Why the distinction between "Disagree" and "Block"?

When you disagree, you only express your opinion and may accept that most people agree and that you may be in minority.

When you block, you clearly have a reason to say that whatever is the repartition of people that agree or disagree, the proposal can't be (in your opinion) validated.

This distinction is necessary because it offers you a nuanced expression. Basically disagree allows you to note your opposition, while accepting the majority's choice. Meaning you'd still carry out the decision. Block means you won't and abstain means you don't care (and won't care).

This is a great question, Diogo, that gets at the difference between consensus and voting for decisions. I think Loomio was developed with an intention to be neutral and support either choice. In consensus decision-making, the option to say "i think this is a bad idea, but i'm still willing to carry it out if that is the will of the group after listening to my reasons" is extremely important. Some people, such as Sam Kaner, suggest that having even more than 4 options serves better. For example, scroll down on this page to the face sketches: http://www.ecovillagenewsletter.org/wiki/index.php/Kommune_Niederkaufungen%E2%80%99s_New_Decision-Making_Method.

In classical consensus process the only way one can block a decision is if it goes against the basic values of the group or would lead to a catastrophic (not just crappy) outcome.

For lots more info on consensus, see my website http://treegroup.info/topics/, especially under the topics Consensus and Blocking.

I do think that Diogo is pointing to something important here, which is that while this distinction is clear and necessary for those who had answers, it won't be intuitive for many users. If people hover over the hands, they see a pop-up explanation that's pretty helpful, and I expect that the individual words themselves don't do it.

Think of it this way.

I agree. This is obvious.
I abstain. You are deciding to withhold your vote either under protest or so as not to obscure the groups response. You are agreeing to follow the groups decision.
I disagree. You are casting a negative vote but agree to abide by the group decision.
I block. In this case you have the strongest negative opinion on the proposal and will not accept the groups decision.

There is a subtle but important distinction between "I disagree" and "I block". It rests in the residual feeling of the voter with respect to the group decision.

The above is my own opinion and my interpretation of the intention of the somewhat unusual but wonderful 4 vote choices.

On small scale it's quite clear (the line between "I prefer not" and "I'll be offended if"), but it's less important since the difference may be expressed in the comments.

On bigger scale it's harder to align the line between the two and it gives more power to negative minority.

What I find problematic is that it's on the same level as the others. Maybe it should be a similar to 'flag' or an option in the 'disagree'.

Voting choices should be objective and limited. That's why referendums have Yes or No, not the 50 shades of choices mentioned by @treebressen . When the voter has to decide between disagree and strongly disagree (block), he/she will make a subjective guess. And negative votes will be randomly divided between two similar choices, reducing the decisions' expressiveness.

Example for majority-based decision:
10% Abstain, 40% Yes, 50% No - No wins.
10% Abstain, 40% Yes, 30% No, 20% Block - Yes wins.
Total different outcomes, so this isn't merely a word problem.

@raphaeljadot I understand your explanation, but I disagree. When I take a decision (agree, disagree, block) I "clearly have a reason to do so". If I think "the proposal shouldn't be valid" then I'll flag it and explain why. You may argue that "blocking" works the same as "flagging", fine but then it blocking should appear in the pie chart.

I propose that Loomio's default should be "Yes, No, Abstain", with a flagging system. Optionally, the community may create create different "flavors" of Yes and No.

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.