Block is one of the most important aspects of consensus decision making imo - it doesn't quite solve, but definitely goes along way toward mitigating the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority ensuring well-operating groups go out of their way to accomodate views of all inidividuals, not just of large "voting blocks".

On minor note - the "reason" textarea is currently optional, which I think is good for most positions, but it should be mandatory for a block.

@diogonunes some brief responses to your comment above, in the interest of fleshing out this discussion a bit more:

Voting choices should be objective and limited. That’s why referendums have Yes or No

I think there's a fundamental misconception here from the beginning that a proposal/decision is a "vote" similar to a referendum, with a clear "winner" and "loser". Traditional referenda are - in their nature - divisive and restrictive. What you seem to be perceiving as an advantage of referenda (clear, concise binary choices) many see as being their major flaw. In general, I think consensus decision-making methods are an attempt to redress these major flaws in traditional democracy, emphasising compromise, discussion and often the creation of and agreement on various "3rd-ways" instead of the restriction to simplisitic Yes/No options that can create conflict and competition between group factions.

10% Abstain, 40% Yes, 30% No, 20% Block - Yes wins.

This is a misunderstanding of what a block represents. For the purpose of explanation in the terms you're using, in this case "No" wins, as the blocks act as effective vetoes (to use traditional terminology).

However, in consensus, the idea of sides "winning" and "losing" should be dissuaded in general, and blocks will typically not play out as vetoes in reality - rather they are opportunities to revisit and renegotiate the proposal.

I can see your point, and you're probably right. I don't have the consensus mindset just yet, since I came from developing a similar app with only +1 and -1 votes. Give me time :P

I do think consensus mode should be optional (but default), for groups that use different decision making processes.
Right now Loomio doesn't really suit the processes of non-consesnus groups.

Disagree is as important as the block, used in different context. I can support certain things when i disagree on things like process. On principles the disagree may become a hard block. Both are great help in defining and bringing a consensus based group into deeper solidarity on the real issues.

One of the strengths and challenges of Loomio is that groups can make it mean what they want. Groups can decide that Block and Disagree are equivalent for their purposes, but that requires that groups be flexible and empowered enough to make that decision. Living in a community that makes decisions using a modified consensus process, I can attest that there is a huge difference between Blocking ("I think this is such a bad decision that I will not support its moving forward,") and Disagreeing ("I don't like this, and I want to go on record as not liking it, but if everyone else thinks it's a good idea after hearing my thoughts, you go ahead." In our community, we use nouns - we call them, respectively, Objections and Concerns. When it's time for a decision, we ask if there are any of either, and in both cases, people say what they are, and they get added to the minutes. Concerns mean a decision can go forward; Objections mean it can't.

Block often represents deeper disconnects than disagreement with the 'surface' decision up for discussion.

For example, a more Machiavellian approach may argue that the end justifies any means to achieve that outcome.

Others (incl myself) would argue that the means of achieving an outcome can become deeply embedded in the DNA of an organisation/project. The 'how' we do things is important, both for outcome and for who we become by engagement with that process. (Can't create democracy by undemocratic means)

Several times, I have watched 'democratic' groups achieve consensus by progressively excluding those of the community, who disagreed. In one case, the circle decreased from 200 members to 5 members. A very valuable alternative school project was thus set back many years.

Many valuable supporters of this social project were forced into a position of opposition, simply because they disagreed with the means and ethics of achieving outcomes. (in this case. 'means' included deliberate campaign of malicious character assassination & hijacking by subterfuge of school boards etc) These supporters unwillingly found themselves on the wrong side of a project they strongly agreed with.

Block, seeks to address this kind of situation where there may be a deeper issue to be addressed, than just the decision up for discussion. Clearly, it should be used sparingly. It should be followed by further consideration of the disconnects revealed thus.

There is also the risk that this option may be used for malicious, vindictive, harmful reasons which may introduce an element of toxicity into the mix. Unfortunately, humans being humans. Any group needs to develop a depth of maturity & experience to deal with this form of negativity. Often, this is the role of Elders to quietly deal with such matters. Skilled Elders have a range of strategies to call upon.

Block highlights issues which strike to the heart of the group's shared ethics & values. Most fundamental paradigm shifts originate from lone voice of dissent, prepared to Block, with body, blood & soul.

http://resourcemagonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/MAIN-IMAGE_Copyright-Jeff-Widener-Associated-Press.jpg

I probably couldn't explain that one better.

Here's an extract from the Open Enterprise Governance Model, a great model for decentalised organizations that dovetails very nicely into Loomio.

On blocking

When a vote receives a ‘block’, it is the responsibility of the community as a whole to address the objection. Such discussion will continue until the objection is either rescinded, overruled (in the case of a non-binding block) or the proposal itself is altered in order to achieve consensus (possibly by withdrawing it altogether). In the rare circumstance that consensus cannot be achieved, the Core Team will decide the forward course of action.

In summary:

Those who don’t agree with the proposal and feel it would be detrimental to the enterprise if pursued should vote ‘block’. However, they will be expected to submit and defend a counter-proposal.
Those who don’t agree, don’t find it detrimental, and don’t have a better idea should vote ‘disagree’.
Those who agree should vote ‘agree’.
Those who do not care either way or who find themselves on the fence should vote ‘neutral’.

Yep.. I agree with the general trend here ... the capacity to block is a key element of Loomio because Disagree indicates you believe coming to a decision collaboratively is more important than what you want/need as one member of the group but you're exercising your individual vote.

I'd be interested to hear from others as to what their experience is of the Block feature being abused or over used, and how much that might be because we are online, not face to face. In my experience as a facilitator of face to face collaboration, people very rarely block when they experience the key element of decision making that makes it collaborative: feeling heard. People will shift from quite strong positions that would otherwise translate to a block when they feel heard and seen by the group. Usually it takes some good facilitation for this to happen. I haven't been in enough Loomio groups to know whether or not people routinely facilitate Loomio discussions (ie,someone impartially managing process). For example, most comments in this thread are put as an opinion, not as a follow on or addition to another comment... so a whole range of facilitation microskills (validation, normalising, noticing and naming, wondering, etc) are not being used and there is not a collaborative "vibe".

Your comment @kyleeastrobox that Blocking is rare in the groups you are part of intrigues me. Is this because you know and trust the other participants? That would certainly make sense. If you have new participants in a conversation, Im interested in how you bring these people into a collaborative space.. because for me having people who have the self awareness around how to work with the emotional dynamic both in our own triggers and in others is essential to lifting the quality and depth of collaboration in decision making.

Here's a previous discussion that goes into a lot of these questions as well: https://www.loomio.org/d/R6Ml74gE/using-a-block

I'm interested in exploring some of the design options here... I've often thought that actually maybe we could come up with a better way to handle blocks that would also serve to educate users who haven't encountered them in consensus groups before. Maybe blocks should make the whole circle red? Maybe they should be flags instead?

I think we should recognise that many (most?) users of Loomio might not have personal experience as many of us in this discussion have with consensus groups and these concepts, but using the design of the software to gently show these possibilities to people can be a powerful form of social impact to deepen users' thinking about group process beyond simple "voting".

This whole thread is full of gold - thanks to everyone who is participating. @diogonunes please don't feel negatively that people are disagreeing with you - this is turning into a fantastic opportunity to draw out some of the knowledge of the community about this issue.

@chelsearobinson and @hannahsalmon are starting to work more on help and training documentation for Loomio and will be pulling together some initial information about best practice for Loomio and collaborative decision making. My aspiration for Loomio is that through using the tool, more people find deeper understanding of these group process issues more accessible.

Another idea I'd like to introduce here that's related to the conversation.

It can be startling how easily a skilled manipulator can, incrementally, reverse the polarity of a group. Each individual decision seems reasonable & rational, and yet not. That lingering feeling of being screwed, but not sure how.

I refer to it as "The Animal Farm Transformation' (re George Orwell's 'Animal Farm')

As an observer, watching such a skilled operator in action, can be quite disturbing. It can be very hard to call them out on it, as each incremental divergence appears reasonable.

Sometimes the Block seems the only way to call for a Time Out/Values Check.

Any set of rules can be manipulated. Any process which is applied too mechanistically can become a meat grinder.

Which is why its important to build in the messy 'human stuff' into any process. Oft times, traditional indigenous communities have much more effective mechanisms for dealing with 'humanness' than legalistic Western methodologies.

Yes @STeve Ray the groups I'm in are quite small and we all know each other :)

I like Alanna's suggestion of changing the design for a block response.
Another idea is to surround the whole circle with a red ring. This would strongly indicate that a decision can't continue while blocks are in effect.

Perhaps the "block" button could be optional within the settings of a discussion. To me, block is used more frequently within groups which have equal decion making power. A lot of groups use loomio for hosting discussion which feeds into a decision elsewhere too, where loomio space is a temperature check. So it could be a tick box / optional? I like the "circle of red around the pie graph" idea. I am largely pro-block and dont feel like it needs to go.

I really like your suggestion @chelsearobinson. At the beginning of any face to face collaborative decision-making process, I always have a session where the group establishes some Agreements around "what's going to help us work well together". This has the effect of people knowing the expectations of others and creates a safer space all round. In this context whoever is leading/facilitating the meeting could ask the group "so what do you want to do about the Block Option?". For those who dont understand its power because they are new to the process, then there is some opportunity to provide some illumination around the power of veto and the responsibility of using such an option. I think you're right @chelsearobinson that if people know each other, then they also know implicitly where other people are coming from within the group.

I see Loomio increasingly creating a decentralised process of decision making that has way more authority than our current democratic voting system which has as its fundamental weakness, the creation of winners and losers. If that's the case then its just so important we get this stuff right as we engage larger numbers of increasingly new participants.

I agree with you too @alanna that this whole thread is mining the essence of why we are all here. We're getting down to some fundamental principles to do with the empowerment of people. I really appreciate this interrogation of the approach and the contributions of everyone. Thank you all!

I really like @frederickstark suggestion, or displaying a red halo around the pie chart.

After reading your comments I understand your point. The only question I have is "How can block be the last resort for minorities?". Does it suspend the voting?

Let's say on a decision with 100 votes, 10 are blocks. What's the decision's outcome? What if there are only 2 block votes?

That messy stuff depends on what the group in question has decided.
Past groups I've been involved with use modified consensus, where after a reasonable attempt to get agreement has been made, a decision can still pass with an 85% majority.
We never needed to use it thankfully because we made sure that everyone felt heard during the discussion.

—
Frederick Starkcell: 720 400-0251
Sent from Mailbox ( https://www.dropbox.com/mailbox )

I too like the halo idea, also the idea of making block functionality optional. Though if you go the latter route, then there's no reason not to have other options too, like "agreement with reservations," or distinguishing Abstain from Standing Aside. I did not advocate 50 shades (@diogonunes please don't exaggerate), but there are reasons to allow more than 2-3 options.

Part of what's tricky here is that Loomio does not distinguish between polling/temperature checks vs. actual decisions. Real life groups get into trouble when they aren't clear on which is which, and so will Loomio users. If the software doesn't structurally support making that distinction, then it's up to each individual user group to figure out a way to do it.

Agree with @frederickstark re how Blocks affect the process depend on what the group has decided. In classical consensus process, 1 block prevents a proposal from passing, even in a group of 500+. That's why it's important to have other ways to express serious dissent without blocking. Traditionally that's what Standing Aside has been for, and it's not at all the same as Abstain. Abstain means "i'm not participating in this decision," (e.g. due to conflict of interest or lack of information), whereas Standing Aside means something like Loomio's "Disagree": "i don't like this and i won't take leadership in implementing it, but i'll follow it, won't sabotage, and don't think it conflicts with the group's core values."

@treebressen sorry for exaggerating but I had to use that pun, why stop at 7 choices? :P
To redeem myself, I think you'll like this new decision ;)

This idea already exists in the backlog: https://trello.com/c/KM1cupt1

But @timmcnamara is also right that there is something to be said for simplicity. I suspect that if we kept the current ones as the defaults, but offered custom options in the settings, most people would still use the defaults and people who really needed to could customise them. Best of both worlds?

I think if this was designed/implemented in the right way it could be a really powerful way of extending Loomio's usefulness.

Groups that use Loomio really well very often hack it to do exactly this (i.e. specifying in the proposal context "press 'agree' if you think A, press 'abstain' if you think B', etc..) - I'd love our design thinking to be driven by the ways people are actually using the tool in practice and making the valuable things easier to do.

At the same time, maintaining simplicity/usability/clear affordances of the primary function is totally critical - to me this is kind of a super-user feature rather than an obvious surface-level feature - so it would make sense to have it as a subtle option that's part of the Proposal set-up process, behind a click.

@diogonunes , thanks for your flexibility of thinking - this has been an awesome case of an initial proposal bringing out lots of perspectives (and productive disagreement), leading to new possible solutions emerging. Love it!

I really like this idea and agree with @benjaminknight
"to me this is kind of a super-user feature rather than an obvious surface-level feature - so it would make sense to have it as a subtle option that’s part of the Proposal set-up process, behind a click."

Well, as @alanna mentioned, it it's already on the backlog there's no point in the current decision, it's settled :)

There was a feature developed to allow users to customize what text would go into the existing four slots (agree, abstain, disagree, block), [IE, this is what 'agree' means in this particular context, etc.] It didn't get put in because the functionality would get steamrolled by the upcoming 1.0 release, but I think it'd be a good candidate to go back in at some point, since much of it is already done.

@diogonunes the hard block is the tool of the individual, can be a minority, usually is just the one in the group that has the bad feelings about going forward or some element going forward with an idea. In great groups, the work in honoring a block lifts so much of the unconscious baggage its really remarkable. If you know astrology, I'd say the work of the hard block is in the realm of Chiron, the wounded healer.