I promise this thread is not my typical monologue. However, I understand if it falls flat because it's at first quite cumbersome to read and follow.
This thread is intended for a "psi games" style format using a streamlined, verifiable system. Namely, the 3rd Eye Quest game.
First some disclaimers-
*I can't "prove beyond a reasonable doubt" with this method because I don't have the venue to do so. To prove beyond a reasonable doubt would require a much more expensive setup with faraday cages, computers locked in separate rooms, targets chosen under an equally locked, sanitized, monitored room at the appropriate time. Such things have been done in the past, but under real budgets. This is a shoestring operation. So unfortunately it's not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. What it is however is something that shows significant evidence. I draw a card from the "3rd Eye Quest" game. I'm excluding the Color Deck because it could throw off the typical remote viewing set up. I email myself in advance the card I randomly picked. I can provide evidence of screenshots etc that I sent the email. I will provide the name of the card deck that I drew from, only because that provides the verifiability needed for the chosen lexicon.
*The "success" of the remote viewing is held strictly on the language used (the lexicon) in the game and an analysis of the p-value landing below 5% within the language range (as analyzed by AI). The game provides a precise lexicon for the target. For example: If it's an animal, then the options are: energy (or general viewer sense of target) calm, fierce, cautious, or playful. Size: small, medium, large, or massive. The lexicon in this example goes onto fulfill 8 total sets, each set with a specific number of elements ranging from 3 to 7. To reach success you must use the exact lexicon. Synonyms will not suffice due to the vagraty of interpretation. An AI has attributed the drawn card with the exact language best fit scenario from the lexicon provided. Again this is not proof beyond reasonable doubt. But it starts to become a more rigorous analysis using set theory rather than semantic debate. NOTE: LEXICON IS ACCESSIBLE HERE: https://3rdeyequest.com/assist - the advanced viewer mode is not being employed at this time, for the sake of simplicity.
*Who the remote viewer is, whether successful or not, is based entirely on the forum subscription name at the time of the entry. If your forum name is "taz" or "John" or "Solace," then that is *whom* will be considered to have competed. Beyond that we can't verify anything. Was it human? Was it AI? Was it ET? Did the human in this instance use AI? Did they delegate the task to their child? We don't know. All we know is the user name at the time of the entry. In later systems we would have better methods of verifying the "who" in the matter.
*How you achieve your remote viewing is not really relevant at this time. While it is welcome to deliberate on your achievement in other threads, I'll ask to stick to the results that you produce and not the process. CRV or SRV or TDM etc it all doesn't matter. Whether an AI used a hugging face script or a python script or a GPU or an NPU . . . none of that matters here. Just the results.
*Objections to the method used here are commendable, but they won't be read by me in the thread. Replies of that nature might get deleted. In my opinion, this is an opportunity to provide somewhat "clean defensible conditions" to back whatever your method, or your trusted friend's method, has been. But it is, in the end, a forum thread, and to provide real evidence it would need to be brought into a more rigorous aforementioned environment. This is an example of starting rigorous testing but certainly not the end or the best possible scenario.
*I cannot compete because it would involve too much bias. In theory I could, because I don't see the card when I draw it, so I could still do the same attempt. But it still looks strange having the "host" compete in the game. I will however compete if this thread gets mirrored where someone else draws the cards.
---
With that said, here are the basic rules.
*No background information about the viewing. Lexicon only please. I know this is very strict, I understand it limits the creative potential for typical remote viewing. I'm not saying this is the only way to do verifiable data. I'm not saying this is how the game was normally intended. I'm just saying this is one method of many that could be used, and so we shall try it if we could. Also to note the format would be to include both the category and the element as in "Category: Element". So for example: "Water: Still. Terrain: Rocky." This is to prevent confusion when categories with same adjectives are used or if some categories are skipped. The resource again being used here is: https://3rdeyequest.com/assist
*No back and forth discussion. Not because the process shouldn't have discussion, but that comes afterward in outside threads. You can easily link back to this one and add any commentary.
*Courtesies are welcome but not required. For example, "thanks for having me, here are the results from my session" and the like. But it is just as acceptable if a post in the thread simply states their chosen lexicon and provides zero additional context.
---
ROUND 1
I have now drawn a card and emailed the name of it to myself. DECK: OBJECT