[Imc-lwg-work] manipulating consensus (unkowningly)

[Richard Malter]

micmatic at gmx.net wrote:
http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/public/new-imc/2002-October/004134.html

"
Introducing votes would corrupt the idea of consensus, as it were no 
longer "opinion vs. opinion" but "majority vs. minority". And because 
the entity of an "opinion value" would be transferred from the actual 
opinion to a body, such as a person or group.
As we know, one person does not equal one opinion. >>>And the fact that 
many people are sharing the same opinion doesn't mean they're right. <<<
>>> This is why consensus functions as a safeguard against majority rule, 
because it attempts to eliminate the middlemen and places singular 
opinions against one another. <<<

Richard and Toni shall under no circumstances have the right to actually 
"veto" against the majority and dictate their standpoint upon everyone else.
>>>Likewise, their standpoint as a minority shall be respected by allowing 
them to object to decision making and fully explain their motives and 
concerns as equal partners. <<<
"

This is a central key idea. The opposite of this, ie the undesired possible 
state of this, is exactly how the London collective have effectively (even 
unknowingly) (tried to) manipulated the consensus process: as we have 
experienced over and over, they (mostly) do not actually discuss actual points 
in debates - they try to block or outweigh anything that they dont like 
(because it contradicts their preferred ideology) by:

a) being a mass of individuals when it suits them - **creating an impression of 
many opinions that swamp the single opinion from any other group** (eg Lwg)

b) being a unified group when it suits them - to add weight to their status 
(regardless of the validity and/or strength of their arguments).

In this way they effectively (try to) control decision-making - which is what I 
have called "Lowest-Common-Denominator-Working-Practices".

If it ever comes to it, what we need to do is collect together the many 
documented examples of this from uk-process to illustrate this subtle process.

See, this is positive already :) good analysis came out of discussion :)

Richard