A cool insight that was recently shared was: "We might not be able to get consensus, but we might be able to get consent." E.g. perhaps the outcome is not the one you preferred, but you see the value of the decision, and are okay with it.
Often it's hard to prove any of this tho. The undermining of the process to get things their way just wears everyone out around them. The only way I know how to deal with it is through sharp moderation.
-
-
Anyway. I think strong moderation is crucial in consensus-seeking scenarios because else it becomes impossible to make decisions where there's consent. It's essential for the health of projects to remove people who undermine the process, lest their peers burn out or give up.
Show this thread -
Addendum: another fabulous trick that can be employed by bad actors is framing the other side as uncooperative or unreasonable. Especially when the other side is too tired to deal, *they* are the ones who are uncooperative and halt progress. Moderation is *so* important.
Show this thread -
Anyway, I've typed enough for now. This is vaguely on reflecting on several situations I've seen happen in the past few months. Reality is more complex than bad-actor/not-bad actor. But I hope that if you can have one takeaway it's that moderation is crucial to guide consensus.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.