Who judges?

[Santa666]

Yes. That's it. Now you see "where I'm coming from." The authority to say who passed and who didn't is not stated in the application. That's that wiggle-room I was talking about. Basically, the JREF can do just about whatever they want, and other than spending mucho denero on lawyers and legal fees on a case that certainly has no precedent, there is precious little applicants can do if they feel they have passed the test and have been denied "passed test status" by an authority that holds applicants in very low esteem.

Plasmadog, any objections to the above logic? You seem to maintain a good legal mind.

Once again, can you provide an example, certainly hypothetical if you wish, of a claim and test that could end with the result you mentioned. An agreed upon instance of success, an agreed upon instance of failure, and a test protocol demonstrating either the agreed upon success or the agreed upon failure, where the JREF could then say, "nope" didn't work". It has been stated that the court system could be used if a breach of contract occurs. What more are you looking for?


Santa

 

[Paul2]

I think that ruach1's point is that the Challenge rules don't state who *operationally* decides whether the Challenge was successful or not. That is, someone, somewhere, presumably at JREF, has to tell someone "Cut that check." or "Don't cut that check." I think ruach1's minimum position is: "Who is that? We don't know."

It's not a question of what is sufficient evidence, it's an operational question.

 

[Santa666]

I think that ruach1's point is that the Challenge rules don't state who *operationally* decides whether the Challenge was successful or not. That is, someone, somewhere, presumably at JREF, has to tell someone "Cut that check." or "Don't cut that check." I think ruach1's minimum position is: "Who is that? We don't know."

It's not a question of what is sufficient evidence, it's an operational question.

Please correct me if I am wrong. But is this not the same thing as asking "who decides to cut me my check," when you win the lottery. Who cares. Really, up until the point that your check (or prize) is not issued, and very likely, after that, this information is irrelavent. The lottery, in similar fashion to the Challenge, seeks to verify you won through legit means and not fraud and then they pay you. Nowhere in the lottery rules does it state who EXACTLY says you won and here is your money. Much like the Challenge, the lottery does not require judging, you either win, or lose, based upon predetermined criteria. If you win, you are paid, if you lose, too bad, try again.


Santa

 

[Plasmadog]

I think that it would only be an issue if the success criteria were not defined as clearly as the JREF strives to always do, therefore creating ambiguities that could be exploited by either party. But it is in the interests of both parties to ensure that this is not the case before signing.

If it ever were to come down to a legal battle, I don't think the claimant would have all that much trouble. There may be little case law covering the testing of paranormal abilities, but that's not really relevant. There is a vast volume covering breach of contract, which is all it would come down to. Also, in a case where there is 1 million dollars up for grabs, finding a lawyer willing to work on a no-win, no-fee basis should not prove difficult. In fact, the JREF may even be at a disadvantage in that situation, since they don't really stand to gain anything by winning the case, so they'd presumably be relying on insurance to cover the legal costs.

 

[Dunstan]

Yes. That's it. Now you see "where I'm coming from." The authority to say who passed and who didn't is not stated in the application. That's that wiggle-room I was talking about. Basically, the JREF can do just about whatever they want, and other than spending mucho denero on lawyers and legal fees on a case that certainly has no precedent, there is precious little applicants can do if they feel they have passed the test and have been denied "passed test status" by an authority that holds applicants in very low esteem.

As has been stated repeatedly in this thread, this is why the test is designed and agreed upon to have an objective definition of success that is not dependent on interpretation or subjective judgment.

To say that the JREF can do whatever it wants, and all the applicant can do is resort to the legal system, is an empty argument. That's what contract law is for. What's your alternative? Appoint Person X as the sole judge of whether the test has been passed? Ok. Then, what's to stop the JREF from refusing the pay the money anyway? What's the applicant's recourse? It's -- gasp -- the legal system.

The only alternative I can think of is that the money be turned over to Person X, who then gives it to the applicant or the JREF depending on the outcome. But how the hell do you agree on Person X? Anyone who the JREF would be willing to trust with sole control of the $1M is not likely to be anyone an applicant would trust.

And again, the point of the test is to have something that can be determined objectively.

By the way, if an applicant is really concerned about the prospect of having to incur attorney's fees to recover the prize, I suspect the JREF would be willing to include a provision in the contract that allows the prevailing party in any lawsuit to recover its fees and costs.

 

[Paul2]

Please correct me if I am wrong. But is this not the same thing as asking "who decides to cut me my check," when you win the lottery. Santa

Is what not the same thing as asking "who decides to cut me my check," when you win the lottery?

Who cares.

rauch1 does. Maybe his concern has no practical ramfications. So be it. But let's be clear on what he's asking (rauch1, if I'm misinterpreting you, please correct me).

Nowhere in the lottery rules does it state who EXACTLY says you won and here is your money.

I don't have specific knowledge, but I bet it does. Wouldn't the state have to define exactly who say "cut this check" or "don't cut the check.? In truth, someone *has* to be in charge of that. Someone *has* to make that decision, on easy or difficult evidence. Otherwise, how could the system work?

Much like the Challenge, the lottery does not require judging, you either win, or lose, based upon predetermined criteria. If you win, you are paid, if you lose, too bad, try again.

This statement ignores the distinction between the operational decision (who says to cut the check) and the substantive issues of the Challenge (were the requirements of the protocol met?). Anyone can decide whether the applicant was successful (a good protocol should make that the case), but there is probably only one person who says "cut the check." Who is that?

 

[Paul2]

Actually, here's the crucial issue: no matter how clearly the protocol is designed to make obvious the question of whether the applicant has passed the Challenge successfully or not, someone must still make that decision. Someone must still interpret the results, no matter how clear or muddled, in order to cut the check or not. Who is that person? Maybe this has no substantive import. So what? Humor me (I'm as skeptical as anyone on this board, go check my past posts). Or is that question somehow off-limits?

 

[Beleth]

Who is that person?
Who makes the final decision to "cut the check" (actually it's "hand over the negotiable bonds", but that's beside the point)?

As long as Randi is of sound mind, I can't imagine that it would be anyone but him.

I don't have evidence to back that up, but it's almost a given.
You could ask at [email protected], but I would be extremely surprised if they gave a different answer.

 

[Santa666]

Actually, here's the crucial issue: no matter how clearly the protocol is designed to make obvious the question of whether the applicant has passed the Challenge successfully or not, someone must still make that decision. Someone must still interpret the results, no matter how clear or muddled, in order to cut the check or not. Who is that person? Maybe this has no substantive import. So what? Humor me (I'm as skeptical as anyone on this board, go check my past posts). Or is that question somehow off-limits?

Ok, so let's play along here. Since no one here is an employee of the JREF, we will not actually have a direct answer, but I will try. Once again, I must ask; Who cares? Why does it matter? Let's go back to my lottery example. Most states have lottery commission in place which establish lottery rules and payment protocols. Ultimately, outside of the courts, the commission would be the final authority. Ok, now that you know who has the final authority, what do you do with it? How does this information assist you? If a claimant can demonstrate, in accordance with the legally binding contract with the JREF, a success, they win the million dollars. Whether the person who decides the check is to cut is JR or some person we have never heard of is meaningless. If, however, you really need to know, this forum is not likely to produce an answer unless JR himself responds.


Santa

 

[ruach1]

I think that ruach1's point is that the Challenge rules don't state who *operationally* decides whether the Challenge was successful or not. That is, someone, somewhere, presumably at JREF, has to tell someone "Cut that check." or "Don't cut that check." I think ruach1's minimum position is: "Who is that? We don't know."

It's not a question of what is sufficient evidence, it's an operational question.

Give this man (?) a cigar. He hit the bull's eye. However its not just an operational question; it also seems to be a legal one as this thread has given birth to an equally inquisitive and potentially tiresome thread titled "Rule 7."

I can't really give Satan (I mean Santa) his hypothetical, as I don't have the time right now, but I don't think a hypothetical is necessarily needed. The other thread posters have an excellent handle on the situation--especially plasmadog and Paul2.

 

[Paul2]

Give this man(?)

Last time I checked! Which, coincidentally, was just this afternoon. (huh?)

He hit the bull's eye.

Don't applaud, just throw money.

However its not just an operational question; it also seems to be a legal one as this thread has given birth to an equally inquisitive and potentially tiresome thread titled "Rule 7."

I hereby decline to get into the legal issue. All I was trying to do was to elucidate the issue, which I guess I've done brilliantly. I have been a conflict resolution mediator, a major skill for which is the ability to re-phrase and re-state another's ideas, no matter if they are similar or different than one's own. You're welcome.

 

[ruach1]

Ruach1, if you find the time, check out the threads from applicants Achau Nguyen http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=28936 and Angela Patel http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=34609

The mutually agreed upon test protocols and the tests themselves show excellent examples of how it all takes place.

No judging whatsoever.

Do as you claim. Fail or succeed.

After re-reading Ngyen's and Patel's correspondence, it seems it was the test-givers in conjunction with the test-taker who decided that said tests were positive or negative--in these cases negative. However, if there were to be a question as if the test were positive or negative, then the rules don't say as to who would settle the dispute.

Do as you claim. Fail or succeed. Resistance is futile.

(couldn't help it Gzuzkryst )

 

[Paul2]

Ok, so let's play along here. Since no one here is an employee of the JREF, we will not actually have a direct answer, but I will try. Once again, I must ask; Who cares? Why does it matter?

Since you were good enough to play along, so will I. It very well may not matter at all. I'm not going to argue that it does matter, I merely wanted to be clear that there was an operational issue, distinct from a substantive one. They were getting confused, so I wanted to clarify.

 

[Santa666]

After re-reading Ngyen's and Patel's correspondence, it seems it was the test-givers in conjunction with the test-taker who decided that said tests were positive or negative--in these cases negative. However, if there were to be a question as if the test were positive or negative, then the rules don't say as to who would settle the dispute.

Do as you claim. Fail or succeed. Resistance is futile.

(couldn't help it Gzuzkryst )

I know you said you did not have time nor did you think it was necessary and perhaps it is not, but this is why I asked for an example; you have once again asked, if there was a question, who decides. Many people have stated no such questions should arise given the protocol negotiations and agreement. Can you provide an example (hypothetical or not) where the success is agreed upon, the failure is agreed upon, the protocols are agreed upon and established, yet the outcome is in dispute. I really am not trying to argumentative.

Ok, maybe a little. I do not have a lot to do this time of year.


Santa

 

[NoZed Avenger]

The only alternative I can think of is that the money be turned over to Person X, who then gives it to the applicant or the JREF depending on the outcome.

That has effectively been done.. The money is in the hands of Goldman-Sachs with an arrangement to pay to a successful challenger. JREF only has absolute access to the interest.

 

[Darat]

Who is that person?
Who makes the final decision to "cut the check" (actually it's "hand over the negotiable bonds", but that's beside the point)?

As long as Randi is of sound mind, I can't imagine that it would be anyone but him.

I don't have evidence to back that up, but it's almost a given.
You could ask at [email protected], but I would be extremely surprised if they gave a different answer.

It is definitely Randi (and of course you have the evidence because once again it's already in the wording of the challenge itself ):

http://www.randi.org/research/challenge.html Emphasis by me

...snip...

This offer is administered by the JREF, and no one may negotiate or make any changes, except as set forth in writing by James Randi (JR). All correspondence must be written, and will be answered, in English only.

...snip...

I, James Randi, through the JREF, will pay US$1,000,000 to any person who can demonstrate any psychic, supernatural or paranormal ability under satisfactory observing conditions. Such demonstration must take place under these rules and limitations.

It is very clear that the contract is between Randi and the applicant - this is still very much Randi's challenge - albeit administrated by the JREF.

 

[ChristineR]

If someone won the challenge in the sense that he clearly met the conditions of his contract and Randi said "don't give him the money" then that person could sue. As he would have the videotapes and witnesses to support his claim, he would win. The extent to which the lawsuits would be limited is discussed on the other thread. Those key phrases about not affecting the distribution of the million and to the extent allowed by law would protect the claiment from from Randi's caprice. Even if Randi figured out how the claiment cheated and could show it Randi would still own the million.

 

[ruach1]

If someone won the challenge in the sense that he clearly met the conditions of his contract and Randi said "don't give him the money" then that person could sue. As he would have the videotapes and witnesses to support his claim, he would win. The extent to which the lawsuits would be limited is discussed on the other thread. Those key phrases about not affecting the distribution of the million and to the extent allowed by law would protect the claiment from from Randi's caprice. Even if Randi figured out how the claiment cheated and could show it Randi would still own the million.

Own or Owe.

One little litter, and the hole thing falls apart.

Thanks for the clarity Darat.

 

[petre]

When you order lunch at a restaurant, who ultimately decides if you get it?

The answer is, all of the people involved. The person taking your order (and money) could decide not to actually submit the order to the cook. The cook could decide to ignore the order, and not make your food. The server could decide to eat your lunch for himself/herself instead of giving it to you.

Therefore, every person along the line is the "final authority" in a way.

Similarly, it is possible the test observer could claim all of your guesses were incorrect, even though the video evidence clearly indicates which ones you got right. If not, JREF/Randi may claim the test did not conform to the established protocol, again even though the video evidence clearly contradicts this. Finally, maybe Goldman-Sachs will simply decide to keep the money for themselves, despite your meeting the appropriate conditions for them to release it to you.

This doesn't mean that it's futile to take the challenge (nor has anyone in this thread made that claim explicitly, I'm just making a point), any more than it is futile to order lunch. You could always take your claim further down the line (show your receipt to the cook, and maybe you can just ignore the order-taker's dishonesty entirely) or ultimately, you take them to court.

I suppose if the term "final" applies to the end of the line, the answer would then appear to be that Goldman-Sachs is the "final authority", since they've actually got the money. I suspect the conditions under which they would give the money to a challenger are:

1. JREF declares a challenger to have won
2. A court rules a challenger is owed the money

That's just my guess though. If someone wanted to know for sure, perhaps they could call Goldman-Sachs and ask if those are indeed the conditions under which they would give the money. I'm not experienced with contacting companies that I'm not a client of, but perhaps a place to start would be their media contacts:

http://www.gs.com/our_firm/media_center/articles/media_center_919660.html

 

[ChristineR]

Own or Owe.

One little litter, and the hole thing falls apart.

Thanks for the clarity Darat.

I can't type.