Discussion Forum > SMEMA - $50 or $500
Gutsy!
January 29, 2014 at 9:50 |
michael
michael
Wowsers! Can't wait to see the results. :-)
January 29, 2014 at 10:04 |
Neil Cumming
Neil Cumming
Neil - thanks for the inspiration.
January 29, 2014 at 11:24 |
avrum
avrum
If this is another shot at SMEMA what caused the previous shot(s) to not work out?
January 29, 2014 at 19:27 |
Chris
Chris
Chris - hard to point a finger at single factor, but I do recall attending a GTD seminar around the same time SMEMA was launched.
January 29, 2014 at 19:51 |
avrum
avrum
avrum, I am excited to see the outcome!
January 30, 2014 at 5:11 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
So am I - but why not make it a month and $1,000?
January 30, 2014 at 14:48 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
LOL!
January 30, 2014 at 17:58 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Mark:
<< why not make it a month and $1,000>>
It's all about finding that "OUCH" sweet spot. $500 seems to fit the bill.
Questions for Mark:
1. How did you handle situations whereby an interruption or circumstances interrupted your SMEMA chain? Did you rewrite the list and begin anew or start where you left off?
2. For metrics (to gauge the success of one's efforts with SMEMA), do you suggest counting every task completed - regardless if they occurred within SMEMA rules, or every SMEMA chain (3 tasks) you fulfilled.
<< why not make it a month and $1,000>>
It's all about finding that "OUCH" sweet spot. $500 seems to fit the bill.
Questions for Mark:
1. How did you handle situations whereby an interruption or circumstances interrupted your SMEMA chain? Did you rewrite the list and begin anew or start where you left off?
2. For metrics (to gauge the success of one's efforts with SMEMA), do you suggest counting every task completed - regardless if they occurred within SMEMA rules, or every SMEMA chain (3 tasks) you fulfilled.
January 30, 2014 at 18:19 |
avrum
avrum
Avrum,
Interesting idea to put (different amounts of) money on the line, regardless of whether you stick to it.
I think you will find that you can keep using SMEMA, with zero to any number of auxiliary lists/tools. So if you have existing AF/FV/etc. lists, or feel a need for an auxiliary set of reminders, they all just work as places to look if the next two tasks aren't obvious.
Good luck!
Interesting idea to put (different amounts of) money on the line, regardless of whether you stick to it.
I think you will find that you can keep using SMEMA, with zero to any number of auxiliary lists/tools. So if you have existing AF/FV/etc. lists, or feel a need for an auxiliary set of reminders, they all just work as places to look if the next two tasks aren't obvious.
Good luck!
January 30, 2014 at 18:23 |
ubi
ubi
UBI
<<So if you have existing AF/FV/etc. lists, or feel a need for an auxiliary set of reminders, they all just work as places to look if the next two tasks aren't obvious.>>
Makes sense - though I'm going to go with Mark's suggestion to do without lists while using SMEMA. In the original post, he gives his reasons why.
<<So if you have existing AF/FV/etc. lists, or feel a need for an auxiliary set of reminders, they all just work as places to look if the next two tasks aren't obvious.>>
Makes sense - though I'm going to go with Mark's suggestion to do without lists while using SMEMA. In the original post, he gives his reasons why.
January 31, 2014 at 18:31 |
avrum
avrum
avrum:
<< 1. How did you handle situations whereby an interruption or circumstances interrupted your SMEMA chain? Did you rewrite the list and begin anew or start where you left off? >>
Basically whenever I felt that the list was no longer relevant for whatever reason I would start a new list.
<< 2. For metrics (to gauge the success of one's efforts with SMEMA), do you suggest counting every task completed - regardless if they occurred within SMEMA rules, or every SMEMA chain (3 tasks) you fulfilled. >>
I would count tasks - but only those done within the rules. I wouldn't count chains, since the last task in a chain is also the first task in the next chain.
<< 1. How did you handle situations whereby an interruption or circumstances interrupted your SMEMA chain? Did you rewrite the list and begin anew or start where you left off? >>
Basically whenever I felt that the list was no longer relevant for whatever reason I would start a new list.
<< 2. For metrics (to gauge the success of one's efforts with SMEMA), do you suggest counting every task completed - regardless if they occurred within SMEMA rules, or every SMEMA chain (3 tasks) you fulfilled. >>
I would count tasks - but only those done within the rules. I wouldn't count chains, since the last task in a chain is also the first task in the next chain.
February 1, 2014 at 2:06 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Mark:
<<Basically whenever I felt that the list was no longer relevant for whatever reason I would start a new list.>>
How did you differentiate between feelings:
a. The feeling that the list was no longer relevant
b. The resistance to a task, leading you to rewrite the list
If "b" was prominent, wouldn't this clause override the purpose of SMEMA?
Thanks for responding.
<<Basically whenever I felt that the list was no longer relevant for whatever reason I would start a new list.>>
How did you differentiate between feelings:
a. The feeling that the list was no longer relevant
b. The resistance to a task, leading you to rewrite the list
If "b" was prominent, wouldn't this clause override the purpose of SMEMA?
Thanks for responding.
February 3, 2014 at 15:57 |
avrum
avrum
avrum:
No, not b. That didn't come into consideration at all.
Usually it would be the result of a gap of several hours (meal, meeting, sleep, travel, etc.) after which my priorities would have changed. Occasionally it would be because something urgent had come up which needed immediate attention.
No, not b. That didn't come into consideration at all.
Usually it would be the result of a gap of several hours (meal, meeting, sleep, travel, etc.) after which my priorities would have changed. Occasionally it would be because something urgent had come up which needed immediate attention.
February 3, 2014 at 16:30 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Wonderful - that's how i'm handling "rewriting the list" as well.
By the way, I'm enjoying your e-book, and by extension, thinking.
By the way, I'm enjoying your e-book, and by extension, thinking.
February 3, 2014 at 16:58 |
avrum
avrum
Doesn't this give Mark an incentive to create ineffective systems? :)
February 3, 2014 at 18:13 |
Austin
Austin
Mark (or others)
I'm a little thick, and not grasping the rationale of "replenish two tasks at a time" (see quote below). I'm not sure how "replenishing two tasks" vs "doing all three tasks" encourages choosing difficult or high resistance tasks. Help? Merci.
"Q. Why replenish two tasks at a time? Why is that better than doing all three tasks and then adding three new ones?
A. If I do all three tasks in one go, then the first of the new tasks has no distance. That means that it will probably be an easy “filler”. Once I’ve decided on one easy filler then it’s likely that I’ll go on chosing easy tasks. It’s important that all the tasks I choose have distance at the time of choosing. It means I am more likely to choose a task because it is right rather than because it is easy."
I'm a little thick, and not grasping the rationale of "replenish two tasks at a time" (see quote below). I'm not sure how "replenishing two tasks" vs "doing all three tasks" encourages choosing difficult or high resistance tasks. Help? Merci.
"Q. Why replenish two tasks at a time? Why is that better than doing all three tasks and then adding three new ones?
A. If I do all three tasks in one go, then the first of the new tasks has no distance. That means that it will probably be an easy “filler”. Once I’ve decided on one easy filler then it’s likely that I’ll go on chosing easy tasks. It’s important that all the tasks I choose have distance at the time of choosing. It means I am more likely to choose a task because it is right rather than because it is easy."
February 4, 2014 at 14:29 |
avrum
avrum
avrum:
<< I'm not sure how "replenishing two tasks" vs "doing all three tasks" encourages choosing difficult or high resistance tasks >>
In my early days of time management I used to advise people (and still do sometimes) to write down the one task they were going to do next and then do it. The rationale behind this was that it stopped them from just mindlessly drifting into the next task. Instead, they had to make a conscious decision (emphasis on "conscious").
I then discovered that it worked better if they wrote two tasks down, did them both and then wrote another two. It seemed that the second task was usually a more "significant" task than the first. I decided that the reason for this was that the first task had to be done straightaway, but there was a time gap ("distance") before doing the second task. This made the second task less threatening than the first, which allowed for it to be a more difficult task.
I experimented with various numbers of tasks to see how far this effect extended. I found that three was the optimum number. Above three, resistance tended to build up against the inflexible nature of the list, negating the positive effect of "distance".
However there was still a problem in that when I wrote three tasks down, the first task still had to be done straight away. This lack of "distance" for the first task generally meant that it tended to be a filler and only the second two tasks were significant.
Then I worked out that I could avoid this by replenishing the list back up to three tasks whenever it dropped to one. That way I was never writing down a task which I had to do immediately (except for the very first task of all). In other words all tasks had "distance" when written down, but the list was short enough not to build up any resistance.
This makes the process of developing SMEMA sound more straightforward and purposeful than it actually was, but I hope you get the picture.
<< I'm not sure how "replenishing two tasks" vs "doing all three tasks" encourages choosing difficult or high resistance tasks >>
In my early days of time management I used to advise people (and still do sometimes) to write down the one task they were going to do next and then do it. The rationale behind this was that it stopped them from just mindlessly drifting into the next task. Instead, they had to make a conscious decision (emphasis on "conscious").
I then discovered that it worked better if they wrote two tasks down, did them both and then wrote another two. It seemed that the second task was usually a more "significant" task than the first. I decided that the reason for this was that the first task had to be done straightaway, but there was a time gap ("distance") before doing the second task. This made the second task less threatening than the first, which allowed for it to be a more difficult task.
I experimented with various numbers of tasks to see how far this effect extended. I found that three was the optimum number. Above three, resistance tended to build up against the inflexible nature of the list, negating the positive effect of "distance".
However there was still a problem in that when I wrote three tasks down, the first task still had to be done straight away. This lack of "distance" for the first task generally meant that it tended to be a filler and only the second two tasks were significant.
Then I worked out that I could avoid this by replenishing the list back up to three tasks whenever it dropped to one. That way I was never writing down a task which I had to do immediately (except for the very first task of all). In other words all tasks had "distance" when written down, but the list was short enough not to build up any resistance.
This makes the process of developing SMEMA sound more straightforward and purposeful than it actually was, but I hope you get the picture.
February 4, 2014 at 15:12 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Mark - you're the mad scientist of task lists. Holy cow.
Thanks for sharing.
Thanks for sharing.
February 4, 2014 at 15:46 |
avrum
avrum
I'm thinking of experimenting with using a) Random Time Management for the daytime and early-evening 'productive' hours; then b), switching to SMEMA later on in the day with a bias (slight or otherwise) towards 'R&R' type activities. e.g., Read novel, Watch DVD, Go for a walk, Listen to music, Surf the web etc...
I wonder if it might afford a suitable balance between work and leisure.
I wonder if it might afford a suitable balance between work and leisure.
February 4, 2014 at 15:59 |
Neil Cumming
Neil Cumming
Neil: I've found switching methods according to mood, time of day, workload works best for me. I use AF1 when in a leisurely mode, switching to AF4 or SF if I feel a strong urge to press on. I haven't used SMEMA at all (yet).
February 4, 2014 at 17:16 |
michael
michael
Neil Cumming:
<< Read novel, Watch DVD, Go for a walk, Listen to music, Surf the web etc...>>
Being a retiree all my tasks are like that!
<< Read novel, Watch DVD, Go for a walk, Listen to music, Surf the web etc...>>
Being a retiree all my tasks are like that!
February 4, 2014 at 19:29 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Hi Mark
My retirement status hasn't granted me such an enviable list. Then again, I don't have a wife...LOL!
My retirement status hasn't granted me such an enviable list. Then again, I don't have a wife...LOL!
February 4, 2014 at 23:13 |
learning as I go
learning as I go
<<Being a retiree all my tasks are like that!>>
;-) Nice!
;-) Nice!
February 5, 2014 at 0:04 |
Neil Cumming
Neil Cumming
<<Neil: I've found switching methods according to mood, time of day, workload works best for me.>>
That's good to know, Michael. Variety could be key.
That's good to know, Michael. Variety could be key.
February 5, 2014 at 0:34 |
Neil Cumming
Neil Cumming
<< Variety could be key.>>
Or not. I'm much more prone to use various productivity hacks and tricks as a way to avoid high resistance stuff. Take away some of my choice, and I'm more likely to get the right things done. But that's me.
Or not. I'm much more prone to use various productivity hacks and tricks as a way to avoid high resistance stuff. Take away some of my choice, and I'm more likely to get the right things done. But that's me.
February 5, 2014 at 12:26 |
avrum
avrum
learning:
<< My retirement status hasn't granted me such an enviable list. Then again, I don't have a wife...LOL! >>
My wife can do whatever she likes - fortunately she likes doing the housework, making the beds, gardening, shopping, washing-up, laundry, cooking meals... etc.
<< My retirement status hasn't granted me such an enviable list. Then again, I don't have a wife...LOL! >>
My wife can do whatever she likes - fortunately she likes doing the housework, making the beds, gardening, shopping, washing-up, laundry, cooking meals... etc.
February 5, 2014 at 17:55 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Hi Mark
I envy you. I also envy Lucy because I wish I liked doing it also. People say I must love keeping house because it's so neat. I tell them that I absolutely HATE the drudgery with a passion but I hate disorder even worse. LOL!
I envy you. I also envy Lucy because I wish I liked doing it also. People say I must love keeping house because it's so neat. I tell them that I absolutely HATE the drudgery with a passion but I hate disorder even worse. LOL!
February 5, 2014 at 22:10 |
learning as I go
learning as I go
p.s.
Sometimes I'm so lazy that I'll sleep on one side of the bed so that I only have to make 1/2 of the bed when I wake up.
Sometimes I'm so lazy that I'll sleep on one side of the bed so that I only have to make 1/2 of the bed when I wake up.
February 5, 2014 at 22:15 |
learning as I go
learning as I go
learning:
<< I also envy Lucy because I wish I liked doing it also.>>
That was supposed to be a joke!
<< I also envy Lucy because I wish I liked doing it also.>>
That was supposed to be a joke!
February 7, 2014 at 17:30 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
UPDATE:
Still going strong with SMEMA!
Still going strong with SMEMA!
February 7, 2014 at 18:10 |
avrum
avrum
Hi Mark
oops! I guess that one flew over my head because some people actually do enjoy things like cleaning, ironing, painting, fixing stuff, etc. Actually, if I have good music, better yet, good company, I don't mind it nearly as much as usual.
It sounds like Lucy and you are a good team. You take her out to eat often and take her on glorious trips. She's lucky to have you as I'm sure you're lucky to have her as well.
Avrum
Congrats! Good going! A while back you did something similar like tossing $10 bills out of your window when you went to bed too late. That inspired me to attach $100 bills to my diary to finish an article. Just the idea of having to put my money in the dog poop bag had me finish it in a couple to days to save about $1,000. Fear, disgust, competition and social witnessing works wonders, yeah? If I did SMEMA, it would have been fun to join you. The camaraderie would have helped me enjoy it more and compel me not to dare slack off! LOL!
Good on you!
oops! I guess that one flew over my head because some people actually do enjoy things like cleaning, ironing, painting, fixing stuff, etc. Actually, if I have good music, better yet, good company, I don't mind it nearly as much as usual.
It sounds like Lucy and you are a good team. You take her out to eat often and take her on glorious trips. She's lucky to have you as I'm sure you're lucky to have her as well.
Avrum
Congrats! Good going! A while back you did something similar like tossing $10 bills out of your window when you went to bed too late. That inspired me to attach $100 bills to my diary to finish an article. Just the idea of having to put my money in the dog poop bag had me finish it in a couple to days to save about $1,000. Fear, disgust, competition and social witnessing works wonders, yeah? If I did SMEMA, it would have been fun to join you. The camaraderie would have helped me enjoy it more and compel me not to dare slack off! LOL!
Good on you!
February 7, 2014 at 19:48 |
learning as I go
learning as I go
(DAY 13) An interesting observation...
With Mark's other systems, I found I needed a break from the rules and structure. Somehow - and I'm not exactly sure why - even a brief break from the (AF, DWM, etc.) rules made it difficult to reengage with the system. Due to SMEMA's simplicity and quick turnaround (finish two tasks, and refresh the list with two more), the list always feels fresh and relevant to my mood, situation, etc. To date, it is the only system that I've been able to engage with at home and work.
With Mark's other systems, I found I needed a break from the rules and structure. Somehow - and I'm not exactly sure why - even a brief break from the (AF, DWM, etc.) rules made it difficult to reengage with the system. Due to SMEMA's simplicity and quick turnaround (finish two tasks, and refresh the list with two more), the list always feels fresh and relevant to my mood, situation, etc. To date, it is the only system that I've been able to engage with at home and work.
February 10, 2014 at 15:48 |
avrum
avrum
Great news, Avrum. SMEMA really is a cracking wee system, isn't it? All kudos to Mark, yet again.
I'm enjoying using the randomized system, and fully intend to alternate the two and perhaps combine them in some way.
Neil
I'm enjoying using the randomized system, and fully intend to alternate the two and perhaps combine them in some way.
Neil
February 10, 2014 at 18:41 |
Neil Cumming
Neil Cumming
Avrum,
Glad to hear you're keeping to it. Please write a longer summary when you finish your two weeks' trial. Did you forgot anything important by not managing auxiliary lists?
Glad to hear you're keeping to it. Please write a longer summary when you finish your two weeks' trial. Did you forgot anything important by not managing auxiliary lists?
February 10, 2014 at 19:11 |
ubi
ubi
ubi
<<Did you forgot anything important by not managing auxiliary lists?
>>
Yes - but that's an old story (even with lists). What I have been doing is committing things to my calendar that I really need/want to do. For example, calling back a new referral.
<<Did you forgot anything important by not managing auxiliary lists?
>>
Yes - but that's an old story (even with lists). What I have been doing is committing things to my calendar that I really need/want to do. For example, calling back a new referral.
February 10, 2014 at 20:08 |
avrum
avrum
$50 sent.
SMEMA is a keeper.
SMEMA is a keeper.
February 12, 2014 at 1:37 |
avrum
avrum
Any interest in paying me to test my approach, Avrum? lol I'm glad that SMEMA was so effective for you.
February 12, 2014 at 2:11 |
Melanie Wilson
Melanie Wilson
avrum:
$50 received - many thanks.
Anyone else want to have a go?
$50 received - many thanks.
Anyone else want to have a go?
February 13, 2014 at 19:54 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Still rockin' SMEMA. And I've got a ton on the go. The minimal rules help. Honestly, it's been weeks since I've "jonsed" for another system.
This is not to say my life is perfect. You can now stop acting so shocked.
This is not to say my life is perfect. You can now stop acting so shocked.
February 19, 2014 at 21:23 |
avrum
avrum
Hi Avrum
You stated:
"Honestly, it's been weeks since I've "jonsed" for another system. "
Geez, Avrum you just finished the two week trial a week ago on the 12th. That makes 3 weeks total you've been on SMEMA. You must have a very high turn over rate for testing systems if 3 weeks seems like a long time. I hope this is the one that works for you.
You stated:
"Honestly, it's been weeks since I've "jonsed" for another system. "
Geez, Avrum you just finished the two week trial a week ago on the 12th. That makes 3 weeks total you've been on SMEMA. You must have a very high turn over rate for testing systems if 3 weeks seems like a long time. I hope this is the one that works for you.
February 19, 2014 at 22:49 |
learning as I go
learning as I go
Learning - my honeymoon phase with productivity systems ranges from 10 minutes to 4 days. 7 days? I'm almost always searching for something else.
February 19, 2014 at 23:39 |
avrum
avrum
Hi Avrum
That's really great news!
I've been with the same system for years but sometimes I'll deviate a bit just to keep things fresh. Also, sometimes when I go off the rails, it's nice to have a simple system to guide me back to normal. Your system is even simpler so you should do very well with it. I'm still always on the lookout for little tips and workarounds to make things easier or serve special circumstances. You're lucky that you won't need any of that with SMEMA. I wish I could do SMEMA dependably but I can't. I'm glad that it does for you what I wish it did for me. LOL!
That's really great news!
I've been with the same system for years but sometimes I'll deviate a bit just to keep things fresh. Also, sometimes when I go off the rails, it's nice to have a simple system to guide me back to normal. Your system is even simpler so you should do very well with it. I'm still always on the lookout for little tips and workarounds to make things easier or serve special circumstances. You're lucky that you won't need any of that with SMEMA. I wish I could do SMEMA dependably but I can't. I'm glad that it does for you what I wish it did for me. LOL!
February 20, 2014 at 1:31 |
learning as I go
learning as I go
p.s.
10 minutes? LOL! I can relate. If it feels too wrong, I know it's not for me. I'm forced to face effortful work, but I'm not forced to work an effortful system.
10 minutes? LOL! I can relate. If it feels too wrong, I know it's not for me. I'm forced to face effortful work, but I'm not forced to work an effortful system.
February 20, 2014 at 1:34 |
learning as I go
learning as I go
Mark:
Did you encounter situations where - either due to mood or fatigue - you had trouble identifying:
<<what the right thing is>>
and your lists were populated with low resistance tasks? Or is the goal to never have a chain of tasks like this: 1. Facebook 2. Watch sports 3. Play the lottery
If that's the case, what did you do when you had trouble identifying "the right thing"?
Also, regarding metrics you said:
<<I would count tasks - but only those done within the rules.>>
Wouldn't this metric be misleading re; productivity if:
On Day 1 I had a bunch of "Facebooks" in my SMEMA chain, leading to a final tally of 45 tasks completed
On Day 2 I spent more focused time on a high priority item, but ended the day with 22 tasks completed?
I wouldn't consider Day 1 to be more productive. So what does "total tasks" actually mean?
Did you encounter situations where - either due to mood or fatigue - you had trouble identifying:
<<what the right thing is>>
and your lists were populated with low resistance tasks? Or is the goal to never have a chain of tasks like this: 1. Facebook 2. Watch sports 3. Play the lottery
If that's the case, what did you do when you had trouble identifying "the right thing"?
Also, regarding metrics you said:
<<I would count tasks - but only those done within the rules.>>
Wouldn't this metric be misleading re; productivity if:
On Day 1 I had a bunch of "Facebooks" in my SMEMA chain, leading to a final tally of 45 tasks completed
On Day 2 I spent more focused time on a high priority item, but ended the day with 22 tasks completed?
I wouldn't consider Day 1 to be more productive. So what does "total tasks" actually mean?
February 24, 2014 at 0:12 |
avrum
avrum
BUMP (see post above)
Mark?
Mark?
February 25, 2014 at 15:09 |
avrum
avrum
avrum:
Total tasks is just one way of measuring the results of the system. It's useful but not the be all and end all of it.
The real question is whether you got done the things you needed and wanted to get done. In other words, looking back did you feel that you achieved what you set out to achieve? And, as a secondary question, do you think you would have achieved as much using any other system (or none)?
Total tasks is just one way of measuring the results of the system. It's useful but not the be all and end all of it.
The real question is whether you got done the things you needed and wanted to get done. In other words, looking back did you feel that you achieved what you set out to achieve? And, as a secondary question, do you think you would have achieved as much using any other system (or none)?
February 25, 2014 at 16:28 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Mark:
<<did you feel that you achieved what you set out to achieve? ... do you think you would have achieved as much using any other system (or none)?>>
Good questions. Curious - how do you tackle these type of questions? Do you discuss this with your wife? A coach/therapist? I'm assuming you rely on feelings i.e. I feel my day went better with AF, SMEMA, Randomizer, etc.
<<did you feel that you achieved what you set out to achieve? ... do you think you would have achieved as much using any other system (or none)?>>
Good questions. Curious - how do you tackle these type of questions? Do you discuss this with your wife? A coach/therapist? I'm assuming you rely on feelings i.e. I feel my day went better with AF, SMEMA, Randomizer, etc.
February 25, 2014 at 16:45 |
avrum
avrum
avrum:
I don't think I actually spend a lot of time trying to answer questions like that, and I certainly don't discuss them with my wife, coach or therapist (the last two don't exist in any case).
I think the feeling is based on how well everything is under control. If I am up to date with my work and am confident that I'm going to meet any approaching deadlines without stress, then I would feel that I'd achieved what I've set out to achieve. So it's not a purely subjective feeling.
I don't think I actually spend a lot of time trying to answer questions like that, and I certainly don't discuss them with my wife, coach or therapist (the last two don't exist in any case).
I think the feeling is based on how well everything is under control. If I am up to date with my work and am confident that I'm going to meet any approaching deadlines without stress, then I would feel that I'd achieved what I've set out to achieve. So it's not a purely subjective feeling.
February 25, 2014 at 22:49 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
If I use SMEMA for two weeks (starting today), I will donate $50 to Mr. Forster
If I abandon SMEMA for whatever reason (within the two week period), Mr Forster will receive a $500 payment.
That is all.
Feel free to hold me accountable by asking for updates, etc.