Possible successor to the MDC

[Cuddles]

As most people have no doubt noticed, the million dollar challenge is coming to an end. Since many people think this is a shame and that such a challenge is useful to have around. Obviously there are several similar challenges around, but none have the same public awareness or impact of the JREF challenge (although to the general public even that isn't all that well known).

Some of us have been throwing around some ideas in this thread (starting on about the 4th page) for a new challenge. What we have come up with is a new challenge organised on the JREF forum, but not actually part of the JREF. This would allow the new challenge to, hopefully, enjoy some of the fame (or notoriety) of the MDC, but without the JREF having to spend its time and resources on it any longer.

The idea would be to set up a charity which would accept donations towards the prize, but run entirely by volunteers, so with no expenses. A lot of negotiation already takes place on the forum, so we would simply take this further and have a moderated thread for the official negotiations to take place.

Obviously this is only in very early planning stages, so we would be interested in what other people think of this idea, and whether they would be willing to donate either money or time to help out. Some obvious issues are that one person, or a small group, would have to actually be in charge and have the final say over protocols. Also, it seems rather unlikely that it would ever collect as much as a million for the prize. Another problem is where this would be set up. All the research I've done has been in the UK, and I think at least one other person involved lives here. It shouldn't matter what country it is based in for actual testing or paying out, but it will depend very much on who would be willing to be involved.

Finally, I have emailed Randi about this and he expressed approval for looking into this, but the decision if this could happen on this forum would ultimately be his, and is by no means certain.

From the other thread:

Yes, I quite like the sound of that - the SANE Prize, or the SANE Challenge

I thought of the Paranormal And Pseudoscience Challenge (the PAP challenge), but that's slightly frivolous.

Or maybe the Extraordinary Claims Testing Organisation Prize (ECTOprize).

But I'm starting to remind myself of my sister's band, of which 'rehearsals' consisted of heated arguments about what they should be called, and no music ever got played

To be honest, I think going for a frivolous name would be better. One thing that really turns me off about skeptical organisations is that they all seem to take themselves so seriously, and have such boring sounding names. I think something like ECTOprize would be ideal. It's not too silly, but it doesn't conjure up the image of a bunch of old men with glassed and long hair in lab coats.

What needs to happen before this works? Presumably final permission won't be forthcoming from Randi until we send a formal proposal.

A mechanism for processing and holding donations would be a start - I have no clue about online moneytaking etc.

An account which produces interest which automatically goes straight onto the prize fund?

Since we're likely to be talking about relatively small amounts of money, I would have though a basic savings account with one or two weeks access time would be fine. You can easily get 6% interest or more, it would easily be obtainable if someone actually won, and would hopefully avoid all the nonsense about the money not existing. I don't really know about online moneytaking either, but it seems to be fairly easy to set up something like a PayPal account to do so. It should be easy to set up a joint account so that no-one can run off with the money, but statements can still easily be provided.

Maybe an incentive for donations akin to the 'forum donor' badge given to people who've given money to the forum?

Possible, although many people don't like the idea even of forum donor badges. This would depend on how much it would actually be associated with the JREF.

A formal set of rules, plagiarised or otherwise.

Would we simply create an analogue of the JREF Challenge, or would we fiddle with the rules, for instance, the definition of 'testable claim', limits on re-application following failure, etc.?

I think a lot of it could stay the same. Time limits on applications and reapplying make sense. Obviously we would want to avoid potentially harmful tests, as well as untestable ones like cloud busting. I think the list of testable claims might want a look at, although I imagine it would end up pretty similar.

Things that might want to change are the entry requirements. Would we want to stick with the media requirements, affidavits and so on, or could we look at another way? Maybe demand evidence of self-testing before allowing an application. I think the forum has a pretty good history with helping potential applicants in this area.

 

[kosai]

Since we're likely to be talking about relatively small amounts of money, I would have though a basic savings account with one or two weeks access time would be fine. You can easily get 6% interest or more

I definately think there should be a replacement for the MDC and am sad to see it go. A savings account is FDIC insured only up to $100,000 so you wouldn't want to go much further than that for that type of account, especially with the online banks that are going to offer you these High Yield rates.

 

[steenkh]

The idea would be to set up a charity which would accept donations towards the prize, but run entirely by volunteers, so with no expenses. A lot of negotiation already takes place on the forum, so we would simply take this further and have a moderated thread for the official negotiations to take place.

Great idea!

To be honest, I think going for a frivolous name would be better. One thing that really turns me off about skeptical organisations is that they all seem to take themselves so seriously, and have such boring sounding names. I think something like ECTOprize would be ideal. It's not too silly, but it doesn't conjure up the image of a bunch of old men with glassed and long hair in lab coats.

It may be more fun with a frivolous name, but the woos will immediately claim that the challenge cannot be taken seriously. If we actually want anybody to consider this challenge, it has to be in a form that will not humiliate the claimants. Even more seriously, neutral people who may not support woos but on the other hand are not aggressive skeptics, may think the challenge is meant to be a joke.

Since we're likely to be talking about relatively small amounts of money, I would have though a basic savings account with one or two weeks access time would be fine. You can easily get 6% interest or more, it would easily be obtainable if someone actually won, and would hopefully avoid all the nonsense about the money not existing. I don't really know about online moneytaking either, but it seems to be fairly easy to set up something like a PayPal account to do so. It should be easy to set up a joint account so that no-one can run off with the money, but statements can still easily be provided.

Yes, it is important that we can prove that the money is actually there. Just think of all the times the JREF has had to provide proofs that the prize actually exists.

I think a lot of it could stay the same. Time limits on applications and reapplying make sense. Obviously we would want to avoid potentially harmful tests, as well as untestable ones like cloud busting. I think the list of testable claims might want a look at, although I imagine it would end up pretty similar.

Agree. And we might also consider being more strict about the claimants paying all expenses.

Things that might want to change are the entry requirements. Would we want to stick with the media requirements, affidavits and so on, or could we look at another way? Maybe demand evidence of self-testing before allowing an application. I think the forum has a pretty good history with helping potential applicants in this area.

The affidavits and so on were really a way to limit the number of claimants in order not to "waste the JREF time" which is really a bit odd, because we know that actually, all claimants are effectively wasting our time. But it can be a practical requirement because the number of claimants could be too many to handle. However, the relatively small prize that we may be able to offer will also limit the number of claimants.

 

[Ryan O'Dine]

Personally, I’m picturing a very informal challenge to be leveled mainly at paranormalists who show up around here, and folks we personally meet IRL. It would be a relatively small amount of money -- the cut-off for small claims court is $5,000 where I live. Keep things simple.

Also, in the other thread, I offered: SANE -- the Skeptical Action NEtwork. Perhaps that doesn’t quite fit the bill, but what a pick-up line: “Hey, groovy chick. I’m in SANE!”


ETA: My 666th post! It's auspicious!

 

[steenkh]

Also, in the other thread, I offered: SANE -- the Skeptical Action NEtwork.

I find it excellent! It satisfies some degree of "frivolity", while at the same time having a serious sound.

 

[Nucular]

Thanks for setting up the thread Cuddles

Obviously this is only in very early planning stages, so we would be interested in what other people think of this idea, and whether they would be willing to donate either money or time to help out.

As I said on the other thread, I'd be happy to donate time to the project, and a small amount of money.

Another problem is where this would be set up. All the research I've done has been in the UK, and I think at least one other person involved lives here. It shouldn't matter what country it is based in for actual testing or paying out, but it will depend very much on who would be willing to be involved.

I'm also in the UK.

Possible, although many people don't like the idea even of forum donor badges. This would depend on how much it would actually be associated with the JREF.

True, although as you mentioned above, some sense, even a vague one, of this new challenge being the successor, or adopted cousin thrice removed, to the JREF Challenge would be the main differentiator between this one and other sceptical organisations' bigger prizes. Purely in terms of pr and promotion of the challenge, any extra link to the JREF would be an advantage.

I think a lot of it could stay the same. Time limits on applications and reapplying make sense. Obviously we would want to avoid potentially harmful tests, as well as untestable ones like cloud busting. I think the list of testable claims might want a look at, although I imagine it would end up pretty similar.

Agreed; the list of testable claims would certainly be refreshing to review, but I can't see it changing substantially. Re: the cloud busting and related weather-affecting claims, I'm not well-versed in this area but I have always wondered why such claims are dismissed a priori. A discussion for elsewhere, of course, though.

Things that might want to change are the entry requirements. Would we want to stick with the media requirements, affidavits and so on, or could we look at another way? Maybe demand evidence of self-testing before allowing an application. I think the forum has a pretty good history with helping potential applicants in this area.

I absolutely think media requirements and affadavits should be dispensed with as too strict for such a small prize. Perhaps a more formalised version of what happens anyway on this forum could work - i.e. the first stage of application is to open a thread which describes a self-testing procedure, or something. There'll always be the opportunity for people to lie and mislead (perhaps those who are technically able could offer filmed evidence via YouTube), but it goes with the territory. And after all, those requirements are only really a vetting procedure; if we were swamped with claims (which I doubt we would be) we'd simply review policy.

 

[Nucular]

Also, from the other thread:

How about a challenge with no prize at all? Then we can listen to all the people who used to say "I don't do it for the money" instead say "Why would I do it for free?"

~~ Paul

Why not have a simple three-way choice for applicants:

1) Do it for the money
2) Do it in order to donate the money to a charity of your choice
3) Do it for no money

 

[steenkh]

One thing that we need to be prepared for is the legal challenge. Randi has access to the legal expertise, and apparently also the funding to go to court to defend the JREF and the MDC. The successor challenge could be a target for a litigation-minded claimant.

The less money we have in the challenge, the less danger involved.

 

[Linda777NJ]

Criss Angel seems to have an extra million dollars and seems more than willing to debunk.

please see: Jim Callahan Gets owned by Criss Angel (Uncensored) on You Tube. I would post the link, but I am still not allowed.

 

[Nucular]

One thing that we need to be prepared for is the legal challenge. Randi has access to the legal expertise, and apparently also the funding to go to court to defend the JREF and the MDC. The successor challenge could be a target for a litigation-minded claimant.

The less money we have in the challenge, the less danger involved.

Again, that links to Ryan's point above about at what point a dispute is taken out of the small claims court.

Perhaps a sensible way to decide where the challenge would be 'based' would be according to how big the prize would be allowed to be without disputes escalating beyond the small claims course. Unless that matter would be decided according to the claimant's location, rather than the money's.

 

[Linda777NJ]

Criss Angel seems to have an extra million dollars and seems more than willing to debunk.

please see: Jim Callahan Gets owned by Criss Angel (Uncensored) on You Tube. I would post the link, but I am still not allowed.

edited to add link

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVUNFjS1m5M&feature=related


watch till the end, it's hysterically funny!

 

[Jackalgirl]

I'm in. I can donate a little money. Better yet, I can donate time, some web storage space, and graphics design.

I like the idea of giving choices (i.e., money, money to charity, no money).

Question, has anyone ever actually sued over the MDC? I'm woefully undereducated. I know that there is a proviso in the application that states that the applicant will not sue the JREF. If a person signs that, and it is notarized, that'd provide some protection, yes? Of course, it's not going to stop someone from starting a lawsuit, even though it might (eventually) shut one down, and there'd be costs to bear in the meantime. I realize that.

What we need is a pack of our own volunteer lawyers. ; )

 

[Olowkow]

Why not have a simple three-way choice for applicants:

1) Do it for the money
2) Do it in order to donate the money to a charity of your choice
3) Do it for no money

I like this, since there is the proverbial "I won't do it for money" excuse.

Or, have no prize at all, and assure the applicant they will receive the credit due on Randi's site. In other words, using his credibility and fame alone to spread the word of the applicant's talents! Worth a fortune in and of itself.

 

[steenkh]

Question, has anyone ever actually sued over the MDC?

Not that I know of, but Randi is also known to be a tough customer in this respect.

I'm woefully undereducated. I know that there is a proviso in the application that states that the applicant will not sue the JREF. If a person signs that, and it is notarized, that'd provide some protection, yes? Of course, it's not going to stop someone from starting a lawsuit, even though it might (eventually) shut one down, and there'd be costs to bear in the meantime. I realize that.

The "no lawsuit"-clause gives some protection, but only in regard to claims of compensation for lost time and money, and similar cases. I do not think it is possible to make people voluntarily give up the right to sue with claims of fraud or unfairness. A possible lawsuit could also be the result of a rejection of a claim for test, where the claimant has not yet signed any papers.

I think that most the reason why we get to hear of so few lawsuits against the JREF is that Randi has a good lawyer, and that it does not seem likely that a lawsuit can make the JREF crumble by weight of the cost alone.

Another reason could of course be that even though lawyers have a bad reputation, it might be that they are hesitant to take up the case of somebody who claim he can bust clouds or make people pee in their pants.

What we need is a pack of our own volunteer lawyers. ; )

Something like that.

 

[Nucular]

I'm in. I can donate a little money. Better yet, I can donate time, some web storage space, and graphics design.

Fantastic, I think your web skills and donation of storage space would be very useful.

I suppose it partly depends on where on the internet the new challenge would sit too - whether wholly on this board, partly here but with its own homepage too, or wholly somewhere else.

As I said before, I think any association with the JREF it's possible to get would be what makes the idea work... but it's also important to show, I think that although a successor to the MDC, this is still different. And that might mean something like using this board for all discussion, but another site for other stuff.




So what do we have so far? In probably highly illogical order as they occur to me, these are the highlights of the thread so far that I see:

1) It's generally agreed that the name of the challenge should be slightly frivolous but not stoopid, and there have been a couple of suggestions.
2) We would review all rules, with the expectation that little will change substantially other than the stringent rules on affadavits and media presence.
3) One or two protocol officers would be appointed who have final say, along with the applicant, on acceptable procedure; discussions around this would take place on a moderated thread, preferably in its own subforum.
4) The actual prize, if we do decide to have one, would be garnered from public donations taken by PayPal or equivalent, either on this forum, on a separate site, or both.
5) It would be held in a savings account giving 6% interest or higher, which would be registered in all volunteers' names (or, if we became a registered charity, in the name of that charity).
6) The challenge would be geographically based according to either where most volunteers are, or where we could remain within the realm of the small claims court with the highest amount for the prize.
7) Ryan O'Dine, Cuddles, Steenkh, Jackalgirl, Ron Tomkins and myself (Nucular) have all explicitly agreed to in some way be involved. I suspect some of the other contributers to this thread would be as well, but haven't explicitly stated so - show your colours, dammit!
8) The 'feel' of the challenge would be much more informal than the MDC proper.
9) Applicants would be given the choice at the start of their application to participate either to win the money, to have it donated to a charity, or for no money at all.

This is almost certainly not a comprehensive summary of the things mentioned so far; what have I missed?

Current things which remain undecided or problematic:

1) We only have six people who have explicitly agreed to take part. I doubt we could do it with only six people; a much more robust response from this forum and its members would be required.
2) Is there anybody who has a team of fast-talking, good-looking lawyers at their disposal who would be willing to work for food?
3) Where people are, and where the laws would favour the prize.
4) Whether we host the prize wholly on this site, wholly on another site kindly designed and donated by Jackalgirl, or somewhere in between.

That's definitely not a comprehensive list of unresolved questions, just to get the ball rolling really.

Regarding the lack of response from the forum, I think we could probably run things with only those who have said they're interested; but volunteer testers would be paramount. Six of us can't cover the whole world (unless the JREF pays our expenses, in which case, sorry, we're full ). I wonder whether the next thread should simply ask for volunteer testers, who don't have to do anything at all until called upon if there is an applicant in their region. Or maybe that could be managed on an ad hoc basis? E.g., threads called things like 'Test facilitators urgently required in Paris', or whatever. Although we would need to make sure that whoever did conduct the testing was 'on the level'.

I also note that nobody's actually said that this idea is stupid yet, and so as a sceptic this unnerves me a little - where are the naysayers?

 

[Ryan O'Dine]

This is going well beyond my original conception (inspired by Ron Tomkins ) of a TDC -- a thousand dollar challenge -- which is perfectly fine, but I want to pitch that original concept one more time.

I think, first, that it’s a mistake to consider this a “possible successor” to the MDC. Without Randi, there is no MDC. Furthermore, I don’t think it’s a good idea to have the forum produce something which is meant to, or accidentally ends up, being “confusable” with the MDC. That’s not fair to Randi, the JREF, or this forum. *wags finger*

Second, if you’re not going to have a cool mil, or even ten grand, then a thousand is as good as five. Why raise more than necessary? No one’s put a number on it yet, but my vote is to keep it modest. I’m not picturing luring people with the prize, only using it to show we’re putting our money where our mouths are. There are bigger prizes out there for the luring. Plus, if someone succeeds in tricking us good, it would take little to raise the money a second time around.

Third, even if more people become interested, I’d be surprised if enough folks are able to donate the time and resources to make this a big production. I’m happy to be proven wrong, but my feeling is that we can maximize participation by minimizing our goals. We should really strive to make this a tool for every member of the forum. Everyone has access to logic and reason, not so a tidy stash of Ben Franklins. In fact, I’m picturing a standard $10 or $15 donation for everyone, so no one has any more stake or ownership than anyone else.

In the end, I see this as a kind of glorified bar bet. Someone shows up here, or we meet someone personally who’s claiming powers, and we’ll have the moxy to say, “Fine. We’ve got a grand. Prove it.” It’s a way of forcing someone’s hand, of showing that we take claims seriously enough to put our own money down. And, as everyone knows, money talks. (Usually it tells me how lonely it is in my pocket with so little company, but that’s another story.)

So that’s it. My lovely spiel.

 

[Nucular]

I think, first, that it’s a mistake to consider this a “possible successor” to the MDC. Without Randi, there is no MDC. Furthermore, I don’t think it’s a good idea to have the forum produce something which is meant to, or accidentally ends up, being “confusable” with the MDC. That’s not fair to Randi, the JREF, or this forum. *wags finger*

I do agree that it would be paramount that whatever this ends up as, if anything, would not be confusable with the MDC. But, this discussion has grown out of the discussion about the demise of the JREF Challenge, and there obviously are several other substantial sceptic prize pots around. I figure that if there would be any use to us putting together a TDC, it would be about not letting the publicity and awareness of the MDC 'go to waste', as it were; and about having an 'in house' thing still for those who visit this forum with extraordinary claims to be informed of. Since it would necessarily be financially puny compared to some of the other prizes available, if those two things are not met we might as well pick a 'second best' prize to which to refer wannabe superheroes (which might be the best approach anyway).

Second, if you’re not going to have a cool mil, or even ten grand, then a thousand is as good as five. Why raise more than necessary? No one’s put a number on it yet, but my vote is to keep it modest. I’m not picturing luring people with the prize, only using it to show we’re putting our money where our mouths are.

There's a lot of discussion to be had around the value. As I said, it's obviously going to be tiny in comparison with some of the others around, but there again, the higher the monetary value, the less able people would be to dismiss at as a pointless enterprise. I'm thinking especially in terms of the fact that obviously any applicants would have to cover all expenses; and therefore risking probably a good few quid, if they needed to be physically present for a test, against the money.

I do think there's still a case to be made for a 'no money challenge', which would simply be a 'beat the sceptics' challenge, but again it's taken out of the realms of a bar bet as soon as someone has to fork out for petrol.

I certainly see a TDC as being completely appropriate; but I don't see anything wrong with allowing that to grow as far as possible, taking into account the previously-discussed legal ramifications, through cumulative donations and interest.

Plus, if someone succeeds in tricking us good, it would take little to raise the money a second time around.

That would be quite annoying.

Third, even if more people become interested, I’d be surprised if enough folks are able to donate the time and resources to make this a big production. I’m happy to be proven wrong, but my feeling is that we can maximize participation by minimizing our goals.

I do 100% agree - as far as that is possible. But I'm thinking of how this whole thing would actually work in reality: the legal status of a bunch of people on a web forum being in charge of a big (in my terms) stash of money; the actual designing of rules, etc. I think would be necessary to stop someone claiming that we'd not been specific enough on some point or other, and therefore the test was unfair; and I'm also picturing the practical reality of how it would work. For instance, forum member Superman says he can fly. We obviously beg to differ, and say 'prove it for a grand'. He says 'okay, here's a video'. We can't accept that, we have to see him do it. Without at least an informal network of people, at least one of whom might happen to be near him, or him being willing to travel probably really quite far, it's not any kind of bet, it's just so much hot air. Something that in practice would never be made to work.

We should really strive to make this a tool for every member of the forum. Everyone has access to logic and reason, not so a tidy stash of Ben Franklins. In fact, I’m picturing a standard $10 or $15 donation for everyone, so no one has any more stake or ownership than anyone else.

Exactly my feeling. And in terms again of value, I think we'd be fairly lucky to start off with an actual thousand (it'd be interesting to see how much members donate to keep this forum open actually); which is why a cumulative prize, with its own interest, would seem sensible to me. It might start off being $125, which might be enough to offer to test some claims which can be done online, but maybe ten years down the line it'd be a couple of thousand. Maybe the JREF would even bolster it a little, if that was something the forum wanted.

In the end, I see this as a kind of glorified bar bet. Someone shows up here, or we meet someone personally who’s claiming powers, and we’ll have the moxy to say, “Fine. We’ve got a grand. Prove it.” It’s a way of forcing someone’s hand, of showing that we take claims seriously enough to put our own money down. And, as everyone knows, money talks. (Usually it tells me how lonely it is in my pocket with so little company, but that’s another story.)

Absolutely. But a bar bet is usually for a fiver, and is usually between two people in the same bar. The fact that this is an international forum I think has to change some of the rules for that bar bet. But I do completely think we should strive to keep it as close to the 'bar bet' scenario as possible.

But I for one do apologise to you Ryan, and to Ron, if I've helped hijack your really rather good idea, and sound like some sort of managerial busybody. But I do think proper planning at an early stage can help to keep a casual feeling later, and can be the difference between something that just gets talked about, and something that actually gets done. And I would really like to see something like this happen.

 

[Ryan O'Dine]

I think, by and large, we’re on the same wavelength. Certainly, if an applicant has to put money and effort into being tested, then a grand looks less and less. Something worthy of further discussion.

And Nucular, you owe me no apology. (Throwing a tomato does look fun, so I still might do that. But I’d rather you didn’t duck.)

 

[Nucular]

I think, by and large, we’re on the same wavelength.

Excellent, I was hoping so.

(Throwing a tomato does look fun, so I still might do that. But I’d rather you didn’t duck.)

Ah, I'll just open my gob instead then - I'm good at that

Take aim...

 

[Jackalgirl]

In regards to the pack of lawyers, one thing we do need is someone with PACER access and the legal knowledge to hunt around through the thing. Because I think it might not be a bad idea to work into the prequalification process (if there is such a thing) a kind of background check. People who file large numbers of lawsuits for defamation or libel or anything like that -- especially behaviour that seems to be frivolous (hi, George!) should be excluded from participation.

Edited to add: a thought just occured to me: how about if we acted as a clearing house for established challenges, like the IIG's challenge? If they won't object that is. We'll do the legwork of designing protocols, but won't actually have any contract with the challenger. We'll just let them know "yes, we think you're ready" or "no, we don't think you're ready, and here's why". Do you think people would bother asking us for our help, though, if we weren't ponying up any money?

Edited (again) to add: I will pony up the $$$ for a website and domain name. I think the idea of a TDC is a really good one. Start small. But I will need help administering website things like a message forum (if we want one). I do not have the brainspace to really understand how to make a message board robust and keep it so.