Nice catch on the negative dynamic where a group is brought together and then hijacked by a hidden agenda. We all need to be mindful of this at play in our lives - especially in the political arena where policy makers change our lives.
I've been thinking about group-think of recent. For myself, I've been asking how to be part of a specialized society yet remain an individual thinker. I'm in the question phase; I don't have an answer.
At the end of the day, trees are free to climb. There are simple techniques, that establish a reliable margin of safety. My personal goal is to become a better climber and open the door to RTC for others. It seems to be theraputic in my life; it may work for others as well. Probably being a supportive participant will be my only role.
I knew I should have provided a few links about the Delphi technique when I posted. I was fully aware of that negative one Tom referenced and naively thought no one would notice it.
The Delphi technique has a long history of success (actually first used formally in WWII by the allies to great advantage).
I don't know what axe to grind the writer of the negative review had, but he certainly is a most suspicious and non-trusting person!
I don't deny that some of the things he says can happen--indeed, some trust in the moderator is required.
I can tell you with certainty that the technique is very powerful and effective and can be used to create a result significantly better than what can be produced by people face to face. The main reason for that, by the way, is precisely that the source of ideas is unknown to the participants: That way, there is no, "That must be a good/crappy idea because it came from Clyde." (I hope none of you is named "Clyde"--I donâ€™t mean you.)
Use it or not--not my call. I can only say from experience that it is an excellent technique and ideally suited for what is going on here.
Finally, please don't assume that I meant that it would be used to produce the final document. Delphi could be used to efficiently and effectively create a draft by those deemed to be trustworthy (who does that--do we vote--maybe have a Delphi for that? [I'm joking, folks]), after which we could go through the interminable process of attaining consensus.
Since I started this and then disappeared...remember, I SAID I was busy, nobody got my point!
Sorry 'bout the frustration. I don't really care if the "STANDARD" (ITS NOT A STANDARD!) we publish is not the best, or even that it is first. I just really want something on paper soon that is not so close minded that when folks start looking for a standard (and believe me ther is someone out there looking, and they have power that could really screw things up) that they are not required to use the one that I know may very well be proposed that WILL INSIST that we use a specific knot for attachment, a specific hitch for climbing, and a host of other issues that are contrary to the heart of my original post. We are trying to show the world in a unified manner that we know how to do recreational climbing in a safe manner, and that it does not have to limit how folks do things. IT'S AN ACCEPTED PRACTICES, not STANDARDS.
I've repeated myself until I'm just fed up with this stuff, somebody's always got to be negative. Well here's my idea. I've said my fill on it. EVERYBODY knows where I stand. Just climb safe! For that matter, y'all really gotta stop being so contrary, and just climb!
I had someone ask for the document, that we have been planning to prepare for the last 5 years, this afternoon. Instead of saying, "yeah we got our stuff togather" I had to say, "well that's a work in progress". I ended by saying, just lemme climb, I PROMISE I won't kill myself.
Thanks, yall for all the lively conversation, but I really have to quit. All the politics is driving me nuts. I'll post what I think should suffice as accepted practices soon on TCNC's site. I'll let you know when I do. Until then...drop me a line if you want to climb.