CommunityRule/community-rule
2
0 Fork 0
Code Issues 1 Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Import the remade decks on stable ids and recommend one card per job, so a saved draft still loads after a chip is renamed.

Browse Source 
The real-group profiles stay as a test, so a change that moves a pick fails.

Co-authored-by: Cursor <cursoragent@cursor.com>
This commit is contained in:
adilalloandCursor committed 2026-11-04 14:22:54 -07:00
1 parent 96ca15d8e3
commit bcbc6f30d9
89 files changed
+36555 -2828
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

No files matched your search

messages/en/create/customRule/conflictManagement.json
+296 -206
View File
@@ -2,13 +2,13 @@
"_comment": "Create flow — conflict management (Figma Flow — Compact Card Stack `20879:15979`)",
"page": {
"compactTitle": "How should conflicts be managed\nin your group?",
"compactDescriptionBefore": "You can also combine or ",
"compactDescriptionBefore": "Start with the conflict ladder, then pick a card for serious cases, safety and repair. Combine them or ",
"compactDescriptionLinkLabel": "add",
"compactDescriptionAfter": " new approaches to the list",
"compactDescriptionAfter": " your own.",
"expandedTitle": "How should conflicts be managed in your group?",
"expandedDescriptionBefore": "You can also combine or ",
"expandedDescriptionAfter": " new approaches to the list",
"seeAllLink": "See all conflict management approaches"
"expandedDescriptionBefore": "Start with the conflict ladder, then pick a card for serious cases, safety and repair. Combine them or ",
"expandedDescriptionAfter": " your own.",
"seeAllLink": "See all conflict cards"
},
"confirmModal": {
"title": "Confirm selection",
@@ -16,294 +16,384 @@
"nextButtonText": "Confirm"
},
"addApproach": {
"nextButtonText": "Add Approach"
"nextButtonText": "Add card"
},
"removeApproach": {
"nextButtonText": "Remove"
},
"sectionHeadings": {
"corePrinciple": "Core Principle",
"applicableScope": "Applicable Scope",
"processProtocol": "Process Protocol",
"restorationFallbacks": "Restoration & Fallbacks"
"corePrinciple": "Core principle",
"applicableScope": "Applicable scope",
"processProtocol": "How it works",
"restorationFallbacks": "Protections and fallbacks"
},
"scopeAddButtonLabel": "Add Applicable Scope",
"applicableScopePlaceholder": "Describe when and where this approach applies",
"scopeAddButtonLabel": "Add a scope",
"applicableScopePlaceholder": "Describe when and where this card applies",
"methods": [
{
"id": "peer-mediation",
"label": "Peer Mediation",
"supportText": "Trained members within the organization mediate disputes among peers.",
"id": "conflict-ladder",
"label": "Conflict ladder",
"supportText": "We talk one-on-one, then each brings a friend to negotiate, and the people we name step in last, or first for safety.",
"sections": {
"corePrinciple": "We democratize conflict skills. Instead of relying on professional outsiders, trained peers help their colleagues resolve disputes, reinforcing the idea that we take care of each other.",
"corePrinciple": "We cannot end conflicts, only manage them, and distance can be a fair answer. A conflict belongs in the smallest room that can hold it, because each person added raises the price of backing down. So we add people one step at a time, unless safety, shared money or a power gap cannot wait. Friends carry informal power, so their step has written limits. Nobody loses their place, shifts or pay for raising a concern. The ladder breaks when a conflict reaches the group chat first.",
"applicableScope": [
"Low-level friction",
"misunderstandings",
"and minor grievances between peers."
"Conflict between two people",
"Friction over work or tone",
"Broken agreements"
],
"processProtocol": "A volunteer peer (who is not a manager) invites the disputants to a private chat. Using a simple script, they ask questions like 'Tell us your side,' 'Tell us what you need,' and 'What can you agree to?'. The peer keeps the conversation focused on future interactions rather than past grievances. The disputants retain full control over the resolution.",
"restorationFallbacks": "The goal is a verbal agreement to try a new way of interacting. If the peer mediator determines the issue is too complex or involves serious harassment, they are required to refer the case to professional Mediation or a Judicial Committee."
"processProtocol": "First we sort. A disagreement about what to do is a decision. Threats, violence, stalking, harassment, discrimination, abuse, fear of the other person and worries about shared money skip to step three. Someone whose pay, shifts, membership or aid the other controls can skip step one. Step one. The two talk in person or by call, agree one small change and a check-in two or three weeks out. Step two. Each picks one friend, inside or outside the group, whom the other has no reason to distrust. The friends learn what each wants and the least each could accept, meet without them and propose written terms within about two weeks. Or the two meet with one person both trust.",
"restorationFallbacks": "Friends keep what they hear private and never decide. We keep a short list of members willing to be a friend for anyone, and anyone without a friend picks from it. A failed or refused step moves up. Step three is two people close to neither person, from inside or outside the group, who hear both, keep the two apart if safety needs it and propose what happens next. A broken agreement moves up a step. The gap a conflict showed goes to our next meeting without the quarrel. In immediate danger, anyone gets help from outside the group first."
}
},
{
"id": "conflict-resolution-council",
"label": "Conflict Resolution Council",
"supportText": "Senior members with institutional knowledge provide guidance or decisions.",
"id": "precautionary-suspension",
"label": "Precautionary suspension",
"supportText": "When someone may put others at risk, we pause their access for up to 30 days while a fair process starts.",
"sections": {
"corePrinciple": "We rely on the wisdom of experienced members to guide us back to our values. This body acts as the 'keepers of the culture,' providing high-context advice to resolve friction.",
"corePrinciple": "Safety comes first and a fair process follows. When someone may put others at risk, we pause their access at once instead of waiting for a hearing. A pause is not a finding, and we say so. It protects people and what we share while the facts are gathered, and it ends on a date. It pulls against fairness to the person paused, so it is short, explained and open to review. It breaks when a pause becomes a quiet way to remove someone.",
"applicableScope": [
"Smoldering cultural tensions or gray-area cases where the Code of Conduct isn't clearly violated but trust is eroding."
"Threats, violence or abuse",
"Harassment or stalking",
"Misuse of money, keys or equipment",
"Breaking someone’s privacy"
],
"processProtocol": "Disputants submit a request to the standing Council, which reviews the submission and may interview witnesses to understand the cultural context. The Council deliberates privately, referencing the community's values and history, before issuing a formal 'Opinion' or recommendation. While the Council holds significant influence (approx. 50% 'weight'), their recommendation is not strictly binding; it relies on social pressure and respect for the elders to encourage adoption.",
"restorationFallbacks": "The artifact is a formal 'Council Opinion' that clarifies how community values apply to the situation. If the parties ignore this guidance, the Council may recommend formal disciplinary action or a community vote to enforce the standard."
"processProtocol": "A pause is for threats, violence, stalking, harassment, abuse, being impaired on a shift, breaking someone’s privacy or misusing shared money, keys or equipment. We name two members each year who can pause someone’s roles and access to spaces, shifts, keys, accounts and chats for up to 30 days. When we have named none or one is involved, any two members not involved can. Within a day they tell the person in writing why, what is paused and until when, and tell members only what changes in the work. Our conflict process takes up the case within a week. In immediate danger, any member gets help from outside the group first and can ask a person to leave for the day.",
"restorationFallbacks": "The paused person keeps aid, pay and any vote, and can give their side to two uninvolved people, who review the pause within a week. The pause ends on its date or when the case closes, and those hearing it can extend it once, by up to 30 days or until a removal vote ends. If unfounded, we tell everyone who was told. A pause never keeps anyone out of their own home. Whoever raised the concern keeps their place. If only one member is uninvolved, that member and a trusted outsider can pause someone, and anyone who feels unsafe can step back at no cost."
}
},
{
"id": "facilitated-negotiation",
"label": "Facilitated Negotiation",
"supportText": "A neutral facilitator helps guide the negotiation process.",
"id": "graduated-responses",
"label": "Graduated responses",
"supportText": "When someone breaks our agreements or causes harm, our response starts small and grows only if the behavior goes on.",
"sections": {
"corePrinciple": "Neutral support helps parties navigate emotional barriers to reach their own agreement. We recognize that sometimes communication breaks down not because of the issue, but because of the dynamic between people.",
"corePrinciple": "Most people change when asked plainly, and a response bigger than the harm drives people away and makes the next report less likely. So our responses start small, address behavior rather than character and grow only when the behavior goes on, though serious harm can start higher. Every response says what has to change and by when. This pulls against the wish for a quick punishment, and it breaks when steps are skipped for people we dislike and waived for friends.",
"applicableScope": [
"Heated interpersonal disputes where direct communication has failed but the parties are still willing to talk."
"Broken agreements",
"Harm to people or shared things",
"Discipline where we employ people"
],
"processProtocol": "A neutral facilitator joins the discussion to set strict ground rules, such as 'no interrupting' and 'speak from I'. The facilitator manages the emotional temperature while parties take turns sharing their perspectives. By reframing toxic language—turning accusations like 'You're a liar' into statements of impact like 'I feel untrusted'—the facilitator helps the disputants focus on the substantive issues. The parties themselves retain the power to co-create and finalize the solution.",
"restorationFallbacks": "The process concludes with a signed or verbal Memorandum of Understanding outlining the agreed-upon behaviors. If this fails to hold, the next step is often formal Mediation or Non-Binding Arbitration to bring in more structured guidance."
"processProtocol": "Two people close to neither person, members or not, propose a response, starting from the smallest that will work. In order, a private conversation about what must change, a written agreement to repair the harm, such as an apology or making good a loss, boundaries such as different shifts or no contact, a written warning, stepping back from a role, keys or money for a set time, time away from our work and spaces for up to three months, and removal. The person a concern is about hears it in writing and can answer before any step beyond a conversation. Each response is written down with what must change and a review date.",
"restorationFallbacks": "A response takes effect when the person accepts it or as a decision of the whole group. Each response ends on its review date unless the behavior goes on. Removal needs our supermajority share of the active members who vote, if our quorum votes, after the person has been heard. Where we employ people, these are also our written discipline steps and follow employment law. No response cuts off aid."
}
},
{
"id": "ad-hoc-arbitration",
"label": "Ad Hoc Arbitration",
"supportText": "Arbitrators are chosen specifically for a particular case.",
"id": "conflict-working-group",
"label": "Conflict working group",
"supportText": "Two to five members named in advance hear what the first steps could not settle and propose a plan the members approve.",
"sections": {
"corePrinciple": "We value speed and specific expertise. For technical or niche disputes, we appoint a temporary judge who knows the subject matter better than a general tribunal.",
"corePrinciple": "Serious conflicts need people with time and distance, chosen before anyone needs them. No small group should hold the power to punish, so our working group gathers facts and proposes, and the people involved or the members decide. Its members act as facilitators and fact-finders, never judges. Members see only a short summary, because a case is about real people. It pulls against speed, and it breaks when the same few people hear every case for years.",
"applicableScope": [
"Technical disputes (e.g.",
"code architecture)",
"artistic differences",
"or specific one-off grievances."
"When the first steps fail",
"Safety and money concerns",
"Conflicts across a power gap",
"Complaints from outside the group"
],
"processProtocol": "Parties agree that they are deadlocked and mutually select a single expert they both trust to act as the arbitrator. They sign an agreement beforehand to abide by this person's decision, effectively handing over 100% of the decision power. Each side presents their technical arguments, and the arbitrator reviews the evidence to issue a final ruling on the specific issue.",
"restorationFallbacks": "The arbitrator's ruling is final and binding for that specific issue, allowing work to proceed. Importantly, this specific ruling does not create a binding precedent for future, unrelated conflicts."
}
},
{
"id": "conflict-workshops",
"label": "Conflict Workshops",
"supportText": "Structured sessions where parties collaboratively resolve disputes and improve future interactions.",
"sections": {
"corePrinciple": "We view conflict competence as a skill to be learned. By practicing in a low-stakes environment, we immunize the community against toxic fighting when high-stakes issues arise.",
"applicableScope": [
"Preventative care during 'peacetime' or as a mandatory reset when the community vibe feels toxic."
],
"processProtocol": "A trainer assesses the community's conflict style and gathers the group for a structured session. Participants engage in role-playing exercises, such as 'The Angry Neighbor', to practice active listening and Non-Violent Communication (NVC). The group debriefs what worked and commits to using new tools. This is a capacity-building exercise where no binding decisions are made.",
"restorationFallbacks": "The outcome is increased capacity and a shared vocabulary for handling tension. While there is no ruling, a member's refusal to participate in mandatory workshops may be documented as a lack of commitment to the group's health."
}
},
{
"id": "supermajority-vote",
"label": "Supermajority Vote",
"supportText": "Members vote to resolve a dispute democratically.",
"sections": {
"corePrinciple": "We use the weight of the community to resolve binary impasses. When a decision must be made and consensus is impossible, a decisive vote allows the group to move on.",
"applicableScope": [
"Final deadlock on policy decisions or removal of a member after other methods have failed."
],
"processProtocol": "The conflict is crystallized into a clear, binary proposal (e.g., 'Should we remove member X?'). A debate period allows arguments for and against to be presented. A vote is then taken, typically via secret ballot to protect relationships. For the decision to be binding, the 'Yes' votes must exceed a high threshold—usually 75% (or 2/3rds, depending on bylaws)—effectively transferring 100% of the decision power to the voting body.",
"restorationFallbacks": "This produces a binding, final decision. The minority is expected to 'disagree and commit' to the result. Continued resistance or sabotage after a vote is considered a violation of community norms and is often grounds for leaving the group."
}
},
{
"id": "interest-based-bargaining",
"label": "Interest-Based Bargaining",
"supportText": "Focuses on underlying interests rather than fixed positions to find win-win solutions.",
"sections": {
"corePrinciple": "We separate the people from the problem. By focusing on why someone wants something (interests) rather than what they demand (positions), we can often find 'win-win' scenarios.",
"applicableScope": [
"Resource allocation disputes",
"scheduling conflicts",
"or disagreements over project direction."
],
"processProtocol": "Parties list their specific demands ('Positions') and then peel back the layers by asking 'Why do you want this?' for each one. This uncovers the underlying 'Interest'—for example, 'I want the 5pm slot' becomes 'I need to pick up my kids'. The parties identify shared interests and brainstorm solutions that satisfy these core needs. They retain full authority to accept or reject the final trade-off.",
"restorationFallbacks": "The result is a trade-off agreement or contract. If parties remain stuck in their positions and cannot find a win-win, the process typically escalates to facilitated negotiation or mediation."
}
},
{
"id": "restorative-practices",
"label": "Restorative Practices",
"supportText": "Dialogue-focused methods for understanding and repairing harm.",
"sections": {
"corePrinciple": "We view conflict as a wound in the community, not a legal infraction. Our goal is accountability and repair: the offender must understand the impact of their actions and work to make it right.",
"applicableScope": [
"Harassment",
"Code of Conduct violations",
"or interpersonal harm where the offender admits responsibility."
],
"processProtocol": "A facilitator holds pre-conference meetings with both parties to ensure readiness. A joint dialogue is then convened where the harmed party shares the impact of the actions ('When you did X, I felt Y'). The offender practices deep listening and reflects back what they heard without defending themselves. Together, they co-create a 'Repair Plan' to address the harm, retaining ownership of the solution.",
"restorationFallbacks": "The artifact is a signed 'Repair Plan' detailing specific actions (apologies, education, community service). If the offender refuses to follow through on the plan they helped create, the process converts to a punitive one, such as a Tribunal hearing or expulsion."
"processProtocol": "At a meeting we name two to five members for one year and tell every member, and the people we work with, how to reach them. They hear what the first steps could not settle. When a case comes in, two of them close to neither person meet each person separately within a week, with a friend present if wanted. In a safety case they keep the two apart first, at no cost to whoever raised it. They write down what happened, what is disputed and a plan of specific changes, boundaries, repair or agreed rest leave, with a review date. If both people accept the plan, it takes effect and members hear only what changes in the work.",
"restorationFallbacks": "Otherwise members get a summary without private details, and the plan takes effect after 15 days unless a member raises a concern. A standing concern sends the plan to a vote, where it needs our supermajority share of the active members who vote, if our quorum votes. The people involved can answer in writing and neither vote nor count. A failed plan is revised within two weeks, with any separation kept meanwhile. Removal needs our supermajority share of the active members who vote, if our quorum votes, after the person has been heard. It never cuts anyone off from aid. Notes are deleted two years after a case closes."
}
},
{
"id": "mediation",
"label": "Mediation",
"supportText": "A neutral third party assists parties in reaching a voluntary agreement.",
"supportText": "A mediator from outside the conflict helps the people in it reach their own agreement and decides nothing for them.",
"sections": {
"corePrinciple": "We empower disputants to solve their own problems with structure. A mediator manages the process, but the parties own the outcome, ensuring they actually buy into the solution.",
"corePrinciple": "In a small group nobody is neutral, so when the first steps fail we bring in a mediator from outside the conflict. The mediator runs the conversation and the people involved make every decision, so they own what they agree. We look past what each side demands to what each needs. Mediation needs both people to choose it and speak freely, so it is not for cases where one fears the other. It pulls against speed, since a good mediator takes time to find.",
"applicableScope": [
"Deep-seated interpersonal conflicts",
"co-founder disputes",
"or recurring friction between working groups."
"When the first steps fail",
"Disputes between founders or owners",
"Working groups that are stuck"
],
"processProtocol": "The mediator conducts separate 'intake' calls to hear each side's story privately before convening a joint session. During the session, the mediator uses 'looping' to ensure parties feel heard and may call a 'Caucus' (private meeting) if emotions run high. The mediator guides the parties to generate options and stress-test them, but the final decision power remains 0% with the mediator and 100% with the parties.",
"restorationFallbacks": "The outcome is a written Mediation Agreement. If mediation fails due to impasse, the parties must explicitly decide whether to 'agree to disagree' and live with the conflict, or escalate to Binding Arbitration to force a resolution."
"processProtocol": "Either person can ask for mediation, and the other can say yes or no. We keep in our records two mediators we can call, such as a member with mediation skills, a trusted person from a neighboring group or a local mediation center. Both people agree on who. The mediator meets each person alone first, then together. They ask what each needs and why and help them weigh options. Either can stop at any time. Whatever they agree is written down with a check-in date two or three weeks out. The mediator keeps what they hear private and decides nothing. Between working groups or member groups, each side sends one or two people.",
"restorationFallbacks": "Without agreement, the two can live with the difference, keep apart or go to two people we name each year to hear conflicts, from outside the group if we are small. Those two also hear threats, abuse and harassment unless the person harmed asks for mediation, and their proposal takes effect when both accept it or as a decision of the whole group. A mediator’s fee over $500 is a decision of the whole group."
}
},
{
"id": "circle-processes",
"label": "Circle Processes",
"supportText": "A structured format for open dialogue with equal input from all involved.",
"id": "harassment-and-discrimination-complaints",
"label": "Harassment and discrimination complaints",
"supportText": "We keep a written way to report harassment and discrimination, with two people to tell and no punishment for reporting.",
"sections": {
"corePrinciple": "We prioritize equality and connection. By sitting in a circle and using a talking piece, we dismantle hierarchies and force deep listening, allowing the emotional truth of a conflict to surface.",
"corePrinciple": "Everyone who works or volunteers with us can take part free from harassment and discrimination. A worker co-op or any group with staff is an employer, with legal duties that a friendly process cannot meet. So these reports skip the first steps of our conflict process and go to people ready to take them, whatever the role of the person reporting. It pulls against keeping things in the family, and it breaks when the only people to tell are friends of the person reported.",
"applicableScope": [
"Community-wide trauma",
"grief processing",
"or when a conflict has rippled out to affect the whole group."
"Harassment, including sexual harassment",
"Discrimination",
"Retaliation for reporting"
],
"processProtocol": "Participants gather in a circle with a centerpiece, and a 'Keeper' opens the session with a poem or quote to set the tone. A talking piece is introduced, granting the holder sole permission to speak. The group moves through rounds answering specific questions like 'What is the hardest part of this for you?', ensuring every voice is heard equally. No decision is forced; the power resides in the collective understanding generated by the circle.",
"restorationFallbacks": "The goal is a collective sense of understanding or a 'Group Covenant' describing how we want to be together. If specific harm is identified that requires repair, the circle may spin off into a separate Restorative Justice process."
"processProtocol": "Harassment means unwelcome conduct, including sexual harassment, that makes it harder for someone to work or take part. Discrimination means treating someone worse because of race, color, religion, sex, pregnancy, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, age, disability or another trait the law protects. We name at least two people to receive reports, of different genders where we can, and at least one who manages nobody or is a trusted outsider. Everyone learns who they are when they start. A report can be spoken or written. Within a week someone not involved, from outside the group if we are small, hears each person separately and decides what more likely than not happened.",
"restorationFallbacks": "Meanwhile we keep the two apart at no cost to the person who reported. Both people get the outcome in writing, and a finding leads to a response under our conflict process that stops the conduct. Nobody loses their place, shifts or pay for reporting, helping with a report or being a witness. Records stay private and apart from other files as long as the law requires. Anyone can also go to a government agency or a lawyer, and those have deadlines. We ask a lawyer what our state adds."
}
},
{
"id": "judicial-committees",
"label": "Judicial Committees",
"supportText": "A standing committee responsible for adjudicating disputes.",
"id": "code-of-conduct-team",
"label": "Code of conduct team",
"supportText": "A small team named in advance takes reports about conduct in our spaces, keeps them private and responds in proportion.",
"sections": {
"corePrinciple": "We ensure consistency and due process. By having a standing body, we remove bias and ensure that every conflict is judged against the same set of bylaws.",
"corePrinciple": "Where many people take part and few know each other, conduct problems need a known door and people with the authority to act. Our code of conduct team takes reports from anyone in our spaces, protects the people who make them and responds to behavior in proportion to the harm. Because it decides, its members serve fixed terms, step aside from cases they are close to and can be overruled on appeal. It pulls against openness, and it breaks when a team shields its friends.",
"applicableScope": [
"Interpretation of bylaws",
"contested elections",
"or allegations of abuse of power by leadership."
"Conduct problems in our spaces",
"Reports from anyone in our spaces",
"Online and in-person spaces"
],
"processProtocol": "A formal complaint is filed with the Committee, which is composed of elected or appointed members serving fixed terms. The Committee holds a formal hearing where both sides present evidence and call witnesses. The proceedings are recorded. The Committee then deliberates in closed session to determine if the rules were violated, holding 100% of the decision power.",
"restorationFallbacks": "The Committee issues a written 'Judgment' that is binding. This may include penalties like censure, removal from office, or expulsion. The decision is recorded in the organization's case law to guide future rulings."
"processProtocol": "We name two to seven people for one year as our code of conduct team to hear reports about conduct in our spaces. Until two members can serve, the person who started the group serves with a trusted person from outside. Everyone in our spaces can reach the team privately, with a second contact for reports about a team member. A report gets a reply within three days. Two team members close to neither person hear from both and decide within two weeks. They choose the smallest response that will stop the behavior, from a private word to a time-limited suspension from our spaces, or for someone who is not a member, removal from them.",
"restorationFallbacks": "The person who reported learns the outcome, without the other person’s private details. Either side can appeal within 14 days to team members who took no part, or else to two members outside the team. A missed deadline sends the report to the second contact. Anyone removed can ask for review after a year. Removing a member needs our supermajority share of the active members who vote, if our quorum votes, after the member has been heard. Removal never cuts anyone off from aid. Reports are deleted after two years unless the person is reported again. Nobody loses their place for making a report."
}
},
{
"id": "hearing-panel",
"label": "Hearing panel",
"supportText": "Three members drawn from a pool we elect hear each serious case and decide in writing, and either side can appeal.",
"sections": {
"corePrinciple": "When a group is too large for members to know everyone in a case, fairness comes from a known procedure rather than from knowing each other. A panel of members hears serious cases and questions about what our Rule means, gives both sides the same chance to be heard and decides on what is in front of it. Members elect the pool and panelists change with each case, so no standing body gathers power. It pulls against speed, and it breaks when panels drift close to leaders.",
"applicableScope": [
"Serious cases in a large group",
"What our Rule means",
"Disputed elections",
"Complaints about role holders"
],
"processProtocol": "Each year the members elect a pool of nine to fifteen members to hear cases and two members to receive complaints. The panel hears each case, and the two receivers handle it until the panel is drawn. Within a week of a written complaint, the receivers draw three panelists by lot from the pool. Panelists close to either side step aside, and each side can turn down one panelist without a reason. The panel sends both sides the complaint and hears each, with a friend or advocate if wanted, and any witnesses. Within 30 days it decides whether our Rule was broken and what response follows, in writing with reasons and without private details.",
"restorationFallbacks": "The decision takes effect when the panel issues it. Either side can appeal within 14 days over a broken procedure or new facts, to three panelists who took no part. A late panel is replaced if either side asks. A finding for removal goes to a vote of the active members after the person has been heard and needs our supermajority share of those who vote, if our quorum votes. Removal never cuts anyone off from aid. Nobody loses their place for bringing a case or being a witness. Case notes are deleted two years after a case closes."
}
},
{
"id": "managerial-decision",
"label": "Managerial Decision",
"supportText": "A manager or leader makes a binding decision.",
"label": "Managerial decision",
"supportText": "Where we have managers, a manager settles conflicts about the work within written limits, and staff can take a grievance past them.",
"sections": {
"corePrinciple": "We prioritize efficiency and clear lines of authority. In a hierarchy, the person with responsibility for the outcome must have the authority to resolve the blockers.",
"corePrinciple": "Where we have managers, the person responsible for the work can settle conflicts that block it, quickly and close to the people involved. That speed puts power with someone the staff did not choose, so we limit it in writing. A manager decides only how the work is arranged, never a conflict they are part of and never a report of harassment or discrimination. Staff can see the policies a manager must follow. It breaks when raising a concern costs someone their shifts.",
"applicableScope": [
"Operational disagreements",
"performance issues",
"or swift resolution of low-stakes conflicts."
"Conflicts between staff",
"Tasks, schedules and workloads",
"Grievances about a manager’s decision"
],
"processProtocol": "The manager hears both sides of the conflict (often in 1:1 meetings) and consults organizational policy. They then make a unilateral decision based on what is best for the business or the team's goals. The manager holds 100% of the decision power.",
"restorationFallbacks": "The decision is communicated as a directive. Compliance is mandatory as a condition of employment. Failure to comply is treated as insubordination."
"processProtocol": "Staff can use the first steps of our conflict process first. When those fail, or a staff member asks, the manager of the people involved hears each one separately within a week, then together if both agree. The manager decides in writing, with reasons and a review date, how the work changes, such as tasks, schedules or who works with whom. Managers hear conflicts about the work of the people they manage. A manager who is part of a conflict hands it to their own manager or to a mediator both people accept. Where staff have a union contract, its grievance steps come first.",
"restorationFallbacks": "Any staff member can bring a written grievance about a manager’s decision within 14 days to the next person up, or to a person outside the chain the owners name for this, who answers in writing within 14 days. Harassment and discrimination reports skip the manager and follow our written procedure for them. A manager cannot cut pay or end someone’s work over a conflict alone. That follows our written discipline steps and employment law. Nobody loses pay, shifts or their job for raising a concern."
}
},
{
"id": "internal-tribunal",
"label": "Internal Tribunal",
"supportText": "A formal hearing body within the organization.",
"id": "outside-help",
"label": "Outside help",
"supportText": "We decide in advance who we call when someone is in danger or crisis, or when a conflict needs skills we lack.",
"sections": {
"corePrinciple": "We provide rigorous due process for the most serious accusations. To protect members from unjust expulsion, we simulate a legal trial to ensure high standards of evidence.",
"corePrinciple": "We are not a crisis service, and some moments need skills or authority we do not have. Deciding in calm times who we call keeps us from improvising in a panic and from calling someone who makes things worse for the people involved. Whether our list ever includes the police, and when, is ours to decide together, and we write the answer down. This pulls against handling everything ourselves, and it breaks when nobody can find the list.",
"applicableScope": [
"High-stakes violations that could result in permanent expulsion",
"blacklisting",
"or significant financial penalty."
"Immediate danger",
"A member in crisis",
"Mediators, lawyers and other help"
],
"processProtocol": "A panel of judges (often distinct from the leadership team) is convened. A 'Prosecutor' presents the case against the accused, and a 'Defender' advocates for them. Formal rules of evidence apply. The Tribunal weighs the facts against the organization's 'Constitution' or supreme laws.",
"restorationFallbacks": "The Tribunal issues a Verdict. If guilty, the sentence is executed immediately. Appeals are only allowed on procedural grounds (e.g., if the Tribunal failed to follow its own rules), not on the facts of the case."
"processProtocol": "As a decision of the whole group, we keep a short list of outside help in our records, seen only by members. It names who we call in immediate danger, in a medical or mental health crisis, for a mediator, for legal help and for support after harm, with a crisis line that answers at any hour. It also records whether and when we involve the police. Two members check every entry twice a year. Safety leads and anyone who hears a conflict for us carry the list, and every member learns where it is when they join.",
"restorationFallbacks": "Any member can always get help for themselves, whatever the list says, and nobody is blamed for a good faith call in immediate danger. When a member is in crisis, we respond with care and outside support, not discipline. We ask a person before sharing their situation outside the group, unless someone is in immediate danger or the law requires a report, as for child abuse. Paying for outside help needs one other member’s written agreement over $50 and a decision of the whole group over $500."
}
},
{
"id": "consensus-building",
"label": "Consensus Building",
"supportText": "Collaborative work to reach a resolution that all parties can agree upon.",
"id": "conflict-workshops",
"label": "Conflict workshops",
"supportText": "Twice a year, members practice the skills our conflict process needs, from hard conversations to being a fair friend.",
"sections": {
"corePrinciple": "We believe that sustainable solutions come from the parties themselves finding common ground. Unlike a top-down ruling, a consensus agreement ensures that all stakeholders feel heard and invested in the outcome.",
"corePrinciple": "Most of us learned conflict where someone above us ended the argument, so we arrive out of practice. Handling conflict as equals is a skill anyone can learn, and it is cheaper to learn in calm times than in the middle of a fight. We practice on situations from our own kind of work, so that everyone, not just a few, can talk directly, be a fair friend and calm a heated moment. It costs a few evenings a year, and it breaks when only the same few come.",
"applicableScope": [
"Best for complex",
"multi-stakeholder issues where relationships must be preserved and no single rule was broken."
"Calm times",
"New members",
"Skills for our conflict process"
],
"processProtocol": "The process begins by convening all stakeholders in a shared space to establish shared goals and ground rules. Each party is invited to state their underlying needs rather than just their surface demands. The group then brainstorms multiple options for mutual gain without immediate judgment. Through dialogue, these options are refined until a single solution emerges that every stakeholder can support, maintaining full decision-making power within the group itself.",
"restorationFallbacks": "The result is a shared agreement ratified by all parties. If consensus cannot be reached, the group may define a specific fallback mechanism, such as escalating to a Supermajority Vote (requiring 75% agreement) or bringing in an external Facilitator to unblock the dialogue."
"processProtocol": "Twice a year we hold a workshop of two to three hours on conflict skills, and new members join the next one. It covers asking for a hard conversation, sticking to what happened, saying back the other person’s account, calming a heated moment, being someone’s friend in a conflict and what counts as a safety concern. We practice with made-up situations from our own kind of work, never with a real conflict between members. Anyone who hears conflicts for us also practices hearing a case and keeping notes private. Two members plan each workshop, or we invite someone from a local mediation center or a neighboring group.",
"restorationFallbacks": "Workshops are free for members and held at times and places most of us can make, with notes for anyone who cannot come. Nobody has to share anything personal, and nobody is penalized for missing one. If a year passes without a workshop, our next meeting names two members to plan one. Paying someone from outside needs one other member’s written agreement over $50 and a decision of the whole group over $500."
}
},
{
"id": "binding-arbitration",
"label": "Binding Arbitration",
"supportText": "An external arbitrator makes a binding decision.",
"id": "regular-debriefs",
"label": "Regular debriefs",
"supportText": "After big pieces of work, and monthly otherwise, we look back without blame and fix what keeps causing friction.",
"sections": {
"corePrinciple": "We need finality and legal certainty. By outsourcing the decision to a professional judge, we remove internal bias and ensure the ruling will hold up in court.",
"corePrinciple": "Many conflicts between two people are really about something the group never settled, such as who decides what, who covers a shift or how much one person carries. We look back at the work often and without blame, so these gaps surface as problems to fix rather than grudges against a person. A debrief is about how we work and never a hearing about anyone’s conduct. It costs half an hour, and it breaks when it turns into blame.",
"applicableScope": [
"Commercial disputes",
"contract breaches between entities",
"or employment termination disputes."
"After actions, events and releases",
"Unclear roles and workloads",
"Gaps a conflict showed"
],
"processProtocol": "The organization contracts a professional arbitration firm. The process follows strict legal procedures similar to a court trial but is private. The arbitrator hears evidence and legal arguments from both sides' lawyers. The arbitrator holds 100% of the decision power.",
"restorationFallbacks": "The award is final, binding, and enforceable in real-world courts. There is typically no right of appeal. This provides total closure to the dispute."
"processProtocol": "Within a week after each action, event or big piece of work, and once a month otherwise, the people who did the work meet for half an hour or answer in writing. A member who did not lead the work asks what worked, what got in the way and what we will change. We talk about steps and systems rather than people. Changes go in our records with who makes them and by when.",
"restorationFallbacks": "A concern about one person’s conduct does not belong in a debrief and goes to our conflict process. A change that needs a new rule goes to the way our Rule makes that decision. If debriefs keep finding the same problem, it goes on the agenda of our next meeting without naming who was involved. If a month passes without one, any member can call one, and anyone who cannot attend can add answers in writing."
}
},
{
"id": "safety-lead",
"label": "Safety lead",
"supportText": "At every event or shift, a named safety lead can ask anyone to leave for the day and knows who to call.",
"sections": {
"corePrinciple": "Danger at an event cannot wait for a meeting. So one person at every event, shift or distribution knows that watching for safety is their job, and nobody has to wonder who acts. Their power is short and narrow. They can calm things down, keep people apart and ask someone to leave for the day, and anything longer goes to our conflict process. It pulls against an open door, and it breaks when the lead is too tired to notice or is part of the trouble.",
"applicableScope": [
"Events, shifts and distributions",
"Immediate danger",
"People who are not members"
],
"processProtocol": "For each event, shift or distribution we name a safety lead and a backup, and everyone working knows who they are. Where our Rule names an on-site lead, one member can hold both roles. The safety lead stays sober, carries our list of outside help and checks in with the people working. If someone threatens, harms or frightens others, the safety lead first tries to calm things, then can separate people and ask a person to leave for the rest of the day. In immediate danger they get help from outside the group first. Within 24 hours they write a short note, without the names of the people we serve, for two members not involved, who take it into our conflict process if it needs more.",
"restorationFallbacks": "Asking someone to leave lasts only for that day, and anything longer goes to our conflict process. If the person receives aid from us, a member finds another safe way for them to get it that day. A safety lead who is part of the problem hands over to the backup. Nobody loses their place for raising a safety concern, and no safety lead is blamed for a good faith call."
}
},
{
"id": "legal-action",
"label": "Legal action",
"supportText": "Legal action in our name is a decision of the whole group, and legal papers reach two named members the same day.",
"sections": {
"corePrinciple": "Going to court costs money, time and trust, and a missed deadline can lose a case without a hearing. Legal action in our name comes after our other steps unless a deadline or harm cannot wait. Against a member, a former member or someone we serve, those steps include our conflict process. It breaks when papers sit unopened or one person answers alone.",
"applicableScope": [
"Suing or being sued",
"Lawyer’s letters and legal threats",
"Subpoenas, warrants and demands for records",
"Keeping records once trouble is likely"
],
"processProtocol": "Anyone handed legal papers for us notes when and from whom and sends a copy that day to the members who handle legal matters. Nobody else replies, signs, promises or hands over anything for us. Those members check the papers are real, tell any insurer in writing at once and find a lawyer through our list of outside help. If a legal deadline will pass before the group can decide, they act only to protect it, spending up to $500. That step lapses after 14 days unless the group confirms it, but nothing is withdrawn that would lose the case. Within a week they tell members what arrived, leaving out names and our lawyer’s advice. Suing, answering, settling or appealing is a decision of the whole group, without any member on the other side, after a lawyer’s advice in a meeting or call.",
"restorationFallbacks": "A legal hold covers anything the matter may need, since destroying records once trouble is likely can be a crime. A letter or request is not an order. We follow a judge’s warrant at once and give only what an order requires. Unless a judge forbids it, we tell the people named first, or once officers leave. We never take legal action over a concern, a report or organizing, and never lock anyone out of their home or cut its utilities. Nobody’s name or story goes into a court filing without their consent unless the law requires it. Nobody loses their place, roles, shifts, pay or aid for going in good faith to a lawyer, an agency, the police or a court."
}
},
{
"id": "police-and-immigration-visits",
"label": "Police and immigration visits",
"supportText": "When police or immigration officers arrive, members know what to say, who to call and what never to hand over.",
"sections": {
"corePrinciple": "What members say in the first minutes of a visit from police or immigration officers can put someone at risk. So we decide in calm times who speaks, what we ask for and what we never do. We never lie to or physically stop officers, which puts everyone in more danger and can be a crime. It breaks when nobody knows who speaks or where the legal help number is.",
"applicableScope": [
"Officers at a shift, an event or our space",
"Warrants and searches",
"Questions about members or the people we serve"
],
"processProtocol": "At each shift, event or space, one named member and a backup speak with officers while everyone else keeps working or steps back. Where we have a space, we mark its private areas and keep their doors closed. The member asks for the officers’ names, badge numbers, reason and any warrant, and reads it without opening a door. A warrant signed by a judge lets officers search the places it names. A paper signed only by an immigration officer is not a judge’s warrant and does not by itself open private areas. If officers go in anyway, we say we do not consent, never block a door or a person, and write down what happens. Anyone can decline to answer and ask for a lawyer, giving only their name where the law requires it. Nobody answers questions about other people or hands over any list. One member calls the members who handle legal matters and the legal help on our list of outside help.",
"restorationFallbacks": "Nobody resists, runs, lies, hides or deletes anything, or unlocks another member’s phone. Members who face added risk can calmly step away before officers stop them, and nobody asks why. Anyone filming keeps the faces of members and the people we serve out of the frame. Within 24 hours the member who spoke writes the members who handle legal matters a short note, naming none of the people we serve. Nobody loses their place, roles, shifts, pay or aid for acting in good faith during a visit. Once a year we practice and ask a lawyer whether these steps still fit."
}
},
{
"id": "legal-support-for-members",
"label": "Legal support for members",
"supportText": "When a member is cited, arrested or sued for doing our work, we back them with legal help, jail support and money we agreed.",
"sections": {
"corePrinciple": "Members who do our work in public, such as sharing food, giving first aid or protesting, carry risks the rest of us share. When one of them is cited, arrested or sued for that work, we stand with them instead of leaving them to find help alone. The member makes every legal choice, and our support never depends on what they are accused of. It costs money and pulls against privacy, and it breaks when nobody knows the legal hotline number.",
"applicableScope": [
"Citations and arrests during our work",
"Members sued or subpoenaed for our work",
"Jail support and bail"
],
"processProtocol": "Our list of outside help names a legal hotline, and members carry its number on paper before street work, since phones can be taken. Our work means a shift, action or task the group or a working group agreed to. Before an action where arrests are likely, we name two members and a backup for jail support. Each member can give one of them their legal name, birth date, medication needs and whether they want bail. When a member is held, the jail support members call the hotline, find the member and meet them on release with a ride and food. Bail is paid only when the member asks, from a bail fund or shared money, by two members who tell every member within 24 hours. More than $500 needs a decision of the whole group unless the member would stay held. Before paying, they ask the hotline whether the member may have an immigration hold. A member sued or subpoenaed for our work gets our help finding a lawyer.",
"restorationFallbacks": "The group hears only what the member agrees to share. Nobody discusses an arrest or charge in a group chat or online, or presses anyone about what to tell a court. Nobody loses their place, roles, shifts, pay or aid over a citation, arrest or charge from our work. Harm to a person still goes to our conflict process. Members who face added risk from an arrest can choose other work without saying why. Private details held for jail support are deleted once the member is safe."
}
},
{
"id": "disputes-with-partners",
"label": "Disputes with partners",
"supportText": "We write dispute steps into agreements with partners and settle disputes by talking, then mediation, before anything legal.",
"sections": {
"corePrinciple": "We work with other groups, funders, landlords and suppliers, and our Rule binds none of them. So we agree ahead of time, in writing, how a dispute with a partner will be handled, and keep each dispute with the few people who hold the relationship for as long as that works. Walking away from a partnership is a fair outcome. A dispute with a partner is never a reason to share private details about our members or the people we serve.",
"applicableScope": [
"Partner groups and funders",
"Landlords, suppliers and contractors",
"Who speaks for us"
],
"processProtocol": "Any written agreement in which we share money, space, equipment or work with a partner names one contact on each side and these steps. First the people who hold the relationship talk within a week of either side raising a problem. If that fails, the named contacts meet within two weeks. If that fails, we offer mediation by someone both sides accept, and arbitration only as our signed agreement with that partner says, or if both sides agree to it at the time. We ask a lawyer before signing an agreement that makes an arbitrator’s decision final. Only members our Rule names, or members the group sends with written limits, can speak for us or agree terms. A complaint from outside about one of our members goes to our conflict process.",
"restorationFallbacks": "A dispute that could cost more than $500, end a partnership or change what we do is a decision of the whole group. We ask a lawyer before signing anything that settles a claim and before any legal step. For a dispute on our list for binding arbitration, groups in our network that agreed to the list follow it instead of these steps. Notes on each dispute stay with those handling it. When a dispute ends, we tell members what changes in the work and note what to write differently in our next agreement."
}
},
{
"id": "working-with-children",
"label": "Working with children",
"supportText": "When we work with children or adults at risk, two adults are always present and anyone can report concerns outside the group.",
"sections": {
"corePrinciple": "Abuse happens where adults are trusted and alone with people who cannot easily speak up. We prevent it with simple habits everyone follows, not with trust in good people. These habits cover childcare at meetings, youth programs, school drives and work with adults who depend on others for care. They pull against convenience, and they break when a shortage of volunteers becomes a reason to skip them.",
"applicableScope": [
"Childcare and youth programs",
"Adults who depend on care",
"Concerns about abuse"
],
"processProtocol": "No member is alone with a child who is not their own or with an adult at risk, and two adults are present or within sight. Members who take on this work learn the signs of abuse and how to raise a concern. Where the law or an insurer requires a background check for a role with children, only that role gets one, and the results stay with two named members. We keep contact through group channels and never through private messages with a child.",
"restorationFallbacks": "Any member who suspects abuse can report it outside the group at any time, and our list of outside help names who to call. Members who must report child abuse by law do so. A member a concern is about steps away from this work at once while our conflict process looks into it, as a pause and not a finding. Nobody loses their place for raising a concern."
}
},
{
"id": "restorative-practices",
"label": "Restorative practices",
"supportText": "When someone owns the harm they caused and the person harmed wants it, a facilitator helps them agree how to repair it.",
"sections": {
"corePrinciple": "Some harm is best answered by the person who caused it making things right. A restorative meeting puts the person harmed at the center and asks the person who caused harm to understand what their actions did and take concrete steps to repair it. It is voluntary for both, never a condition of anyone’s place, and works alongside our conflict process rather than replacing it. It never delays a safety step. It breaks when anyone is pushed into it, so nobody is asked to forgive.",
"applicableScope": [
"Harm someone admits causing",
"When both people want to meet",
"Repair agreed in a plan"
],
"processProtocol": "Either person can ask for a restorative meeting. It goes ahead only if both agree and the person who caused harm accepts that it happened. A facilitator both accept, a member close to neither person or someone from outside, meets each alone first to check that it is safe and wanted. Then the two meet, each with a supporter if they wish. The person harmed says what happened to them and what they need. The person who caused harm listens and says it back without defending. Together they write a repair plan of specific actions, such as an apology, paying for a loss or changing a behavior, with dates and a check-in.",
"restorationFallbacks": "Either person can stop at any time, and stopping is never held against the person harmed. If the plan is not kept or no meeting happens, the case returns to our conflict process. What is said stays private and is not used against either person later, except to keep someone safe. Our records note only that a plan exists. Paying an outside facilitator needs one other member’s written agreement over $50 and a decision of the whole group over $500, and the request names nobody involved."
}
},
{
"id": "accountability-process",
"label": "Accountability process",
"supportText": "For serious harm, the person harmed says what they need, and a separate small group helps the person who caused it change.",
"sections": {
"corePrinciple": "Some harm, such as sexual harm, abuse or a pattern of harm, needs more than mediation, and the person harmed should never have to face the person who caused it. We follow what the person harmed needs and keep them apart from the work with the person who caused harm. We also help the person who caused harm take responsibility and change, because pushing someone out without that often carries the harm elsewhere. It breaks when change is only performed, so the person harmed says whether their needs are met.",
"applicableScope": [
"Sexual harm or abuse",
"Repeated harm",
"When meeting would not be safe"
],
"processProtocol": "When the person harmed asks for this process, they choose two or three supporters, inside or outside the group, and with them say what they need, such as distance from certain spaces, an acknowledgment or a change in behavior. Separately, two or three people the person who caused harm trusts, and who accept those needs, form an accountability group. It meets the person who caused harm regularly, for months if needed, to work through those needs and the changes they will make. The two groups share only what the person harmed agrees to share. The person harmed can ask for a pause or more distance at any point.",
"restorationFallbacks": "The person harmed can step out at any time, and we still act on their safety. If the person who caused harm will not take part, or the harm goes on, it returns to our conflict process, which can lead to removal. When we can, we bring in an outside facilitator experienced in this work. Paying them needs one other member’s written agreement over $50 and a decision of the whole group over $500, and the request names nobody involved. Nobody pressures the person harmed to report, take part or forgive. What is shared stays with the two groups, and our records note only that it exists."
}
},
{
"id": "circle-processes",
"label": "Circle processes",
"supportText": "When a conflict or loss has touched everyone, we meet in a circle and speak in turn so every voice is heard.",
"sections": {
"corePrinciple": "When a conflict, a removal or a hard loss has touched the whole group, people need a way to say how it landed before the work can go on well. In a circle everyone speaks in turn, without interruption or debate, so quiet members are heard as fully as loud ones. A circle builds understanding and costs time, so it is short and ends on practical next steps. It never decides anything about a person and never replaces or delays our conflict process or a safety step.",
"applicableScope": [
"After a conflict touched everyone",
"After a removal or a loss",
"Check-ins a few times a year"
],
"processProtocol": "Any member can ask for a circle, and we hold one when two members agree it would help. A keeper, a member practiced in circles or someone from outside, prepares two or three questions, such as what has been hardest about this and what would help us work well together. People sit in a circle or join a call. An object passes from person to person, and only the person holding it speaks. Anyone can pass. The keeper closes with a round on what each person will do next and notes only the agreements.",
"restorationFallbacks": "Nobody has to attend or share, and nobody is asked to forgive. The people involved in a case are asked first whether they want a circle held, and a circle never discusses who was right in a case our conflict process is handling. If a circle surfaces a specific harm, it goes to our conflict process. If it surfaces a gap in how we work, it goes to our next meeting. Agreements go in our records without who said what."
}
},
{
"id": "whistleblower-protection",
"label": "Whistleblower protection",
"supportText": "Anyone can report suspected fraud, misuse of money or law-breaking, even by leaders, and nobody is punished for an honest report.",
"sections": {
"corePrinciple": "People inside a group are often the first to see money going missing or rules being broken, and the last to say so if speaking up could cost them. We want to hear early, so anyone can report around whoever a concern is about, and we protect people who report honestly. A worry about shared money is never handled only by the people who control the money. It breaks when reports go to the people they concern, so we name more than one door.",
"applicableScope": [
"Fraud or misuse of money",
"Breaking the law",
"Concerns about leaders"
],
"processProtocol": "We name two members to receive reports, neither of whom handles our money, and can name a trusted person outside the group as a third. Anyone can report to any of them, in person, in writing or without giving their name, about fraud, misuse of money or property, breaking the law or hiding any of these, by anyone including leaders and managers. Within a week the person who receives a report tells the reporter it arrived, if they can reach them, and with someone close to neither side looks into it. Where money is involved, they can see every account and record, and so can any member who asks, without details of the people we serve.",
"restorationFallbacks": "A report about one of the people who receive reports goes to the others, and if nothing happens within two weeks, the reporter can take it to another. Findings about a person go to our conflict process, and findings about how we handle money go to a decision of the whole group. Nobody loses their place, shifts or pay for an honest report, even a mistaken one, or for helping look into it. Only those handling a report see it. Nothing here stops anyone from going to a government agency."
}
},
{
"id": "non-binding-arbitration",
"label": "Non-Binding Arbitration",
"supportText": "An arbitrator gives a recommendation that is not binding.",
"label": "Non-binding arbitration",
"supportText": "When talking and mediation stall, a person close to neither side hears both and recommends an answer either side can turn down.",
"sections": {
"corePrinciple": "We want an expert opinion to break a deadlock, but we aren't ready to hand over full control. A neutral expert's 'advisory opinion' can often shame or persuade parties into agreement.",
"corePrinciple": "Some disputes stall because each side trusts its own reading of the facts or of a written agreement. A person close to neither side hears both and recommends an answer in writing, with reasons. Neither side has to accept it, so the way to court stays open, though legal deadlines keep running. It answers a question, such as what is owed, and never judges anyone’s conduct. It pulls against speed, and it breaks when the arbitrator is close to one side or one side uses it to stall.",
"applicableScope": [
"Complex technical or valuation disputes where parties need a reality check on their positions."
"Money owed and member shares, other than pay",
"What a written agreement means",
"Technical facts two sides read differently",
"Disputes between groups in our network"
],
"processProtocol": "Similar to binding arbitration, a neutral expert hears the case. However, instead of a ruling, they issue a 'Recommendation' explaining how a court would likely rule or what is fair. The parties then take this recommendation back to the negotiation table.",
"restorationFallbacks": "The parties use the recommendation as a baseline for a final settlement. If they still cannot agree, they preserve the right to go to court or binding arbitration."
"processProtocol": "Either side can propose it once talking has not settled a dispute within 30 days and mediation has failed or been turned down. When a member proposes it to the group, the group takes part, and otherwise the other side answers within a week. The sides choose an arbitrator within 14 days, or the body that appoints for us does. When the group is a side, the arbitrator is never a member or anyone we used in the past two years. A member on the other side neither votes nor counts. The arbitrator discloses any tie, hears both under our fair hearing safeguards and recommends within 30 days.",
"restorationFallbacks": "Each side says in writing within 14 days whether it accepts all, part or none, and after a reminder silence means no. The parts both accept become a written agreement that binds them, so a member can take advice first. If either side says no, a dispute on our list for binding arbitration goes there if both sides agreed to the list. Any other dispute returns to our conflict process. Saying no is never held against anyone. As far as the law allows, what either side says or offers is used later only to keep someone safe. It hears none of the matters outside arbitration. When a member is a side, the group pays the arbitrator. Our records note only that it took place, and the note is deleted after two years."
}
},
{
"id": "binding-contracts",
"label": "Binding Contracts",
"supportText": "Legal agreements that define resolution methods.",
"id": "binding-arbitration",
"label": "Binding arbitration",
"supportText": "For a few listed disputes that each member agrees to in writing, a person close to neither side decides instead of a court.",
"sections": {
"corePrinciple": "We prioritize predictability and liability protection. By defining the rules of engagement in advance, we prevent ambiguity when things go wrong.",
"corePrinciple": "Some disputes need a final answer, and court is slow, costly and public. The arbitrator’s decision is final, and a court will enforce it. Both sides give up a jury, most appeals and a public hearing, so we list few disputes and each member chooses whether to agree. It breaks when members agree without knowing what they gave up.",
"applicableScope": [
"Vendor relationships",
"employment terms",
"intellectual property ownership",
"and liability waivers."
"Money owed and member shares, other than pay",
"Shared property other than anyone’s home",
"What a written agreement means",
"Disputes between groups in our network that agreed to it"
],
"processProtocol": "The process happens before conflict arises. Parties negotiate terms (using lawyers if necessary) and sign a document. When a conflict occurs, the contract is referenced. If the contract says 'X happens,' then X happens automatically without further debate.",
"restorationFallbacks": "The contract itself is the resolution mechanism. Breach of contract triggers specific penalties defined in the document (e.g., termination, fines)."
}
},
{
"id": "lottery-sortition",
"label": "Lottery/Sortition",
"supportText": "Random selection used to resolve low-stakes disputes or select juries.",
"sections": {
"corePrinciple": "We believe that when two valid options exist and neither is 'wrong,' a random decision is the fairest way to break the tie.",
"applicableScope": [
"Allocating scarce resources (e.g.",
"who gets the office)",
"scheduling conflicts",
"or low-stakes ties."
],
"processProtocol": "The group agrees that the issue is not worth further debate and commits to a random method (coin flip, drawing straws, RNG). The random event occurs, and the result is accepted immediately. This transfers 100% of the decision power to chance.",
"restorationFallbacks": "The resolution is immediate. Because the process is seen as inherently unbiased, no repair is usually needed. Refusal to accept the result is treated as acting in bad faith."
}
},
{
"id": "rotational-judging",
"label": "Rotational Judging",
"supportText": "A rotating set of members is assigned to handle conflicts.",
"sections": {
"corePrinciple": "We distribute the power of judgment. By taking turns being the 'judge,' members learn empathy for the difficulty of making decisions and prevent a permanent ruling class.",
"applicableScope": [
"Minor Code of Conduct infractions",
"disputes over shared space or noise."
],
"processProtocol": "A 'Jury Duty' roster is created including all eligible members. When a dispute arises, the next three members on the list are summoned to hear the case briefly. They issue a ruling based on common sense and community norms, holding 100% of the decision power for that specific instance. Afterward, they return to the pool.",
"restorationFallbacks": "The ruling is binding for that instance. This builds community capacity for governance. Repeated poor judgments by rotational judges may trigger a review of the 'Jury Duty' training process."
"processProtocol": "Our list for binding arbitration binds nobody until a lawyer says it can, and adding a dispute needs our supermajority share. Each member hears the list in a language they understand, with what agreeing gives up, then decides separately in writing. Joining, aid and work never depend on it. A yes can be taken back for disputes that begin later. People under 18, partners and the people we serve, including members receiving aid, are never bound. The sides choose an arbitrator within 14 days, or the body that appoints for us does. When the group is a side, the arbitrator is never a member or anyone we used in the past two years. The arbitrator discloses any tie, hears both under our fair hearing safeguards and decides in writing within 30 days. The arbitrator decides without a side only after two written notices 14 days apart, sent every way we know.",
"restorationFallbacks": "It hears none of the matters outside arbitration, and a court decides whether a dispute is on our list. Small claims court, urgent court orders and government agencies stay open, and legal deadlines keep running. If no arbitrator is in place after 60 days, either side can go to court. When a member is a side, the group pays the arbitrator within 30 days or the member can go to court. The list binds the group as it binds members. The decision is final after 14 days unless the body that appoints for us has granted a new hearing by then. Nothing owed is ever taken from anyone’s aid."
}
}
]