From 232205b27c98a96dabd984b9d6ecf2701872cb4c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Merlijn Sebrechts Date: Tue, 6 May 2014 22:16:00 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] Update decision.md --- order/decision.md | 14 ++++++++------ 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) diff --git a/order/decision.md b/order/decision.md index 9c63a54..6a74c30 100644 --- a/order/decision.md +++ b/order/decision.md @@ -36,13 +36,15 @@ when all has failed, or the problem is too controversial, but a decision is stil ### Point system The point system is a **last-resort** option. This should not be the general process of resolving conflicts. If the space is starting to use this too much, that means that there is a structural problem in the group dynamic. + **The point system has a few basic rules:** - - each voter has a certain number of points that he can distribute over the different proposals - - The proposal with the most points wins - - In case of tie; revote. - - ** Number of points per voter = ** `(#_of_options * 2 ) + 1 ` - - Results should be given to the group in binary format: what proposal won and what lost. This is to strengten the support of the decision. -This decision is now + * each voter has a certain number of points that he can distribute over the different proposals + * The proposal with the most points wins + * In case of tie; revote. + * ** Number of points per voter = ** `(#_of_options * 2 ) + 1 ` + * Results should be given to the group in binary format: what proposal won and what lost. This is to strengten the support of the decision. + + "No decision" is worse than a "bad decision". Conflict has to be solved eventually. That is why there is this last-resort option. However, we want to discourage people from blocking consensus. The point system has the following advantages: - The outcome is not always clear because balanced ideas can still win, even if the minority would vote for them. - The minority will gain from convincing the majority that their idea is not completely ridiculous.