Who judges?

[GzuzKryzt]

This is not true. The Challenge is designed as best as can be, but there is no rule saying Randi can't decide on his own if a test is or isn't passed apart from the conclusions of the test givers.
...

Ruach1, you may spin it how you see fit.

However: The JREF Challenge does not involve Mr. Randi "deciding if a test is or isn't passed" upon his own or somebody else's "conclusions".

The decision rests upon the pre-negotiated Challenge Protocol.

Almost like a lottery ticket.
No judging involved.
No decisions necessary.
You either do not win or you do win. Badabing-badabum. (Hey, if you apply properly, you can make Mr. Randi "an offer he can't refuse.")

 

[ruach1]

This is just silly, Randi COULD just say the claimant never even showed up. He COULD just say "April Fool's". He COULD pull out a semi automatic weapon and kill everyone involved. What recourse do you have against him in any of these scenarios. The same ones or similar that you have if he does what you suggest. Unless of course, you can provide an example as I have asked for repeatedly.
'snip'
Santa

Ok. I scanned the Challenge Applications. Take Bich Ba Do for example (hypothetical). Say he did his thing on someone, and he passes the test--according to the test-givers at PHACT. What is stopping Randi from saying, "Well I know for a fact there is no such thing as qigong, therefore, he fails the test" thereby overuling the test-givers conclusions of a passed test? There is no rule in the Challenge rules to say Randi can't overule the test-givers if he so chooses. Now do you see the point?

I'm not saying Randi would do such a thing. I am saying there is no stipulation in the Challenge Rules addressing this point.

 

[GzuzKryzt]

...
The issue is: who judges?

For what everybody can see so far: Nobody judges.

Can Randi judge a test to be negative when the test givers conclude it to be positive?
...

For what everybody can see so far: No.

At least if wants to keep his credibility and integrity, which I feel quite sure he will like to.

 

[ruach1]

Ruach1, you may spin it how you see fit.

However: The JREF Challenge does not involve Mr. Randi "deciding if a test is or isn't passed" upon his own or somebody else's "conclusions".

The decision rests upon the pre-negotiated Challenge Protocol.

Almost like a lottery ticket.
No judging involved.
No decisions necessary.
You either do not win or you do win. Badabing-badabum. (Hey, if you apply properly, you can make Mr. Randi "an offer he can't refuse.")

GzuzKryzt (did I get it right this time?), I am not spinning anything for any purpose. I actually did hear a situation from someone about a test giver who wouldn't pay up, and I, being a Forum member, looked in the Challenge Rules and didn't necessarily see a stipulation guaranteeing this couldn't happen--not that Randi would.

And no I am not trolling (just learned what that meant). This is a good topic for discussion. IMO

 

[Santa666]

Ok. I scanned the Challenge Applications. Take Bich Ba Do for example (hypothetical). Say he did his thing on someone, and he passes the test--according to the test-givers at PHACT. What is stopping Randi from saying, "Well I know for a fact there is no such thing as qigong, therefore, he fails the test" and overuling the test-givers conclusions of a passed test? There is no rule in the Challenge rules to say Randi can't overule the test-givers if he so chooses. Now do you see the point?

I'm not saying Randi would do such a thing. I am saying there is no stipulation in the Challenge Rules addressing this point.

And if there was such a rule and he denied payment anyway? Then what? What is your point? Who cares if such a rules exists? Contractual law states if the conditions of the contract are met, the contract must be fulfilled. If Randi does not fulfill his portion of the contract, there are legals methods of redress. Like I said, Randi could also state the person never even showed up, there is no rules stating he cannot do that. There is no rule stating Randi cannot state the whole thing is just a joke. The Challenge is a legally binding contract. If the claimant upholds his end of the bargain, so will Randi. If he does not, well, the law can intervene. I simply do not understand what your point is? What sort of stipulation would satisfy you?


Santa

 

[ruach1]

For what everybody can see so far: Nobody judges.



For what everybody can see so far: No.

At least if wants to keep his credibility and integrity, which I feel quite sure he will like to.

I agree wholeheartedly.

But those rules... There's nothing in there that says "who has the final say."

 

[ruach1]

And if there was such a rule and he denied payment anyway? Then what? What is your point? Who cares if such a rules exists? Contractual law states if the conditions of the contract are met, the contract must be fulfilled. If Randi does not fulfill his portion of the contract, there are legals methods of redress. Like I said, Randi could also state the person never even showed up, there is no rules stating he cannot do that. There is no rule stating Randi cannot state the whole thing is just a joke. The Challenge is a legally binding contract. If the claimant upholds his end of the bargain, so will Randi. If he does not, well, the law can intervene. I simply do not understand what your point is? What sort of stipulation would satisfy you?


Santa

My satisfaction is irrelevant. I just saw a hole. Thought it might be worth talking about... 87 posts later, I think I was right.

 

[GzuzKryzt]

Ok. I scanned the Challenge Applications. Take Bich Ba Do for example (hypothetical). Say he did his thing on someone, and he passes the test--according to the test-givers at PHACT. What is stopping Randi from saying, "Well I know for a fact there is no such thing as qigong, therefore, he fails the test" thereby overuling the test-givers conclusions of a passed test? There is no rule in the Challenge rules to say Randi can't overule the test-givers if he so chooses. Now do you see the point?

I'm not saying Randi would do such a thing. I am saying there is no stipulation in the Challenge Rules addressing this point.

I do see your point, ruach1.

I also do see no reason why Mr. Randi would "overule" [sic!] "the test-givers if he so chooses".

I also do see no raisin why he won't grab a guitar and play a song by 'The Who', say: "Won't Get Fooled Again"

I also do see no reason why Mr. Randi would "overule" [sic!] "the test-givers" and blow the Million on crack and hookers.

 

[Santa666]

My satisfaction is irrelevant. I just saw a hole. Thought it might be worth talking about... 87 posts later, I think I was right.

Right about what? I am confused, you asked a question, and received many answers. Then you ask, "what if Randi refuses to pay, the rules dont say anything about him simply not paying the money?" The rules do not have to say that, it is implied by the fact that both parties signed a legally binding contract. It is against the law for Randi not to pay. Much like when you enter a store, they likely do not have signs posted stating you are not supposed to shoplift. Why not? Because its against the law. Or, if you go to a restaurant for dinner, and you pay with a credit card, then they refuse to return it to you. I am willing to bet the restaurant does not have any rules stating it MUST return your card to you, yet, unbelievably, they do. I wonder why that is. Perhaps because there are laws governing these types of things. The same things applies to James Randi and the JREF. The outcome of the Challenge will be clear, all aspects of the protocol are designed to ensure that, however, if Randi chooses not to pay, then the law must step in to enforce the contract. There is all is, in a nutshell.


Santa

 

[GzuzKryzt]

...
I actually did hear a situation from someone about a test giver who wouldn't pay up,
...

Please get more specific; or, as Mr. Larsen would say: "Evidence, please."

 

[GzuzKryzt]

...
Much like when you enter a store, they likely do not have signs posted stating you are not supposed to shoplift. Why not? Because its against the law. Or, if you go to a restaurant for dinner, and you pay with a credit card, then they refuse to return it to you. I am willing to bet the restaurant does not have any rules stating it MUST return your card to you, yet, unbelievably, they do. I wonder why that is.
...
Santa

Because "they" could simply take your credit card and max it out on crack and hookers.

 

[Santa666]

Because "they" could simply take your credit card and max it out on crack and hookers.

Well, then, I would definitely need to see a RULE from the restaurant stating they will not be stealing my credit card for cocaine and hookers, or I shall be quite leery of them.


Santa

 

[GzuzKryzt]

Well, then, I would definitely need to see a RULE from the restaurant stating they will not be stealing my credit card for cocaine and hookers, or I shall be quite leery of them.


Santa

I started imagining the signs saying this...then the pictograms...and then I fell of my chair laughing.

 

[Santa666]

I started imagining the signs saying this...then the pictograms...and then I fell of my chair laughing.

Attention Patrons:​

For your convenience, we here at Joe's Pizza, would like to take this opportunity to assure each and every one of you that your credit card information is safe with us. We guarantee you that no one at this establishment will use your credit card information to purchase cocaine or hookers. Please see the below signage for the reading impaired. Thank you for your time.​

Joe​

 

[Rasmus]

Much like when you enter a store, they likely do not have signs posted stating you are not supposed to shoplift.

I hate to burst your bubble, but signs like that are very common here in Germany. While we do have laws against shoplifting, many stores display extra warning signs, in which they announce a processing fee for every caugh thief.

These signs often carry an additional moral message, about how stealing would make goods more expensive - I never understood why the thief would care, really ....

[/ramble]

Rasmus.

 

[GzuzKryzt]

Attention Patrons:​

For your convenience, we here at Joe's Pizza, would like to take this opportunity to assure each and every one of you that your credit card information is safe with us. We guarantee you that no one at this establishment will use your credit card information to purchase cocaine or hookers. Please see the below signage for the reading impaired. Thank you for your time.​

Joe​

Dear Santa666,



if you will provide a pictogram of said sign I will be a nice boy for a whole year. Like Stewie Griffin. Also, I will wet my frickin' pants.

Thank you.



GzuzKryzt

 

[ruach1]

I do see your point, ruach1.

I also do see no reason why Mr. Randi would "overule" [sic!] "the test-givers if he so chooses".

Are there some things worth dying for? If so, are there some things worth lying for?

The Challenge serves multiple purposes.
--It serves as something of a dam holding back some of the claims of psychics, woos, charlatans and others from a receiving public.
--It serves as "the hammer of the skeptics" bashing paranormal claims.
--It serves as a plank helping to hold up the worldviews of many skeptics.
--It serves as a signpost showing the world that claims should be tested by science.
--It also serves as a flag waving to the world that the paranormal is not real and you should not give money to it, let it shape your reality, or "bet your life" on it.

In my opinion, the Challenge serves these purposes well and probably others about which I have not thought. Therefore, shouldn't this world-serving Challenge deserve the best rules possible?

 

[GzuzKryzt]

I hate to burst your bubble, but signs like that are very common here in Germany. While we do have laws against shoplifting, many stores display extra warning signs, in which they announce a processing fee for every caugh thief.

These signs often carry an additional moral message, about how stealing would make goods more expensive - I never understood why the thief would care, really ....

[/ramble]

Rasmus.

Quite right Rasmus, I never understood why the thief would care, either. Perhaps the signs were directed at the shop's personnel, because the dark figure of crimes by employees is said to be around 18%. So the VAT could get renamed as ETAT (Employee Theft Added Tax).

I also have seen less signs this year. Perhaps it wuz just a fad.

 

[GzuzKryzt]

Are there some things worth dying for? If so, are there some things worth lying for?

The Challenge serves multiple purposes.
--It serves as something of a dam holding back some of the claims of psychics, woos, charlatans and others from a receiving public.
--It serves as "the hammer of the skeptics" bashing paranormal claims.
--It serves as a plank helping to hold up the worldviews of many skeptics.
--It serves a signpost showing the world that claims should be tested by science.
--It also serves as a flag waving to the world that the paranormal is not real and you should not give money to it, let it shape your reality, or "bet your life" on it.

In my opinion, the Challenge serves these purposes well and probably others about which I have not thought. Therefore, shouldn't this world-serving Challenge deserve the best rules possible?

Now, ruach1, please submit an addition or clarification - worded accordingly in a sentence or paragraph - to any "holes" you see fit.

 

[GzuzKryzt]

Especially to eliminate "judging".