jm's random thots

[ohio jones]

I'd be open to the 3 of us willing participants giving it a shot for a week, and seeing what happens.

Perhaps the 3 of us could agree to not respond to Ken's posts during that week?

Maybe all of us could.

[Sliceitup]

I'd be open to the 3 of us willing participants giving it a shot for a week, and seeing what happens.

Perhaps the 3 of us could agree to not respond to Ken's posts during that week?

This is by far the easiest way to improve mennonet. Not specifically speaking of Ken, just stop responding to anyone who annoys you.

[Josh]

I'd be open to the 3 of us willing participants giving it a shot for a week, and seeing what happens.

Perhaps the 3 of us could agree to not respond to Ken's posts during that week?

Sure. t1, are you interested?

[temporal1]

I'd be open to the 3 of us willing participants giving it a shot for a week, and seeing what happens.

Perhaps the 3 of us could agree to not respond to Ken's posts during that week?

Sure. t1, are you interested?

ok. let me know details.

[Josh]

Looks like all 3 of us are willing, and we haven’t heard a peep from Ken on this thread. Here is what Boot proposed:

Perhaps the 3 of us could agree to not respond to Ken's posts during that week?

jm can be the referee of the start and stop. Of course, Ken can respond to our posts. We will simply refrain from replying to his.

[justme]

here's my thots on the matter.

even tho i disagree w josh when he says that his main reason for posting is to counter what ken says, i don't think that it will be fair to josh to allow ken to post and not allow josh to post.

i'm not so much concerned about boot or temporal and their interactions w ken. i don't think there is as much animosity between them.

whether ken has read this series of posts or not, i don't know. i had sent him a message directing him to these posts several days ago, but haven't had any response.

so i guess if you 3 want to change the guidelines, and are ok w my concern of fairness, then we could move forward. (we could always ban anyone who is not willing to participate, hah. not a good option, but is fun to think about)

[justme]

Looks like all 3 of us are willing, and we haven’t heard a peep from Ken on this thread. Here is what Boot proposed:

Perhaps the 3 of us could agree to not respond to Ken's posts during that week?

jm can be the referee of the start and stop. Of course, Ken can respond to our posts. We will simply refrain from replying to his.

you do have it partially wrong.
you wouldn't be posting at all. nothing.

[justme]

i'd like to do an experiment, and i haven't talked to anyone about it. at all.

i'd like to give $70.00 each to Josh, Temporal1, Ken, and Bootstrap
they will need to be completely silent on mn for one week. all 4 in the same week. with a specific start time, and a specific stop time.
No posting, No hearts, No private messages, no 2nd account, NOTHING.

if one person breaks it, no one gets anything.
if one person other than Josh, Temporal1, Ken, or Bootstrap brings me proof that even one of the 4 has broken the rules, that one person will get $70.00, and Josh, Temporal1, Ken, and Bootstrap get nothing

the purpose of the experiment is to see what mn is like without the posters who are most at each other's throat. i would like to see if other people start posting if they know that they won't be drowned out by certain posters. i could do it one person at a time, but that only means that the others get free time without being set straight by their nemesis.

is this an experiment worth pursuing?

[temporal1]

maybe steve could do a flow chart of this challenge sub-discussion?

i’m willing to participate in any version.

[ohio jones]

even tho i disagree w josh when he says that his main reason for posting is to counter what ken says, i don't think that it will be fair to josh to allow ken to post and not allow josh to post.

I suspect that would just create an avalanche of Josh posts at the end of the week. Which may not be entirely fair to the rest of us.