Post in 15. Moderating or facilitation discussions

2005 Dec 09 17:03 UTC

MJ Ray wrote:

> The world hasn't found a way for fascists and
> anti-facists to coexist without causing divisions, so why should
> we expect online to be so far ahead of it?

Well actually some people have. At least there are designs of consensus
meetings which can find any underlying consensus between opponents.
Peter Emerson has even found consensus between loyalists and republicans
in Northern Ireland, in a preferendum meeting. It is detailed in his
books (see http://www.deborda.org/) but in short the process is:

1. Get self-identified groups to work out in each group what option they
want to solve a particular problem. They already know what voting system
will be used at the end.

2. Have a time limited round in which each group presents their
position, and answers and questions of clarification. Independent
consensors can intervene to correct errors of fact, and to enforce time
limits.

3. The groups then reword their options, to try and make them more
attractive to the others, so that their preferred option is not ranked
last. They hand in a wording for the votes.

4. The independent consensors combine options that are merely different
wordings of the same outcome and put them into a vote covering a range
of extreme and less extreme options.

5. Each group (or sometimes each individual, depending on the meeting
design) then ranks the options.

6. The results are analysed using a deBorda count (last choice 1 point,
second last choice 2 points and so on). The consensors then report back
on the vote, highlighting those options that receive more than 75% of
the maximum possible points. These are often the ones that everyone puts
second or third, if they cannot get their preferred option.

At the end of some meetings, Peter has even found consensus between
supporters of Sinn Fein and the DUP.

To generalise, the rules of engagement in a deliberative or voting
process can be shaped to encourage (or discourage) consensus finding.