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 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=102667) (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 :D

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.

:D 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.

:duck:

[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... :eek:

[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.

[Tricky]

I thought when you said MDC, you were talking about the Marquis de Carabas. I was afraid you meant he announced he was leaving or something. Everyone, especially the goats, breathe a sigh of relief.

(whew!)

[steenkh]

I have more or less assumed that this project, if it ever gets flying, would be a substitute for the MDC. That is, we would only set it up when the MDC is discontinued in two years.

As I have said before, the importance of the MDC is not if anybody ever applies, but that it is possible for them to apply, and that this fact can be used to rub in the noses of the woos. As long as the MDC exists, I do not really need another challenge.

[Cuddles]

Question, has anyone ever actually sued over the MDC?

RemieV has told me that there are often threats of legal action that lawyers have been involved with, but I am still not sure if anyone has ever actually gone beyond threats.

I have more or less assumed that this project, if it ever gets flying, would be a substitute for the MDC. That is, we would only set it up when the MDC is discontinued in two years.

That's how I see it as well. However, actually organising and setting up something like this wouldn't happen overnight, even for a small challenge, so it's certainly worth thinking about now.

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?

I don't really like this idea, and I can't see the existing challenges going for it either. The whole point of this would be not to lose the publicity that the JREF challenge already has. People know they can come here for a challenge, and if all we do is point them somewhere else, there's no need for anything official to be set up here at all, we can post links to other challenges easily enough already.

I think the idea of a TDC is a really good one. Start small.

I don't think we were planning anything big. However, I don't like the idea of setting a fixed amount. The idea of putting the prize together from donations is that people can give however much they like, when they like. I certainly wouldn't expect to have as much as a thousand dollars at the start, but I would hope that it would be more than that after a few years.

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.

I'm afraid that while I'm an evil henchthing, I have no idea about all the technical bits. There are plenty of people around that do though, so it shouldn't be all that hard to find someone. If the worst comes to the worst, I have several friends who play with computers that I could beg for help.

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.

As I said to Jackalgirl, I don't think we're planning anything bigger. It's just that having a variable donated amount seems a better idea than fixing it at a thousand dollars, which we might not have at the start, and could have more than later.

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*

As Nucular says, having it associated with the MDC is the whole point. The MDC has built up a lot of publicity over the years, and it would be a shame to see it all go to waste. As I said at the start, there are already many similar challenges around, with more money than we can sensibly hope to offer. The only thing that would set this apart from them would be the JREF.

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.

But how much is necessary? There are people who would happily do it for nothing. There are people for whom a million isn't enough. I think by just keeping it open to donations instead of having a fixed number, as well as offering a choice of actually doing it for nothing, or for charity, you can cover all the bases. There just doesn't seem a good reason to limit the amount if we don't have to.

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.

Of course. That's why I think the idea of having everything worked out no the forum is such a good idea. Very few people would be needed to look after the money and so on, the vast majority of the work would simply be people working out protocols on the forum, which they do already.

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.

I don't see why this would be necessary. Firstly, I'm assuming the money would be put aside solely for the prize, as the million is now, so there is no question of anyone owning any stakes in anything. Secondly, why stop people giving however much they like? Some people won't be able to afford $10-15, but might still want to give something. And if someone decides they want to donate another million, why would we want to stop them?

Looking further ahead, having open donations offers the chance for more publicity. No-one will care if we keep saying "Look, we still have $1000", but if every now and then we can say "We now have $5000", "We now have $10,000 and still no-one has claimed it" and so on, it will be a lot more interesting.

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.)

I think that's how we're all looking at it really. However, as Nucular says, being an international forum, and offering a challenge rather than just amking a bet between friends, has to change things a bit. Not only are the legal implications different but, more importantly, the goals are different. A bar bet is irrelevant to pretty much everyone except those involved. The whole point of a challenge is to be seen by as many people as possible, and to try to educate them. While the MDC is seen by many as just a something that sits there so they can argue with woos about why they haven't taken it, I don;t think it can be seen that way by those actually running it.

[Jackalgirl]

The only thing I'm thinking of is the (eventual) problem that the JREF ran into: having all that money sitting around (essentially) doing nothing. I mean, putting it in a savings account and letting it grow is cool, but what if it gets to be a sizeable amount of money? Do we just leave it like that, or would it be prudent, say, to drain off a bit of money every now and then to go towards funding an endowment we could use to award small grants to critical thinking projects?

[rjh01]

The other issue is that you can get more money, long term, from investing in such things as the stock market (but not now) and property.

Also where do you get the money to run the organisation? Even if you use volunteers they will have expenses.

[Nucular]

The only thing I'm thinking of is the (eventual) problem that the JREF ran into: having all that money sitting around (essentially) doing nothing. I mean, putting it in a savings account and letting it grow is cool, but what if it gets to be a sizeable amount of money? Do we just leave it like that, or would it be prudent, say, to drain off a bit of money every now and then to go towards funding an endowment we could use to award small grants to critical thinking projects?

Obviously a good point for discussion. My feeling, though, is to keep things very simple. We're not talking about establishing a new JREF (let's save that for if there's ever a need), simply a new prize fund. And, thinking about some of Cuddles' points above, although we're talking about small amounts of money at present, why begin to limit that? As far as I'm concerned, a small prize is great, and hopefully achieves the modest aims we've talked about on this thread up till now. But if someone wanted to donate a million, or even if the fund reached ten million, I don't see a need to start to drain that off.

I guess I'm thinking that a small prize fund would preclude doing anything else with it, and a large prize fund would be its own publicity.

I do think though that it would be prudent to think very carefully about where all of this could potentially end up, even with the slimmest of chances, since once it was open for donations there would be no scope, legally or ethically, to do anything with the money other than what we've told donors we'd do.

Which also gets me thinking about ending the challenge. We'd have to think through that eventuality before we started anything, since it would be foolish to assume that it would definitely run forever - the JREF presumably had to consult its donors before it decided what to do with the prize money, and our prize fund would likely be from many different people, possibly hundreds. We'd have to write in the possibility of where the money would ultimately end up if someone doesn't win and circumstances change.

What would we do? Donate it to the JREF? Donate it to a humanitarian charity? Maybe even individual refunds would be possible if all donations were taken on PayPal (whilst I suspect that's actually unlikely to be possible, the prospect of eventually getting your money back, possibly in many years, might encourage donations).

The other issue is that you can get more money, long term, from investing in such things as the stock market (but not now) and property.

But presumably then there's the possibility of losing some, or even the lot - better than putting it all on Who'syourdaddy in the 3.30 at Chepstow, but I'm not sure about the risks involved in that sort of enterprise. Do you know about that sort of thing, rjh01?

Also where do you get the money to run the organisation? Even if you use volunteers they will have expenses.

Maybe I'm naïve, but I can't think of any expenses to be incurred by anybody running the challenge. As with the MDC now, all costs involved in testing would be incurred by the applicant - travel costs, equipment, etc. We'd all be working for free, of course, and most communication and publicity would likely be done online. There would inevitably be the odd phonecall or letter which would require stationery and postage, but I'd imagine that within reason people would be happy to cover that themselves on an ad hoc basis - for instance, if I was writing a letter, I'd probably just use my own stationery and stick a stamp on it. If there's a phonecall in this country to be made, I'd make it. Maybe I'm too presumptuous in assuming everyone would be happy to do that, but I really can't think that it would amount to much.

[rjh01]

Investments. The greater the risk the greater the return. In the stock market you can invest in blue chip stocks. These are reasonably safe. However even large companies, on rare occasions, can go bankrupt. However normally they would pay much better than a savings account. I have invested money in this way.

About the volunteers expenses. I do not expect them to be heavy. However they will exist.

Is it to be a USA only thing?

[Nucular]

Investments. The greater the risk the greater the return. In the stock market you can invest in blue chip stocks. These are reasonably safe. However even large companies, on rare occasions, can go bankrupt. However normally they would pay much better than a savings account. I have invested money in this way.

Hmmm, I guess it would have to be a group decision whether or not to go in that direction, and would probably again have to be written into whatever donors would see before they invested. The idea scares me a little, but then I defer to people more knowledgable than myself on this.

About the volunteers expenses. I do not expect them to be heavy. However they will exist.

I suppose it's one of those things that's difficult to really know until it's up and running. Perhaps the JREF could supply information on the sorts of costs they've carried relating to the challenge, which would be indicative.

Is it to be a USA only thing?

I'm hoping not. I'm based in the UK, as is Cuddles; I'm not sure about others. However, I would think that the aim would be to make international accessibility as 'doable' as possible, hopefully by enlisting volunteers from the forum who would assist in testing in their own geographical region.

[rats]

I'd think this is great idea and would be happy to help with volunteering and a donation.

I get the impression that the real problem with the MDC is it's become a pink elephant; the busy JREF employees were spending all their time and effort trying to scrub the MDC elephant white & clean so they could take it on a parade, but have never managed to succeed (albeit for a couple of practices). The possible successor would use the same stable, but have a hoard of volunteer scrubbers happy to donate time and able to take turns without getting worn out.

Hmm, perhaps I needed more coffee before attempting to type something on a Monday morning!

[Professor Yaffle]

You might want to rethink the name SANE, given that there is a mental health charity in the UK going by that name. It might cause confusion.

http://www.sane.org.uk/

[Cuddles]

The only thing I'm thinking of is the (eventual) problem that the JREF ran into: having all that money sitting around (essentially) doing nothing. I mean, putting it in a savings account and letting it grow is cool, but what if it gets to be a sizeable amount of money? Do we just leave it like that, or would it be prudent, say, to drain off a bit of money every now and then to go towards funding an endowment we could use to award small grants to critical thinking projects?

I think that may be looking a little too far ahead. I don't think we should put a hard limit on a prize because that seems needlessly restrictive, but at the same time I don't think we should get our hopes up too much. I certainly wouldn't expect a prize of more than a couple of thousand at most, to begin with at least. If it looks like getting to a sizeable amount we could look into other options, but I really don't think that's worth worrying about yet.

Investments. The greater the risk the greater the return. In the stock market you can invest in blue chip stocks. These are reasonably safe. However even large companies, on rare occasions, can go bankrupt. However normally they would pay much better than a savings account. I have invested money in this way.

Again, I don't think we're looking at particularly large sums of money. The point of the prize is to sit there as an incentive for people to take the challenge, not to make more money. An easy access savings account should be more than sufficient for that purpose. As above, it ends up with a more sizeable amount, other options would need to be looked at, but these are things that just won't be a problem to begin with.

About the volunteers expenses. I do not expect them to be heavy. However they will exist.

Why? I would hope that people willing to give up an afternoon to test someone would also be willing to fork out a few pounds for a train fare. Other than travel, I don't see what other expenses there could be. The whle point of this would be to mainly organise it on these forums. If that isn't possible, Jackalgirl has offered to donate web space. Small charities, in the UK at least, have no need to get accountants and lawyers involved with running things. Other than possible threats of legal action, which is one of the main things that needs considering, I don't see where any money would be needed at all.

Is it to be a USA only thing?

No. Regardless of where it ends up being based, it has to be an international challenge. The great thing about this forum is that there are people from all over the place. I think we can certainly cover the US, UK and Australia just with foum members, and hopefully we would be able to ask other skeptical organisations to run tests if needed, as the JREF does now.

[Ryan O'Dine]

People are asking, why limit the amount of prize money? Here’s a list of reasons to consider:

1. So that it wouldn’t detract from donations to the JREF. I’d hate to see this drawing money away from donations that might otherwise have gone there. (Or to almost any other charity.)

2. Small amounts are believable. One problem with the MDC was people simply disbelieving its existence due in part to its size.

3. It needs little expertise to handle. I.e. no lawyers.

4. If lost through trickery, it could easily be regenerated. Seriously!

5. The problems of accrued interest would be minimal.

6. It might attract applicants actually interested in proving their powers rather than the murkier types with delusions of grandeur. A problem you’ll understand if you’ve followed the MDC.

7. Big money inevitably brings controversy, and not always the good kind. Forumites who participate should be focused on the testing, not the money. It should be about the testing.

8. The MDC was a rigorous set-up that caused headaches all around. I’d like to think of this as a casual set-up which would be more welcoming, and where the stakes weren’t terribly high.

9. In fact, I’d almost like to see it as less of a challenge, and more of an invitation.

10. Why am I numbering all my sentences?

11. If there’s so much interest that a TDC could no longer contain it, perhaps it could branch off into an independent challenge. IOW, keep the smaller static challenge contained within the forum, and produce a larger, dynamic challenge separately. At which point Jackagirl’s kind offer of a website would undoubtedly make a fine launching pad. (Maybe not the best idea, but perhaps worth considering.)

Ultimately, you’d want a lot of money if your interest was primarily in advertising, as it were. That would then raise the question Teek did in the other thread: would the amount of advertising be worth the amount of money tied up for it? Would $10,000 even get the word out? Would $50,000? Would it really be worth socking away so much just to say there was that much there?

Alternatively, if your interest was only in having the challenge at hand, then why keep amassing money (especially charitable donations) that’s not going to be physically spent on anything? This is why I said earlier that one thousand would be as good as five thousand here. And I’m sticking to it, man. I’m sticking to it!

For now.

[steenkh]

Alternatively, if your interest was only in having the challenge at hand, then why keep amassing money (especially charitable donations) that’s not going to be physically spent on anything?
A small prize amount will not get the argument through. If you discussing a woo claim with a person who is doubtful, it is an important argument to say that if this was true, the producer could net a million dollar by dollar by proving that this really works. If the prize is only 1000$ one can easily imagine why only a few will think it worth it to go through the testing process. The argument simply loses it's force.

I also think that the million dollar is used better for something like the challenge - if you consider combating woo-woo a worthy task. If you spend the million on films, advertising, and so on, the money will be gone. The beauty of the challenge is that the money will always be there, so it is as if it could be spent over and over again.

In case that somebody actually wins the money, it will be well spent in proving something that will turn our understanding of the world upside down.

[Cuddles]

1. So that it wouldn’t detract from donations to the JREF. I’d hate to see this drawing money away from donations that might otherwise have gone there. (Or to almost any other charity.)

People will give money where they want. If they decide they want to support this rather than something else, why should we stop them?

2. Small amounts are believable. One problem with the MDC was people simply disbelieving its existence due in part to its size.

I'm not convinced that was ever a problem. Certainly that sort of argument was used as an excuse but if it hadn't been, something else would have. The million is easily proved by statements from Goldman-Sachs. The only way this excuse could have any merit is if someone doesn't believe in money, and if that's the case, the million is the least of their problems.

3. It needs little expertise to handle. I.e. no lawyers.

4. If lost through trickery, it could easily be regenerated. Seriously!

5. The problems of accrued interest would be minimal.

All true, but as I said, I really don't think we're going to be dealing with large amounts of money anyway. Certainly not to start with. Maybe it could be worth thinking of putting a cap, or finding something else to do with the money, if we ended up with tens of thousands, but I just don't see that happening.

6. It might attract applicants actually interested in proving their powers rather than the murkier types with delusions of grandeur. A problem you’ll understand if you’ve followed the MDC.

If they're not interested in the money there are plenty of places for them to investigate things seriously. Also, the idea of giving them a choice of not doing it for the money or giving it to charity should solve this.

7. Big money inevitably brings controversy, and not always the good kind. Forumites who participate should be focused on the testing, not the money. It should be about the testing.

Again, I don't think we're looking at big money.

8. The MDC was a rigorous set-up that caused headaches all around. I’d like to think of this as a casual set-up which would be more welcoming, and where the stakes weren’t terribly high.

9. In fact, I’d almost like to see it as less of a challenge, and more of an invitation.

The tests can't be any less rigorous than the MDC. There's no point having a challenge at all if it isn't impossible to win without genuine paranormal powers. Sure, we can be friendlier and less confrontational, but the tests have to be the same whether there's a million or a thousand at stake.

10. Why am I numbering all my sentences?

Poor genetic material?

11. If there’s so much interest that a TDC could no longer contain it, perhaps it could branch off into an independent challenge. IOW, keep the smaller static challenge contained within the forum, and produce a larger, dynamic challenge separately. At which point Jackagirl’s kind offer of a website would undoubtedly make a fine launching pad. (Maybe not the best idea, but perhaps worth considering.)

It's certainly possible but, again, this would end up being just another paranormal challenge among many.

Ultimately, you’d want a lot of money if your interest was primarily in advertising, as it were. That would then raise the question Teek did in the other thread: would the amount of advertising be worth the amount of money tied up for it? Would $10,000 even get the word out? Would $50,000? Would it really be worth socking away so much just to say there was that much there?

As has been pointed out in the various discussions about the MDC, even a million gets you very little advertising. A few thousand is nothing. Maybe a couple of paragraphs in a local paper if you're lucky. The great thing about a prize challenge is that it stays there. Education about skepticsm and critical thinking is something that will always be needed. An advertising campaign, or leaflets, or whatever, will last a short time but will quickly be forgotten, even assuming it makes any difference while it lasts. A challenge lasts as long as you want it to last, with no additional investment needed.

Alternatively, if your interest was only in having the challenge at hand, then why keep amassing money (especially charitable donations) that’s not going to be physically spent on anything? This is why I said earlier that one thousand would be as good as five thousand here. And I’m sticking to it, man. I’m sticking to it!

For now.

Two things. Firstly, a lot of people have found the MDC useful as tool in debates with various believers, and many have said that they themselves were convinced, at least partially, by it. It can certainly be argued that this isn't worth a million, but a few thousand? I think even one person being educated about woo is worth that, and considering the cost of education, that's a bargain. A lot of people are disappointed that they will no longer have this tool available, and if they're willing to give up their own money to make it available, what's the problem?

Secondly, one of the problems with the MDC, and other prizes, is that they're put there by people that most people don't know. The "Put you money where your mouth is" argument is all very well, but the woos can just point out that it's actually someone else's money. By continually accepting donations, we can allow people to respond to this with "I have, why haven't you won it yet?".

I think the most important point is that it's up to people if they donate or not. If they don't think it's worth having, they won't donate and it will remain small. If they think it's worth having a big prize, they will donate more. I just don't see why we should put artifical limits rather than just leaving it open for everyone to decide if they think it's worth their money or not.

[Jackalgirl]

I just wanted to bump this and make a couple of notes/suggestions:

1) I am standing by to obtain a domain and website, which I will pay for. I will need help administering the thing, but I can definitely say that I will be responsible for the buckage.

2) I've been reading through some of the old MDC threads and I'd like to suggest that if an applicant comes onto our Forum to discuss protocols (in fact, I don't think it's a bad idea to make that a requirement), that those threads be moderated. I say this because often times I've noted that an MDC discussion thread has a high noise-to-signal ratio in the form of people being snarky. Mind you, it's not that I don't think that some applicants actually deserve some snark, but I think it would be a good idea to try to control the threads to keep down the personal attacks. I am not necessarily advocating this for any other section of online message discussion -- just for the thread(s) in which some actual work is being attempted. If that makes sense.

Anyway, if/once we can decide on a name, and you/we think it's a prudent time to do so, I'll get the domain and website started.

For legal purposes, what do we need? Do we need a charter and by-laws?

[Nucular]

I just wanted to bump this and make a couple of notes/suggestions:

1) I am standing by to obtain a domain and website, which I will pay for. I will need help administering the thing, but I can definitely say that I will be responsible for the buckage.

Thanks again for taking this upon yourself Jackalgirl - I don't really know the costs involved but it's extremely good of you to offer to cover them, whatever they are. I'm happy to help with administration, though I have no technical expertise whatsoever in this field.

2) I've been reading through some of the old MDC threads and I'd like to suggest that if an applicant comes onto our Forum to discuss protocols (in fact, I don't think it's a bad idea to make that a requirement), that those threads be moderated. I say this because often times I've noted that an MDC discussion thread has a high noise-to-signal ratio in the form of people being snarky. Mind you, it's not that I don't think that some applicants actually deserve some snark, but I think it would be a good idea to try to control the threads to keep down the personal attacks. I am not necessarily advocating this for any other section of online message discussion -- just for the thread(s) in which some actual work is being attempted. If that makes sense.

Perfect sense, to me. Many's the discussion that's been derailed around here through snarkiness or proliferation of kittens, recipes and recipes containing kittens; I know I've also been guilty of letting exasperation get the better of me in that respect too. A moderated thread for 'official' protocol discussions would I agree be necessary, and of course an applicant would be free to discuss his claims elsewhere on the forum too, as would everybody else.

Regarding making it a requirement to have a discussion on the forum about protocol, it sounds to me like there would be many reasons to do so. My small note of caution would be that it could potentially make the challenge a little exclusive: those with no or limited internet access (and there are still rare offliners in the world, I've heard) would be unable to be involved in their own protocol discussion. Maybe that should be an issue to be dealt with when it arises.

Anyway, if/once we can decide on a name, and you/we think it's a prudent time to do so, I'll get the domain and website started.

Presumably the earlier we did this, the more it would cost - I'm assuming web domains and sites have recurring costs? Which would mean holding off as long as possible on that, I'd have thought. But in terms of getting the challenge rolling, once proper permission has been gained to ride on the coattails of the MDC, I would imagine the website should be up and running at least six months prior to the demise of the JREF challenge? I guess deciding on a name would be prudent to do more quickly, since we'd have to check it was available.

I also just had the strangely paranoid image of some faction of believers following this discussion and quickly snapping up the domain name of any name we settle on! Maybe I should up my medication...

For legal purposes, what do we need? Do we need a charter and by-laws?

I have no idea... though as discussed above I think it would rely on where the challenge and/or its supporting charity/organisation would be based. Which in turn would be decided by where legal conditions were most favourable for such an organisation, in conjunction with the practicality of where we all are geographically.

[Crundy]

Whoops, should have looked here before posting in another thread:

Re the application process, I have mentioned before that I would be willing to write an application management process that would allow applicants to:

1) Sign up
2) Provide details of their abilities
3) Enter a proposed test protocol
4) Upload a statement from a doctor saying they are in a good state of mental health
5) Upload three notarization documents

Then (and ONLY then) would a human have to go and check the details, and pass/fail each section if there was enough information / detail.

The fact is, the above system would filter out 99% of all applicants, as they usually arn't able to do most of the above. There could be a discussion forum to assist applicants having trouble defining their abilities or proposing a protocol.

[Nucular]

Bump, again.

I haven't been around lately, did I miss anything like a new thread, or did the discussion simply grind to a halt?

Obviously there's still a fair amount of time before the MDC goes, but I am aware that, to put it kindly, our talks are still 'very much at a preliminary stage', unless I've missed it all :)

[Crundy]

I'm still up for creating an application process management system. Well, as long as it can be in C#. I've gone right off PHP, and I've practically forgotten all my Java.

[Nucular]

Cool, well that's two of us who haven't forgotten! I'll pm some of the people who've taken part in the thread at some point, if no-one reappears.

[Cuddles]

I'm certainly still interested, but there seem to be two main problems.

The first is the level of interest. There are certainly a few people interested in helping out, probably enough to run it. However, other than these, pretty much no-one has commented at all, which makes it a bit hard to know if there's acutally any point. It's all very well going to the trouble of setting something up, but if even the skeptics on the JREF forum don't care, what are the chances of any potential applicants caring?

The other problem is exactly what it would be and where it would be based. So far we've thrown about a few ideas, but everyone seems to have a slightly different view of exactly what we would be doing. If we could sort this out if may be easier to get an idea of the level of interest, since we would have something solid to put out there. However, without knowing what, or if, people actually want, it's kind of hard to do this.

The location issue is probably less of a problem, since the main idea would be to use the internet for most discussion and the JREF technique of using contacts close to the applicant. However, this is one of the first things that would need to be decided, so that we would know the various legal and financial details. For obvious reasons, I favour the UK, and I think that after the US and possible Australia this is the country with the most active skeptics, certainly the most posters here.

Assuming we're going to go ahead with planning, I think the first thing that needs to be decided is how things will be decided. How exactly will we choose a name, location, the actual nature of the challenge, and so on? Do we want general democracy, bearing in mind this is a completely open forum? One or a few people with the final say? Or something else entirely? I think once we've made a decision on how to make decisions, we can start making decisions about the next things to make decisions on.

[Ryan O'Dine]

Still game.

In fact, if four other people want to toss in $20 with me, we could have a modest little HDC. Maybe run it as a proof-of-concept, sort of get the ball rolling.

Five decision makers. A moderator to moderate any applicant threads; and hopefully, in the end, a group to do the heavy work of testing (the hardest thing of all, I think -- maybe the JREF proper could help behind the scenes here.)

And why would an applicant want to participate? In order to be tested in a rigorous setting, and possibly pave the way for the MDC while it’s still on (obviously, not for the money).

I think we’d need a highly determined monarchy, or very small, well-oiled oligarchy to run anything grander at this point.