It may be impossible, but those contrived games don't illustrate that. For example, it sternly warns that the responders should disregard all rules from their d

It may be impossible, but those contrived games don't illustrate that. For example, it sternly warns that the responders should disregard all rules from their day-to-day lives, which would simply not happen, people don't clean their minds for some games and will apply other those other things when making decisions. Also, as is common in these games, they're underspecified, so a lot of "disagreement" is just differences in terminology. So you can be in agreement on the policy (that this type of vehicle/non-vehicle) should be allowed in the park while disagreeing on the definition Also, if your failure mode is for someone to "called for her to be physically assaulted, doxed, etc.,", then agreement is irrelevant, you can be in total agreement on rules and still call that for non-rule-specific reasons (people are complicated and have emotions) But the main fail is in reducing agreement to a binary, so that's why "Exactly. There is a clear majority in the answers" is correct an a recipe for having a broadly popular moderation policy