good4whatAlesU said:
Ah but 'correction' implies adjustment and education and/or negotiated replacement.
Banning without consensus implies dictatorial control.
I've always thought that leadership is used to bridge the gap between the failure of consensus on a topic, and a decision on that topic.
The ambition for consensus is ideological. So many things fight against the achievement of consensus:
* The intrinsic nature of individuality
* The strive for an individual to be unique - potentially causing disagreement to assert their presence within a forum
* The different existence of an individual to others and the commensurate difference in their needs
So what's the best beer? Let's get consensus on that. A cracking example is with the excellent Best Yorkshire Ale series just posted. Amazing range within the topic and the best is chosen - but is that consensus?
What about voting and consensus on our leaders... This is highly complex and matters dearly to our society. I thoroughly recommend this bloke for his explanation of different voting systems.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3jE3B8HsE
Dave is right in my view. Howard nailed that. I shoot as well and this is one example where leadership assessed the attempts for consensus and executed his decision.
It's tricky.
I think consensus should be regarded as a type of pre-feasibility phase of a project. Good to do, but you wouldn't build off it without reinforcing it with expertise, review and leadership.