3 ms·
My "group decision on where to eat" rule is pretty simply but works well: * Anyone can veto a suggestion, but they must suggest an alternate restaurant (that h
by munificent 5y ago
My "group decision on where to eat" rule is pretty simply but works well:
* Anyone can veto a suggestion, but they must suggest an alternate restaurant (that has not already been vetoed) instead.
This rule is gameable. A bad faith participant could veto a restaurant and suggest a patently horrible one and then rely on someone else to veto that and do the work to come up with a good suggestion. But there is a meta-rule here which is:
* Don't be friends with people who would do that.
- Jtsummers 5y agoWe permit a restaurant to be suggested a second time, but only by the person that vetoed it. Suppose someone vetoed the Cuban place, but no other idea was agreeable to the group. If they just didn’t want to go there but could do it, they can suggest it again and that’s usually where the group goes (when this happens). Otherwise we use the same process, it’s very effective.
- munificent 5y agoThis works OK, too. I prefer the "no revisiting" rule because it places backpressure on participants to not veto unless they really meann it. If they really would be OK with the restaurant such that they would allow revisiting it, then they probably shouldn't veto in the first place. This tends to make the game go faster, which is an important goal.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- ketzo 5y ago> But there is a meta-rule here which is: > * Don't be friends with people who would do that. Lol, I think this is actually very generalizable for.. many rules. Pretty good call.