From my (brief) reading, it's pretty clear much depends on the participants to eagerly and honestly participate in such a dialog. My guess is that if you had t

From my (brief) reading, it's pretty clear much depends on the participants to eagerly and honestly participate in such a dialog. My guess is that if you had to have "strong enforcement" of those principles, then the whole system would break down and a Bohm Dialogue would be impossible. If you had the right participants, the group could be self-correcting in those cases where the principles were violated unintentionally. I also think if you had the wrong participants, and such self-correction failed, the group would falter pretty quickly. I think the approach has real value, but really isn't a technique for, say, moving "public discourse" forward: too many people with too much emotional zeal for their preexisting positions to have such a willing participation in such a dialog.