Threats: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
2. Being force-fed [[KitKat McFlurry]] by a [[sysop]]. | 2. Being force-fed [[KitKat McFlurry]] by a [[sysop]]. | ||
3. [[Gus | 3. [[Gus Kouwenhoven]] taking over the CGO and steering it "his" way. | ||
Revision as of 02:49, 27 October 2003
Threats are things so bad we don't actually believe in them.
If we do believe they might really happen, they are worst cases.
The reason to outline threats is the same as to outline visions: It establishes clearly the limits of what you do and don't believe in, while still letting you think "out of the box", construct stories and useful conceptual metaphor, etc.. And, it reveals what you are thinking about the extremes of good and bad, in case someone else reads it and says "hey wait a minute I *do* believe in that..." in which case they move it to best cases or worst cases. To do this in a disciplined way makes it really clear where our various ideas of reality converge and where they do not.
Here are some threats:
1. Lawyers specializing in hot potato lawsuits only against the poorest members of the Consumerium Governance Organization, and only for doing things that they really need to do to make Consumerium governance work.
2. Being force-fed KitKat McFlurry by a sysop.
3. Gus Kouwenhoven taking over the CGO and steering it "his" way.