Allowing "block" creates vetoes
From: Sharon Villines (sharonsharonvillines.com)
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 06:14:55 -0700 (PDT)
Again, to beat a big drum, "blocks."

Calling objections "blocks" allows vetoes to exist. It creates them. Called a 
"veto" it would not be allowed because members don't have veto power — they 
can't be presidents. They only have the right to raise objections that would 
negatively affect their ability to participate as members of the community.

I wonder if "block" has some sort of romantic attachment. BLOCK THAT KICK! 
"Look at me. I'm heroic number 56 who can stop Harry's team in its tracks. 
Watch how all the girls line up for my autograph. Good investment those 
shoulder pads that make me look like Tarzan on steroids. Okay, let's play 
ball(s)!"

Maybe "block" is necessary to the psychology of sharing power that consensus 
decision-making requires. I can give up my power as the majority or as 
political leader, because I get the power to "block." If the power word "block" 
is taken away, then I have no power. Not good. Only "power with" rather than 
"power over" would be left. 

Maybe block has some power as a euphemism for veto. Like "girls" instead of 
"women." "Boys" instead of "men." I'm not vetoing, I'm blocking. I'm a pesky 
teenager, not an autocratic parent. Or maybe blockers want to retain their 
right to be autocratic parents. And those who allow them to block want the 
fight to be against autocratic power rather than on the substance of the issue.

Sharon
----
Sharon Villines, Washington DC
"Behavior is determined by the prevailing form of decision making." Gerard 
Endenburg





Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.