The JREF Million Dollar Challenge Unofficial FAQ

[Beleth]

JREF Million Dollar Challenge
Frequently Asked Questions
Rev 1.0b: 15-Feb-2005


NOTE: This is a totally unofficial and unauthorized FAQ. This is one person's interpretation of the Challenge rules and observations of the Challenge process. Whenever this document and the official Challenge rules are in conflict, the Challenge rules win. Whenever this document and an official JREF spokesman are in conflict, the official spokesman wins. In both cases, this document will be updated to reflect the official stand as soon as possible.

Index of Questions

0. What should I do first?

1. Challenge history and trivia
1.1. What’s the history of the Challenge?
1.2. Why is there a Challenge in the first place?
1.3. How many applicants have there been for the Challenge?
1.4. How many people have passed the preliminary test?
1.5. How many people have passed the official test?

2. Questions about the wording and nature of the Challenge
2.1. What do you mean by “mutually agreed upon�?
2.2. What do you mean by “paranormal�?
2.3. Does (this) qualify as paranormal?
2.4. Why the limitation on things that might injure me?
2.5. Why the limitation on spiritual and religious claims?
2.6. Why is the JREF so hard-nosed about not changing the rules?
2.7. I disagree with a rule, or a rule shouldn’t apply in my case. How do I go about changing it or getting it waived?

3. Questions about the prize money
3.1. Does the prize money really exist?
3.2. That’s interesting evidence, but I still don’t believe that the money exists.
3.3. If someone wins, how will they be paid?

4. Applications and Applicants
4.1. How do I apply?
4.2. What should I do before I apply?
4.3. What should I expect during the application process?
4.4. How long does a typical application take to process?
4.5. Why isn’t there a standard test for some standard paranormal claims, like ESP or psychokinesis?
4.6. How much of my application is confidential?
4.7. Where can I find a list of all the people who have ever applied?

5. The Application Process
5.1. What happens between my submitting the application and the preliminary test?
5.2. What happens between the preliminary test and the official test?
5.3. Why is the application process so difficult?
5.4. Who pays for my expenses, and why?
5.5. Who pays for the JREF’s expenses, and why?


Questions and Answers

0. What should I do first?

Before you read any further into this FAQ, go read the actual Challenge Rules at http://www.randi.org/research/challenge.html. No, really. Go do that now. Don’t just skim through it; take 10-15 minutes (or as long as you need) to read it thoroughly. Then come back.


1.1. What’s the history of the Challenge?

The Challenge started in 1964 when James Randi put up $10,000 of his own money to the first person who could provide objective proof of the paranormal [1]. Since then, the prize money has grown to the current $1,000,000, and the rules regarding the Challenge have gotten more and more official and legal.

1.2. Why is there a Challenge in the first place?

During a radio panel discussion, James Randi was challenged by a parapsychologist to “put [his] money where [his] mouth is�, and Randi responded by offering to pay anyone who demonstrated a paranormal power under satisfactory observational conditions. [2]

1.3. How many applicants have there been for the Challenge?

Between 1964 and 1982, Randi declared that over 650 people had applied [3]. Between 1997 and February 1, 2005, there had been a total of 352 official, notarized, applications. Of this new batch, 298 of them have been closed, and 54 of them are still open. By April 1, 2005, another 20 of the open ones will be closed due to lack of activity or other reasons [4].

1.4. How many people have passed the preliminary test?

None since 1997, although in 1982 Randi reported that 54 people had [5].

1.5. How many people have passed the official test?

None.


2.1. What do you mean by “mutually agreed upon�?

“Mutually agreed upon� means that neither side can force the other side into doing or saying something that they don’t want to, and that if no agreement can be reached, the application process is terminated, with no blame or fault on either side.

It’s easy to point fingers after a Challenge claim comes to an impasse and say that the other side was being unreasonable. This phrase is used to insure that that finger-pointing has no merit.

2.2. What do you mean by “paranormal�?

This is a remarkably difficult word to define correctly.
Webster’s Online Dictionary defines it as “not scientifically explainable; supernatural�, and it defines “supernatural� as “of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature; attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit)�. But past JREF Challenge rulings have shown that certain events which depart from what is usual or normal aren’t always considered paranormal by the Challenge administrators.

2.3. Does (this) qualify as paranormal?

The best way to answer this is to give a list of things which people commonly apply for.

The following things have been ruled paranormal in the past:

Dowsing. ESP. Precognition. Remote viewing. Speaking with the dead. Violations of Newton’s Laws of Motion. Homeopathy. Chiropractic healing beyond back/joint problems. Faith healing. Psychic surgery.

The following things have been ruled NOT paranormal or eligible for the Challenge in the past:

UFOs. Bigfoot or other legendary creatures. Living without eating. Anything that is likely to cause injury. Cloud-busting. Religious and/or spiritual claims. Exorcism [6].

The following things have an ambiguous history regarding their paranormalcy:

Perpetual motion machines.

2.4. Why the limitation on things that might injure me?

Essentially, the JREF doesn’t want to be seen as even slightly condoning self-injury. It has partly to do with legal issues, partly to do with the image of the JREF, and partly to do with past experience with applicants. Most of the applications that are self-injurious involve living for extended periods of time without eating, and the evidence gathered over millennia is pretty strong that the human body does indeed die after a prolonged period without food.

In Randi’s own words:
‘A test of [someone who says he doesn’t need to eat] would occupy much more of my time than I'm willing to invest, and it would only feed the arsenal of those who love to accuse us of investigating only the easy cases. As soon as that test would be completed, another similar one would pop up, and we'd be off again -- “You tested him, why won't you test me?�’ [7]

2.5. Why the limitation on spiritual and religious claims?

It’s not so much the claim as it is that no one who has applied has been able to come up with a proof that is verifiable under
controlled conditions [8]. It’s not enough to reason your way to the existence of something spiritual or religious; you need to be able to prove it scientifically. Most spiritual apologists go to great lengths to explain why the existence of a higher power cannot be demonstrated scientifically, and that puts such discussions out of the scope of the Challenge.

Think of it this way. The JREF doesn't so much say “God doesn’t exist�; it’s more along the lines of “God doesn’t act in a way that is scientifically verifiable� or “God moves in mysterious ways.� Most spiritual people would actually agree with that last statement, so they and the JREF are on the same side and the Challenge therefore does not apply to them.

2.6. Why is the JREF so hard-nosed about not changing the rules?

It all comes down to the nature of a challenge. It's not a contest; there are not two parties competing for the same prize. It's a challenge. It's someone who deep down doesn't believe you can do what you say you can do daring you to do what you say you can do. It's not at all a friendly agreement. It's an adversarial arrangement. And because of that, the JREF sees no reason to change the rules for its adversaries.

It's also key to understanding the nature of this relationship to keep in mind that the JREF is the one doing the challenging. If this were a court of law, the JREF would be in the role of plaintiff and the person who applies for the Challenge is in the role of defendant.

This adversarial nature, with you as the defendant, is important to keep in mind as you go through the challenge process.

2.7. I disagree with a rule, or a rule shouldn’t apply in my case. How do I go about changing it or getting it waived?

You don't. Remember, you’re in the role of defendant, and defendants don’t usually get to choose the rules under which they are judged. You can ask to get a rule changed, but you should expect to have your request rejected.

3.1. Does the prize money really exist?

The short answer: Yes.

The medium-length answer: The money is held in the form of bonds held by Goldman Sachs, a much respected firm. Anyone can verify that the money exists by requesting the information from the JREF. They will in turn forward you a report from Goldman Sachs.

The long answer: The JREF is a tax exempt organization, so they are required by law to have a level of financial transparency. That means that the public can request things like an annual report and copies of JREF's 990 (the tax return non-profits file). Go to http://atgdata.fdncenter.org/990search/search.php to look up JREF's 990. Contained within these types of documents is enough information to verify that the organization does indeed have enough assets to cover the prize if necessary. The contract between the claimant and JREF is binding enough that JREF has to pay the prize if someone wins it. As a savvy applicant, all you need to do is verify that the organization holds enough assets to cover the prize. Also, if JREF was not able to hold up its end of the bargain the IRS would likely investigate and possibly pull JREF's tax exempt status. Rest assured the money is there [9].

Long answer, continued: The JREF prize seems to be held in a way that is similar to an endowment fund. Non-profits often create reserves of assets called endowments to build up enough money to take care of the organization in the case of bad financial times, or to save up money for a project down the road, like building a new facility or starting a large new program that would require a lot of capital. Endowment funds are held separately from the other money coming in and out of an organization. For example, The JREF prize money is being held separately from the general operating funds of the organization. This prevents JREF from accidentally spending the prize money on the light bill. It is never a good idea to just let large sums of money sit in a savings account for years and years, so most non-profits invest their endowment funds. The way they invest it is really not important. JREF invests in bonds which is fine. If they have to pay someone they will liquidate 1 million in bonds and pay the claimant. I know you are going to ask “What if the bonds cannot be easily liquidated?� Well, that would be incredibly stupid on JREF's part. No one would invest in illiquid assets if they knew they may need to get to the money quickly. If JREF did not pay a winning claimant in a reasonable amount of time they would be open to a law suit for breech of contract. Non-profits do not like getting involved in law suits so you can bet the assets can be easily liquefied. The claimant will be paid. JREF states that the funds are held in bonds so that a claimant can feel at ease about the ability of JREF to pay. That JREF will do so is going above and beyond the requirements of the law and the generally accepted practices of good responsible non-profits. It is an enormous act of good faith on JREF’s part [10].

3.2. That’s interesting evidence, but I still don’t believe that the money exists.

It's important to realize that if at this point you still doubt that the money exists, your doubt is in the entire American bond system in general and Goldman Sachs specifically, and not with the JREF. There is really not any more evidence the JREF can provide you. For concerns regarding Goldman Sachs, please inquire at their Web site, http://www.gs.com/.

3.3. If someone wins, how will they be paid?

Although the prize money is held in bonds as a way to publicly show that the money really does exist, the bonds will be converted to US dollars before being paid. The first $10,000 of the prize money will be paid by check, as stated in the Challenge rules. The usual method for paying an amount as large as the remaining $990,000 is via electronic transfer, and it is reasonable to assume that that is how this prize money will be paid as well.


4.1. How do I apply?

Fill out the application form, get it notarized, and mail it in.

A JREF employee who goes by the name of KRAMER will handle the application process. Please don’t send it straight to Randi, as he will not handle it personally and so sending it to him will only delay the process.

It is important that the application form be filled out in good, grammatical English. The people at the JREF who will be going through the application process with you are only guaranteed to be fluent in English. The hardest part of the application process will be refining your claim, and so it is vital that both sides understand each other as clearly as possible.

4.2. What should I do before I apply?

Get ready for a grueling, stress-filled process. Remember that in this situation, you and the JREF are adversaries, and they are going to do everything they can possibly think of to make you back down or make you look foolish. Remember, it's not a contest, it's a challenge. This isn't going to be like taking a test. This is going to be like going to court.

Make sure you are healthy. Get both a physical and mental check-up. Many people who claim to have paranormal powers are, sadly, under an advanced state of delusion instead. That isn't to say that you are, but it's a hypothesis which will come up during the application process. So be prepared for it in advance.

This next step is very important, because it will be the first big hurdle you will face:

Tell your physician and/or psychiatrist that you have a paranormal ability and that you plan on demonstrating your paranormal ability in front of numerous skeptics, and heed his advice.

The reason that this is a big hurdle is this: you should trust your physician/psychiatrist; he's on your side, after all. If you cannot convince him that applying for the Challenge is a good idea, you won't stand a chance against people you don't trust and who are not on your side.

After you are sure you are healthy and you have told your doctors about your intentions, make sure you can actually do the thing you will be claiming you can do in the application. If you know your ability is based on a trick or deception, stop right here and don't apply. Don't lie to yourself.

If you are sure you are not lying to yourself, find someone you know who is a reasonable, scientific sort and talk to him about your ability. Ask him to be as unfriendly and skeptical as possible. Then demonstrate it to him. This is the second big hurdle. If you can convince a brutally-honest friend that you can do something paranormal, then keep going. Otherwise, stop; you will have no chance convincing the JREF's testers.

Make sure you can reliably perform this ability. Make sure that standard things you would expect in the challenge, such as a room full of skeptics, or a physical object near or between you and the thing you want to affect, don’t affect your ability. If you can't read someone's mind when there's a skeptic nearby, or you can't see through a blindfold when there's a piece of cardboard between you and the object you are supposed to be able to see, then don't apply. These are just the sorts of things you will be subjected to during the test.

When you have done all these things:
- after you have talked to a doctor,
- after you have done a lot of soul-searching about your ability,
- after you have convinced a good friend who won't just nod and agree with everything you say, and
- after you are sure you can overcome any obstacle the testers could possibly throw at you:

then go ahead and fill out the application.

4.3. What should I expect during the application process?

You should expect a lot of (written) communication between yourself and the JREF. You should also expect to do a bit of traveling for the actual test, unless you happen to live in an area with an established skeptical group, which is uncommon.

4.4. How long does a typical application take to process?

This is a tough question, because there are not really any “typical applications�. An application made by an earnest applicant will take 1-6 months to handle, considering the refining of the application wording and the arranging of the testers for the preliminary test. Almost everything that has taken longer than that has turned out to come from an insincere applicant.

4.5. Why isn’t there a standard test for some standard paranormal claims, like ESP or psychokinesis?

In a nutshell, there's really no such thing as a “standard paranormal claim�. (Dowsing comes close, but testing dowsing takes an elaborate setup outside that has to be redone for every claimant anyway.) Even a test using Zener cards (the cards with wavy lines and stuff on them) isn't good for every person who believes he has ESP.

The Challenge is designed to test only what the applicant truly claims to be able to do. No two people claim to do exactly the same thing, so no two tests are going to follow the exact same process.

4.6. How much of my application is confidential?

Assume none of it is. If this bothers you, it is better that you do not apply.

4.7. Where can I find a list of all the people who have ever applied?

Since the Challenge has been going on since before the World Wide Web gained in popularity, no such list exists online. The JREF has limited resources, so most of the applications are actually just sitting in a file cabinet at the JREF headquarters in Florida. In other words, if you want a lot of details about the former applicants, you are going to have to go do your own research down at their headquarters.


5.1. What happens between my submitting the application and the preliminary test?

If all goes as expected, what happens at this point will be the hardest part of the process, and rightly so. This is where you and the JREF decide on the specifics of your test. Be prepared to take into account things you might not have thought of before.

For instance, maybe you can magically make monkeys fly out of your butt. On your application, that's what you write - “I can make monkeys fly out of my butt.� Once the JREF accepts your application, a number of things will have to be clarified.

- What kind of monkeys will fly out of your butt?
- How many?
- How long will it take?
- Where exactly will they appear to come out of?

So your simple nine-word sentence “I can make moneys fly out of my butt� will end up being the far more precise “I will produce between two and seven adult spider monkeys, weighing between three and five pounds each, over a period of not more than thirty minutes. These monkeys will appear from a region approximately six inches above my rectal opening, although there will not be a visible hole there.�

Even after all of that, expect the testers to demand an X-ray of your midsection right before the monkey production, and for you to be weighed both before and after the monkey production to affirm that the monkeys did not come from your body weight.

5.2. What happens between the preliminary test and the official test?

Probably some more travel, and a news reporter or two on your doorstep. What you should expect, however, is for none of the agreed-upon documents to change. There will not be a renegotiation of your abilities or how they will be tested.

5.3. Why is the application process so difficult?

Well, it is for a million dollars, after all.

A lot of it has to do with the nature of previous applicants. The JREF, through much experience, has realized that most of the people who apply are either under the mistaken impression that they actually have a paranormal power, or under the mistaken impression that they can pull a fast one on the JREF and swindle them out of the prize money. While you may be neither mistaken nor a swindler, the JREF will always assume that you are one or the other. It's ugly and it's unfair, but that's how it is, and you need to prepare yourself for that reaction.

5.4. Who pays for my expenses, and why?

You do. It's spelled out in the Challenge rules. Remember that your position in the Challenge is that of defendant. But it’s also to realize that there is an important difference between this and a court of law: you are not innocent until proven guilty. Rather, you are normal until proven paranormal, and it is up to you to prove your paranormality. This means that you have to pay for travel, you have to pay to build any devices you want to demonstrate, and so forth.

5.5. Who pays for the JREF’s expenses, and why?

Again, you do, and again, it's spelled out in the Challenge rules. The reason is that the JREF doesn't see any reason for it to spend any money to help you defend yourself.

Footnotes:
[1] Randi, James. FLIM-FLAM!, chapter 13 beginning.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] The thread titled “Can we get a Challenge historical wrapup/tally?�, http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=52586 (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=52586). Look for Gr8wight’s first post.
[5] FLIM-FLAM!, chapter 13 beginning.
[6] The thread titled “Randi Gets Rude...�, http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=19874. Look for Randi’s two posts.
[7] Ibid.
[8] The thread titled “THE GOD THREAD�, http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=51642. See the first post in the thread, by KRAMER.
[9] The thread titled “$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$�, http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=52169. Look for Keri’s first post.
[10] Ibid.

[Marian]

I think your FAQ is really fantastic Beleth. You put an amazing amount of work into it.

I think it would be great to see that used either verbatim or incorporated into an "official" FAQ. All the areas you've hit upon I think highlight the need for it beyond the official challenge rules and terms.

Did you e-mail the JREF the link, in case they haven't seen it?

[ReFLeX]

1.4. How many people have passed the preliminary test?
None since 1997, although in 1982 Randi reported that 54 people had [5].


Doesn't Randi usually say that no one has passed the preliminary test? What happened in 1997 to make the requirements more stringent, then?

[Rob Lister]

Great Balls of Fire, Beleth!

Did you write all of that? I must admit that I've never taken special note of your writing (my bad, not yours) but from this point on I certainly shall.

Great work!

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by ReFLeX
Doesn't Randi usually say that no one has passed the preliminary test? What happened in 1997 to make the requirements more stringent, then?

I suspect that modern communications methods (EMAIL) allowed Randi to more precicely discuss test conditions with those who were running the preliminaries. It also allows him to more easily consult experts in various fields.

Previously, most setting of conditions would have had to be done via snail mail. Which means some controls may have been miscommunicated more easily.

[Darat]

Originally posted by ReFLeX
Doesn't Randi usually say that no one has passed the preliminary test? What happened in 1997 to make the requirements more stringent, then?

I think that is when the current version of the challenge started with the million dollar prize.

Beleth – fantastic piece of work, I hope Kramer or someone at the JREF “adopts� it so in can become an “official� FAQ.

(Edited for making a blethling mess of Beleth's name.)

[kookbreaker]

Some suggestions:

Somewhere in the 'does the money exist' portion of the FAQ you might note that if the money did not exists, the very act of Randi saying it does would constitute fraud. Perhaps worse, it would garner the legal attention of a very misused Goldman/Sachs.

I'd also say that the JREF is not 'going to do everything' to make you look foolish. 'everything' has an implication that outright cheating will be included.

Somewhere you should point out there are some things that the JREF will insist upon for its testing and will not back away from. Things like controlled conditions, providing 'outs' that give you excuses afterwards, and so on.)

I may have more, but brain go pheh.

Edited to add: Since I didn't say it: Great job!

[jmercer]

That was a lot of work, Beleth, and you did a great job!

:th:

[drkitten]

Let me add my voice to the chorus of impressed readers. Nicely done, Beleth.

A few comments : I'm not entirely sure what you are getting at with your "you are the defendant/they are the plaintiff" metaphor, but I also don't really like it. Aside from the potential burden-of-proof isssue that you discuss, there's also an element of metaphorical coersion involved. A defendant, after all, HAS to comply with the demands of the prosecution or risk sanction, while a JREF applicant can just walk away.

My usual metaphor is exactly the opposite -- the JREF is the defendant, but the burden is on the applicant to follow the procedural rules exactly (or risk having the case dismissed on a technicality) and to prove what they claim. Of course, no metaphor is perfect, but I might be interested in discussing privately exactly what you thought you were saying that I failed to pick up on. [Or publically, if there's enough interest.]

I agree with kookbreaker that the JREF will not do "everything" to make you look foolish.

I also think that something about about the need for clear-cut answers (i.e. without the necessity for judging) as a reason for all the technicalities and conditions would be appropriate.

[Kaylee]

Wow Beleth! IMHO -- a great job and the FAQ is crystal clear! :)

One small suggestion. In section 3.1 you many want to direct 990 inquirers to the www.guidestar.org website instead of http://atgdata.fdncenter.org/990search/search.php. I've found Guidestar to have a much more forgiving search engine. For example inputting either "JREF", "James Randi", "James Randi Foundation", "James Randi Educational Foundation" or "James Randi Educational Foundation Inc" all successfully point to the 990s with Guidestar. I've only been able to make the http://atgdata.fdncenter.org/990search/search.php search engine work with "James Randi" or with the JREF EIN number – and its doubtful that most inquirers would have the EIN number.

The only negative with Guidestar is that an inquirer must provide an e-mail address in order to get access to the 990 returns (The Atgdata website doesn't require that.)


Again -- Great Job!


Shera

[Beady]

Originally posted by new drkitten
Let me add my voice to the chorus of impressed readers. Nicely done, Beleth.

A very big ditto!

I'm not entirely sure what you are getting at with your "you are the defendant/they are the plaintiff" metaphor, but I also don't really like it.

Also ditto. I think the problem is that you are confused about who is the challenger. It is the applicant who is making an assertion, and it is therefore the applicant who is tasked with proving a case. In proving the case, the challenger must abide by the rules of evidence, as outlined in the Challenge rules. JREF has to prove squat.

My usual metaphor is exactly the opposite -- the JREF is the defendant, but the burden is on the applicant to follow the procedural rules exactly (or risk having the case dismissed on a technicality) and to prove what they claim.

Exactly!

I agree with kookbreaker that the JREF will not do "everything" to make you look foolish.

Again, I agree. It is not JREF's task or intent to defeat the claimant. The intent in offering the prize, as I understand it, is to make it worthwhile for paranormal claimants to submit themselves to formal testing. Think of it in the same vein as the recent "X Prize" awarded for the first successful civilian spacecraft. It wasn't the intent of the sponsors to defeat the applicants, but to encourage research and development.

Consider: If the JREF prize is ever won, JREF will go down in history as a patron that helped broaden the scientific horizon.

I also think that something about about the need for clear-cut answers (i.e. without the necessity for judging) as a reason for all the technicalities and conditions would be appropriate.

Yup. I agree, again.

[Beleth]

What can I say but... thank you all for being so open to this!

I don't want to address all the points that were made, but I do want to address some of them:

RE 4.2 "everything they can possibly think of":
That phrase is definitely getting yanked in the next rev. Way too harsh, I agree, and I definitely didn't mean to make it sound like the JREF would cheat. My writing style gets hyperbolic at times, so I'm not surprised that one hyperbole escaped the editing process. You should have seen the first draft...

RE 1.4 and passing the prelim:
I don't have a complete history of the Challenge, so I put as much in as I knew. The pre-1982 stuff I got from my copy of FLIM-FLAM!, and the post-1997 stuff I got from these boards. If anyone knows of a reliable source for the history in the missing 15 years, let me know and I'll incorporate it.

RE 2.6 and who is the defendant:
This is tricky. When you get right down to it, it's not like a trial, it's like a duel. The JREF is playing the part of the challenger - the one slapping with the gauntlet - and the applicant is the one whose face has been slapped by the gauntlet. The trick is that it's a "class-action duel", if you will, with one entity (Randi) challenging an entire class of people (those who believe in the paranormal). When one person in that class steps forward and says "I accept", it's not really obvious who is slapping whom. I know that the JREF considers itself the challenger - it's called the Million Dollar Challenge, after all - and so I am abiding by their perception of their role. That's why they got morphed into the "plaintiff" role in the trial analogy.


That said, I want you all to know that I really do appreciate all the cheers of approval and the suggestions!

[Beleth]

One more comment:
Originally posted by Beady
It is not JREF's task or intent to defeat the claimant. The intent in offering the prize, as I understand it, is to make it worthwhile for paranormal claimants to submit themselves to formal testing.I disagree, and I think the actions and words of Randi and KRAMER towards applicants bear my interpretation out. They are not hoping that something paranormal gets discovered, like the X Prize wanted a civilian to build a spacecraft; they want the sellers of the paranormal to stop defrauding their customers, and the believers of the paranormal to face the facts that the people they give money to can't really do what they say they can do.

This is no less noble a goal than wanting to find something paranormal, but it is definitely not the same goal.

The analogy to the X Prize would be for the funder of the X Prize to be of the belief that a civilian could never build a spaceworthy craft, but there were many civilians around that said that they already had.
Consider: If the JREF prize is ever won, JREF will go down in history as a patron that helped broaden the scientific horizon.Oh, for sure. But I believe that they would rather go down in history as the organization that wiped out paranormal belief once and for all.

[Gr8wight]

Originally posted by Beleth
RE 2.6 and who is the defendant:
This is tricky. When you get right down to it, it's not like a trial, it's like a duel. The JREF is playing the part of the challenger - the one slapping with the gauntlet - and the applicant is the one whose face has been slapped by the gauntlet. The trick is that it's a "class-action duel", if you will, with one entity (Randi) challenging an entire class of people (those who believe in the paranormal). When one person in that class steps forward and says "I accept", it's not really obvious who is slapping whom. I know that the JREF considers itself the challenger - it's called the Million Dollar Challenge, after all - and so I am abiding by their perception of their role. That's why they got morphed into the "plaintiff" role in the trial analogy.


That said, I want you all to know that I really do appreciate all the cheers of approval and the suggestions!

I'm thinking of it in the same way I think of the difference between criminal and civil law. In the analogy of criminal law, the JREF would represent the state, and the burden of proof would fall upon them. However, in civil law, the challenge applicant would represent the claimant, and the burden of proof would fall upon them.

[Suezoled]

-My powers didn't manifest this time because conditions weren't right. How long do I have to wait before I can reapply?
-I don't like KRAMER. I want someone else to process my application
(and/or)
-I have a complaint about (noun/verb/adjective/invective/participle). Who can I contact about that?
-How is Randi involved in all this? And what is his grudge against Sylvia Browne?

[Kaylee]

Hmm, heres another one:

-"I'm under 18, can I apply?"


Shera
(And no, I'm not under 18, that was just for the FAQ.)

[SezMe]

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

Beleth, I know Randi turned down the idea of this FAQ but I would hope that he would be open to changing his mind when he sees the quality of your work and the value to JREF and Kramer in simplifying their lives.

Here is one great bit ATTA...er, um Girl? Boy? It? Whatever. Anyway, ATTA Beleth.

[webfusion]

while at first glance it seems like a good idea, there are loopholes large enough to drive a mack truck through and the end result will be more work for KRAMER answering eMails pertaining to the FAQ itself! This forum already has proven that we ourselves have disputes and questions and additional points or interpretations. Imagine the types of queries and technical issues that the general public or woos themselves will ask to be resolved?

Just go to any website like eBay, which has a comprehensive FAQ and well-established community forums (like this) and then look at the volume of eMails they get daily which request clarifications for statements in the FAQ itself ~~~ and they have a full-time staff dealing with all sorts of technical issues. KRAMER, bless his heart, is going to be inundated with people asking stuff like, "well, your FAQ says monkeys out the butt are paranormal, can I apply if sprites fly out of my nose?"

Beleth, really, what caused you to pursue this and post it? What was your motivation, even after being told it wasn't wanted?
Just curious.

[Loon]

Originally posted by webfusion
while at first glance it seems like a good idea, there are loopholes large enough to drive a mack truck through

Excellent. Care to point them out so we can work on closing them?

Originally posted by webfusion
and the end result will be more work for KRAMER answering eMails pertaining to the FAQ itself! This forum already has proven that we ourselves have disputes and questions and additional points or interpretations. Imagine the types of queries and technical issues that the general public or woos themselves will ask to be resolved?

Well, for one, if a question comes up enough, it would be added to the faq. The faq, even at v1.0, is far better an explanation of minutiae than the challenge rules in and of themselves. And far better PR, too. Plus, it makes an easy reference for journalists and others who might want to know more about the challenge without actually applying.

Originally posted by webfusion
Just go to any website like eBay, which has a comprehensive FAQ and well-established community forums (like this) and then look at the volume of eMails they get daily which request clarifications for statements in the FAQ itself ~~~ and they have a full-time staff dealing with all sorts of technical issues.

A fair point. But ebay is one of the busiest sites on the net and offers a far more complicated product, technolgically, legally and in number of people involved. And they have a much larger target market.

Do have any statistics on the number of emails ebay gets that request clarification of information in their FAQ?

Originally posted by webfusion KRAMER, bless his heart, is going to be inundated with people asking stuff like, "well, your FAQ says monkeys out the butt are paranormal, can I apply if sprites fly out of my nose?"

As a joke, maybe. But only if the FAQ draws more attention to the site from bored teenagers. And KRAMER already gets lots of claims that are just as bizarre. Plus, both of these are easy, if not necesarilly pleasant, to test.

Originally posted by webfusion
Beleth, really, what caused you to pursue this and post it? What was your motivation, even after being told it wasn't wanted?
Just curious.

I can't speak for Beleth's motivations, but would you accept "It's a good idea and I think Randi'll change his mind when he sees the final version."?

Thanks Beleth. This is great stuff.

[Beleth]

Originally posted by webfusion
while at first glance it seems like a good idea, there are loopholes large enough to drive a mack truck throughLike what?

and the end result will be more work for KRAMER answering eMails pertaining to the FAQ itself!I disagree. I guess we'll have to let time tell.

This forum already has proven that we ourselves have disputes and questions and additional points or interpretations.I was expecting that. After a few edits (I predict no more than four) I expect it to die down. Every issue still open at that point will be at the agree-to-disagree stage.

For instance. I fully expect my applicant-as-defendant interpretation to come to loggerheads on this board. I am open to convincing otherwise, but I also make no secret that I believe that my current interpretation is the same as the JREF party line, and any successful counterargument will have to convince me of the error of that belief.

Imagine the types of queries and technical issues that the general public or woos themselves will ask to be resolved?Like what?

Just go to any website like eBay, which has a comprehensive FAQ and well-established community forums (like this) and then look at the volume of eMails they get daily which request clarifications for statements in the FAQ itself ~~~ and they have a full-time staff dealing with all sorts of technical issues.And yet they still have a FAQ, and therefore think that having a FAQ is better than not having a FAQ.

KRAMER, bless his heart, is going to be inundated with people asking stuff like, "well, your FAQ says monkeys out the butt are paranormal, can I apply if sprites fly out of my nose?"And he can answer "Yes." How hard is that?

But this reminds me of another point I wanted to bring up. Did anyone find the buttmonkey example objectionable personally? I mean, in an "I am offended at that" sort of way, and not in an "I can see how someone else might be offended" sort of way? If you were, please PM me.

Beleth, really, what caused you to pursue this and post it?I saw a need, and I had the time, the ability, and the desire to fill that need.

What was your motivation, even after being told it wasn't wanted?On the contrary. A great many people have said that they wanted it, and only one of them has changed his mind about wanting it. It is my deepest hope that, after reading it and reading the reactions to it, he changes his mind back.

Besides, where would humanity be if we only did things that someone else wanted us to do?

[Beady]

Originally posted by Gr8wight
I'm thinking of it in the same way I think of the difference between criminal and civil law. In the analogy of criminal law, the JREF would represent the state, and the burden of proof would fall upon them. However, in civil law, the challenge applicant would represent the claimant, and the burden of proof would fall upon them.

Just out of curiosity, are either one of you lawyers?

Look, fellas, I'm not a lawyer, either, but I do kind of the same thing JREF does, here, and I do it, quite literally, with a six-inch-thick lawbook by my side. I judge applications made by people to the government, and I judge them according to Federal law. If someone can show they qualify under the law for a benefit, they get it. If they can't show it, I deny them, and I explain exactly why I deny them. If the person doesn't send me a document that I need in order to make a decision, I ask them for it. It is not at all adversarial, and there's none of this defendant - prosecutor - civil - criminal stuff; the analogy simply does not apply. If they qualify, they get it, and I do absolutely nothing to try to keep them from qualifying, other than keeping an eye out for fraud.

I don't see the difference between what I do and what JREF does. There are rules, applicants, a benefit, and an adjudicator. All the applicant has to do is prove that they qualify, under the rules. There is no one presenting arguments against them; the Challenge is set up specifically to avoid that. This entire section of your FAQ should either be rewritten to remove the adversarial tone, or discarded. What Randi and Kramer have to say "off-camera" about individual applicants has absolutely nothing to do with the Challenge, which is why they are not directly involved with the tests. The entire process is designed to be impartial and fair; you do not have fairness and impartiality in an adversarial relationship.

[jmercer]

Beady (and other's) have a good point. The FAQ should be neutral in tone and content - just providing answers.

I don't have a problem with the FAQ pointing out the difference between a challenge and a contest - I think that's an important differentiation. But in retrospect, I don't think it's necessary to emphasize or cite adversarialism as a key element to the situation.

[Luke T.]

Beleth, a fantastic piece of work. I believe every inquiry JREF gets about the Challenge should have a reply which directs them to this topic.

[Gr8wight]

Originally posted by Beady
Just out of curiosity, are either one of you lawyers?

Look, fellas, I'm not a lawyer, either, but I do kind of the same thing JREF does, here, and I do it, quite literally, with a six-inch-thick lawbook by my side. I judge applications made by people to the government, and I judge them according to Federal law. If someone can show they qualify under the law for a benefit, they get it. If they can't show it, I deny them, and I explain exactly why I deny them. If the person doesn't send me a document that I need in order to make a decision, I ask them for it. It is not at all adversarial, and there's none of this defendant - prosecutor - civil - criminal stuff; the analogy simply does not apply. If they qualify, they get it, and I do absolutely nothing to try to keep them from qualifying, other than keeping an eye out for fraud.

I don't see the difference between what I do and what JREF does. There are rules, applicants, a benefit, and an adjudicator. All the applicant has to do is prove that they qualify, under the rules. There is no one presenting arguments against them; the Challenge is set up specifically to avoid that. This entire section of your FAQ should either be rewritten to remove the adversarial tone, or discarded. What Randi and Kramer have to say "off-camera" about individual applicants has absolutely nothing to do with the Challenge, which is why they are not directly involved with the tests. The entire process is designed to be impartial and fair; you do not have fairness and impartiality in an adversarial relationship.

I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV.

I think Beleth's use of the courtroom metaphor was simply in an attempt to explain where the burden of proof lies, and why. Your points are excellent.

[kookbreaker]

Another thing that should be part of this FAQ, even though it is already emphasized as part of the rules:

Theories.

Q: I have a theory about my ability.

A: Please keep it to yourself. The JREF is interested in results, not theories. Make certain that what you claim can be demonstrated. Wasting time with theories will only delay your application process.

[CurtC]

I agree that this is a wonderful piece of work. Here's my $0.02:

* I also dislike the plaintiff-defendant metaphor. The tone of the FAQ should be that it is a fair test, but the burden of proof is solidly on the claimant. Emphasize that if the claimant can really do what he says, winning the prize will be a cakewalk.

* "Breach of contract" - not "breech".

* The "monkeys out of your butt" thing is a little vulgar.

* Saying that the JREF will do everything it can to defeat the claimant is not really true and is too harsh. The JREF will look guard against trickery, but will be happy to pay up on a true demonstration of paranormal ability. The JREF would be out a million bucks, but would go down in history for revolutionizing science. Not a bad price tag.

Also, I disagree that a FAQ would make Kramer's life more difficult, I think it would make it easier. Just go to the challenge applications forum and take a look at the incoherent crap he has to individually respond to. A FAQ, even if unofficial, could still be mentioned by Kramer in a shorter reply to help them understand the process.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by Gr8wight
I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV.

I think Beleth's use of the courtroom metaphor was simply in an attempt to explain where the burden of proof lies, and why. Your points are excellent.

I think, however, that this might be a better metaphor for Beleth to use. It's equally clear and more accurate.

Another metaphor that might be useful (again, stressing the challenge instead of competition aspect) is the qualifying stage of major sporting events. To be able to compete at all, you first need to qualify by being able to beat a pre-defined mark, irrespective of who else might or might not be on the team.

For example, to compete at the (2004) Olympic women's long jump, you need to have previously jumped 6.55m. There are a number of other caveats -- for example, "wind-assisted" jumps don't count. The event judge has two basic jobs -- first, to read the tape measure correctly, and second, to make sure that the jump is legal (e..g., not "wind-assisted"). As Beady almost put it in his context, "If someone can show they qualify under the rules for the Olympics, they get it. If they can't show it, I deny them, and I explain exactly why I deny them..... There are rules, applicants, a benefit, and an adjudicator. All the applicant has to do is prove that they qualify, under the rules."

[KRAMER]

The FAQ Beleth submitted was a brilliant start.

After carefully considering much of the criticism the FAQ received here, I amended it to more accurately reflect the JREF's positions, replaced the "butt-monkey" hypothetical with a "bright lights" claim, added many more phenomenon to the "PARANORMAL OR NOT PARANORMAL" section (as that is one of the big issues that people email me about), and added a lot more data I felt was necessary if the FAQ was to truly achieve its intended goals.

I then presented it to Randi, who corrected some statistical errors and then approved it for publication on the JREF website.

It will be posted within 24hours to the Challenge page, just beneath the "Click here to see the application" link.

It is my intention, once this FAQ is posted, to simply refer all inquirers who've already read the rules back to the FAQ.

Part of the point in all of this is to avoid becoming involved is a tit-for-tat shouting match with applicants who don't comprehend the Challenge rules. I think that this FAQ will make all such debates moot. If potential applicants cannot comprehend the rules, they now have the FAQ for a detailed clarification. If that doesn't suffice, they are certainly free to consult legal counsel, but the JREF will feel no obligation to take matters further before an application has been submitted.

[jmercer]

Kramer,

I think this was an excellent decision on your and Randi's part. I know I'm going to keep the url handy. This way when people join the forums and start posting about stuff covered in the FAQ, that's where I'll direct 'em. :)

And for the record, I'd pay good money to see monkey's flying out of someone's butt. Lights, now... that's not worth the price of admission. ;)

[Beleth]

Originally posted by KRAMER
It will be posted within 24hours to the Challenge page, just beneath the "Click here to see the application" link.Of all the scenarios I envisioned happening as I was writing the FAQ, this was the one I saw as the Best Possible Outcome.

Thank you, Kramer, and thank you, Mr Randi.
You have made me euphoric.
:biggrin:

[kookbreaker]

Waaah! Kramer killed the butt monkeys!

;)

[jmercer]

Originally posted by kookbreaker
Waaah! Kramer killed the butt monkeys!

;)


OMG, NOW what will we say when a creationist asks "Then why are there still monkeys??" :eek:

Oh - wait. This works in our favor, doesn't it? We can now safely say "What monkeys?" Thanks, Kramer! :D

[KRAMER]

http://www.randi.org/research/faq.html (http://)

It's up. There's the link.

[rebecca]

Originally posted by KRAMER
http://www.randi.org/research/faq.html (http://)

It's up. There's the link.

Very cool. Nice job, Beleth, and Kramer, way to go.

RIP Butt Monkeys.

[Peter S.]

Some of the links at the bottom of the FAQ are not working.

[Loon]

This is absolutely wonderful.

Excellent work Beleth and KRAMER!

[ceptimus]

Well done Beleth, and congratulations to KRAMER and the JREF for adopting the FAQ. This a step in the right direction.

[princhester]

Let me start by saying that I think the FAQ is very interesting, a great resource, kudos overall to Beleth.

Having said that...

Can I say that I am a lawyer, and the whole defendant/plaintiff thing seems to me to be (a) ass-backwards and (b) asking for trouble.

Originally posted by new drkitten
A few comments : I'm not entirely sure what you are getting at with your "you are the defendant/they are the plaintiff" metaphor, but I also don't really like it.

...

My usual metaphor is exactly the opposite -- the JREF is the defendant, but the burden is on the applicant to follow the procedural rules exactly (or risk having the case dismissed on a technicality) and to prove what they claim.

Exactly.

and

Originally posted by Beleth
[b]RE 2.6 and who is the defendant:
This is tricky. When you get right down to it, it's not like a trial, it's like a duel. The JREF is playing the part of the challenger - the one slapping with the gauntlet - and the applicant is the one whose face has been slapped by the gauntlet. The trick is that it's a "class-action duel", if you will, with one entity (Randi) challenging an entire class of people (those who believe in the paranormal). When one person in that class steps forward and says "I accept", it's not really obvious who is slapping whom. I know that the JREF considers itself the challenger - it's called the Million Dollar Challenge, after all - and so I am abiding by their perception of their role. That's why they got morphed into the "plaintiff" role in the trial analogy.

Sorry, this makes no sense to me at all. A challenger invites someone to do something. Then that person has got to do it. They have the burden of proof. The challenger just sits back and sees if they can do it. That, in every jurisdiction I am aware of (and I've practiced in several and have had a fair bit to do with many more) makes the challenger the plaintiff.

Originally posted by Gr8wight
I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV.

I think Beleth's use of the courtroom metaphor was simply in an attempt to explain where the burden of proof lies, and why. Your points are excellent.

And that is why it is upside down because what the analogy explains (if one accepts it) is that the challenger doesn't have to prove their position, and the JREF does.

Per the FAQ
Remember, you're in the role of defendant, and the defendant does not get to choose the rules under which they are judged.

And neither does a plaintiff, so this is not apt.

Overall, the point is that a defendant can win by doing nothing. A plaintiff must prove what they say in their claim to win.

This analogy is not merely inappropriate it is dangerously wrong.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by KRAMER
http://www.randi.org/research/faq.html (http://)

It's up. There's the link.

Looks good. MIght I suggest some author attribution for Beleth? It's a very nice piece of work she did, and putting in a line like

Original version written by Beleth

is about the least she is owed

[Beady]

Originally posted by princhester
This analogy is not merely inappropriate it is dangerously wrong.

You're a lawyer, I have some experience writing legal opinions(see my last post), and we have both voiced similar misgivings. I suppose it's inevitable that no one will listen.

It's interesting, however, that even professed skeptics will stubbornly and willingly persist in misinterpretation and misperception.

[Beleth]

Originally posted by princhester
Let me start by saying that I think the FAQ is very interesting, a great resource, kudos overall to Beleth.Thank you!

Having said that...

Can I say that I am a lawyer,Uh oh...

Sorry, this makes no sense to me at all. A challenger invites someone to do something. Then that person has got to do it. They have the burden of proof. The challenger just sits back and sees if they can do it. That, in every jurisdiction I am aware of (and I've practiced in several and have had a fair bit to do with many more) makes the challenger the plaintiff.Exactly. The challenger (Randi) is the plaintiff. Which makes the applicant the defendant.

It's easy to take this analogy too far and add the usual American-law assumption of innocence into the equation. There is no assumption of innocence, or rather, "innocence" is an inappropriate assumption to make. Instead, the assumption is of normality. The applicant is assumed normal until proven paranormal (5.4), and since the applicant is the one claiming paranormality, the burden of proof lies on the applicant to prove his claim.

[webfusion]

As someone who has watched an inordinate amount of TV courtroom programs (Judge Judy, Texas Justice, People's Court, Judge Joe Brown, etc) the very first words out of a judge's mouth to the plaintiff is
"Prove Your Case"

There can be no doubt here that the analogy is backwards and JREF is the Defendant. The Applicant/Claimant is the Plaintiff. To even reach the stage of getting into court, the Plaintiff must have something to base his Claim on, and JREF provides for the preliminary testing stage to get past this hurdle. It's kinda like me going to small claims court, I have to fill out an application and provide some sort of rudimentary evidentiary basis for my lawsuit or the action is frivolous and groundless from the outset (a promissory note (http://www.expertlaw.com/library/business/promissory_note_form.html) is a good start).

JREF has to prove nothing. JREF can simply sit there and offer not one word. If the Plaintiff fails in the opening argument and cannot present solid evidence, all that remains for the defendant is to ask the court for summary dismissal (summary judgement in his favor). Again, this is the procedure as I understand it from watching TV, not from any formal legal training.

=================================
N.B. -- the link offered in this thread fails to open the FAQ document in question.
=================================

I would like to know, from Kramer, as a follow-up, has the volume of letters to you increased with the publication of this FAQ? We would be curious to know if this offers you less work from here on out, or more?

[Beleth]

Originally posted by webfusion
There can be no doubt here that the analogy is backwards and JREF is the Defendant. The Applicant/Claimant is the Plaintiff. To even reach the stage of getting into court, the Plaintiff must have something to base his Claim on, and JREF provides for the preliminary testing stage to get past this hurdle.This is the same argument, with the same faulty assumption, that princhester made and which I addressed in my post two above this.

But you know what? It's out of my hands. The FAQ is a Web page now. If you have an issue with the FAQ as it stands, you are going to have to bring it up with someone besides me.

I would like to know, from Kramer, as a follow-up, has the volume of letters to you increased with the publication of this FAQ? We would be curious to know if this offers you less work from here on out, or more? What say we let a quarter or two go by before we ask this? We'll get better data that way.

[princhester]

Aaagh. Sorry, a typo by me has added to the confusion. What I should have said was:

A challenger invites someone to do something. Then that person has got to do it. They the applicants have the burden of proof. The challenger just sits back and sees if they can do it. That, in every jurisdiction I am aware of (and I've practiced in several and have had a fair bit to do with many more) makes the applicant the plaintiff.

Originally posted by Beleth
The applicant is assumed normal until proven paranormal (5.4), and since the applicant is the one claiming paranormality, the burden of proof lies on the applicant to prove his claim.

Which is why the applicant is the plaintiff, because in every Western courtroom, the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff.

You've got this very very wrong, but I'm sorry that due to a typo I've confused matters.

[Beleth]

Yep... I knew I should have gone with the "duel" analogy.


But, like I said, it's out of my hands now.

[jmercer]

Well, I've been reading the quibb... er... nitpi... ah... detailed commentary about Beleth's excellent FAQ for a while now, and I thought I'd simply say this:

Anyone who claims they don't understand this incredibly clear FAQ is either lying, or is too stupid to bother with. What else do we need from it? :)

[Metullus]

Beleth,

Very nice! All the picked nits not withstanding its a great effort.

Do you think you can translate it into Wooish? I'm not sure that KRAMER would be so inclined...

[Metullus]

Originally posted by jmercer
Anyone who claims they don't understand this incredibly clear FAQ is either lying, or is too stupid to bother with.

Yup. You wanna start a list?

Paul Carey
Jambo
???

[jmercer]

Hm...

White Lion
turtle
OneInchRist
???

[Beady]

Originally posted by jmercer
Anyone who claims they don't understand this incredibly clear FAQ is either lying, or is too stupid to bother with.

Then I guess I'm either a liar or stupid. But I'm not as much of one as the people who insist on trying to rewrite the dictionary and the rules of evidence.

This FAQ, now that it has obtained official status, can cause problems unless it is corrected. It states, quite plainly, that JREF is the plaintiff and the applicant is the defendent. That means it is JREF who has to prove something, which in turn means it is JREF who has to present evidence. And that, in turn, means that anyone can claim to have a paranormal power and legitimately claim the Prize unless JREF can prove they don't have that power.

Yes, the official rules say something different, but the official FAQ is in conflict with the rules. With $1 million at stake, is it inconceivable that someone won't risk a couple thousand $ in a *real* court? These are people who claim they can talk to the dead, for crying out loud, or "see" what's on Jupiter! What the hell makes you think one of them won't think it reasonable to make a stab at the Prize in court? Which would be easier, proving to JREF that they can talk to the dead, or convincing a jury that JREF has made a $1 million semantic mistake? In a legal system that awards millions to people who spill hot coffee in their own laps, are you absolutely certain a legal challenge like I describe is out of the question, or that JREF would easily win?

And here's something else to consider. Randi has enemies in the paranormal and pseudoscientific world. Even if they don't win, and have no intention of winning, wouldn't this be a great avenue for a nuisance lawsuit by either themselves or a sock puppet, to embarrass JREF and Randi, to take them down a peg? These are people who can afford such a venture, and who have large followings, fame, and are already media darlings. In the court of public opinion, who would come off looking more foolish?

I'm perfectly aware that these scenarios are unlikely to occur. My point is that this is a completely unnecessary chink in JREF's armor, easily repaired if anyone cares to take the trouble. And, unlikely as my scenarios may be, they are not impossible. To sum up, we're talking about people who, collectively, believe they can do virtually anything, and we're talking about other people who would just love to give Randi a poke in the eye; we're also talking about a legal system that gives both of these groups a measurable chance of winning. To say that my scenarios are impossible would be an argument from faith, which seems a hell of a position for a skeptic to take.

[jmercer]

Originally posted by Beady
Then I guess I'm either a liar or stupid. But I'm not as much of one as the people who insist on trying to rewrite the dictionary and the rules of evidence.

I don't think you're either stupid or a liar unless you're seriously saying that you don't understand the point the FAQ is trying to make by it's analogy. And I doubt that. :)

I could quibble about plaintiff and defendent simply by saying "J' acuse!" and pointing you to French law where the burden of proof is on the defendent and not the accuser. But I won't, if for no other reason than I'm taking your concern seriously.

Aside from the fact that the application and not the FAQ is the legal instrument - and the only one that has any power of enforcement for either party - you stated that the official FAQ is in conflict with the rules. That's serious, if you're correct - so please identify via quotes the parts of the FAQ and Official Rules that are in conflict. Then we can have a real discussion on it.

[Beady]

Originally posted by jmercer
I could quibble about plaintiff and defendent simply by saying "J' acuse!" and pointing you to French law where the burden of proof is on the defendent and not the accuser. But I won't, if for no other reason than I'm taking your concern seriously.

Your argument would be irrelevant, anyway, since JREF is an American organization on American soil under American jurisdiction, and both legal and customary usage place the burden of proof on the accuser. If JREF is ever involved in a case within French jurisdiction, then we can discuss the Code Napoleon.

...you stated that the official FAQ is in conflict with the rules. That's serious, if you're correct - so please identify via quotes the parts of the FAQ and Official Rules that are in conflict.

The whole tone of the Rules places the burden of proof upon the claimant. Even so, it's hard to find this explicitly stated, but this is down at the bottom: "Only claims that can be verified by evidence under proper observing conditions will be accepted. " In other words, it is the claimant who must present evidence. In fact, defendants are under no obligation to present evidence.

But, in the FAQ: " If this were a court of law, the JREF would be in the role of plaintiff and the person who applies for the Challenge is in the role of defendant." And, "Remember that your position in the Challenge is that of defendant. " Now, suddenly, defendants are required to produce evidence.

So, does the claimant have to provide evidence, or doesn't he? If he is in the role of defendant, then he does not, under any applicable legal system. If you're going to insist on legal terminology and analogy, and since someone has to provide evidence, the only other party is JREF. In sum, if you're going to insist that a legal terminology is appropriate, and if you're going to insist that the claimant is the defendant, then it is encumbent upon JREF to prove that the claimant is not what he says he is. That's according to the FAQ, which is in direct conflict with the Challenge Rules, which demand that it is the claimant who must present evidence via demonstration.

Both documents are now "official." Which would win in a real court (one that isn't in France)? At the very least, a claimant could argue that it was the FAQ that drew him to accept the Challenge, and he was justified in believing it was up to JREF to prove he was wrong. And, as I noted above, since the Rules are not that explicit about the burden of proof, it's quite possible that a judge and/or jury who just finished awarding someone a settlement for spilling hot coffee in their own laps, could be persuaded to award the Prize to the claimant because JREF couldn't reconcile its Rules with its FAQ. Matter of fact, it would be a matter of public record, following this thread that, despite warnings, JREF refused to recognize that the two needed to be reconciled.

[princhester]

Originally posted by jmercer
[B]I don't think you're either stupid or a liar unless you're seriously saying that you don't understand the point the FAQ is trying to make by it's analogy. And I doubt that. :)

Doubt no more. I am a lawyer and I have no idea what point the analogy is attempting to make. In fact, I have contemplated asking Beleth to explain, because I just don't get it. At all.

I could quibble about plaintiff and defendent simply by saying "J' acuse!" and pointing you to French law where the burden of proof is on the defendent and not the accuser. But I won't, if for no other reason than I'm taking your concern seriously.

Except that would be silly because the words plaintiff and defendant are apt only to civil proceedings, and in French civil proceedings the onus is on the plaintiff.

Right back at you.

[jmercer]

Originally posted by Beady
Your argument would be irrelevant, anyway, since JREF is an American organization on American soil under American jurisdiction, and both legal and customary usage place the burden of proof on the accuser. If JREF is ever involved in a case within French jurisdiction, then we can discuss the Code Napoleon.



The whole tone of the Rules places the burden of proof upon the claimant. Even so, it's hard to find this explicitly stated, but this is down at the bottom: "Only claims that can be verified by evidence under proper observing conditions will be accepted. " In other words, it is the claimant who must present evidence. In fact, defendants are under no obligation to present evidence.

But, in the FAQ: " If this were a court of law, the JREF would be in the role of plaintiff and the person who applies for the Challenge is in the role of defendant." And, "Remember that your position in the Challenge is that of defendant. " Now, suddenly, defendants are required to produce evidence.

So, does the claimant have to provide evidence, or doesn't he? If he is in the role of defendant, then he does not, under any applicable legal system. If you're going to insist on legal terminology and analogy, and since [b]someone has to provide evidence, the only other party is JREF. In sum, if you're going to insist that a legal terminology is appropriate, and if you're going to insist that the claimant is the defendant, then it is encumbent upon JREF to prove that the claimant is not what he says he is. That's according to the FAQ, which is in direct conflict with the Challenge Rules, which demand that it is the claimant who must present evidence via demonstration.

Both documents are now "official." Which would win in a real court (one that isn't in France)? At the very least, a claimant could argue that it was the FAQ that drew him to accept the Challenge, and he was justified in believing it was up to JREF to prove he was wrong. And, as I noted above, since the Rules are not that explicit about the burden of proof, it's quite possible that a judge and/or jury who just finished awarding someone a settlement for spilling hot coffee in their own laps, could be persuaded to award the Prize to the claimant because JREF couldn't reconcile its Rules with its FAQ. Matter of fact, it would be a matter of public record, following this thread that, despite warnings, JREF refused to recognize that the two needed to be reconciled.

French, American - it really doesn't matter, because the reference is an analogy created to make a point.

And if you feel as legal counsel that the FAQ needs to be reconciled - a point I'm not qualified to argue, since I'm not a lawyer - then can you suggest altenative wording to make the same point?

That can then be forwarded to Kramer and Randi with a suggestion that the modification to the FAQ be made, and why.

[jmercer]

Originally posted by princhester
Doubt no more. I am a lawyer and I have no idea what point the analogy is attempting to make. In fact, I have contemplated asking Beleth to explain, because I just don't get it. At all.



Except that would be silly because the words plaintiff and defendant are apt only to civil proceedings, and in French civil proceedings the onus is on the plaintiff.

Right back at you.

Good grief. The analogy is designed to point out that the relationship between JREF and the applicant is adversarial in nature. Secondarily, it's to point out that the applicant must produce evidence of his/her claims, as if they were in court disputing something with JREF.

So if it bugs you guys so much, switch defendant and plaintiff!

[princhester]

Originally posted by jmercer
Good grief. The analogy is designed to point out that the relationship between JREF and the applicant is adversarial in nature. Secondarily, it's to point out that the applicant must produce evidence of his/her claims, as if they were in court disputing something with JREF.

The topic under discussion is that the plaintiff and defendant are the wrong way round. I don't get why Beleth thinks that putting plaintiff and defendant the way round s/he has them illustrates anything (or anything that isn't ass backwards, more to the point).

So if it bugs you guys so much, switch defendant and plaintiff! [/B]

Good grief, jmercer, that's what we've been saying for two pages now.

I must say the impression I am forming of you from this and the last debate we had is that you are someone that will go on finding something to argue about long after you've conceded the point.

[Questioninggeller]

The words defendant and plantiff should really be taken out. Keep in my mind that the people who usually apply to the challenge don't have college degrees and aren't usually the most critical thinkers.

The whole "defendant" analogy would scare some of them off, which would not benefit anyone, but those who perpuate nonsense. It's a loaded word, that while correct in the court sense and even in the analogy, is going to be perceived negatively by someone less educated. Such words like agent, partaker, or participant with burdern of proof might work better.

These people don't want to "defend their claims," but prove it. They might use that as yet another excuse.

[webfusion]

Beady has it 100% right!!! "Yes, the official rules say something different, but the official FAQ is in conflict with the rules."

Going back to the original remark made by James Randi (as mentioned by KRAMER in his post), when Beleth first proposed writing the FAQ ----
"Randi doesn't want potential applicants spoonfed. I agree with him. Every possible question is answered in the Challenge rules, if one is capable of - or willing to - understand them. Hence, the proposed FAQ has been deemed unnecessary, as it merely re-words answers to questions that need not be asked, IF one has carefully read the Challenge rules. Perhaps those unable to understand the rules, as concise as they are, should not apply.

This was what specifically prompted Beleth to abandon her writing, and call the project "dead" (in her FAQ FAQ edited OP). This is a matter of record.

Now, here we are, two weeks later and I am really getting frustrated, for a number of reasons:

1. In the original $$$$$$$$$$ thread discussing the propriety of putting up a FAQ, my expressed opinion was that a posting by Devil's Advocate was quite appropriate:

Devils Advocate neatly summed up (on Feb 8th) the downside for a set of extra questions and answers, both from a legal standpoint and from a linguistic standpoint as well:
"...My guess for a backfire is based on the concept that the FAQ may open possible contradictions or questions of the rules. This is what happened in this case: a summary or description of the Challenge rules led Sean to raise serious questions about the Challenge rules themselves..."


2. Now, it might be worthwhile for us to go over to that thread and read the last posting offered today, by Shera, who has been following this closely, as a registered member of Sean Connelly's website. She reveals something absolutely stunning about the FAQ as it appears in the final official version.

What prompted this discussion originally about a FAQ with more clarifications being needed at all? It was Sean Connelly (peebrain) asking if the prize was going to be in bonds.

He was totally Vilified. Skewered. Shish-Kebab. Roasted.

All along the way, everyone (including me) has been saying "NO!!!!" and all along the way (especially in the FAQ as written by Beleth) we have all been going along with the assumption that the prize would not be bonds, but a million dollars of money.

Wrong.

http://www.randi.org/research/faq.html#3.3

Fascinating. Absolutely fascinating.

[Darat]

At the beginning when this idea was floated the JREF had said it didn’t want an FAQ. However Beleth, by actually doing the bulk of the work, produced something that made the JREF change its mind. So much so that they adopted it as the base of an official FAQ that they had edited, added to and placed it on the website just a few days after Beleth posted the draft FAQ available.

I would suggest if anyone has any complaints or ideas of how it should be improved they draft something and send it to KRAMER. That approach has been proven to get their attention and even to get them to change their minds. Constructive criticism is fine but doing something positive is even better.

[Beady]

Originally posted by jmercer
French, American - it really doesn't matter...

I'll bet it would have if I'd conceded the point. :D

... because the reference is an analogy created to make a point.

As should be obvious by now, the people in this thread who are apparently most familiar with the terms being used are united in their opinion that the analogy is completely wrong and inappropriate. It therefore cannot make the intended point

And if you feel as legal counsel that the FAQ needs to be reconciled - a point I'm not qualified to argue, since I'm not a lawyer - then can you suggest altenative wording to make the same point?

First, let me reiterate that I am not a lawyer. As I explained earlier in the thread, I am a Federal employee who works with the law, and my job is somewhat analogous to Kramer's. I decide whether to approve or deny applications made to the government, and my decisions are made according to Federal law. Whether I approve or deny, I must be able to justify my decision by pointing to a provision of law and saying "That's why." My denials must be in writing and must be able to stand up in court before a judge, should the applicant appeal my decision.

Second, the entire analogy should be thrown out. It seems to me the rest of the FAQ makes the point quite well without it, and its presence is not only unnecessary, it causes confusion. As I've described, there's also an outside chance this confusion could be detrimental to the Challenge, and to JREF as a whole.

[jmercer]

Originally posted by Beady
I'll bet it would have if I'd conceded the point. :D
[/B]

Nah. I probably would have just dropped it as tangential to the discussion. I mostly wrote it because I thought it made a clever point, sort of to point out that the entire discussion is about an abstract that could be viewed from different perspectives. That's why I said I wouldn't quibble over the point.

Afterwards I realized that it was really a flawed point from the start.

Originally posted by Beady

As should be obvious by now, the people in this thread who are apparently most familiar with the terms being used are united in their opinion that the analogy is completely wrong and inappropriate. It therefore cannot make the intended point


Hence my request for suggestions on corrective language to be sent to Kramer/Randi. I realized that the plaintiff/defense role was reversed in a way.

In fact, so many people were saying it was wrong that I really took the time to examine the idea. I came to the conclusion that the whole analogy is flawed no matter what role you cast JREF in, if for no other reason than JREF would also be playing the role of judge and jury as well.

So I ultimately gave up my position because I realized (based on the arguments made) that the other people in the thread were right.

Originally posted by Beady
First, let me reiterate that I am not a lawyer. As I explained earlier in the thread, I am a Federal employee who works with the law, and my job is somewhat analogous to Kramer's. I decide whether to approve or deny applications made to the government, and my decisions are made according to Federal law. Whether I approve or deny, I must be able to justify my decision by pointing to a provision of law and saying "That's why." My denials must be in writing and must be able to stand up in court before a judge, should the applicant appeal my decision.


My apologies - I had you confused with someone else. Sometimes it's hard to keep track, there are so many people in so many different threads. Sorry about that.

Originally posted by Beady
Second, the entire analogy should be thrown out. It seems to me the rest of the FAQ makes the point quite well without it, and its presence is not only unnecessary, it causes confusion. As I've described, there's also an outside chance this confusion could be detrimental to the Challenge, and to JREF as a whole.

Which you (and others) convinced me of... and as noted, that's why I asked people to provide an alternative that gets the point across.

Personally, I can't think of an analogy close enough to the JREF Challenge that will do that. I'm hoping someone else can.

[jmercer]

Originally posted by princhester


Good grief, jmercer, that's what we've been saying for two pages now.

I must say the impression I am forming of you from this and the last debate we had is that you are someone that will go on finding something to argue about long after you've conceded the point. [/B]

You have a strange way of looking at things if you believe that someone's going to instantly give up their point of view just because you say it's wrong - most people need to have a debate to be convinced.

Although, in fact, I and others may have been arguing at cross-purposes. My point was about the intent of the analogy and whether or not it was successful in getting it's point across. I didn't have the slightest problem understanding the message intended and got it instantly after reading it. This made it very difficult for me to accept that others wouldn't also have the same experience. (Hence my "stupid or liar" remark, which was perhaps a knee-jerk reaction on my part - and probably emotionally loaded the discussion unintentionally.)

So - believing that if I could "get it", anyone could, I felt that the critics were being nit-picky over the flaws in the analogy - very, very few analogies are perfect, after all. It's pretty clear to me now that there was more to the issue than I originally perceived, hence I've changed my viewpoint on it.

I believe that's called "being open-minded".

[Paul2]

Originally posted by Beleth
Of all the scenarios I envisioned happening as I was writing the FAQ, this was the one I saw as the Best Possible Outcome.

Thank you, Kramer, and thank you, Mr Randi.
You have made me euphoric.
:biggrin:

Beleth: you and I tangled several months ago, and your logic infuriated me, but I can well imagine how euphoric you are, and I congratulate you. Well done! Your FAQ is one small example of making a small but brilliant contribution when intent and purpose is clear and strong.
:) :D :p

[princhester]

Originally posted by jmercer
[B]You have a strange way of looking at things if you believe that someone's going to instantly give up their point of view just because you say it's wrong - most people need to have a debate to be convinced.

I've just been over all my posts in this thread and I cannot see one in which I have simply said something was wrong: I have explained (or endorsed the comments of others who have explained) precisely why it is that plaintiff and defendant are the wrong way round ie because of onus of proof. Nobody has doubted that proposition, except for you in relation to the French system, and I subsequently explained why you were wrong about that, I didn't merely assert.

[athon]

Huzzah Beleth!

You've seen something that can be made better about the JREF, saw an opportunity to do something about it (and not whinge) and have IMHO improved things. More so, instead of saying 'we should do this'...hell, you just went an did it.

You should be damn proud. I know we all are.

Athon

[Beleth]

First off, another big round of "thank you"s to everyone who has expressed their appreciation of the FAQ!

I've been on vacation (still am, and will be until the 28th), and KRAMER has been (justifiably) absent since the 17th, so I haven't had a chance to let you all know what's been going on.

I PMed a list of about half a dozen errata to KRAMER. About half the points in the errata involved turning the "trial" analogy into a "duel" analogy. The point of the analogy was to make things clearer. It was obviously not fulfilling that purpose.

There are two aspects of the Challenge which are true regardless of the opinions of any applicant or anyone not part of the JREF:
1) Randi is taking the role of aggressor. It's not the applicant's "I can do this; give me your money" statement which is the "first shot", if you will, in this exchange. It is Randi's "you can't really do what you say you can do, and I'm so sure of that that I'll give you money if you show that you can" statement. As such, it's Randi who gets to set the rules of the engagement.

2) The burden of proof is on the applicant. This is self-evident.

Since more people are familiar with the rules of a trial than with the rules of a duel these days (thank goodness), I made the analogy a trial-with-a-difference one instead of a duel one. I really was trying to make things clearer, but since it's not working as intended, it needs to be changed.

But like I said in a previous post, I can't change it now that it's a Web page. I can suggest changes, but I can't edit the page myself. I just hope that the events that draw KRAMER away from his job resolve themselves happily and quickly, and that he takes my suggestions to heart.

I'd also ask that you don't pester him about any of this. Pester me instead; it's my own darn fault that this FAQ exists anyway.

[Placebo]

Well done Beleth - good job ;)

I'd also just like to reiterate the bonds/cash problem again, as it seems to have been ignored.
Shera posted this in the $$$$ thread:

Per the official FAQ, the prize is mostly BONDS not cash.
[...]
Compare that to the draft version of the FAQ in the thread The JREF Million Dollar Challenge Unofficial
I agree with her that should this *not* be corrected, we will have yet another rerun of confusion regarding the bonds/cash issue.

Beleth, I understand that you don't have direct access to the FAQ anymore. However I feel this is something worth mentioning to the powers that be :)

[Placebo]

(Of course, this is simply my opinion :))

[webfusion]

Placebo, if you scroll up a bit, and view my previous posting, where I indicated the FAQ as finalized and posted tells everyone that Sean always was right all along, and we spent our energies on the $$$$$$$$ forum arguing using the wrong underlying assumption. That last posting of mine was ignored in this thread, because apparently nobody wants to re-engage that aspect of the discussion now.

However, there is no more confusion. The prize is to be awarded in the form of bonds. Not cash.

http://www.randi.org/research/faq.html#3.3

Now, what exactly is it that you wish to write to "the powers that be" ?

[Beleth]

When an Official version of something conflicts with an Unofficial version of the same thing, the Official version wins. This is true of pretty much everything, including the FAQ.

I can't change the Unofficial FAQ because one only has two hours to edit a post one makes here before it becomes "set in stone" and uneditable.

[Placebo]

I apologise, I felt there was still a misunderstanding. It seems it was all mine ;)
I had assumed that the entire thread of $$$$ seemed unlikely to have been in error, and misread the recent posts :p

As the official versions are indeed accurate, I have no further comment

[webfusion]

placebo says:
"I had assumed that the entire thread of $$$$ seemed unlikely to have been in error "

Yeah, well, there are quite a few skeppers who have red faces after that debacle. No wonder nobody wants to get back and rehash the whole thing from this newly-revealed perspective!

One final comment however --- Where is the application of Sean Connelly? We're still waiting to see one! Apply, dude!

[jmercer]

Yeah, it was a pretty interesting conclusion. My position was "Who cares, as long as it's negotiable and worth a million bucks?" I will admit that I was surprised that they'll deliver it in negotiable instruments instead of cash... so while I wasn't red-faced with embarassment, I certainly raised my eyebrows and went "What the heck??"

:)

[Placebo]

Where is the application of Sean Connelly? We're still waiting to see one! Apply, dude!
I know Sean a little, and it would be great to see him apply.
I could only guess as to why we don't see an application, or the exact nature of the claim should he do so.

This confusion does make Sean's question far more reasonable however. Nevertheless, as was mentioned previously, he received the information from Goldman & Sacks. If he questions it further, it is a query that should be directed to them, not the JREF.

Anyway, I agree it might be prudent to just drop the subject before the more red-faced skeps get irritable :D

[KRAMER]

The entire defendent/court analogy is being removed.

Also, a couple of typos have been corrected, and one or two more tiny adjustments. Look for the changes within a day or so.

[Darat]

Originally posted by KRAMER
The entire defendent/court analogy is being removed.

Also, a couple of typos have been corrected, and one or two more tiny adjustments. Look for the changes within a day or so.

KRAMER I do wish that you and the JREF would stop being so reasonable about this issue.

First you listen to the arguments and change your mind, then you listen to constructive criticism and suggestions and actually take them on board!

Don’t you understand you are meant to be totally closed minded?!

;)

[Vikram]

Beleth,

Congratulations on having constructed such an exhaustive and excellent FAQ. Kudos to you!!! (I personally thought the 'monkeys flying out of butt' example was very entertaining.)

Originally posted by KRAMER
The entire defendent/court analogy is being removed.

Good choice. Perhaps the reason why the removal of this analogy is best is because it doesn't really add anything much to the understanding of the challenge (the FAQ can do without it) and might confuse international applicants - it would require them to have some understanding of the American legal system.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by KRAMER
The entire defendent/court analogy is being removed.

Also, a couple of typos have been corrected, and one or two more tiny adjustments. Look for the changes within a day or so.

Welcome back.

[Beleth]

So KRAMER -

It's been almost seven months now since I wrote the groundwork for the FAQ and it got turned into a Web page.

Would you say that it has made your life easier, or harder?



I ask because it has a big bearing on whether I attend TAM4 or not!

[Darat]

Originally posted by Beleth
So KRAMER -

It's been almost seven months now since I wrote the groundwork for the FAQ and it got turned into a Web page.

Would you say that it has made your life easier, or harder?



I ask because it has a big bearing on whether I attend TAM4 or not!


I suggest you send Kramer an email or a PM - he isn't posting to the forum any longer.

[teck49]

What about Sea Monkeys? Do they count? :D