Re: Pet Policy - A Further Thought <– Date –>    <– Thread –> From: Robert Moskowitz (robertmknowledgetree.com) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 11:37:43 -0700 (PDT)
Alternatively, everyone could get a set of "voting cards", like judges at the Olympics. Put a motion on the table. Everyone voting "for" it holds up a numerical value. Add up the "yes" votes. Then everyone voting against it holds up a numerical value. Add up the "no" votes. The larger total prevails, unless the difference is within a certain amount (prearranged), in which case there is more discussion. Of course, the assumption is that people are fairly honest about using the numerical cards to accurately reflect the strength of their conviction and emotional value for their "yes" or "no" positions
```
Robert Moskowitz wrote:

```
One idea for resolving these kinds of disputes might involve some sort of "weighted" comparison of the votes on both sides of the issue. This is theoretical, but if you can get people to put a weight or a value on their vote, you have a chance to add things up. For example, suppose there are fifty of us in the community. Someone doesn't want dogs in the common house, and feels strongly about it. 29 of us don't care. 10 of us are mildly in favor of dogs, 5 of us a little more so. 5 of us mildly line up against the dogs.
```Here's the calculation:
1 vote against with a weight of 10. 5 votes against with a weight of 2.
5 votes for with a weight of 3.
10 votes for with a weight of 1.
29 neutral votes with a weight of 0.
multiply each vote by its weight and add things up, for and against.
```
In this example, you get 20 (1 x 10 plus 5 x 2) against versus 25 (5 x 3 plus 10 x 1) in favor. The dogs can stay. You can see this system has the potential to eliminate the black and white, either/or outcomes required of the system you mention. Of course, it brings its own difficulties. But it has a little more potential for reasonableness and flexibility, in my view. I can imagine giving every voter a poker chip, and they can place it in any of 20 squares on a table, each square representing 1 to 10 points either for or against the proposition under discussion. A quick glance will show where the community stands on the issue. Other nuances can be introduced, such as voting for one of several gradations in the policy: perhaps set up like this - no dogs at all, small dogs, friendly dogs of any size, or all dogs. Vote for what you want. There may be areas where this gradation approach can't be used, allowing people an absolute veto over certain issues. But there may be some decision-making areas where it can be used, preventing paralysis.
```
Robert

Original Message.....

Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 09:49:10 -0400
From: Rod Lambert <rod [at] ecovillage.ithaca.ny.us>
Subject: [C-L]_ Pet Policy
To: cohousing-l [at] cohousing.org
Message-ID: <44A288D6.3000903 [at] ecovillage.ithaca.ny.us>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

```
<<Dare I ask what events precipitated such a complex policy? Our pet policy is unwritten and something like "if someone objects, you (or your pet) can't do it." Did someone actually put cat litter in the toilet?
```
Sharon>>

Sharon,
```
Do you mean that one objection prevents someone from doing something. I have noticed that general tendency here sometimes and it seems to constipate the process of getting things done. Of course a concern for how a neighbor might feel is important. None the less a single objection should not always mean stop. I have been wondering about how to find the right balance for a while without any brilliant rule of thumb idea coming up.
```
Rod
EcoVillage atIthaca

```
```
```

Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.