No; the point here is to pick the worst possible compromise out of compromises that solve the problem effectively.

It's like you're dividing an 8-piece pizza between 3 people. Everyone's minimum desire is 2 pieces, compromise solution would be 2 and 2/3 split, and people keep arguing why they deserve more. However you - the decision maker - decide instead to give everyone 2 pieces and throw the remaining 3 pieces into the bin, because shut up and get back to work.

You understand perfectly: everyone got enough food to keep going, and they are equally dissatisfied with the result. I might take a step to the left by ordering known-unpalatable toppings and provide no further allocation instructions, but the effect is the same.

If there are 3 people, and they each get 2 slices, that is 6 slices.

So, throwing away 2 slices, because there is 8 total, is fine, as you stated that is everybody’s agreed minimum desired amount.

And there is no knife, nor protractor.

What is the difference between the worst and best compromise? If it is a compromise, it is a compromise.

Anti-compromise: A solution which pleases the fewest parties possible while still meeting each party’s needs.

Compromise: A solution which pleases the most parties possible while still meeting each party’s needs.