive".

Do UncaYimmy and Chillzero want some sort of special status for MDC applicants or not?

So despite your many posts in this thread, and having just not only replied to a post which quoted UncaYimmy but also definitively answered yes when asked if you'd bothered reading it, you apparently still haven't actually bothered reading either that post or any of his others, where he clearly states his opinion and says nothing whatsoever about with giving applicants to the MDC special status. As for Chillzero, who is the only person to have actually mentioned giving applicants special status, if you'd bothered paying any attention to her posts you would have noticed that she was merely noting that such an idea had been raised in the past, but rejected. Given that you apparently have absolutely no interest in this thread or what anyone posting in it has to say, I have to ask why you are bothering to post here?

Politeness lessons I don't want. Thankyouverymuch.

Yes, it's sadly clear that you, and several other members, have no interest in politeness. Oddly enough, the question of why this is, which is what UncaYimmy, among others, asked in the first place has yet to be answered.

 

[GzuzKryzt]

As far as I can see, only Czarcasm and I did bother to name specific examples of (wanna-be) applicants.
My first post was meant to be brief, obviously this issue has far more range than I outlined.

Perhaps you, my good forumites, could use a specific (wanna-be) applicant as an example for the points you raise. Not as a pillory, but as something where we can tie our points up on and beat them against each other.

Well?



Um, Zep? You should start saying good-bye to the forum members you like. Please don't kill the messenger.

 

[Uncayimmy]

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

It would be helpful to understand what the more aggressive or "plain speaking" folks are trying to accomplish in the first place. Since we don't seem to be getting answers, I'll go first.

I'm no saint nor do I pretend to be. I've spent 15 years on Usenet. I've done many things there that would get me thrown off this board in heartbeat. Why? Because the other guy ticked me off so much it gave me pleasure to verbally grind him to a pulp. I wanted to humiliate the person publicly. I wanted to see him exposed for the jerk he really was even though he had already demonstrated that so clearly that I didn't need to say a thing. Hell, sometimes I was just in a bad mood or felt like playing devil's advocate.

When it comes to this particular forum, I feel there's something bigger at stake. The most effective way to educate the claimant and other fence sitters is to see the test actually be taken so that that the results can speak for themselves. Rather than say, "liar, liar, pants on fire" I'd rather say, "can you resolve this apparent contradiction?" I believe that advances the goals of the MDC.

Someone else mentioned that this thread seems to be condescendingly telling people how to be nice. I disagree. I'm sure everyone here knows there are different ways to say the same thing. The questions really are should people voluntarily agree on the best approach and if so, what is that approach?

 

[Uncayimmy]

Do UncaYimmy and Chillzero want some sort of special status for MDC applicants or not?

I'll answer for UncaYimmy: No.

That said, I would prefer that members treat MDC applicants in this forum in a way that is most effective at leading them to take the test, doesn't discourage others from testing/exploring their claims critically, and gives fair-minded fence-sitters the impression that education is more important than say humiliation. How that might be accomplished should be discussed, but if there's no consensus on the goals, then what's the point?

Does that mean that applicants get "preferential" treatment? You might say that - I wouldn't. I see it as giving the "E" in JREF preferential treatment because the "feelings" of the applicant aren't really a consideration - selfishly staying focused on our "goals" is the only consideration.

People have brought up obvious schemers, liars, and hostile combatants as examples of those who may not "deserve" decent treatment. I argue that "decent" treatment is merely a tool to advance our goals. It's all about furthering our agenda. Decent treatment is a weapon, not a concession.

But if humiliation is your goal, look at this way. If some deluded claimant comes here expecting to encounter a bunch of rude, close-minded people who will use tactics to keep a fair test from taking place, what's the best way to humiliate them? I say it's to prove them wrong every step of the way. Then, when they fail the test, it's the ultimate failure. And we've got a real feather in our collective cap.

If we treat them rudely, dismiss everything they say, and engage in petty arguments instead of developing a protocol, then who wins when they walk away without taking a test? Certainly not us, but hey, at least we can hold our heads high that we weren't "nice" to them, right?

 

[Ofiuco]

long-time reader, first-time poster

I've enjoyed reading the MDC files from time to time for quite a while now. On the few occasions that I venture further into the forums to see what's going on, I am consistently surprised and disappointed at how forum members treat applicants. You may not be representatives legally of the JREF, but you are representatives of the group you claim membership in - skeptics, or, perhaps, 'the enlightened'. And based on what I've read here, if that's what being enlightened means, then I don't want to be enlightened any time soon.

Many of you seem to say that by coming on the forums, MDC applicants open themselves to your behavior, that they are, in essence, 'fair game'. Well, think about it this way. If I invited you over to my house and then I started calling you names, whose fault is that? Well, you didn't have to come over to my house, now did you? It's really too bad. I come here hoping for an interesting read, but usually all I get is an eyeful of vitriol.

 

[rjh01]

I have just checked out some recent threads. I could not find examples of bad behaviour by members in any thread about a specific application. That is apart from the professor's threads. He could not behave himself very well. So he deserved everything he got.

So is bad behaviour a major issue on this forum or is it just in certain people's imagination? Because I cannot find any thread where the applicant was not rude and was treated badly by several members.

Until people give examples of such threads I cannot see any point in having this discussion.

 

[dann]

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?

I'm a little confused now. Is that the goal of the JREF - in the "bigger picture"? Merely "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.

Correct me if I'm wrong, and maybe I am, but I thought that the purpose of the MDC, the bigger picture, was to expose the frauds for what they are, a purpose that it does not accomplish since the frauds simply stay away.
Instead the MDC is full of the self-deluded. The scammers simply stay away, even (or especially) the ones who, at one point or another, publicly agreed to be tested.
So the purpose actually served by the MDC is to get up the hopes of the deluded that they are not only gifted with supernatural powers but may also become millionaires! And thus it also serves the purpose of parading these deluded persons in front of a bunch of people with the delusion that they are intellectually superior to the former because they are able to see through their delusions.

And now people like Darat and chillzero want this self-deluded 'elite' to give up fulfilling their need to demonstrate their imaginary superiority in order to secure that as many as possible of the 'supernaturally deluded' go through with their tests - even though they know that not a single one of them will ever win the prize. (Not because the JREF are cheaters but because there is no such thing as supernatural powers.) Now that is idealism, pure and simple.

It sounded like a fun idea at the start, the MDC, but I, for one, actually look forward to its expiration date.
The people who defend it as a tool to help enlighten the superstitious who believe in their own supernatural powers ought to know that it does not actually serve that purpose. A simple pamphlet (or maybe one for each alleged power) along the lines of "How to test if you have the supernatural power of ...." might serve that purpose. I don't think that the MDC does.

 

[Uncayimmy]

I have just checked out some recent threads. I could not find examples of bad behaviour by members in any thread about a specific application. That is apart from the professor's threads. He could not behave himself very well. So he deserved everything he got.

Are you saying it's more important for The Professor to get what he "deserves" than it is to present the MDC in the best light possible? I think that issue is the heart of my argument, though it's more of an extreme example.

So is bad behaviour a major issue on this forum or is it just in certain people's imagination? Because I cannot find any thread where the applicant was not rude and was treated badly by several members.

It's not really about "bad" behavior so much as choosing a behavior that benefits the goals of the MDC and the JREF *or* debating whether those goals should even be a consideration at all in how we voluntarily treat an applicant within the confines of the membership agreement.

Until people give examples of such threads I cannot see any point in having this discussion.

From the first page of Sonne applicant's thread:

The dowsing claim is somewhat off from her other claimed abilities. I wonder what - or who - made her apply. After all, she must be pretty sure of her abilities, ... which is rather sad!

Was there any reason add the comment about her confidence being sad? It's not "bad" behavior but it is certainly condescending and not likely to garner cooperation towards taking the test.

...
Judging by your command of the English language, I think that your understanding of this field might also benefit from reading a couple of articles in Danish, in particular James Randi’s article Sådan virker ønskekvisten, but the following articles may also help you understand the delusion of dowsing: beviser for ekstraordinære påstande and alternative energier
http://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kvistgang
Since you don’t seem to mind spending a lot of time and money travelling to other parts of the world, in this case Florida, to prove your alleged powers, I recommend that, at least to begin with, you save some money by restricting yourself to going to Fåborg next Tuesday, January 20, for this lecture by Ole J. Knudsen on moderne overtro og myter.

If you still decide to go ahead with your plans of having your dowsing powers tested, I think that you may receive help with your project from these guys, Dowsing Danmark, but you should be aware that they appear to share your delusion!

I highlighted the use of the word delusion. While I do not argue the accuracy of the term, I offer that it is not likely to garner cooperation towards taking the test. It also discourages others from working *with* skeptics to think critically. This lady could reasonably say to others, "I tried to take a test with the JREF, but right off the bat they started calling me delusional. How can I expect fair treatment from people who slander me?"

And once people talk about her beliefs being sad and delusional, do you think any other members stand a chance of engaging in constructive dialogue? It's hard to be diplomatic and constructive. It's easy to be rude and destructive.

Obviously the behavior is acceptable since the moderators have not intervened. Everyone has the right to attack the applicant's claim as aggressively as the MA permits. I'm discussing what we should do since we clearly have a choice. At this point I think I am probably done explaining how I think we should behave and why.

Perhaps other can explain why they choose to say the things they do or at least why they think others should say the things they do. Hopefully the answer will be something more than "because they can."

One of the first threads I participated in here was someone (not GMB) claiming that the Theory of Relativity was fundamentally flawed from a logical standpoint. My contribution was limited to just offering that the OP should make more an effort to understand it before refuting it. Several other members, most notably Sol Invictus, chose to deal with this person very patiently. Over a thousand posts later the OP saw the error of his ways. Several times it could have gotten nasty and aggressive, but it didn't because education was more important than ridicule. Had he been called delusional or told that his strongly held beliefs were sad, I doubt he would have been enlightened. And I wouldn't have learned so much more about relativity.

 

[Cavemonster]

dann-

Exposing frauds may have been one of the reasons the MDC was set up, but fostering an understanding of critical thinking also plays into it.

In my short time in the forum, I've seen a few people come with wooish ideas and come to understand, through interacting here, why they were wrong. Chillzero came here as an applicant and is now a passionate advocate for critical thinking.

There is a great benefit to treating applicants respectfully in spreading critical thinking.

Exposing frauds is great in that it gets press for the cause and for the idea of embracing rigorous logic. But exposing Uri Geller didn't end his career or correct all his fans beliefs. The best actions of the JREF serve that end goal, to promote skepticism, which in the forums is better served by treating the "self deluded" respectfully.

 

[H3LL]

Because a thread on a public discussion forum asking for people's opinions and thoughts actually containing some opinions and thoughts is such a terrible thing to happen.

The first sentence you missed out was a direct question - The rest was not. Your sarcasm suggests I have said something I have not. Not appreciated.

Yes, you were. A thread discussing how members think other members should treat some more other members has nothing to do with the official rules.

(My bold) It was "deal with" not "treat". I happen to disagree and feel that "dealing with" applicants could be a rules/mod issue. Irrelevant anyway, as I've already been warned off and acknowledged I was wrong.

And here we get to the heart of the problem - it seems a disturbing number of people consider politeness to be "condescending twaddle" and "naive".

Niether said nor implied. Lessons on politeness is what I do not require and I suspect few here do and stated such more than once I believe. What you are saying is made up.

Who are these "disturbing number of people"?

So despite your many posts in this thread, and having just not only replied to a post which quoted UncaYimmy but also definitively answered yes when asked if you'd bothered reading it, you apparently still haven't actually bothered reading either that post or any of his others, where he clearly states his opinion and says nothing whatsoever about with giving applicants to the MDC special status. As for Chillzero, who is the only person to have actually mentioned giving applicants special status, if you'd bothered paying any attention to her posts you would have noticed that she was merely noting that such an idea had been raised in the past, but rejected.

Asking and suggesting members deal with MDC applicants in a different manner is asking for special treatment for them. Don't you see that?

Are you sure it's me that's not reading the posts?

Yes, it's sadly clear that you, and several other members, have no interest in politeness. Oddly enough, the question of why this is, which is what UncaYimmy, among others, asked in the first place has yet to be answered.

This is something made up out of your own head again. Lessons, it's lessons in politeness I don't care for.

Who are these "several other members" that have "no interest in politeness"?

Given that you apparently have absolutely no interest in this thread or what anyone posting in it has to say, I have to ask why you are bothering to post here?

Yes, I'm wonder why I'm bothering too, but for completely different reasons.

 

[Czarcasm]

Are you saying it's more important for The Professor to get what he "deserves" than it is to present the MDC in the best light possible? I think that issue is the heart of my argument, though it's more of an extreme example.

I'm saying The Professor and his ilk, given the incredible amount of information we have on him about his true purpose on posting here, should have been never have been given a thread in this forum to screw with us. This isn't censorship or discourtesy-this is common sense. At the very least, he should never have been given the extra latitude he was given. People that are here to gum up the works should be shown for what they are, period.

 

[pavel_do]

well.. sorry guys but UncaYimmy right in many points.. been there,, done it as they say.. I had from “Calling me names” about my knowledge of English to telling that I am waisting everyones time etc.... some post not really encouraging you know..(Ill be honest with you (as always was here) a few times I felt like saying. F#ck it.. all of you go to hell with your challenge out of my self respect and dignity I am not engaging with your gang and bunch of morons who have no respect to any one who might think different from you and same time calling yourself open minded..) and I tell you why.. cause most of talking happening on forum cause from JREF you get some times 1 letter in a few months if you lucky enough.. so the rest of time applicant talking (if he does) on forum and from forum and it members he makes his opinion about JREF as such..
as I use to say before.. who ever smart DO IT your self! Show it everyone that for example my claim is worthless cause its chance odds.. coin tossing as it was called.. DO it prove it!.. no one does.. just jump on applicant.. when I say DO it.. there is one excuse.. I am not claiming your claim..why should I..

 

[Uncayimmy]

I'm saying The Professor and his ilk, given the incredible amount of information we have on him about his true purpose on posting here, should have been never have been given a thread in this forum to screw with us. This isn't censorship or discourtesy-this is common sense. At the very least, he should never have been given the extra latitude he was given. People that are here to gum up the works should be shown for what they are, period.

I will say that the JREF would have been better off had The Professor not come along because, quite frankly, he got the best of the skeptics through unscrupulous tactics. After reviewing the thread, I would say that had it only been Jeff Wagg and TP, it would have played out at worst as a draw and in a LOT fewer posts.

You say people like TP should be shown for what they are. I agree and he was, very early on. Despite that he took control and milked it for all it was worth. Quite frankly I found some of his tactics masterful. People were so focused on getting him to do what they wanted that they played right into his hand.

Note: I'm not saying everybody played into his hand or that I would have done better. I'm saying that overall he managed to turn many responses to his advantage and managed to evade many important issues because of all the noise.

One of the key tactics in any negotiation is not saying anything you don't absolutely need to say. It's also important to remember what the other guy wants and use it to your advantage. That's exactly what he did and what we, the skeptics, did not do. He wanted the attention - the money was a red herring. Let me rephrase that, the money was to come from the attention, not winning the challenge or even taking the test. We just handed it over on a silver platter and gave him plenty of other things to work with. We got diddly squat.

All that said, his example is not directly related to what prompted me to bring up this issue. I didn't see people calling him delusional or ridiculing his beliefs. And most of what I consider mistakes occurred after he was greeted. This thread is about greeting applicants - first contact, if you will, and keeping a sincere applicant moving forward.

Maybe a "How to Handle People Like TP" thread is in order.

 

[rjh01]

Are you saying it's more important for The Professor to get what he "deserves" than it is to present the MDC in the best light possible? I think that issue is the heart of my argument, though it's more of an extreme example.

Once the professor had revealed what sort of person he was the MDC was irrelevant. Anyone reading the thread would know he could not even say what paranormal thing he could do. I think he was well treated by people. See post 76 for what I mean.

It's not really about "bad" behavior so much as choosing a behavior that benefits the goals of the MDC and the JREF *or* debating whether those goals should even be a consideration at all in how we voluntarily treat an applicant within the confines of the membership agreement.



From the first page of Sonne applicant's thread:



Was there any reason add the comment about her confidence being sad? It's not "bad" behavior but it is certainly condescending and not likely to garner cooperation towards taking the test.



I highlighted the use of the word delusion. While I do not argue the accuracy of the term, I offer that it is not likely to garner cooperation towards taking the test. It also discourages others from working *with* skeptics to think critically. This lady could reasonably say to others, "I tried to take a test with the JREF, but right off the bat they started calling me delusional. How can I expect fair treatment from people who slander me?"

And once people talk about her beliefs being sad and delusional, do you think any other members stand a chance of engaging in constructive dialogue? It's hard to be diplomatic and constructive. It's easy to be rude and destructive.

If a person cannot handle a fact no matter how unpleasant that is their problem not ours. The bit in bold is correct or even understated. I do not see such isolated posts as being a problem. They can be ignored by all.



See also post 75. He is right in that anyone who has any ability need not come to the forum or even to JREF. They can earn heaps of money by using their ability. Yet the people who do come here mostly do not state that they earn such money from their abilities.

 

[GzuzKryzt]

Finally we are getting to some examples. The easy ones, but still.

Besides The Professor and pavel_do - I recommend any critic to read the threads dealing with pavel_do, seriously, read them - do we have other specific examples where forum members dealt with applicants?

Do we understand that (wanna-be) applicants have the possibility to ignore destructive posts?

Do we also understand that pointing them to things they should have done before posting - reading the Challenge Rules, the FAQs, related threads - should not be regarded as criticism?

Please, anyone: Before you respond to pavel_do's post in this thread, read the threads dealing with him. I would very much like to learn from that experience. Please also consider that we are dealing with real-life situations here, not ideal lab conditions. Thank you.

Off to work. Back later.

 

[rjh01]

I did have problems finding other threads. Here is another thread where the applicant was participating. It is rather old.

RYAN WHISLER, Yo-Yo Dowser

But I am glad someone is seeing things my way.

Edit. I am sure there are other threads where people say they are going to apply but never do. I ignored those.

 

[pavel_do]

Do we understand that (wanna-be) applicants have the possibility to ignore destructive posts?

Do we also understand that pointing them to things they should have done before posting - reading the Challenge Rules, the FAQs, related threads - should not be regarded as criticism?



Off to work. Back later.

Well.. ye ye.. I need to learn English better etc... but some of th Challenge Rules, FAQs not really clear you know and not only for me, so people intend to try to clarify it.. and when you try to get clarification from JREF directly they don't have time for it, so I my self same as many others I'm sure, understood better and learned better from FORUM a as you said from POINTING.. and explaining.. That I appreciate. But the topic here is RESPECT
And you said..the destructive posts can be ignored.. Ill tell you, even tough U always posted that for exact clear answer you should write to JREF officials etc.. BUT 90% applicants and just visitors of the forum, DONT make differences from JREF officials and opinions that is on forum..If you understand what I mean... so when you read thread when some one told shut up or put up or don't waist any one time, or what ever “encouraging” posts... that not really make you more confident in applying and joining JREF some how..
so every person have to be respected here, if you think some on is delusional than ignore him, but not jump on him and try to put him in his place by humiliating posts.. Ignore it.. cause you know, some people really sensitive emotional, some of the even mentally disturbed, but still genuinely believe in reality of there “gift” so let the person understand that he is wrong or delusional or what ever but not try to bash it in to his had by offending him. No every one strong and smart enough to understand and say you know what you now one..I don't care I am dealing with JREF not with you.. So to make it short. JREF forum whether you like it or not. Whether yu understand it or not but still in some way FACE of the JREF it self.. if not..that it should be pout of JREF web site saying this is has nothing to do with JREF and members and there opinions is not the JREFS ones.. So.. as it is on JREF official web site.. than all of you have to understand that in a way you represent it too.. and it means Respect other if you don't want people think that your “family” is just a bunch of morons who think they they always write even if they wrong.. NO one alts has write for any other opinion..
SORRY if I offended any one in any way.
Cheers guys, have a nice weekend.