Courage or Insanity? Taking tasking from the public


Staff member
As Eva pointed out on another thread, viewers are in an unusually vulnerable position compared to people doing almost anything else (except perhaps the oldest profession
). The doubleblind forces ignorance on them, being tasked by someone else forces a subsidiary position.

As we all know, doing doubleblind work and publishing it on the internet so anyone can see, and then waiting for feedback--and hoping this is one of the good ones or at least a decent one, rather than one of those "has not a thing to do with the target but gosh it was fun" ones--is a courageous thing.

Now and then we've had people we don't-know-from-Adam come onto the forum saying "RV This!" The only viewer I've seen take those on more than once and even post the session publicly is Marv Darley. Ooh

Courage or insanity? And is it contagious??

And what if some viewers just openly took tasks from the public, and posted doubleblind sessions online?

What if they target you on Lucifer, your death, your worst experience, etc.? Should there be 'guidelines'?

What should those guidelines be, if so?

What if they target you on their boss or ex-wife? Are your ethics responsible because theirs are lacking?

But if so, so what does that mean, that the public has nowhere to go, ever, to actually see what RV can do for them personally, without forking over money even though they have no real way of evaluating whether it's worth it? (And some people just don't have it?)

Would a 'layer' of people like 'screeners' in between the public tasking and the viewers viewing be sufficient to weed out the worst of the scoffer-trolls, insane-trolls, etc.?

Would it not really be "open to public" unless they had no -- or custom per viewer -- or very few -- restrictions on 'content', being there only for verification and ending up with a single tasking?

Is it just crazy for a viewer to take tasking from the public at large? What do you think?



Euphoria = Hitting the Target !! : )

Analogy = This would be akin to ask a blind man 8) and his dog to walk through
a mindfield ! In order to get to the other side safely... tap...tap.... Boom !

I have have had the experience a few years back of being tasked by a person who was supposed to have "knowledge" of the "how to task", but was sadly let down when it came time for that person to show the cue, what a mess.

I prefer to be tasked by someone who knows how to go about the process.

I would agree there should be some guidelines in this regard, if Adam were to
put a task up ( probably would want to find Eve ! or what her biggest secret was ) or similar.

But then if we close down the "opening" we will tend to tagged elitist and scorned. Hats off to the likes of Marv who has taken on "the unknown". perhaps
If Joe/Jane Doe were to come her and explore, maybe there should be a ....
"Please Explain" section whereby the ethics side could be imparted to them, thus giving an idea of the areas the are persmissable, and those that are not.

Information these days is a powerful tool, which can be used for a multitude of reasons....
Do we sit back and stay under our protective "rocks", hidden from those that
might use us and the information we may be able to provide with this skill for things other than a positive ? No I say let us get the word out there, let there be more people who know about Rv and the mechanics, after all the wider we cast the net the more it will be accepted, well IMHO :)

Guidelines....hmmm well there is another can o' worms to open.

Let us hear what the throng has to say...!




Call it practical magic!
Mindfield or MINEFIELD? ;D

To avoid misuse and establish propper tasking you need a relay or filter between the general public and the RV-er. I am now assuming that the Remote Viewer will not be frontloaded in any way.

Working in teams or pairs that maintain the same standards would be ideal. The partner or team can filter the 'unwanted / unethical /indecent' tasks the public may ask of you as a viewer. The partner or team can also advice the public on what....according to the type of Remote a correct way of tasking or setting up a cue.

I know and trust that my partner would never serve me a double blind concerning my own death. And I would never ask of my partner to view things that are not ethical or politically correct.

Personally I can work blind and frontloaded. Which gives me the oportunity to communicate with the client and doing a session for them. But even that is no guarantee, since the client/tasker could be tricking you...That only happened to me twice and I told the client/tasker in no uncertain terms that the task was not as expected or agreed. They confessed that it was in order to test my ability to see through the trick. Ha-funny-ha :mad:

Best advice I think is to let someone you can trust with ethical standards you both agree on, filter your tasks and check your cues.

It prevents a lot of trouble, frustration and disappointments. 8)

Simple and efficient! ;)


New Member
Staff member
Hehe interesting question. Of the truly blind tasks that I have viewed here from random punters the targets (that I can recall) have turned out to be as follows:

Location of a missing dog (for a family)
Location of a US fugitive (for a Private Detective)
Location of a lost video game
The identity of someone spreading malicious rumours in someone's home street

All of these were cued properly after a little bit of steering from myself. The only time I have ever actively refused to view a target for someone asking here was for Alucard who was clearly bonkers from the offset. ;)

On the flip side, I have done many sessions over the years tasked by actual trusted viewers where the tasking has been so shoddy as to negate a decent session. It happens...I have been guilty of dodgy taskings in the past; we all have.

Don't know about you guys but I can often 'spot' a dodgy tasking mid-session. Something about it just doesn't feel right...kind of like a psychic indigestion of sorts. I've often caved sessions in early on this impulse. I wonder if a similar thing might happen should someone task you with something truly nasty.

Either way I believe that the chance of being affected by a vicious tasking depends pretty much on your self-belief system; if you believe yourself to be vulnerable in this regard, you probably are. If you trust in your on internal instinctive self-defence systems then you will probably be alright. 8)

I have always found taking taskings for random punters to be one of the most enjoyable aspects of Remote Viewing and intend to be doing it wholesale in the very near future. Sure a filter may well be advisable although as I've stated above, an element of caution, a good pre-tasking briefing and a sturdy outlook will serve you just as well.

Marv :)


where are you from (the keep) "I am from you"
Bring it on..

I aint afraid of any of it...

But I think I am insane .... mabe.?.I ll have to ask the other voices.. later...


Remote viewer, author, artist and photographer.
Staff member
Neither... its dangerous and funny.

Because I have a number of rv blogs and websites I get enquires every week, the top 5 are;

1. Can you find my cat? (at least twice a month)
2. Can you tell me if my boss/partner is holing me back?
3. Can you find? (insert small object; keys, purse,
4. Is my partner/wife/husband having an affair?
5. Can you help me win the lottery or supply the lottery numbers?

I'm not afraid of any targets as they CANT directly affect me - as a viewer I am removed from the target and when i write 'END' it is the end of the session and nothing lingers. And I write this from a background in classical PSI involving exorcisms, spirit/ghost clearances, channelling and so on. But its like voodoo - if you believe it can kill you - it CAN kill you.

I've recently done over 40 misisng persons targets ad some of these brutal murders like you wouldn't believe - but I cna honestly say it doesnt affect me - now if you have a character or belief system that feels empathy or that it can affect you - it would be silly and dangerous to do anything along these lines.

OK the dangerous.
A public person if unchecked could get you to view something like:

1. a competitors ideas/product - which is industrial espionage in some countries and highly illegal.
2. A person (friend, work colleague, partner) - which I feel if the person found out could be an infringement on their civil and human rights and you could be prosecuted.
3. A terror or other violence related target - after all if the info can be gathered for free - all it might need is a fake identity or pseudonym to discuss things with you.

For example in the UK there was a revision to the Fraudulent Mediums act in April 2008 - this affects ALL clairvoyants and Psychics, healers, seers and yes remote viewers come under this :)

As soon as money or gifts change hands it becomes a contract between you and the person who has paid the money or goods. You then come under the new Consumer Protection Regulations. This means that you have to deliver exactly what you say. Individual Trading Standards Offices will also be able to interptret the guidance how they see fit. This means, in the event of a complaint, that the outcome may well depend on the views of the person investigating the complaint.

These include, but are not limited to, psychic Suppers, clairvoyant evenings, workshops or development groups and Mind Body and Spirit Fairs where private readings are offered, even if it is for charity. If free healing is offered as part of the the price of entrance then that too may cause problems. The following is an extract from one Trading Standards Office's interpretation of the new legislation:

By using the words heal or healer you are suggesting that you can cure, this is not an acceptable term within the new legislation unless you can give proof of such claims. Anecdotal evidence on your abilities is now not enough, you will need to be able to justify any claim you are making.

Disclaimers could protect you in the event of legal action being taken against you. However, the use of disclaimers has not yet been proven to be a legally effective defence.

Essentially if you claim to be able to remote view or clairvoyantly speak/contact do something for a service - if the client feels you have not done this they can sue you for fraudulent practices and services. YOU have to be able to prove you can do the things you offer as a service - which leaves it on very tricky ground.

So be careful.



do you ever dream you're someone else?
I actually was not involving "money" in that question. That creates a whole universe of other considerations, as Daz points out. I consider that a different topic entirely as a result.

I tend to think that when it comes to sessions, you can perceive any given thing in any given way. You could get it far less directly, you could 'objectify' it, symbolize it, etc. I've had trauma targets (massacres) that had literally zero effect on me. I've had other seemingly innocuous targets (the Exxon Valdez spill) that made my heart feel dark and grieving for days. I've seen people get targets of atomic bombs or someone getting killed and describe them fine and barely blink; yet then they get a target of something really minor comparatively and totally over-empathize.

I do think some of that is internally generated in terms of focus. In other words, much like displacement or TO or other issues that do not have to be issues and that a viewer with a strong sense of independence can remove from being any issue, but those focusing on it can make their primary issue, "you get what you concentrate upon". I think the RV Drama Queens sometimes get troubling experiential stuff because they are drama queens in ordinary life too. This must apply to me too, though, since I sometimes get far more 'sense of kinesthetics and rapport' than I could shake off nonchalantly.

On the other hand -- to argue with myself here! -- there's a part of me that also feels that what you get in RV really is pretty unpredictable and that the viewer can't be, like, "held responsible" for their experience or data because it just is what it is, and we don't know enough about anything to know why, and there are many factors involved beyond the viewer it appears. Every viewer I'm sure has had the experience of actually believing something about something, then getting data that surprises the hell out of them when tasked on it.

Anyway but all that is leading to: if I trust my mind to not harm me, then would being targeted on the reptilians or lucifer or 'Stargate's Biggest Secret' (in-field humor there) or my death really matter? Shouldn't I trust that if my mind gives it to me it will do so in a way I can deal with? And even if it turns out to be 'experiential' that it might be on some level I chose to experience that (much like any other aspect of reality)? That such taskings might be anything from novel curiosity to educational for onlookers?

I've had so many horrible targets and taskings from people who are supposed to know better that like Marv mentioned, I'm less biased against the uninformed general public, who are sometimes too stupid to know it's supposed to be complex so they just do it correctly right off the bat LOL. Or not, I suppose.

I don't think I worry about the targets. I don't think I worry about the feedback, or the tasking intent, although if they muck it up my results would be mucked up and that'd be their own fault, because I either have to embrace the tasker's intent or avoid their energy entirely except as a pointer, and it's much better for a session generally to be able to do the first when possible.

I think the only things about the idea that makes me wary are:

1. Scoffer-trolls. (Tasking: "If you were really psychic you'd know this wasn't a real task HA HA.")

2. Field-trolls. (Tasking: "A mentally, B in words on paper/computer, C on feedback," just to fuck with you and laugh about it because what turns out on the surface is unlikely to match C so you'll look bad.)

3. Lack of individual tasking. (Tasking: "A,B,C,D,E, F, as affected by G, and will I get H, and when will I,J and K occur, and do you think I should do L?") I do believe that ONE tasking is a fair request for one session, not that people can't nest taskings within limits ("the situation and how it came about" or "the person and their feelings at time X"), just that the session itself is often so poorly affected by multiple different tasks at once, and the resulting data even if omniscient and 100% accurate would still be mostly incomprehensible and impossible to figure out how to apply under those conditions.

Stuff that doesn't seem to worry me although I think others with maybe more sense are worried about them:

4. The nature of the target (I might exclude overtly 'bad' taskings on myself such as, oh I dunno, describe your worst sexual neurosis LOL or describe your feelings about person X [and this more to spare person X than me] -- but otherwise, I think if people want to task on aliens, religious figures, death (even my own), etc. I'm ok with it.

5. The nature of the implications about the data in terms of ethics. If it's about their boss or girlfriend or who stole their radio and they go stick a knife in someone as a result, do I feel guilty? Er, I'm a conservative, so I consider people responsible for their own actions, so maybe a little but not a lot--but obviously it'd be nice to avoid that(!); perhaps a reduction in that likelihood (and a legal thing) would have some serious caveat agreements up front about the data and its possibly inaccurate, imprecise, or mistranslateable meaning.

6. The same goes for 'what if they have no right to know'. Well, I think I am willing to consider that if I am psychic enough to pick one very specific target out of the entire universe, that I am also psychic enough to pick up on this and the session might reflect that. Either by being very brief, or noncommital, or only telling them what they already knew anyway, or whatever. True, can't count on that since I can't even count on RV not sometimes making me look like a moron, but I think it's part of learning to trust myself.

7. Daz mentioned a few examples of where he thinks a person could be legally prosecuted for a variety of things. Maybe it's different in the UK. Here, given that psi officially in the courts does not exist, and given that one would have to make legal caveats and agreements up front of course for 'intuitional impresions', I don't think anybody could effectively sue me or prosecute me. They really can't prove anything. If they did, it would be a freakin holiday for RV that it actually got PROVED in court that someone psychically did something! Mental work (eg hating someone) is not the same as physical work (eg shooting someone) so until psychic ability is considered legit AND (the bigger deal) until someone could *prove* that said psychic ability was the actual cause or only possible source of information, I don't think that's too big an issue in the US. And since this has no money exchanged, and could be set up as 'experimental' with plenty of info and caveats, that'd help.



# I think you learn from experience. If you never get a bad task or a protocol problem in tasking or feedback or a polluted intent or a problem with a time-spec or whatever, how do you learn to recognize that while in session? At least sometimes, I can actually tell if there's a dual target (in intent or in protocol error); I can sometimes tell when there is a solid target connect but lack of a time spec on the tasking. I don't think I'd be able to pick up on that if I hadn't experienced it. "Imperfect" tasking is surely not ideal, true, but I also have to live in the real world and be able to flex with circumstance, and a lot of learning to ski on bad snow conditions requires actually skiing with bad snow conditions, if you see what I mean.

# I suspect in part I am interested in the idea because in the field at large it feels like "Taboo". It feels like a fear-based inhibition and it contributes I think to some lack of willing viewing online that sometimes people are so petrified about it for so many reasons (some of them probably good ones I admit). People were afraid of doing doubleblind, forced public display before feedback, taskings when TKR Missions began too (except Damien! bless his heart) but now we have hundreds of missions and thousands of sessions on them, which to me goes to show that if someone breaks a given barrier and demonstrates it doesn't kill them, that sometimes it is broken for many others by proxy.

# Doing this sort of thing is also really putting oneself on the line as a viewer, since it is DB work made public before FB and one is not working in a kinder / gentler / safer / predictable / known-tasker / limited bandwidth target set kind of situation. I think that any viewer who is not always accurate--and that would be, let's see, oh everybody--would essentially be falling on their sword in public (like Missions viewers are courageous enough to do). I think that learning to deal with failure--which is as much a part of RV as anything else--without defensiveness or fear or ego damage, is really important, especially if one wants to do work like RV in the media at some point. I think if a person fell on their sword publicly often enough to get fairly blase' about it, well on one hand they wouldn't have the same degree of fear of failure terror helping them LOL, but on the other hand they might have a lot more courage for viewing and as a result, might be braver with it in a few ways.

# Tasking by humans is good ... and my friends can only keep me so entertained as they are all pretty busy.

# I think it might be educational for onlookers (for better or worse, at least it's viewing out-there).

# I think it might be an option for the public. Free of course. Maybe worth what you pay for it! But would Miss Cleo at $3.99 a minute be better? What are most peoples' other options? The people most likely to be willing to suspend disbelief for psi, AND to have a genuinely strong tasker intent for success, are the people who *need* it. I mean hey, a lost dog is just a dog, but I have a bunch of cats, some for over 8 years, and they are my *family*. (I once went through a CA quake, was nearly killed, but didn't cry at all let alone helplessly until a day or two later when I heard of this man who was killed when he ran back into his burning building to try and save his cat. I totally empathized with that!)

There are probably other reasons but those are off the top of my head.

What else? Is there something else I haven't thought of, a pro or con, for such an idea?


where are you from (the keep) "I am from you"
I am very happy that you are actually considering doing such a public service !

I hope you go thru with it, and Make it like the Missions we have here.

I believe it would be a fantastic step forward.


Well, I think you presented here a complete list of anything possible related to such a project.
I only could add that I alread know a task to be viewed by you. Where can I submit it? ;D


Staff member

I think the idea is great but has some potential for abuse and waste. Firstly by the potential for waste I mean there are all manner of people with a real need to have a session done for legitimate reasons. Anything from a lost pet to who killed my aunt etc. The problem is there are also people who will task you on stuff that’s really stupid and is just a waste of valuable time. Meaning that to me doing a session on “what’s my favorite color” compared to something like “what’s causing my pet’s illness” is a needless waste of resources.

For the potential for abuse, here’s just one hypothetical scenario. I don’t like John Doe. I task you to view Joseph Stalin as an example. When done and you’ve accurately described a mass murdering sociopath I say the tasking was to describe John Doe. I go onto the internet and show your work on John Doe to anyone who’ll listen.

Both of these could be solved by having a tasker to vet all the requests, and perhaps you’ve thought of that already.

As an aside to the above I wonder if the idea might become a project here. In addition to our normal weekly mission work we might add a weekly real world mission which people would know is a real world target that has been vetted and is something that is significant where the results really means something to someone.. I think the idea has great potential, maybe enough to even get me off my dead behind.



New Member
The solution is very simple really. Get someone to VET your targets before doing them and trust the tasker. If you have reason to NOT trust the tasker for
whatever reason then do NOT do the target. Period.



Call it practical magic!
Like I said...Filter/Screen the tasks before giving them to the viewer(s).

Let the viewers know what would be accepted and what would not!

Like...Please note: the session data may contain emotional content.

The session could be for someones personal profit! Yes...while you are working the target for Free! Others could misuse that.

As far as shocking and highly emotional can affect your personal life, but then again, if you walk down the street you run into a terrible accident too that has an emotional impact. Trouble can't get counseling for things you did not 'officially' see. You just have to deal with it!



Staff member
I thought of some of that Gene. Not the "my favorite color". Remind me to add that genre of tasks to my filter list!

The setup structure I have in mind works like so:

Taskers, the public or anybody in the field. They request to task. They have to go through some agreements/info. They are then are assigned a 'screener' middleman, who will work with them on coming up with one clear, coherent, time-spec'd (if relevant) task. If their task is already like that, then the screener can just click to clear it. All correspondence between screeners and public should be IN the system (not email) so after the project was complete it could all be public as part of making the protocol totally transparent to onlookers--because I think it could be educational in a larger sense. A Tasker could task to a specific viewer of choice or open it to any/selected viewers but only one (you can't give the same task to more than one viewer. You'd have to retask it later.) They can task up to three separate tasks (interrelated questions for one target) at a time, but they can only task once a month unless a given viewers' waiting tasks fall below three. (Otherwise they will have to task someone else who is low on tasks.)

Screeners, the middlemen. The screener would be responsible for looking at that given viewer's list of what they will vs. won't accept as targets. Each viewer would have a little writeup with their standards that people requesting to submit a task will see up front. It is the screeners who eventually enter the 'final tasking' for-real typed in, verify any feedback, links or context info that might exist, and press a button to drop it into the queue as an official task in the chute. They are not really the tasker; the "intent" and official tasker is expected to be the originating person, but screeners are the project manager for that single target in some respects. Anyone can apply to be a screener but viewers/screeners have to link in-system for permission. The system would ~randomly choose 1 screener from whatever was available for all or a given viewer, so that part (a screener getting a task someone entered) wouldn't be predictable either. I might add that it is NOT their job to be the thought police. It's none of their business what people choose as targets except within the "filter list" that a viewer has provided. If the viewer did not request no religious or dark-side targets, and they get tasked on lucifer, well that will teach them--and any onlookers--something about what they should add to their filter list for the future. It's important the screeners, who hold all the real 'control' in the project, be facilitators, not bureaucrats, so it's the policy and software that tries to define that.

Viewers. The viewers would be ~randomly assigned one of the tasks in their queue. The system would not assign anything until they had 3 but will take as many as come, and will hold any number below the 3. It could tell them 2 tasks were waiting and they'd need to ask someone to go task them something, a friend or screener, to cause the system to drop them all in. This is to make sure that Jane can't task something, and tell John Viewer the target. She can, but John doesn't know which of a given three will be that task if so. This is not really 'enough' blinding protocol IF multiple people working together wished to try and defraud the site on purpose, but is annoying enough --and it would be visible in the sessions so they'd be exposed -- to "discourage" that. The system asks for a link to the session and once it is posted, the task/feedback (if that exists) is released to the viewer. Viewers who want to put a session online can use TKR's Viewer Studios, or Taskerbot's VIEWER module which I'm working on right now, or use their own blog ( and others are free!) to post the data, their own website, etc. However the system *does* go and GET the page(s)/file(s) they link to -- so it cannot change (to hold protocol) -- and makes them local files. This approach simply gives viewers more flexibility and lets them use their own media s/w rather than mine for it.

When a project is complete -- these are 'simplified' projects -- then all the correspondence of the public and screener, and the final tasking, and the session data, and whatever feedback or info might exist, all post publicly. At the same time a thread autoposts on a tiny forum I plan that will have a link to that whole protocol-session-FB group, open to discussion about the process. My goal here is to make literally *everything* "visible" so that after the fact, viewers can look for what might have affected sessions, what might have been done poorly whether in session or in tasking, discuss ways that these things might be done better or more creatively, etc. That might make it a rather critical thing in some respects. Here's hoping it's not too brutal since this is my ego getting kicked around... good thing it's the size of jupiter to start with. A few months of this public work and it will probably be microscopic. :)

The system is designed to allow the public access to psychic data, onlookers access to doubleblind work on a variety of things, viewers access to "real world" data with a "human" tasker, who we assume in most cases has a pretty good intent toward getting an answer, all as vetted by a screener of their choice, who will keep tasks they have ethics issues with or fear of away from them. I think whether the viewing is good or poor -- and it's sure to be a little of everything, given RV's nature -- that it's just an interesting thing to do and might be kind of fun, no matter what role someone takes.

So Gene if you want to come play too, I think that'd be awesome. You can watch and see if trolls and field-politics bury me first if you like LOL. Or volunteer as my screener for awhile, I need some folks to do that or the whole idea won't work! I think Marv is coming, we independently came up with this idea to do separately actually, he's just getting overshadowed here by me and my big mouth but it's as much his idea. I will have to start practicing more so he doesn't make me look too bad.



Staff member
psyforce1 said:
Like I said...Filter/Screen the tasks before giving them to the viewer(s).
Let the viewers know what would be accepted and what would not!

I assume you meant the taskers. :) Each viewer would have a little area where they write up what they are not interested in taking on as tasks, and there may be different reasons for each.

Like...Please note: the session data may contain emotional content.

No frontloading in this project alas... that qualifies even though not specific. But if the viewer has spec'd that they don't want targets likely to involve death, mass destruction, evil, aliens, hypothetical identities (religious figures etc.) then they shouldn't have to worry about getting things outside their boundaries.

I honestly think that any viewer who is not brave enough to take on just about any task should probably avoid a project like this. They could be very helpful as screeners or even just discussion contributors when things post, but the vulnerable of the world probably shouldn't be taking tasks from strangers on the internet anyway. ;D I'm a weary road-dog and I don't care anymore.

The session could be for someones personal profit! Yes...while you are working the target for Free! Others could misuse that.

Gosh I hope so! I would be more than happy for someone to tell me I made them money. I don't feel that gives them any obligation at all to me. I offered it free! I hope anything viewed *does* help people. If their primary desire is nosyness or greed, well, I don't consider myself the thought police, and anybody willing to take a chance on RV, maybe learn something about it, and if they have any kind of interest in the outcome that occurred, to tell others about it, to me that's a good thing.

(Edited to add: a great deal of the progress in the world is driven by nosyness and greed, frankly.)

As far as shocking and highly emotional can affect your personal life, but then again, if you walk down the street you run into a terrible accident too that has an emotional impact. Trouble can't get counseling for things you did not 'officially' see. You just have to deal with it!

Very true!



From what I have seen, most of the stuff that comes randomly from the public is often badly tasked, stupid, immoral and/or with ridiculous feedback (like if feedback is promised, it often turns out to be of very poor quality or just plain wacked out). You don't have to be 'afraid' to figure it's a bad idea to trust total strangers on the net with your psyche. It can also be a matter of not wanting to get tangled up in stupid schemes or strange people's psychotic or unrealistic world views. Or hey, you may not want your data to be used to make unrealistic predictions! Or what if your data seems to indicate a missing person is dead and it turns out the person is alive? What about the dangers of bad viewing? And you don't have to be traumatized for life to suffer 'injury' or just plain get really irked at someone. I think having a screener who knows how to task logically and effectively is an obvious necesity for effective work with the public. Plus it means your work is much more likely to be put to good use instead of just being a waste of time. Plus, I think a lot of targets really need some level of followup tasking to really get some good answers, especially when not using world class viewers. I mean, look at some of the predictive tasking at the dojo in which we couldn't really tell for sure who would be the next president? Often, session data just does not seem nearly as clear and obvious for answering the unknown than when the feedback is already known and the correlations are easier to see.


Remote viewer, author, artist and photographer.
Staff member
I might be interested in working on/with this.
I do have some concerns mainly based around the people involved in the process (the client, tasker and viewer) as having both a client and project manager might both influence the session with different intents but its interesting enough to me to experiment with.

Sounds like a lot of work especially on the back end process to make all this smooth and functional. :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

I do agree with EVA, most of the public tasks i get offered are just plain crazy or too personal to them but it may work. I also agree that most operational targets do need retasking as we don't work how RV was designed when following a method approach which is with a monitor. In operational work retasking does seem to bring out alot more data - but does take alot more organising.

Its an interesting and commendable project to discuss and embark on.

All the best...

Daz Smith


Staff member
That'd be cool.

I might add that over time we might find fewer lost-dog tasks because there's no law that people IN the remote viewing field can't task other viewers IN it -- on ARV targets, on future targets, whatever they might like to know... they are members of the public too, and might be better equipped to task well, believe in its potential, and be willing to take a positive advantage of the resource.

As another note, there's actually a cap and filter on the collection of viewers in my plan (and I figure to the viewers, this is as important as any other thing probably). I was kinda loose with describing it in this respect but after a friend brought this up privately I realized if I'm going to talk about it publicly on TKR of all places, I ought to make it more specifically clear publicly.

This is not a TKR project I'm discussing. TKR is open to everybody. The forum there would be open to everyone (though probably require login, unlike TKR's). But like the other stuff I'm doing through 2009 it's a Dojo Psi project -- that is my own little world, outside/underneath/around "TKR, the kinder, gentler, island of democracy in RV".

So that means that I'd like the viewers to have some experience (practice-only is fine of course, but not be really new to the subject); take things seriously (wild guessing, sessions with paragraphs of meandering on something else, etc. are out); communicate well (individual sessions that are visibly in the style of a remote viewing session is the goal here, and I don't mean method; I mean RV doesn't wildly guess, it doesn't make pages of PDFs filled with album covers and abstract art, it doesn't 'ramble', these approaches are fine as 'psychic art forms' and TKR supports them, they're often interesting and sometimes really impressive, but this project wouldn't be looking for that as it is specifically geared to my definition of 'remote viewing').

Scanned sessions would require a typed text data summary in case they are illegible to the onlookers. Sessions wouldn't have to be scanned (they could be digital or all words) but that's the strong preference. Session formats are up to the viewer though (so may be 'presentation sessions', or 'raw sessions', or a typed PDF... their choice, their data).

So knowing who might be interested up front is useful, as what I build for two people like me and Marv might have some manual components on my part, but what I built for ten would probably be more automated so nobody had to wait or depend on me to 'do' something.

I think doing any viewing very public, let alone *for* the public, is something to take seriously, no matter how minor the tasks might sometimes be, and I wouldn't want the project to make viewers as a group look bad. Nor would I want to have so many viewers that we lost any sense of coherence of the project-intent.

If any of those factors above seem unreasonable, anybody can speak up on that as I'm open to more consideration of the topic.

Back in '02 the Dojo Psi was what I wanted to do, and I dropped it for TKR because I thought the field needed something public, open to anybody, and community geared. (Well, and other reasons more related to the Dojo itself.) TKR opened in '03 thanks to other hardworking volunteers with good intent; '08 was my five year plan over. But pretty much everything I'm working on now and in the future is dojo specific, which means it doesn't have the kind of charter that TKR is blessed with; it is much more "my" project personally (pointedly it is not a democracy. Which is not to say I don't take seriously what others think).

It mostly means my personal preferences are likely to be far more visible than they are at TKR. Here I would worry about building something everybody could use no matter what, even if they wanted to write poems about their dogs and call it RV; and they would all be welcome and we would be nice to them. In the dojo projects it's more in line with my own approach -- my flexibility about method, nonflexibility about blinding protocol, sense of humor about the inconsistency of RV, wide-open mind to the nature of targets, interest in RV being FUN, but no sense of humor at all about people treating RV cheesily in environments that are about hands-on viewing and learning from it. If that makes me a benevolent dictator, well, Ataturk is actually one of my favorite heroes. Sometimes that is what it takes to have things done well and done with focus and in my view, it is better for RV and better for the participants to have some boundaries that help create focus and internal cohesion. There is a place for the chaos of the market/public (... it's here), that's needed, but anything else I do is more geared to experienced and serious viewers.

I just thought I'd state it up front, so down the road nobody is surprised when my other projects do not function quite like TKR does. TKR is a rare and blessed thing in the field... it belongs, in spirit and function, to its participants who are many over the years. Dojo Psi projects belong, in every sense, to ME : hence the lead text on the and home pages. I'm not sure how that difference will show up at the moment, but I'm pretty sure it will. Hopefully for better and not worse.

OK lunch break is over, back to work here. Work is just nuts lately!



Sounds like a good plan in general, mostly just common sense but then again, common sense is not to common sometimes! I do have some specific questions though and might have some more as details get shaken out. Who decides what projects are to be accepted and what if the project manager gets one that he/she feels he/she does not feel comfortable with? Can the project manager pass on that one, maybe pass it to a diff manager? Or is the project manager required to do all projects assigned no matter what. I can't see this often being an issue, but eventually, it probably will. There are some things that are on the edge and there will probably be differing opinions on some things.


Staff member
I think it's a really cool idea. Especially the part about making the whole process, including screener/tasker correspondence, visible to the public. I think this is more the kind of thing RV needs in public; Something that takes some of the seeming mystery and elitism out of the picture. I think if RV is to be more accepted and embraced in the mainstream someday, it will probably be projects like this that make RV accessible and understandable to the average Joe, that contribute to that end. Besides, viewers can expound all day on a soapbox about the wonders of RV, but you can bet a few words from Regular Jane about how a viewer helped her find her lost wedding ring will carry more quite a bit more weight. Very cool.



Staff member
Well, some details aren't set either because I haven't run into them yet or haven't got into the code too think too deeply on it, but now is the good time for questions/ideas, *before* I build it; things are much more work to change later for sure.

Who decides what projects are to be accepted

Every viewer is an independent there. Every viewer chooses what screener(s) they wish. All tasks have to be submitted to a given viewer, or to 'any' and it would be assigned only to one (~randomly). So technically the viewers decide the nature of things by how they setup their filter list and their agreement with their screeners; the screeners decide the detail.

I suppose if a viewer wants their screener to be their tasker-- eg, if John lost his dog, maybe the screener would come up with three separate tasks specific to aspects of that and task them, rather than 'working with John on improving his tasking' -- then that's their choice. Other viewers may choose to merely have a screener yes/no stuff, or request the tasker revise it to be 'just one clear question', but otherwise not interfere any more than necessary. Screeners for the same viewer might have different styles. There is no such thing as team work there although Taskerbot is developing a TEAM (and other related) module to facilitate that kind of thing--so there is never really a question about 'who has control of decision making'; the screeners have all if it, on behalf of the tasker they're working for. If the tasker decides they don't want to use a certain screener anymore they just write 'em a note and click a button and that's it. It's about as easy to add one as well.

One of the values of all this being transparent when each project is complete is so that people can see the screening role as well, and if people are considering tasking someone, they can look at that viewer's stuff, look at their screeners and how they work, and if they don't want a screener that retasks stuff (or if they do) then those would be the viewers to request or not request, for them.

and what if the project manager gets one that he/she feels he/she does not feel comfortable with? Can the project manager pass on that one, maybe pass it to a diff manager? Or is the project manager required to do all projects assigned no matter what. I can't see this often being an issue, but eventually, it probably will. There are some things that are on the edge and there will probably be differing opinions on some things.

My idea was that screeners would have a private forum just for them that viewers and public didn't see so they could talk over stuff with each other when needed.

It's a good idea to consider a screener needing to pass on something--there has to be an 'accept' function anyway (simple link to click in an email) so they could refuse it, or later on go in and refuse it -- the system would merely assign it ~randomly to some other screener approved by the viewer in question. "Why" they refuse it isn't important. Maybe they have to go out of town that weekend or something. But if they've already corresponded with the client then they should have to post a message to them explaining they have to leave the project and another screener will be working with them instead. Hope it's not that complicated that often.

In theory the viewers set the standards. If my screener thinks someone is insane and wants to task me on something they think is outside my personal boundaries, or they just think the person is stark raving mad or a scoffer trying to do damage, they have the right to refuse that entirely, either ask for a different task, or tell them they don't align well with the viewer's goals in their opinion and so their task request is being refused but they can apply again for a different viewer or 'any' viewer if they wish. I guess that reminds me that I'd need to add that to the info potential taskers see, and make it an option for screeners. (When this happens, I suppose that project should close and post to a board just for stuff refused. That way that protocol is open as well and people can see anything like that.)

As another thought that just struck me, there is one rule I had in mind-- that a person could be a screener or viewer but never both at the same time. This is because the screener's discussion board should be able to talk about real stuff and obviously the viewers shouldn't have access to that area. Plus it goes without saying nobody can be their own screener (...duh).

The dojo deliberately allows open registration. Plenty of viewers have multiple identities especially for Taskerbot (no longer needed for ongoing modules that all allow 'sets' of targets you can change out, but the original TASKER module main 'grab bag' pool is one pool per login is why). It goes without saying that any layman's project that gives the viewers any real control of their own and does not control the 'physical environment' the people with knowledge of a task are sitting in, is a "good faith" endeavor anyway.

But it's important that this be a hard rule that nobody has logins to each area -- and I can't lock down IP since two different people may use the same computer at home or at a library -- it will require "peer social enforcement", meaning that the viewers and screeners and so on should know each other, or get there. In other words that the project should never get so big that the people in it can't easily keep peripheral track of who else is whom inside it.

For some reason this also makes me realize I didn't mention viewing frequency. I figured it'd have to be totally arbitrary on the part of the viewer. Basically as they entered session links for a task, the project page and their viewer page would both show that for example, task 1 of 3 for project# A94X was entered 12/11/08 at 3:12 pm ET. So that way the tasker who is waiting for his result, will be able to see that something is happening (as will the screener).

I also think there might be some button that has to be manually pushed when a project is fully done, that runs the scripts to go collect everything, make a permalink page for the whole project, post a message with a link to that on the forum, notify via email the tasker that the project has been completed, etc. Maybe that is something the screener should do if they are kind of playing a one-target PM role of sorts.

Any other questions/ideas are good. It's nice to have the back of my brain map it out in advance. Makes coding much easier.