• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Suggestion: Initial Blocks

Jackalgirl

Graduate Poster
J
Joined
Aug 25, 2004
Messages
1,801
I've made this suggestion before, but I thought I would make it again:

I think it would be a good idea to put lines, or blocks, for an applicant's initials next to each rule, and require that those lines/blocks be initialed in front of a Notary.

The reason being is that I see it's fairly common for someone to fire off a Challenge application, agreeing to all of the stipulations of the application, and then later come back with "oh, but I want to add a rule" or "oh, but I want to change rule #x" or "rule #y should not apply to me".

I think it would also help applicants understand -- I mean, really understand -- that they are responsible for all expenses and procedures. That's another common thing I see: "I'll prove my ability to heal cancer through this far-reaching in-depth medical survey!" "The JREF must find me x number of recently-dead people in hospitals and arrange for me to get in there so that I can resurrect them!" And then they're dismayed to learn that they'll have to pay for it (which they should have known all along).

This is, of course, absolutely no guarantee that any applicant will actually read the rule he or she is initialing. But I think it might slow them down on their way to the final signature block.

What do you think?
 
Last edited:
I think with the challenge about to end (it is still ending, right?), these sort of changes probably aren't vital enough to implement.
 
quixotecoyote said:
I think with the challenge about to end (it is still ending, right?), these sort of changes probably aren't vital enough to implement.
Click to expand...

It'll be ending on March 6, 2010, so I still think there's utility in the idea (and it's not a complicated change to implement). Chances are that there will still be quite a few people applying between now and then.
 
Jackalgirl said:
I've made this suggestion before, but I thought I would make it again:

I think it would be a good idea to put lines, or blocks, for an applicant's initials next to each rule, and require that those lines/blocks be initialed in front of a Notary.

The reason being is that I see it's fairly common for someone to fire off a Challenge application, agreeing to all of the stipulations of the application, and then later come back with "oh, but I want to add a rule" or "oh, but I want to change rule #x" or "rule #y should not apply to me".

I think it would also help applicants understand -- I mean, really understand -- that they are responsible for all expenses and procedures. That's another common thing I see: "I'll prove my ability to heal cancer through this far-reaching in-depth medical survey!" "The JREF must find me x number of recently-dead people in hospitals and arrange for me to get in there so that I can resurrect them!" And then they're dismayed to learn that they'll have to pay for it (which they should have known all along).

This is, of course, absolutely no guarantee that any applicant will actually read the rule he or she is initialing. But I think it might slow them down on their way to the final signature block.

What do you think?
Click to expand...

Great idea, unsurprisingly.

This has been discussed before although I could not find the thread right now. The more serious posters in this forum stated that the applicant should simply read and understand the Challenge Rules, as well as apply a little common sense.

It was also stated that the insincere would always find ways to dodge the relevant issues: The agreed upon protocol and the test.

Which is why I highlighted the vital part of your post.
 
It is irrelevant whether JREF members accept it or not. The decision is solely JREF's.
 
Dave, I'm unsure as to what you're asking.

If you are asking "if I initial each an every block, does it mean that the JREF is therefore bound by each and every block"?

The answer is -- if they accept the application as is, yes, since that's what accepting the application does: it makes the application into a binding contract (binding on both sides). Does it mean that they cannot bend or suspend any one (or more) of the rules for special situations or applicants as they see fit? I don't see why it would. It's their Challenge. I am not a JREF employee, nor do I speak for the JREF, but I suspect that if they came up with a specially-tailored situation, they'd also come up with a specially-tailored contract.

If you want a definitive answer, of course, you need to send a message to challenge@randi.org.

Claus -- I'm understand exactly where you're coming from. My suggestion for the initial blocks is aimed less at the people who are out to bilk the JREF (the insincere) as it is towards those people who are simply deluded about their "abilities". Although I think it would be useful even for the insincere -- at least the JREF could say "but you initialed right here!"

I do realize that a weasel will weasel no matter what you put in the application. As the scorpion said to the frog, "it's in my nature."
 
Actually, it seems to me that a legal binding contract is a legally binding contract, and 0nce the contract is signed by both parties, then any part of the contract is just as binding as any other part. That's what contracts are for. And, yes, with this much at stake, the contract should be witnessed and notarized. GM and it's suppliers, as only one example, do multi-millions of dollars worth of work for each other based on similar contracts, 99% of the time without any need to get the law further involved. I know that a contract is the penultimate agreement in the MDC.

The problem is in getting the mutually-acceptable contract written and signed. Until that point, no one has to do anything, except bargain on the contract in good faith, or quit the process.

The contracting parties are the claimant and JREF (the legal foundation, embodied by its officers and board), not its members (whatever they may be) nor the forum.
 
To elaborate .. Would the "Snarky" members of the forum actually believe you'd read the rules before signing them, or would they just continue being "Snarky" members and question your preparation?
I don't think it would change much of anything quite frankly.
 
The Professor said:
To elaborate .. Would the "Snarky" members of the forum actually believe you'd read the rules before signing them, or would they just continue being "Snarky" members and question your preparation?
I don't think it would change much of anything quite frankly.
Click to expand...



What the members of this forum think is not relevant to the binding contract between an applicant and the JREF. I really don't think you should be worried or even care about "snarky" forum members. Your present purpose is to negotiate an acceptable protocol with JREF, not the members of this forum.

You can do it with the assistance of those members of the forum whom you do not consider "snarky", and put the rest on ignore - you won't even see their posts, so it allows you to focus on the real issue - developing a protocol for your claim. Or you can do your own research with the assistance of people not on this forum and develop your own protocol for submision.

And that is what I woud like to see happening, rather than you spending time and energy on other non-issues. There is nothing in the JREF challenge that even requires you to be on this forum.

Norm
 
I'm thinking that it'd be for the benefit of the claimant and JREF rather than any Forum observers, snarky ones or otherwise. It would (hopefully) slow the claimant down a bit -- there'd be no guarantee that the claimant actually reads the line he or she is initialing, and also none that he or she actually understands it -- but I do get the distinct feeling that people often decide to apply without actually reading any of it, that they just print out the thing, go to a Notary, and sign it in their eagerness to get on with rolling in a big pile of money and fame.

If you go through the Challenge Applications section, you will see that it is not at all uncommon for someone to object to one or more of the rules AFTER they have signed and notarized the Application form which, of course, is a legal attestation to the fact that they understand and agree to abide by all of the rules therein. In one case, someone did actually try to amend the rules (showing that he had read it) by adding a rule (which was not accepted, IIRC).

Snarky people will always snark -- it's what they do. Whether you let it affect you, and how it affects you, is up to you. Sometimes, through the snark, they have a point: if you didn't read the Application and are complaining about the rules to which you agreed by signing the document, for example, and they're making biting remarks about it, well, the substance of their remark -- that you didn't read the rules -- is still valid regardless of the attached snark. It is your choice whether you respond to the remark's substance or to its snark.
 
This isn't really an issue that can be determined on the forum. You should send such suggestions to the JREF themselves.

It is a good reminder that the JREF and the forum are separate entities. The JREF are not responsible for the content on the forum as posted by members, and the membership cannot and do not speak for the JREF.
 
Oh, natch. But if enough people came up with really good reasons as to why it's not a good idea, I wouldn't bother Jeff et al (again) with the idea in the first place. : )
 
My lawyer says it doesn't matter if there are boxes of not. We read it. I signed it. And that's where it starts (Or ends, depending on how you view it)....
The rules will always be open for interpretation. (That's what the legal types do!)
Also the FAQ will play a part in the interpretation of the rules.
The Definition of the word Paranormal is given by the JREF in the FAQ.
There is also the point that is made about what was once thought to be Paranormal, but is proven to be Scientific AFTER the Claim is accepted. That too, is taken into account.
 
Dave,

I'm not talking about your beliefs and your attempt to discredit the JREF in this thread. My suggested changes will not help people with specific agendas in that regard such as yourself, because they (and you) will interpret whatever's done in whatever way they an in order to support their agenda. Please take your beef with the JREF elsewhere.
 
Looking forward to seeing more work from you on your protocol in the moderated protocol thread.
 
Edited by chillzero: 
Edited for Rule 11. TP, if you continue to circumvent moderation by discussing your challenge in other threads, you will face further mod action, possibly including suspension.
http://jimclass.com/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom