Feature request: Consensus Invite
Steven Palmer
Public
Seen by 89
I find ongoing successful consensus requires participants to have consistently aligned values and goals in respect to the initial idea or aspiration. Else decisions can become corrupted by a reflection of cultural values and public opinion, which changes erratically over time due to real events, misleading propaganda, life circumstances, etc.
It could be a useful option to inoculate a consensus group from the toxicity and corruption of the public sphere by limiting the damaging effects of unwelcome changes to the participants core opinions and values, which effect decision making.
A group could still adapt to the public sphere by changing its statement, values and goals. But this would be done by consensus, making potential negative impacts more transparent, core changes to decision making, conscious.
What I mean in layman terms, is an optional feature, a consensus mechanism for invitations, that specifies in a steadfast manner a consensus about values and goals required for joining and remaining in the group. Perhaps a constitution to sign, test to pass or invite to be ratified by existing participants using consensus.
Jesse Doud
Sun 2 Feb 2014 1:14AM
This would be great for creating important early engagement.
Billy
Sun 2 Feb 2014 1:47AM
Totally. I think something like this was in my design notes stuff from way back when ;)
Dean Satchell
Sun 2 Feb 2014 9:49AM
Could even be used for setting explicit group rules.
Steven Palmer Sun 30 Mar 2014 2:29PM
Perhaps not all of the Statement needs to be accepted either, there can even be a pass percentage for the parts of Statement that do require feedback.
For example, if someone only agrees with 30% of Statement, they are unlikely to add value to the consensus. So perhaps they won't be allowed in, or allowed in but not to participate, or have permitted participation limited to certain sub-groups, or certain priority discussions.
Steven Palmer Sun 30 Mar 2014 4:10PM
@steveray what I mean is, if we're overly value-neutral in design - by restricting even the option to set moral/spiritual principles - we empower a powerful nihilistic wasteland of a culture to weaken the performance of the platform.
I guess a goal of Loomio is to a facilitative a constructive environment, one with a good combination of understanding, love and discipline. And so to discourage the creation of an antagonistic environment. So it should find the correct balance between design that enables conflict and design that enables constructive debate.
Science shows how negative commentary can destroy consensus, even if the commentary is agreed to be incorrect. So we should be pro-active about encouraging constructive debate in an intelligent manner - one that doesn't produce unwanted positive bias of outcome.
A relatively steadfast moral conviction over certain values and principles is a wonderful thing. Hence the beauty of "block". Without it we weaken ourselves and encourage detrimental compromise within crowds and culture. So should be supported.
Danyl Strype Mon 31 Mar 2014 3:40AM
If I'm understanding @stevenpalmer correctly, what he's proposing is a way of introducing a potential new group member to the group culture, preparing them to work constructively with its members. This could include everything from basic ground rules of discussion, eg:
* criticize ideas but don't attack people
* no hate speech
* keep comments concise (comments longer than 5 sentences will be deleted to prevent ranting)
... to explanations of how the group uses Loomio features eg:
* a proposal is passed if it was open for at least a week, and has only 'yes' or 'abstain' positions
* a proposal is only passed if more than 2/3 of group members took a position
* if 2 or more people block, the proposal is abandoned and discussion continued
* blocks have no special function, and will be treated as a 'no'
If someone joins Loomio groups with the intention of trolling, rather than participating constructively, agreeing to a moderation/ engagement policy before joining might be enough to put them off. If not, it gives the coordinators a clear basis for taking action to prevent them disrupting the group.
Steven Palmer Mon 31 Mar 2014 5:37AM
@strypey not quite, although your last paragraph is correct.
Not all rules need to be written and/or agreed to. General behaviours can be worked out as we go along through discussion, moderation and user learning. Some of the rules suggested above are such a strong given for some people that it's perhaps better not to pre-emptively question them about or ask them to read.
I'm more interested about highlighting and protecting the core values and principles of a group.
For example, if a person joins a group, it may be just to give their opinion against that group or against part of that groups foundation or core basis for existing. Not to actually support that group and contribute to conducive discussion and decision making.
A person may not like Animals and/or not believe in Animal Rights, but they may join Animals Rights group, fly under the radar through seemingly respectful or quiet interaction, or perhaps obvious but irreversible interaction, same effect, a group's mental environment and views are negatively influenced. This is just one example.
Steven Palmer Mon 31 Mar 2014 6:29AM
Intelligently, guard against fracture points and support group cohesion. 
Steven Palmer Tue 8 Apr 2014 12:16PM
"Individuals subconsciously resist factual information that threatens their defining values." - link
Steven Palmer · Sun 30 Mar 2014 2:15PM
@traceyambrose as I said earlier..
"Could have radio button options in statement to provide feedback on specific parts of statement/declaration. For example, a choice of agree, undecided or disagree. A negative response could automatically respond with further information as to why a goal or value is important to the group." - there can also be an option to contest.