Sounds like a manifestation of Nassim Taleb's "Dictatorship of the Small [Intransigent] Minority"[1]
[1]https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dict...
I've been brought up to "always leave something on the table", but I understand that other societies hold the opposite.
It is far from perfect, but I feel it works.
I have been in many RRO meetings, and a few "CBDM" meetings.
I worked for a Japanese corporation for a long time, and saw their consensus system, which was painful, but worked. It was completely different from the "CBDM" meetings I've attended.
I once wrote up a very complete presentation and paper on real CBDM, but no one was ever interested in learning about it.
In my experience, most CBDM meetings aren't actually designed for "consensus." They are designed to let "the people that matter" accelerate the process of getting what they want.
RRO based off us/common practice but Congress, Senate and the House of Commons do a lot a "naughty shit" that are outside RRO / Citrine.
Amending a motion with non related things should really be ruled out of order.
The "naughty shit" is a direct quote from a former whip.
Might be similar for UK Parliament.
But you guys have the most downright entertaining government in the world.
It is online at https://erskinemay.parliament.uk/
But the executive has far to much power in the UK in my opinion - you can see why thye went after John Bercow as he was pushing back.
The US House of Representatives uses a set of rules based on Jefferson's Manual. Bill flow is a bit different than Roberts Rules of Order, but the concepts are very similar.
Been awhile since I read it. It’s not light reading.
Also, most folks use modern versions (copyrighted, so not open-sourced) of RRO.
It's pretty damn complete. It's actually a multi-hour class.
If I missed anyone, let me know.
I heard somewhere about a variant that would be interesting to try: everyone specifies a favorite option and a consensus option. If the consensus option eventually attains a supermajority, it wins, otherwise you choose a member at random and his/her favorite option wins.
Because random is fair but usually bad, there's an incentive to reach a consensus. Anyone who blocks the discussion is gambling with the risk of getting a bad favorite option.
You could probably fix the most egregious risks by say choosing at random from the options that a supermajority don't object to. (E.g. choose an option at random, if a supermajority has marked "definitely not this", then loop to the beginning and pick another one at random.)
When they have a big decision to make, he puts the division heads in a room, says "so, what are we going to do?", lets them bluff and bicker in their usual way, and then proposes in all seriousness the worst possible and least effective way to technically accomplish what has to be done. It's a gift, really.
It's effectiveness in unifying them through their desperation to make sure it never comes to pass is unparalleled.
He also had those same people give each other researched introductions to his leadership, which is every bit as brilliant and trollish as it sounds.
Dominated by "drunken yahoos" was her comment, I believe this is where Guido Fawkes cut his teeth.
I was also in a "consensus-based" meeting with a couple dozen people. It was dominated by one person who just kept insisting on getting their way, until everybody else got tired and "agreed."