Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: Tragedy of the commons

[Sharon Villines (sharon]

On Sep 27, 2007, at 2:36 PM, Sharon Villines wrote:

> whether people at
> a conference could use consensus decision making in a game knowing it
> was a game. They could if there were rewards for reaching consensus.

I remember when my son was playing the first computer games in arcade  
machines that you had to feed with quarters. He assured me that the  
machines are NEVER turned off so the high scores were there from  
FOREVER. This was also before hard drives. A similar reward could  
exist for groups. "I was a member of such and such group that got the  
highest score" or each player who played group games would receive a  
score commensurate with the level of achievement of the group.

So the reward in a consensus decision making game might be being part  
of the largest group to achieve consensus on a problem of X  
complexity. Complexity might be measured in layers of decisions that  
have to be reached? The commitment required of players at each level?

Or consensus on the right answer at each level. If the wrong decision  
is made at one level, the group cannot reach the next and has to go  
back. At each level the players have to listen to the reasoning of  
the other players. Arguments have to be made and accepted.

Perhaps the players who reach the best decision at each level in the  
least amount of total playing time would be a good measure. If one  
person gives in to shorten the time, for example, the whole team  
could be penalized if that one person had the right answer and caved  
to pressure.

I think this sounds very interesting.

Sharon
----
Sharon Villines
Coauthor with John Buck of We the People
Consenting to a Deeper Democracy
A Guide to Sociocratic Principles and Methods
ISBN: 9780979282706
http://www.sociocracy.info