jm's experiment.

[ohio jones]

are you willing to start wed morning, May 3, 7 am to 7 am on the 10th?

Let's assume that is Eastern Time.

[ohio jones]

I do object to the notion that it is just a select group that affects the tone here. Honestly some of the most aggressively vile and partisan posts I have seen here have been by other regular posters, not us four.

"Aggressively vile and partisan" is far from the entire problem, though it does contribute.

[temporal1]

are you willing to start wed morning, May 3, 7 am to 7 am on the 10th?

Let's assume that is Eastern Time.

EDT?
is read-only ok?
is signing-in ok?

i don’t plan to do the latter. too easy to tap something.

Ken:
.. not us four. ..

could there be a funnier “us?”

[Josh]

You can be sneaky and read when you aren’t signed in. Nobody will ever know, other than a tiny invisible pixel.

[Sliceitup]

So as most of you regulars are aware, over in jm's random thots, we've been discussing an experiment.

Josh, Bootstrap, and temporal1 have agreed to join in this experiment.

here was my original proposal


here's the deal. this experiment is more than just not responding to one certain person's posts. this experiment is more than just a passive aggressive, or the silent treatment towards one person. and i also think that it will be very hard to not be able to respond to a posting that was done in response to one of yours. i'm trying to remove that one piece of hardship for this experiment.

here's the next proposal. if Bootstrap, Josh, Temporal are willing to move on without Ken, then i will accept that. it's not what i was wanting, but i'll accept it.

are you willing to start wed morning, May 3, 7 am to 7 am on the 10th?

If you guys want a hiatus from me from May 3 to 10 I'll go along and check out too.

I do object to the notion that it is just a select group that affects the tone here. Honestly some of the most aggressively vile and partisan posts I have seen here have been by other regular posters, not us four.

I don’t think this is about vile or partisan posts. Personally it feels like the chosen four tend to take over all conversations. (although I don’t notice Boot doing it, maybe he’s just in threads I don’t read) And it would maybe be ok if 90% of conversations were because of 4 contributors if those conversations were being furthered in some way, rather than just refighting the same things over and over and over. But I don’t see that happening. Rather it goes like this: Josh makes and acerbic remark, then Ken comes in with three paragraphs of ‘well, ackshulky…’ and then Temp has some disjointed sentence fragments that say something, but are also vague enough that she can’t be pinned down on the true meaning. It gets old and nothing makes me back out of a thread quicker than seeing that dynamic.

[justme]

are you willing to start wed morning, May 3, 7 am to 7 am on the 10th?

Let's assume that is Eastern Time.

absolutely!
after all, i am in Eastern Time, so that is what i am accustomed to.

[justme]

is read-only ok?
is signing-in ok?

of course.

[justme]

I don’t really feel comfortable with the idea of everyone ganging up to ignore one certain person, though it would probably be good to ignore all posts of a certain type. Not that I expect my contribution will affect much either way as I already don’t react to 99% of Ken’s posts—or 99% of the other posts on the forum.

Pelerin, i do agree with you. that's one reason that i wanted several people in the experiment, so as not to single out one person.

If you guys want a hiatus from me from May 3 to 10 I'll go along and check out too.

I do object to the notion that it is just a select group that affects the tone here. Honestly some of the most aggressively vile and partisan posts I have seen here have been by other regular posters, not us four.

Ken, i hear your concern. And do agree with you to an extent.

I don’t think this is about vile or partisan posts. Personally it feels like the chosen four tend to take over all conversations. (although I don’t notice Boot doing it, maybe he’s just in threads I don’t read) And it would maybe be ok if 90% of conversations were because of 4 contributors if those conversations were being furthered in some way, rather than just refighting the same things over and over and over. But I don’t see that happening. Rather it goes like this: Josh makes and acerbic remark, then Ken comes in with three paragraphs of ‘well, ackshulky…’ and then Temp has some disjointed sentence fragments that say something, but are also vague enough that she can’t be pinned down on the true meaning. It gets old and nothing makes me back out of a thread quicker than seeing that dynamic.

Sliceitup, i don't know who you are, but over the course of talking about this experiment you've rephrased some of my thots into better wording than i have done.

[justme]

This experiment is almost over, 7 am tomorrow morning.

we've still had bunny trails, i had to grin when i saw that.
it took about 4 days for politics to show back up again
we've had some different posters.

i asked DanZ if he would give us a summary of what he observed. He's good at that sort of thing. altho he never did answer if he was going or not. if he doesn't, then i will be doing that.

i would like if a few people would post their impressions. I don't want a whole lot of discussion about how you feel about someone else's posting, i just want you to post your own impression of how the experiment affected you. I would also like if Bootstrap, Josh, Ken, and Temporal1 would post their thoughts on the experiment.

So think about that for the next day or so, until i unlock the thread.

[justme]

Thank you to all 4 of you, Bootstrap, Josh, Ken, and Temporal1. You have been very good sports about this. At least you haven't left me know if you aren't . i really do appreciate you all for that.

I haven't seen any evidence of cheating. And no one has squealed on anyone. Obviously, i don't know if there were any private messages sent during the week, and at this time, i'm quite willing to say that all 4 have earned your $70.00 each. I know that at least some of you have said you don't want the money. I will be messaging each of you, and you can tell me what your preferences are. Whether you want it, or whether you want me to donate it to a cause of your choice. I'm good with either option.

One of my fears was that the posts would drop dramatically. That no one would post. But, as the experiment showed, we had a lot of posting going on. The content of the posts were different. For the most part, there was very little political posting. And when the politics did show up, it was towards the end of the experiment.

We did have folks "step up to the plate" in posting. Someone made the comment about being free-er to post, but not wanting to be dominating. I think that there will always be those who dominate the flow of conversation. When one leaves, another one will come along to take that place. Sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse. I did notice that steve didn't post as many new threads/polls. i'm wondering if he didn't feel the need to distract from politics?

Most of the comments that i have heard, have been in favor of the results of the experiment. Most people have enjoyed the break from politics and current events.

So, first, i'd like to hear from those most affected by the experiment. Josh, Bootstrap, Ken, Temporal1. What are your thots?
And after that, then, i'm open to everyone else. I would ask that you not respond to each other's posts. Just tell us your thots. Even if it is the same as another poster, tell us in your words, try not to respond yay or nay to a previous posting.

i want to thank you all, again, for your participation.
-jm