martg wrote:
Do you think we are all separate entities whose actions have no impact on those directly and indirectly connected to our existence?

martg wrote:
It is possible mart, i've seen it done effectively. Group decisions need to be made in all walks of life. My contention is that if they are made by trying to reach agreement by taking everyones views into avcount you actually minimise any imposition on people.

oioioi wrote:
of course not, that's the point
do your own thing without imposing on others

martg wrote:
How have you achieved complete self-sufficiency then?

dubmeup wrote:
I can accept that if you get a small group of people together to (for example) make a plan to make a communal garden.
but scale that up to everyone being polled on how to fix the global economic crisis and there would never be agreement.

oioioi wrote:
lol, no comment

ideal world and all that

It might not be obvious from my posts but I did vote yes. I just want to say that I do think we should try to do things together. We should give everybody an equal voice.

Think of an example like adding a moderator. If one person objects to a moderator being appointed whilst everybody else is cool with it then as of right now the mod is in. So in that case perhaps that member no longer feels comfortable here.

So do we discuss the issue or pick between the two or perhaps find a solution. Obviously this is an example and nothing personal against any mods. I just favor discussion and solution to please that member whilst maintaining the forum over just saying the majority goes.

Can I ask the "no"'s, did you vote against consensus as an idea or did you vote against it being something to strive for?

If the latter could someone please explain to me why 'common ground' is such a fearful prospect, because that's what consensus is.

An ordinary voting system, where an agreed majority 'wins', is the perfect opportunity to strive for common ground, because it's accompanied by a thread, in which the ins and outs of the far end of a fart issue are debated in full. People have the chance to sway others to their way of thinking, by means of logical argument, and we have the chance to evaluate our peers' opinions on the matter. It's perfectly democratic.

I would much rather lose, due to being out-voted, than be pressurised for ever more into changing my vote to match other people's because my agreement's needed for so-called consensus. In those circumstances, I would feel I was being (as seen earlier in the conversation) emotionally-blackmailed, and bullied (by carrying the enforced label, "Stubborn bastard") into compromising my integrity. Even though those tactics would strengthen my resolve to stick to my guns, it's not on.

How do you like them apples?

I think those apples are rather revealing

Were them apples castigated into exile by other members of the fruit bowl for being rotten to the core?

^ That's a poor argument. Next.

51 out of 100 people think otherwise.

Has this become an homage to Matt Damon?

oioioi wrote:
Are you 51 people, Oioi?

*Edit* Do keep going though, as your petulance at being disagreed with is proving my point.

i-baster wrote:
Apologies beforehand but I couldn't possibly resist...

qGilly wrote:
Why yes, yes I am.

i-baster wrote:
I didn't understand that till Psketti obliged with the clip. Yes. I vote for paying homage to Matt Damon. Luverly!