Consensus decision-making: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
Usually also in a courtroom, everyone except the plaintiff and defendant will agree that the decision is all right. The job of lawyers is usually to agree that it is fine, even when their clients don't! The defendant always wants to just be left alone, and the plaintiff would like to see torture and death for a minor bylaw violation usually. So real communities know about U-2 and how to keep the two who are fighting, from polluting everything else going on. | Usually also in a courtroom, everyone except the plaintiff and defendant will agree that the decision is all right. The job of lawyers is usually to agree that it is fine, even when their clients don't! The defendant always wants to just be left alone, and the plaintiff would like to see torture and death for a minor bylaw violation usually. So real communities know about U-2 and how to keep the two who are fighting, from polluting everything else going on. | ||
[[Social software]] really has to rely on this idea completely. Trying to ask for full unanimous agreement means groups can't get large. Letting a clique just pick off people one by one, or letting one [[consensus thug]] hold up everything, leads to tyranny. And if U-3 | [[Social software]] really has to rely on this idea completely. Trying to ask for full unanimous agreement means groups can't get large. Letting a clique just pick off people one by one, or letting one [[consensus thug]] hold up everything, leads to tyranny. And if decisions with only the support of U-3 can go ahead over the objections of three, then the three people who are left out can probably conspire successfully in various ways that aren't obvious to everyone else, and eventually kill the system off. Three is enough for a [[terrorist cell]]! | ||