From Ian
Hi Kramer,
I'm glad I waited to talk to Ted before I sent the email I had prepared. After reading the email from him, and then your reply to him I was livid!
You see, I had no knowledge of the changes Ted had proposed on his "protocol document" whatsoever, let alone having authored them, as you seem to think I did. Nor at any time did I think, or suggest that a final test, if my team even passes the preliminary test, would be held anywhere but in Florida.
Most important, is the fact that I in no way, shape or form, had any concept of this "sender must believe" business. However, upon talking to Ted, I did come to understand where his concept arose from. You see, Ted hasn't been following along with this thread and didn't understand that the "sender" is one of the members of the team, not somebody he chooses and brings into the equation.
So, I think he was trying to do his job the best he could given the misunderstanding he had.
When I talked to him on the phone though, a couple of good points did come up that should be detailed in the protocol.
Namely:
1. The target word pool... You state, that it must be known to both parties before hand... If you mean that Ted and you must know the pool of words, I agree fully. But if you mean that Ted, and my group should know the pool of words, I must object as there is no reason whatsoever why anyone on my team should need to know any of the words.
2. The Record Sheet... In the room with the sender and the skeptic, it will be the skeptic who will shake the dice and choose the word from the 10x10 grid of words, and then immediately scotch tape it to the record sheet, and place the record sheet in front of the sender. So, the sender will never even touch the record sheet.
Lastly, in the conversation Ted and I had, he told me that what he had done is to create a "protocol document" because he sees part of his role is to make sure that you and I are on the same page Kramer. While he was creating this document though, he had some ideas and included them in it without explaining that these were changes he was proposing, and that I had no knowledge of them!
After Ted and I got off the phone, I re-re-read the emails, and the applicant thread; and it seems to me that You and I were pretty much on the same page already Kramer, and that it was Ted that was off track a little bit. So although his intentions of creating and controlling the "protocol document" are good, I must stand firm in the assertion I made to him that I control the protocol document to avoid further confusion.
In closing, if there are any changes that Ted suggested in his document you think we ought to include, let me know, and I'll put them in to a 3rd draft of the protocol and send it back to you tomorrow.
Talk to you soon, Ian
==============================================
OK, Ian. I have no problem with any of this. But, it's not a question of who is "in control". It's a question of mutual agreement, and although we got a bit confused, I think we're all on the same page now. I'm quite certain that Ted was not trying to "control" anything. He was simply trying to DOCUMENT matters.
Let's be clear that neither party "controls" the protocol document. This is precisely why the Challenge rules clearly state that the protocol must be designed and agreed to mutually by the applicant and the JREF (in this case, our designated associate, Ted Clay). MUTUAL: 50/50.
So...Let's set a test date.
Hi Kramer,
I'm glad I waited to talk to Ted before I sent the email I had prepared. After reading the email from him, and then your reply to him I was livid!
You see, I had no knowledge of the changes Ted had proposed on his "protocol document" whatsoever, let alone having authored them, as you seem to think I did. Nor at any time did I think, or suggest that a final test, if my team even passes the preliminary test, would be held anywhere but in Florida.
Most important, is the fact that I in no way, shape or form, had any concept of this "sender must believe" business. However, upon talking to Ted, I did come to understand where his concept arose from. You see, Ted hasn't been following along with this thread and didn't understand that the "sender" is one of the members of the team, not somebody he chooses and brings into the equation.
So, I think he was trying to do his job the best he could given the misunderstanding he had.
When I talked to him on the phone though, a couple of good points did come up that should be detailed in the protocol.
Namely:
1. The target word pool... You state, that it must be known to both parties before hand... If you mean that Ted and you must know the pool of words, I agree fully. But if you mean that Ted, and my group should know the pool of words, I must object as there is no reason whatsoever why anyone on my team should need to know any of the words.
2. The Record Sheet... In the room with the sender and the skeptic, it will be the skeptic who will shake the dice and choose the word from the 10x10 grid of words, and then immediately scotch tape it to the record sheet, and place the record sheet in front of the sender. So, the sender will never even touch the record sheet.
Lastly, in the conversation Ted and I had, he told me that what he had done is to create a "protocol document" because he sees part of his role is to make sure that you and I are on the same page Kramer. While he was creating this document though, he had some ideas and included them in it without explaining that these were changes he was proposing, and that I had no knowledge of them!
After Ted and I got off the phone, I re-re-read the emails, and the applicant thread; and it seems to me that You and I were pretty much on the same page already Kramer, and that it was Ted that was off track a little bit. So although his intentions of creating and controlling the "protocol document" are good, I must stand firm in the assertion I made to him that I control the protocol document to avoid further confusion.
In closing, if there are any changes that Ted suggested in his document you think we ought to include, let me know, and I'll put them in to a 3rd draft of the protocol and send it back to you tomorrow.
Talk to you soon, Ian
==============================================
OK, Ian. I have no problem with any of this. But, it's not a question of who is "in control". It's a question of mutual agreement, and although we got a bit confused, I think we're all on the same page now. I'm quite certain that Ted was not trying to "control" anything. He was simply trying to DOCUMENT matters.
Let's be clear that neither party "controls" the protocol document. This is precisely why the Challenge rules clearly state that the protocol must be designed and agreed to mutually by the applicant and the JREF (in this case, our designated associate, Ted Clay). MUTUAL: 50/50.
So...Let's set a test date.