Many people simply think of consensus as an expanded voting method, where everyone has to vote in the same way. Since unanimous unanimity of this type rarely manifests itself in groups of more than one member, groups attempting to apply this type of procedure are usually either extremely frustrated or compulsive. Either decisions are never made (resulting in the fall of the group, their transformation into a social group that does not perform any task), or they are made in secret, or one group or individual dominates the rest. Sometimes a majority, sometimes a minority, sometimes an individual who employs “the Bloc” dominates. But no matter how it is done, there is NO CONSENSUS. [40] “The results of my experiment are identical to Michelson`s and the law of general relativity.” Other rules of participation used in unauthorized consensus protocols to impose barriers to entry and resist Sybil attacks include proof of authority, proof of space, proof of incineration, or proof of elapsed time. These alternatives are in turn largely motivated by the high computational energy consumption of proof of work. [31] Proof of ability is used by cryptocoins like burstcoin. In 2001, Robert Rocco Cottone published a consensus model of professional decision-making for consultants and psychologists. [69] Based on social-constructivist philosophy, the model functions as a consensus model, as the clinician addresses ethical conflicts through a consensus negotiation process. Disputes are resolved by mutually agreed arbitrators selected at an early stage of the negotiation process.

Decisions with high commitment, such as. B judicial decisions of the courts of appeal always require such explicit documentation. However, there is still agreement opposing the statements of the political groups. Nearly 40% of U.S. Supreme Court decisions, for example, are unanimous, although often for very different reasons. “The consensus in the Supreme Court vote, especially the extreme consensus of unanimity, has often baffled judicial observers who stick to ideological reports on judicial decision-making.” [47] Historical evidence of the suppression of some judges` views in favor of public unity is mixed. [48] One tradition in support of crude consensus is the tradition of buzzing instead of raising hands (countable); This allows a group to quickly realize the prevalence of dissent, without making it easy to slip into majority domination. [68] Some proponents of consensual decision-making consider that, for several reasons, procedures that make majority use of the rule are not the most desirable. . . .