Implement LLM-driven governance architecture with structured memory

This commit completes the transition to a pure LLM-driven agentic
governance system with no hard-coded governance logic.

Core Architecture Changes:
- Add structured memory system (memory.py) for tracking governance processes
- Add LLM tools (tools.py) for deterministic operations (math, dates, random)
- Add audit trail system (audit.py) for human-readable decision explanations
- Add LLM-driven agent (agent_refactored.py) that interprets constitution

Documentation:
- Add ARCHITECTURE.md describing process-centric design
- Add ARCHITECTURE_EXAMPLE.md with complete workflow walkthrough
- Update README.md to reflect current LLM-driven architecture
- Simplify constitution.md to benevolent dictator model for testing

Templates:
- Add 8 governance templates (petition, consensus, do-ocracy, jury, etc.)
- Add 8 dispute resolution templates
- All templates work with generic process-based architecture

Key Design Principles:
- "Process" is central abstraction (not "proposal")
- No hard-coded process types or thresholds
- LLM interprets constitution to understand governance rules
- Tools ensure correctness for calculations
- Complete auditability with reasoning and citations

Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

templates/dispute-resolution/README.md

@@ -0,0 +1,343 @@
+# Dispute Resolution Templates
+
+This directory contains comprehensive dispute resolution protocols that can be integrated into governance constitutions. Each template provides a complete framework for handling conflicts and disputes in online and offline communities.
+
+## Overview
+
+Effective governance requires not just decision-making processes, but also ways to handle conflicts when they arise. These templates are based on proven dispute resolution models from the [Community Rule Builder project](https://git.medlab.host/dispute-protocol/builder-prototype) and adapted for use with agentic governance bots.
+
+## How to Use These Templates
+
+### Option 1: Standalone Integration
+Add a dispute resolution article to your existing constitution:
+1. Choose a dispute resolution template
+2. Copy it into your constitution as a new article (e.g., "Article 7: Dispute Resolution")
+3. Adjust details to fit your community context
+4. Configure your bot to recognize and facilitate the process
+
+### Option 2: Multiple Pathways
+Implement several processes for different situations:
+- Peer-to-peer for minor conflicts
+- Mediation or circles for deeper issues
+- Jury or referee for formal decisions
+- Different intensities for different needs
+
+### Option 3: Escalation Ladder
+Create a progression of dispute resolution:
+1. Start with peer-to-peer
+2. Escalate to chosen facilitator if needed
+3. Move to circles or mediation for deeper work
+4. Use jury/referee for binding decisions
+5. Each level more structured and formal
+
+## Available Templates
+
+### 1. Peer-to-Peer (`peer-to-peer.md`)
+**"A self-facilitated process where participants work together directly to resolve disputes"**
+
+**Best for:**
+- Minor interpersonal conflicts
+- Misunderstandings needing clarification
+- Communities valuing member autonomy
+- First step in escalation ladder
+
+**Key features:**
+- No third-party facilitator
+- Self-managed by parties
+- Voluntary participation
+- Simple ground rules
+- Quick resolution
+- Escalation path available
+
+**Complexity:** Low | **Time:** Hours to days | **Formality:** Minimal
+
+---
+
+### 2. Chosen Facilitator (`chosen-facilitator.md`)
+**"Participants mutually select a facilitator to help guide their dispute resolution"**
+
+**Best for:**
+- Conflicts needing structured support
+- Situations where trust in process is crucial
+- Cases requiring neutral guidance
+- Communities with trained facilitators
+
+**Key features:**
+- Parties jointly select facilitator
+- Structured process with ground rules
+- Facilitator guides but doesn't decide
+- 1-3 sessions typically
+- Support persons allowed
+- Clear appeal process
+
+**Complexity:** Medium | **Time:** 1-3 weeks | **Formality:** Medium
+
+---
+
+### 3. Restorative Justice (`restorative-justice.md`)
+**"A collaborative process emphasizing healing relationships and addressing harm through community engagement"**
+
+**Best for:**
+- Harm between community members
+- Trust breakdowns requiring repair
+- Situations needing community support
+- Focus on healing over punishment
+
+**Key features:**
+- Circle process with talking piece
+- Trained circle keeper
+- Community participation
+- Consensus-based agreements
+- Accountability through repair
+- Focus on transformation
+
+**Complexity:** Medium-High | **Time:** Weeks to months | **Formality:** Medium
+
+---
+
+### 4. Transformative Justice (`transformative-justice.md`)
+**"A process addressing immediate harm while transforming conditions that enabled it"**
+
+**Best for:**
+- Complex harm requiring deep work
+- Addressing systemic issues
+- Pattern behavior needing transformation
+- Alternatives to state intervention
+
+**Key features:**
+- Multi-level analysis (individual to systemic)
+- Support teams for all parties
+- Long-term commitment
+- Root cause focus
+- Community education
+- Liberation-oriented
+
+**Complexity:** High | **Time:** Months to years | **Formality:** Structured but flexible
+
+---
+
+### 5. Community Jury (`community-jury.md`)
+**"Randomly selected community members evaluate evidence and resolve disputes through structured deliberation"**
+
+**Best for:**
+- Formal dispute decisions
+- Policy interpretation
+- Agreement violations
+- Cases needing peer judgment
+
+**Key features:**
+- Random selection (sortition)
+- 5-7 member juries
+- Structured evidence presentation
+- Deliberation and voting
+- Written decisions
+- Creates precedent
+
+**Complexity:** High | **Time:** 2-3 weeks | **Formality:** High
+
+---
+
+### 6. Community Referee (`community-referee.md`)
+**"A single trained referee facilitates and decides on dispute resolution"**
+
+**Best for:**
+- Quick resolution needed
+- Routine disputes
+- Clear standards application
+- Efficient use of resources
+
+**Key features:**
+- Single trained referee
+- Streamlined process
+- Expert decision-making
+- Written determination
+- Appeal to panel available
+- Consistent application
+
+**Complexity:** Medium | **Time:** 1-2 weeks | **Formality:** High
+
+---
+
+### 7. Facilitation Council (`facilitation-council.md`)
+**"A trained council of facilitators manages the dispute resolution process"**
+
+**Best for:**
+- Complex cases needing multiple perspectives
+- Balance of thoroughness and structure
+- Communities with trained facilitators
+- Cases affecting broader community
+
+**Key features:**
+- Panel of 2-3 facilitators
+- Multi-session deliberation
+- Tiered resolution approach
+- Consensus prioritized
+- Binding decisions when needed
+- Comprehensive documentation
+
+**Complexity:** High | **Time:** 2-4 weeks | **Formality:** High
+
+---
+
+### 8. Shalish Mediation (`shalish-mediation.md`)
+**"Modernized traditional village-level mediation with cultural sensitivity"**
+
+**Best for:**
+- Communities with cultural traditions
+- Harmony-focused resolution
+- Relationship preservation
+- Voluntary consensus-building
+
+**Key features:**
+- Traditional roots, modern adaptations
+- Trained mediators
+- Voluntary participation
+- Cultural respect
+- Community harmony focus
+- No imposed solutions
+
+**Complexity:** Medium | **Time:** Days to weeks | **Formality:** Low-Medium
+
+---
+
+## Comparison Matrix
+
+| Template | Decision Authority | Speed | Formality | Community Involvement | Best For |
+|----------|-------------------|-------|-----------|----------------------|----------|
+| Peer-to-Peer | Parties | Fast | Low | Minimal | Minor conflicts |
+| Chosen Facilitator | Parties | Medium | Medium | Low | Structured dialogue |
+| Restorative Justice | Consensus | Slow | Medium | High | Healing harm |
+| Transformative Justice | Parties + Community | Very Slow | Medium | Very High | Deep transformation |
+| Community Jury | Jury | Medium | High | Medium | Formal decisions |
+| Community Referee | Referee | Fast | High | Low | Efficient resolution |
+| Facilitation Council | Council/Parties | Medium | High | Medium | Complex balanced cases |
+| Shalish Mediation | Parties | Medium | Low-Medium | Medium | Cultural harmony |
+
+## Choosing the Right Process
+
+### Consider These Factors:
+
+**Conflict Severity:**
+- Minor → Peer-to-Peer
+- Moderate → Chosen Facilitator, Referee
+- Serious → Restorative Justice, Facilitation Council, Jury
+- Systemic → Transformative Justice
+
+**Decision Needs:**
+- Parties decide → Peer-to-Peer, Chosen Facilitator, Shalish
+- Binding decision needed → Referee, Jury, Council
+- Consensus focus → Restorative Justice, Transformative Justice
+
+**Time Available:**
+- Quick (days) → Peer-to-Peer, Referee
+- Moderate (weeks) → Most processes
+- Extended (months) → Transformative Justice
+
+**Community Resources:**
+- Limited → Peer-to-Peer, Referee
+- Moderate → Chosen Facilitator, Shalish
+- Substantial → Circles, Jury, Council, Transformative Justice
+
+**Cultural Context:**
+- Western/modern → Most processes
+- Traditional/cultural → Shalish, Circles
+- Liberation-focused → Transformative Justice
+
+## Implementation Recommendations
+
+### Starting Out
+If your community is new to formal dispute resolution:
+1. Start with **Peer-to-Peer** for simple conflicts
+2. Add **Chosen Facilitator** when trained facilitators available
+3. Build toward more complex processes as capacity grows
+
+### Comprehensive System
+For mature communities, implement multiple pathways:
+- **Peer-to-Peer** → First attempt
+- **Chosen Facilitator or Shalish** → If peer-to-peer doesn't work
+- **Restorative Circles** → For harm needing community involvement
+- **Referee or Jury** → For formal binding decisions
+- **Transformative Justice** → For systemic issues
+
+### Essential Elements
+Regardless of process chosen, include:
+- Clear initiation procedures
+- Ground rules for respectful engagement
+- Voluntary participation (with consequences for refusal)
+- Confidentiality protections
+- Implementation and follow-up mechanisms
+- Appeals or reconsideration pathways
+- Learning and improvement systems
+
+## Customization Tips
+
+When adapting templates:
+
+1. **Adjust to your scale** - Processes designed for 50-500 member communities may need modification for very small or very large groups
+
+2. **Cultural adaptation** - Incorporate your community's values, traditions, and communication styles
+
+3. **Resource reality** - Scale processes to available trained facilitators, time, and support
+
+4. **Integration** - Ensure dispute resolution integrates smoothly with your governance constitution
+
+5. **Bot capabilities** - Configure what the bot can automate (scheduling, reminders, documentation) vs. what requires human facilitation
+
+6. **Language** - Keep natural language clear for bot interpretation while being specific enough for consistent application
+
+## Training and Capacity Building
+
+Most processes require trained facilitators:
+- **Basic:** Peer-to-peer (minimal training)
+- **Intermediate:** Chosen Facilitator, Shalish, Referee
+- **Advanced:** Restorative Circles, Jury facilitation, Council, Transformative Justice
+
+Consider:
+- How will facilitators be trained?
+- Who provides training?
+- How are facilitators selected?
+- Ongoing support and development?
+- Community investment in capacity building
+
+## Combining with Governance Templates
+
+These dispute resolution templates work with any governance constitution:
+
+- **Benevolent Dictator** → Add Peer-to-Peer and Referee for member conflicts
+- **Do-ocracy** → Add Chosen Facilitator for when initiative creates conflict
+- **Consensus** → Add Restorative or Transformative Justice (values alignment)
+- **Circles** → Add Facilitation Council (similar structure)
+- **Elected Board** → Add Referee or Jury (formal decisions)
+- **Jury (governance)** → Add Community Jury for disputes too
+- **Petition** → Add any process, chosen by petition
+
+## Bot Implementation Notes
+
+When configuring your governance bot:
+
+1. **Trigger recognition** - Bot should recognize dispute resolution requests
+2. **Process routing** - Direct to appropriate process based on situation
+3. **Logistics support** - Scheduling, notifications, reminders
+4. **Documentation** - Record keeping and confidentiality
+5. **Tracking** - Monitor implementation and compliance
+6. **Learning** - Collect anonymized data for improvement
+7. **Escalation** - Enable movement between processes
+
+## Credits
+
+These templates are adapted from the [Dispute Protocol Builder](https://git.medlab.host/dispute-protocol/builder-prototype) project by the Media Enterprise Design Lab at the University of Colorado Boulder, with modifications for agentic governance bot integration.
+
+## Further Resources
+
+- **CommunityRule** - https://communityrule.info/ - Governance templates
+- **Dispute Protocol Builder** - https://git.medlab.host/dispute-protocol/builder-prototype
+- **Restorative Justice** - Various community resources on restorative circles
+- **Transformative Justice** - Resources from community accountability movements
+
+## Contributing
+
+Found issues or have improvements? Contributions welcome to help these templates serve more communities effectively.
+
+## License
+
+[To be determined - match project license]

templates/dispute-resolution/chosen-facilitator.md

@@ -0,0 +1,289 @@
+# Chosen Facilitator Dispute Resolution
+
+*A process where participants mutually select a facilitator to help guide their dispute resolution*
+
+This dispute resolution protocol can be integrated into any governance constitution as an article on conflict resolution.
+
+---
+
+## Article: Dispute Resolution
+
+### Section 1: Principles and Values
+
+**Core Values**
+This community emphasizes:
+- Open dialogue and mutual respect
+- Collaborative problem-solving
+- Neutral facilitation chosen by parties
+- Participant empowerment
+- Confidential process
+
+**Community Standards**
+- Guidelines available on community website
+- Physical materials at community center
+- Regular updates and review
+- Bot maintains current documentation
+
+### Section 2: Community Relations Committee
+
+**Committee Structure**
+The Community Relations Committee:
+- Receives dispute forms
+- Coordinates facilitation process
+- Maintains facilitator pool
+- Tracks outcomes and patterns
+- Reports to governance body
+
+**Committee Responsibilities**
+- Acknowledge dispute forms within 24 hours
+- Contact all parties within 48 hours
+- Provide copies and process information
+- Support facilitator selection
+- Monitor case progress
+
+### Section 3: Initiating the Process
+
+**Submitting a Dispute**
+Members submit dispute forms including:
+- Parties involved
+- Nature of the dispute
+- What has been tried so far
+- Desired outcomes
+- Submit via @govbot or physical form
+
+**Committee Response**
+Within 48 hours, committee provides:
+- Acknowledgment of receipt
+- Process overview
+- Copy to all parties
+- Facilitator selection information
+- Timeline expectations
+
+**Voluntary But Encouraged**
+- Participation is voluntary
+- Community members commit to good faith engagement
+- Refusal may trigger individual outreach
+- Alternative options available if needed
+
+### Section 4: Selecting a Facilitator
+
+**The Facilitator Pool**
+Community maintains trained volunteers:
+- Completed facilitation training
+- Understand community values
+- Diverse backgrounds and perspectives
+- Committed to neutrality
+- Bot maintains current roster
+
+**Joint Selection Process**
+Parties work together to select facilitator:
+1. Committee provides list of available facilitators
+2. Parties review facilitator backgrounds
+3. Parties jointly agree on selection
+4. If no agreement, committee suggests options
+5. Ultimately parties must both accept facilitator
+
+**Facilitator Role**
+The facilitator:
+- Helps guide the conversation
+- Ensures all voices are heard
+- Maintains focus on resolution
+- Remains neutral throughout
+- Supports productive dialogue
+- Does not impose solutions
+
+### Section 5: Meeting Logistics
+
+**Neutral Spaces**
+Meetings occur in:
+- Community spaces accessible to all
+- Neutral locations (not either party's space)
+- Private settings ensuring confidentiality
+- Comfortable environments for difficult conversations
+- Virtual options available if needed
+
+**Meeting Schedule**
+Typical timeline:
+- First meeting within 1-2 weeks of facilitator selection
+- 90-120 minute sessions
+- Typically 1-3 sessions
+- Spaced weekly to allow reflection
+- Flexible based on participant needs
+
+**Support Persons**
+- Support persons may attend with permission
+- Must be agreed to by all parties
+- Observe only, do not participate
+- Provide emotional support
+- Maintain confidentiality
+
+### Section 6: Ground Rules and Process
+
+**Established Practices**
+All participants agree to:
+- One speaker at a time
+- Focus on issues, not personal attacks
+- Use respectful language
+- Practice active listening
+- Take breaks as needed
+- Maintain confidentiality
+
+**Process Flow**
+Typical session structure:
+1. Facilitator opens and reviews ground rules
+2. Each party shares their perspective
+3. Facilitator helps clarify and reframe
+4. Identify points of agreement and disagreement
+5. Explore possible resolutions
+6. Build toward agreements
+7. Document outcomes
+
+### Section 7: Dispute Assessment
+
+**Developing Shared Understanding**
+Facilitator helps parties:
+- Share perspectives without interruption
+- Identify areas of agreement and disagreement
+- Clarify facts versus interpretations
+- Understand each other's concerns
+- Define what resolution looks like
+- Identify obstacles to resolution
+
+**Scope and Jurisdiction**
+This process handles:
+- Interpersonal conflicts
+- Communication breakdowns
+- Disagreements about behavior
+- Community standard violations
+- Relationship repair
+
+**Escalation Determination**
+Facilitators recommend escalation for:
+- Serious safety concerns
+- Legal violations requiring reporting
+- Complex issues beyond scope
+- Situations requiring specialized expertise
+- Power imbalances preventing fair process
+
+### Section 8: Deliberation and Resolution
+
+**Building Understanding**
+Through facilitated discussions:
+- Each person's needs and concerns heard
+- Underlying interests explored
+- Creative options generated
+- Impacts and consequences considered
+- Common ground identified
+
+**Working Toward Resolution**
+Facilitator supports parties to:
+- Generate multiple options
+- Evaluate feasibility of solutions
+- Build on areas of agreement
+- Address remaining concerns
+- Find mutually acceptable outcomes
+
+**Decision-Making**
+Resolutions require participant consensus:
+- Both parties must agree
+- Facilitator cannot impose outcomes
+- Partial agreements acceptable
+- Revisiting and revising allowed
+- May need multiple sessions
+
+### Section 9: Resolution Outcomes
+
+**Types of Outcomes**
+Common resolutions include:
+- Mutual understanding of perspectives
+- Agreements about future behavior
+- Commitments to specific actions
+- Changes to procedures or policies
+- Plans for relationship-building
+- Agreed boundaries or separation
+
+**Documenting Agreements**
+- Facilitator documents agreed outcomes
+- All parties review and approve
+- Submitted to @govbot for records
+- Include follow-up mechanisms
+- Specify accountability measures
+
+**Implementation Support**
+- Committee tracks agreement implementation
+- Follow-up check-ins scheduled
+- Resources provided as needed
+- Modifications allowed if needed
+
+### Section 10: Appeals and Follow-Up
+
+**When to Appeal**
+Appeal available when:
+- New information emerges
+- Circumstances change significantly
+- Implementation fails or is problematic
+- Process fairness questioned
+- Agreements prove unworkable
+
+**Appeal Process**
+1. Party submits appeal to committee
+2. Committee reviews grounds for appeal
+3. New facilitator assigned (not original)
+4. Fresh review of situation
+5. New sessions held as needed
+6. Decision on modification or new resolution
+
+**Follow-Up Sessions**
+Available for:
+- Checking on agreement implementation
+- Addressing new concerns
+- Adjusting agreements as needed
+- Continued relationship building
+- Either party can request
+
+### Section 11: Information and Privacy
+
+**Need-to-Know Basis**
+Information sharing:
+- Full details only to direct parties
+- Facilitators have access to case documentation
+- Committee tracks process, not details
+- Community receives anonymized statistics
+- Annual reports on trends and patterns
+
+**Confidentiality Commitment**
+All participants agree:
+- Not to share details outside process
+- To protect each other's privacy
+- To allow anonymized learning
+- To respect sensitive information
+- Exceptions only for safety concerns
+
+**Record Keeping**
+Bot maintains:
+- Case timeline and status
+- Facilitator assignments
+- Agreements and outcomes
+- Follow-up schedules
+- Anonymized statistics
+
+---
+
+## Implementation Notes for Bot
+
+When facilitating chosen facilitator process:
+
+1. **Coordinate smoothly** - Handle logistics efficiently
+2. **Support selection** - Make choosing facilitator easy
+3. **Provide resources** - Share guidelines and templates
+4. **Track progress** - Monitor timeline and follow-ups
+5. **Respect roles** - Facilitator guides, parties decide
+6. **Ensure privacy** - Protect confidential information
+7. **Enable learning** - Collect anonymized data for improvement
+
+This process works well when:
+- Parties want structured support but maintain control
+- Mutual facilitator selection builds trust
+- Trained volunteers available
+- Community values facilitated dialogue
+- Clear escalation paths exist

templates/dispute-resolution/community-jury.md

@@ -0,0 +1,390 @@
+# Community Jury Dispute Resolution
+
+*A process where randomly selected community members evaluate evidence and resolve disputes through structured deliberation*
+
+This dispute resolution protocol can be integrated into any governance constitution as an article on conflict resolution.
+
+---
+
+## Article: Dispute Resolution
+
+### Section 1: Principles and Values
+
+**Core Values**
+This community upholds six principles:
+1. **Procedural fairness** - Transparent, consistent process
+2. **Collective wisdom** - Random selection accesses diverse perspectives
+3. **Community ownership** - Members resolve their own disputes
+4. **Balanced perspective** - Multiple jurors prevent bias
+5. **Reasoned judgment** - Evidence-based decisions
+6. **Restorative outcomes** - Focus on repair and community health
+
+**The Jury Approach**
+Rather than single decision-makers:
+- Random selection ensures fairness
+- Multiple perspectives considered
+- Community standards applied
+- Decisions made by peers
+- Accountability to community
+
+**Documentation**
+- Comprehensive online handbook with searchable content
+- Print copies available
+- Audio recordings for accessibility
+- Bot maintains current version
+- Regular updates and clarifications
+
+### Section 2: Scope and Jurisdiction
+
+**What Juries Decide**
+Community juries have authority over:
+- Inter-member disputes
+- Violations of community agreements
+- Conflicts affecting community function
+- Policy interpretation and clarification
+- Appeals from committee decisions
+
+**Eligibility for Jury Process**
+Cases must:
+- Involve community members or community matters
+- Fall within community jurisdiction
+- Not require emergency response
+- Be suitable for peer judgment
+- Bot validates eligibility
+
+**When Not Appropriate**
+Some matters require alternative processes:
+- Criminal violations (refer to authorities)
+- Immediate safety threats (emergency response first)
+- Professional disputes (specialized arbitration)
+- External party disputes (unless they opt in)
+
+### Section 3: Initiating Jury Process
+
+**Submitting a Case**
+Request submitted via @govbot including:
+- Parties involved
+- Nature of dispute
+- Relevant evidence
+- Specific questions for jury
+- What resolution is sought
+
+**Initial Review**
+Dispute coordinator reviews within 3 business days:
+- Confirms eligibility for jury process
+- Requests additional information if needed
+- Estimates timeline
+- Explains process to all parties
+- Begins jury selection
+
+**Non-Participation**
+- Members expected to participate
+- Voluntary for non-members
+- Proceedings may continue without respondent
+- Limited scope if party declines
+- Noted in decision
+
+### Section 4: Jury Selection
+
+**Random Selection (Sortition)**
+Jurors selected randomly from eligible pool:
+- All members eligible unless excluded
+- 5-7 jurors selected per case
+- Random selection ensures fairness
+- Bot conducts transparent lottery
+- Selection recorded for accountability
+
+**Jury Size**
+Determined by case complexity:
+- Routine disputes: 5 jurors
+- Moderate complexity: 6 jurors
+- Complex cases: 7 jurors
+- Constitutional matters: 7 jurors
+
+**Eligibility Requirements**
+Members eligible for jury service if:
+- Active community member (60+ days)
+- Not party to the dispute
+- No conflict of interest
+- Available for full process
+- Agreed to code of conduct
+
+**Declining Jury Service**
+Jurors may decline if:
+- Conflict of interest exists
+- Unable to be impartial
+- Personal relationship with parties
+- Unavailable for process timeline
+- Other legitimate reason
+
+### Section 5: Jury Process Structure
+
+**Process Timeline**
+Typical jury process:
+1. Jury selection (3-5 days)
+2. Materials distribution (immediate)
+3. Opening statements (Day 1)
+4. Evidence presentation (Day 1-2)
+5. Questions and clarification (Day 2)
+6. Deliberation (Day 3-4)
+7. Decision (Day 5)
+
+**Facilitation**
+Trained facilitator:
+- Guides proceedings
+- Ensures fair process
+- Manages time and order
+- Clarifies procedures
+- Does not influence decision
+- Bot assists with coordination
+
+**Ground Rules**
+All participants agree to:
+- Time-limited statements
+- Structured evidence presentation
+- Questions submitted through facilitator
+- Respectful engagement
+- Truthful participation
+- Confidentiality of deliberations
+
+### Section 6: Information and Evidence
+
+**Three-Tier Access**
+Information shared based on role:
+- **Parties:** Full access to all case documentation
+- **Jurors:** Redacted materials protecting sensitive information
+- **Community:** Anonymized summaries of decisions
+
+**Evidence Presentation**
+Structured process:
+- Opening statements by each party (10 minutes)
+- Presentation of evidence with explanation
+- Witness testimony if relevant
+- Documents and records
+- Community standards reference
+- Closing statements (5 minutes)
+
+**Juror Questions**
+Jurors may ask:
+- Clarifying questions about evidence
+- Questions about facts presented
+- Submitted through facilitator
+- Asked after presentations complete
+- Focused on understanding, not arguing
+
+### Section 7: Dispute Assessment Framework
+
+**Assessment Questions**
+Jury evaluates using framework:
+- What facts are agreed upon by parties?
+- What are the points of disagreement?
+- What community standards apply?
+- How credible is the evidence?
+- What context is relevant?
+- What are the impacts on community?
+- Who bears responsibility and to what degree?
+
+**Consulting Standards**
+Jury references:
+- Community constitution
+- Code of conduct
+- Established policies
+- Past jury precedents
+- Community values
+- Bot provides relevant documents
+
+**Identifying Information Gaps**
+Jury can:
+- Request additional evidence
+- Pose clarifying questions
+- Ask for witness testimony
+- Review relevant records
+- Pause for information gathering
+
+### Section 8: Deliberation Process
+
+**Private Deliberation**
+Jury deliberates privately:
+- Only jurors present
+- Facilitator available for procedural questions
+- No parties or observers
+- Candid discussion encouraged
+- Process typically 2-4 hours
+
+**Deliberation Structure**
+Structured dialogue:
+1. Initial impressions (each juror speaks)
+2. Clarify key questions needing decision
+3. Review evidence systematically
+4. Share perspectives and reasoning
+5. Identify points of agreement and disagreement
+6. Discuss implications of different outcomes
+7. Build toward consensus or vote
+
+**Participants**
+Only jurors deliberate:
+- Parties do not participate
+- Facilitator not present (unless requested for procedure)
+- Administrator available for documents
+- Community observers not permitted
+
+### Section 9: Decision-Making
+
+**Voting Process**
+Jury decides by vote:
+- 2/3 majority required for decisions (4 of 6, 5 of 7)
+- Up to three rounds of voting
+- Discussion between rounds
+- If no 2/3 majority after three rounds, 60% minimum applies
+- Encourages but doesn't require consensus
+
+**Written Decision**
+Jury provides:
+- Clear verdict or determination
+- Reasoning and rationale
+- Application of community standards
+- Consideration of evidence
+- Any dissenting opinions
+- Implementation guidance
+- Bot records and publishes decision
+
+**Types of Outcomes**
+Jury may decide:
+- Finding of fact
+- Interpretation of policy
+- Responsibility determination
+- Remedies or consequences
+- Behavioral requirements
+- Restitution or repair
+- Community actions needed
+
+### Section 10: Resolution Outcomes and Implementation
+
+**When Jury Resolves**
+Decision is implemented:
+- Binding on parties
+- Bot executes authorized actions
+- Parties notified immediately
+- Implementation timeline specified
+- Follow-up scheduled
+
+**Implementation Tracking**
+- Coordinator monitors compliance
+- Reports to community if needed
+- Support provided for implementation
+- Modifications if circumstances change
+
+**Resolution Failure Options**
+If jury cannot resolve:
+- Refer to mediation
+- Escalate to governance body
+- Refer to legal processes
+- Recommend policy revision
+- Provide support for separation
+- Suggest alternative approaches
+
+### Section 11: Appeals Process
+
+**Grounds for Appeal**
+Appeals accepted for:
+- New evidence not available during trial
+- Procedural errors affecting fairness
+- Misapplication of community standards
+- Juror bias or misconduct
+- Implementation proving impossible
+
+**Appeal Timeline**
+- Must file within 14 days of decision
+- Submit to Appeal Committee via @govbot
+- Committee determines merit quickly
+- New jury convened if accepted
+
+**Appeal Review**
+Appeal Committee:
+- 3 experienced members
+- Review appeal criteria
+- Decide if grounds sufficient
+- Can dismiss or accept appeal
+- Decision within 7 days
+
+**New Jury for Appeals**
+If appeal accepted:
+- Larger jury selected (7-9 members)
+- Reviews all original materials
+- Considers new evidence if any
+- Limited hearing held
+- Can confirm, modify, or overturn original decision
+- Appeal decision is final
+
+### Section 12: Participants and Observers
+
+**Who Participates**
+Full participants:
+- **Jurors:** Make decision
+- **Parties:** Present case and evidence
+- **Witnesses:** Provide testimony if called
+- **Facilitator:** Manages process
+- **Administrator:** Handles logistics
+
+**Community Observation**
+Process is transparent:
+- Community members may observe
+- Observers cannot participate
+- Must respect process rules
+- Leave before deliberation
+- No disruption permitted
+
+**Support Persons**
+Parties may have:
+- Support person present
+- For emotional support only
+- Cannot speak or participate
+- Must be approved by facilitator
+
+### Section 13: Information and Records
+
+**Record Keeping**
+Bot maintains complete records:
+- Case submissions and evidence
+- Jury selection process
+- Proceedings transcripts
+- Jury decisions and reasoning
+- Implementation status
+- Appeals and outcomes
+
+**Public Access**
+Community can access:
+- Anonymized decision summaries
+- Precedents and patterns
+- Process statistics
+- Redacted case outcomes
+- Policy clarifications
+
+**Confidentiality**
+Protected information:
+- Jury deliberations (never shared)
+- Sensitive personal information
+- Evidence marked confidential
+- Juror identities (may be disclosed or anonymous as community decides)
+
+---
+
+## Implementation Notes for Bot
+
+When facilitating community jury process:
+
+1. **Fair selection** - Conduct transparent, truly random selection
+2. **Process management** - Track timeline and ensure structure followed
+3. **Information access** - Provide appropriate materials to each role
+4. **Decision recording** - Accurately capture and publish decisions
+5. **Precedent tracking** - Build searchable database of past decisions
+6. **Implementation support** - Execute authorized actions and monitor compliance
+7. **Appeals coordination** - Manage appeal review efficiently
+
+This process works best when:
+- Community trusts random selection
+- Members willing to serve as jurors
+- Cases suited to peer judgment
+- Structured process followed consistently
+- Decisions create useful precedents
+- Community supports implementation

templates/dispute-resolution/community-referee.md

@@ -0,0 +1,400 @@
+# Community Referee Dispute Resolution
+
+*A streamlined process where a single trained referee facilitates and decides on dispute resolution*
+
+This dispute resolution protocol can be integrated into any governance constitution as an article on conflict resolution.
+
+---
+
+## Article: Dispute Resolution
+
+### Section 1: Principles and Values
+
+**Core Values**
+This community emphasizes:
+1. **Efficiency** - Streamlining resolution to minimize time and resources
+2. **Fairness** - Equal treatment and impartial review
+3. **Expertise** - Trained referees understand community standards
+4. **Practicality** - Focus on workable solutions
+5. **Consistency** - Applying standards uniformly
+6. **Respect** - Dignity for all parties throughout process
+
+**The Referee Approach**
+Single-referee model provides:
+- Quick response to disputes
+- Expert application of standards
+- Efficient use of community resources
+- Consistency in decision-making
+- Clear accountability
+
+**Documentation**
+- Comprehensive digital handbook on community website
+- Searchable by topic and keyword
+- Periodic workshops on process
+- Updates communicated regularly
+- Bot maintains current materials
+
+### Section 2: Scope and Jurisdiction
+
+**What Referees Handle**
+Referee process covers:
+- Community agreement disputes
+- Resource allocation conflicts
+- Interpersonal conflicts between members
+- Minor property disputes
+- Policy compliance matters
+- Procedure interpretation questions
+
+**Appropriate Cases**
+Best suited for:
+- Routine disputes with clear standards
+- Situations needing quick resolution
+- Disagreements about facts or application
+- Cases without complex emotional dynamics
+- Matters where fair decision can be reached efficiently
+
+**Escalation to Other Processes**
+Some disputes better handled elsewhere:
+- Complex emotional conflicts → mediation or circles
+- Serious harm → restorative/transformative justice
+- Major policy questions → governance body
+- Legal violations → authorities as needed
+
+### Section 3: The Referee Pool
+
+**Referee Qualifications**
+Referees must have:
+- Deep knowledge of community standards
+- Dispute resolution training
+- Demonstrated fairness and impartiality
+- Strong analytical skills
+- Communication abilities
+- Community trust
+
+**Referee Training**
+Training includes:
+- Community values and constitution
+- Conflict resolution techniques
+- Evidence evaluation
+- Decision-making frameworks
+- Cultural competency
+- Managing difficult dynamics
+- Bot systems and documentation
+
+**Maintaining the Pool**
+- Community maintains roster of trained referees
+- Regular refresher training
+- Performance review and feedback
+- Addition of new referees as needed
+- Bot tracks availability and assignments
+
+### Section 4: Initiating the Process
+
+**Dispute Submission**
+Party submits request via @govbot including:
+- Parties involved
+- Nature of dispute
+- Relevant facts and timeline
+- Evidence or documentation
+- What outcome is sought
+- Urgency level
+
+**Initial Review**
+Within 2 business days:
+- Coordinator reviews submission
+- Confirms eligibility for referee process
+- Determines complexity level
+- Assigns referee
+- Notifies all parties
+
+**Referee Assignment**
+Target within 5 days:
+- Referee assigned based on availability and expertise
+- Parties notified of referee identity
+- Can object if conflict of interest
+- New referee assigned if valid objection
+- Bot tracks assignments and prevents conflicts
+
+### Section 5: Referee Process
+
+**Intake Phase**
+Referee conducts initial work:
+- Interviews with each party separately (30-60 min)
+- Reviews documentation and evidence
+- Identifies key issues and questions
+- Determines if joint session needed
+- Develops process plan
+
+**Joint Session (if needed)**
+When parties meet together:
+- Referee maintains control of process
+- Structured speaking protocols
+- Time limits ensure efficiency
+- Focus on facts and resolution
+- Typically 60-90 minutes
+
+**Additional Information Gathering**
+Referee may:
+- Request additional documentation
+- Interview witnesses
+- Consult community standards
+- Review precedents
+- Seek expert input if needed
+
+### Section 6: Ground Rules and Structure
+
+**Process Rules**
+All participants agree to:
+- Equal opportunity to present perspectives
+- No interruption during presentations
+- Respectful language and tone
+- Truthful statements
+- Time limits respected
+- Referee's process authority
+
+**Structured Speaking**
+- Each party presents uninterrupted
+- Specific time allocated (typically 10-15 min)
+- Questions asked through referee
+- Rebuttals brief and focused
+- Closing statements (5 min)
+
+**Confidentiality Protocols**
+- Case information shared only with referee and parties
+- Witnesses get only relevant information
+- Decision may be published (anonymized)
+- Sensitive details protected
+- Exceptions for safety concerns
+
+### Section 7: Dispute Assessment
+
+**Referee Analysis**
+Referee evaluates:
+- Agreed facts and disputed facts
+- Applicable community standards
+- Credibility of evidence
+- Context and history
+- Whether new issue or ongoing pattern
+- Impact on parties and community
+
+**Standards Application**
+Referee consults:
+- Community constitution
+- Relevant policies
+- Code of conduct
+- Past referee decisions (precedents)
+- Community values
+- Bot provides searchable access
+
+**Fact-Finding**
+Through evidence evaluation:
+- Review of submissions
+- Witness statements
+- Documentary evidence
+- Community standards
+- Contextual factors
+- Precedent review
+
+### Section 8: Handling Non-Participation
+
+**When Party Doesn't Engage**
+Members expected to participate but:
+- Process may proceed without active participation
+- Decisions made based on available information
+- Non-participating party still bound by decision
+- Noted in decision rationale
+
+**For Non-Members**
+- Process is voluntary
+- Cannot compel participation
+- Limited decisions possible without full participation
+- May recommend separation or boundaries
+
+**Good Faith Requirement**
+Parties expected to:
+- Participate honestly
+- Provide requested information
+- Respect process
+- Accept referee authority
+- Implement decision
+
+### Section 9: Deliberation and Decision
+
+**Referee Deliberation**
+Referee considers:
+- All evidence and testimony
+- Applicable standards
+- Precedents
+- Practical implications
+- Community values
+- Fair and workable outcomes
+
+**Structured Discussion**
+Before final decision:
+- Referee summarizes points of agreement and disagreement
+- Identifies key questions
+- Discusses potential outcomes with parties
+- Reality-tests proposed solutions
+- Allows final statements
+
+**Participants**
+Throughout process:
+- **Primary parties** - Present case and participate
+- **Referee** - Facilitates and decides
+- **Support persons** - May attend for emotional support
+- **Witnesses** - Provide information if called
+- **Coordinator** - Handles administrative logistics
+
+### Section 10: The Decision
+
+**Written Determination**
+Referee provides written decision within one week including:
+- Clear finding or determination
+- Summary of relevant facts
+- Application of community standards
+- Reasoning for decision
+- Specific requirements or remedies
+- Implementation timeline
+- Follow-up if needed
+
+**Types of Decisions**
+Referee may:
+- Determine facts
+- Interpret policy application
+- Assign responsibility
+- Order specific actions
+- Require apologies or acknowledgment
+- Mandate restitution or repair
+- Set boundaries or separation
+- Recommend policy changes
+
+**Decision Communication**
+- Decision sent to all parties
+- Submitted to @govbot for records
+- Anonymized summary published to community
+- Implementation coordinator notified
+- Bot tracks and monitors compliance
+
+### Section 11: Implementation
+
+**Carrying Out Decisions**
+- Bot executes authorized actions where possible
+- Parties responsible for their requirements
+- Coordinator monitors compliance
+- Regular check-ins scheduled
+- Support provided as needed
+
+**Compliance Tracking**
+- Deadlines tracked by bot
+- Parties report completion
+- Coordinator verifies
+- Community notified if non-compliance
+- May escalate if requirements not met
+
+**When Implementation Fails**
+If party doesn't comply:
+- Coordinator contacts party
+- Understands barriers
+- Referee may modify if circumstances changed
+- Escalate to governance body if willful non-compliance
+- May result in further consequences
+
+### Section 12: Escalation Options
+
+**When Referee Process Insufficient**
+Some cases need escalation:
+- **Three-referee panel** - For complex cases needing multiple perspectives
+- **Mediation** - For cases needing facilitated dialogue
+- **Governance body** - For policy questions or major decisions
+- **Professional services** - For specialized expertise
+- **Legal processes** - When outside community jurisdiction
+
+**Requesting Escalation**
+Either party or referee can request:
+- Submit escalation request to coordinator
+- Explain why current process insufficient
+- Coordinator determines appropriate path
+- New process initiated
+- Original referee decision may be suspended
+
+### Section 13: Appeals Process
+
+**Grounds for Appeal**
+Appeals accepted only for:
+- Significant new information not previously available
+- Misapplication of community standards
+- Procedural errors affecting fairness
+- Evidence of referee bias
+- Decision implementation proving impossible
+
+**Filing an Appeal**
+Within 14 days of decision:
+- Submit appeal to Appeals Committee via @govbot
+- Explain specific grounds
+- Provide supporting information
+- Pay fee if applicable (refunded if appeal successful)
+
+**Appeals Committee**
+Three-referee panel reviews:
+- Committee evaluates appeal grounds
+- Decides if criteria met
+- Reviews within 10 days
+- Can request additional information
+- Determines: dismiss, modify, or overturn
+
+**Senior Referee Review**
+If appeals committee accepts:
+- Senior referee assigned for review
+- Reviews all materials
+- May conduct limited hearing
+- Issues final determination
+- Decision is binding
+
+### Section 14: Information and Records
+
+**Record Keeping**
+Bot maintains:
+- All dispute submissions
+- Evidence and documentation
+- Referee determinations
+- Implementation status
+- Appeals and outcomes
+- Anonymized statistics
+
+**Community Access**
+Members can access:
+- Anonymized decision summaries
+- Precedent database
+- Process statistics
+- Training materials
+- FAQ and guidance
+
+**Privacy Protection**
+Confidential information:
+- Party identities (in published decisions)
+- Sensitive personal details
+- Private communications
+- Referee deliberation notes
+
+---
+
+## Implementation Notes for Bot
+
+When supporting community referee process:
+
+1. **Efficient coordination** - Move process quickly through stages
+2. **Referee support** - Provide information access and documentation tools
+3. **Track precedents** - Build searchable database of decisions
+4. **Monitor implementation** - Automated tracking and reminders
+5. **Escalation pathways** - Clear routing to appropriate alternatives
+6. **Maintain consistency** - Flag conflicts with past decisions
+7. **Statistics and learning** - Track patterns and outcomes
+
+This process works best when:
+- Community values efficiency
+- Trained referees available and trusted
+- Cases generally straightforward
+- Quick resolution important
+- Standards clearly documented
+- Community respects referee authority
+- Appeal paths available for errors

templates/dispute-resolution/facilitation-council.md

@@ -0,0 +1,452 @@
+# Facilitation Council Dispute Resolution
+
+*A structured process with a trained council of facilitators who manage the dispute resolution process*
+
+This dispute resolution protocol can be integrated into any governance constitution as an article on conflict resolution.
+
+---
+
+## Article: Dispute Resolution
+
+### Section 1: Principles and Values
+
+**Core Values**
+This community centers on:
+- **Equity** - Fair treatment and process for all parties
+- **Transparency** - Clear procedures and documented decisions
+- **Restorative justice** - Focus on repair rather than punishment
+- **Collective decision-making** - Multiple facilitators bring diverse perspectives
+- **Restorative dialogue** - Communication that heals and rebuilds
+
+**The Council Approach**
+Panel-based facilitation provides:
+- Multiple perspectives on each case
+- Balanced decision-making
+- Diverse skills and backgrounds
+- Reduced individual bias
+- Consistent application of standards
+
+**Documentation**
+- Rules and protocols in searchable online database
+- Version history tracked
+- Physical copies at community center library
+- Regular updates communicated
+- Bot maintains current version
+
+### Section 2: The Facilitation Council
+
+**Council Composition**
+The council consists of:
+- 9-15 trained facilitators
+- Diverse backgrounds and perspectives
+- Rotating service terms (2 years)
+- Staggered terms for continuity
+- Community nominates and approves members
+
+**Council Member Qualifications**
+Facilitators must have:
+- Completed comprehensive training program
+- Understanding of community values
+- Conflict resolution skills
+- Demonstrated impartiality
+- Active community participation
+- Good standing in community
+
+**Training Requirements**
+Council training includes:
+- Restorative justice principles
+- Facilitation techniques
+- Community constitution and values
+- Cultural competency
+- Trauma-informed practices
+- Evidence evaluation
+- Decision-making frameworks
+- Bot system use
+
+**Council Governance**
+- Council elects coordinating committee (3 members)
+- Coordinator handles case assignment
+- Regular council meetings for learning and consistency
+- Annual review and improvement
+- Bot supports coordination
+
+### Section 3: Information Access Model
+
+**Three-Tier System**
+Information shared based on role:
+
+**Tier 1 - Full Access:**
+- Involved parties
+- Assigned council panel members
+- Access to all case materials and deliberations
+
+**Tier 2 - Anonymized Tracking:**
+- Council administrators
+- Process tracking without identifying details
+- Patterns and statistics
+
+**Tier 3 - Quarterly Reports:**
+- Broader community
+- Anonymized summaries
+- No identifying details
+- Trends and learnings
+
+### Section 4: Initiating the Process
+
+**Formal Intake**
+Initiated via:
+- Online form submission to @govbot
+- Hard copy form at community center
+- Both include same information fields
+- Accessible formats available
+
+**Intake Form Contents**
+Requesting party provides:
+- All parties involved
+- Description of dispute
+- Timeline of events
+- Previous resolution attempts
+- Desired outcomes
+- Any safety concerns
+- Evidence or documentation
+
+**Council Acknowledgment**
+Within 24 hours:
+- Council acknowledges receipt
+- Assigns intake coordinator
+- Initial assessment begins
+- Parties notified of next steps
+
+**Coordinator Contact**
+Within 48 hours:
+- Intake coordinator contacts all parties
+- Explains process in detail
+- Answers questions
+- Schedules initial interviews
+- Provides process timeline
+
+### Section 5: Panel Assignment
+
+**Panel Size**
+For each case, panel of 2-3 council members:
+- **2 members** - Routine disputes
+- **3 members** - Complex cases or serious matters
+- Coordinator determines based on initial assessment
+
+**Selection Criteria**
+Panel members selected for:
+- Availability for full process
+- Relevant expertise if needed
+- Diversity of perspectives
+- No conflicts of interest
+- Balanced backgrounds
+
+**Lead Facilitator**
+One panel member designated as lead:
+- Primary coordinator of process
+- Leads sessions and deliberations
+- Main point of contact
+- Ensures process integrity
+- Supported by other panel members
+
+### Section 6: Process Ground Rules
+
+**Talking Piece Protocol**
+Council uses structured communication:
+- Talking piece indicates who has floor
+- Passed in intentional order
+- Speaker cannot be interrupted
+- Can pass without speaking
+- Slows conversation for reflection
+- Ensures all voices heard
+
+**Additional Ground Rules**
+All participants commit to:
+- Structured speaking order
+- Time limits respected
+- Direct communication when productive
+- Listening without planning response
+- Focus on resolution
+- Confidentiality of process details
+- Respect for all parties
+
+**Facilitator Authority**
+Panel has authority to:
+- Enforce ground rules
+- Manage time and process
+- Pause for cooling off
+- Request additional information
+- Modify process as needed
+- Make final determination
+
+### Section 7: Assessment Phase
+
+**Structured Assessment**
+Panel conducts thorough review through:
+- Individual interviews with each party
+- Written statements from parties
+- Witness consultation if relevant
+- Review of documentation
+- Analysis using formal framework
+
+**Assessment Framework**
+Panel examines:
+- Facts agreed upon and disputed
+- Applicable community standards
+- Context and history
+- Impact on individuals and community
+- Underlying interests and needs
+- Power dynamics at play
+- Potential for resolution
+
+**Jurisdiction Determination**
+Checklist-based assessment:
+- Falls within community authority?
+- Appropriate for council process?
+- Safety concerns requiring escalation?
+- Legal violations needing referral?
+- Resources adequate for resolution?
+
+**Referral Criteria**
+Cases with serious legal violations or safety threats:
+- Referred to appropriate authorities
+- Council may run parallel process
+- Safety prioritized
+- Community standards still applied
+
+### Section 8: Handling Non-Participation
+
+**Participation Requirements**
+- Required for active community members
+- Voluntary for non-members
+- Non-participation has consequences
+- Process may proceed without party
+
+**Modified Process**
+If party refuses participation:
+- Council proceeds with available information
+- Decision may be made in absentia
+- Limited remedies possible
+- Non-participating party informed
+- May affect their community standing
+
+**Encouraging Participation**
+Panel makes efforts to:
+- Understand barriers to participation
+- Address concerns about process
+- Offer accommodations
+- Explain importance and consequences
+- Provide support if needed
+
+### Section 9: Deliberation Process
+
+**Information Gathering**
+Predetermined schedule for:
+- **Statements** - Each party presents (30-45 min)
+- **Clarifying questions** - Panel and parties ask questions
+- **Witness testimony** - If relevant and requested
+- **Evidence review** - Documents, records, communications
+- **Standards review** - Applicable policies and precedents
+
+**Deliberation Format**
+Multi-stage structure:
+- Most cases involve 3-5 sessions
+- Sessions are 2-3 hours each
+- Spread over 2-4 week period
+- Allows time for reflection
+- Parties and panel have breaks between sessions
+
+**Additional Voices**
+Process includes:
+- **Primary parties** - Central to all sessions
+- **Council panel members** - Guide and decide
+- **Invited witnesses** - Provide specific information
+- **Support persons** - Emotional support for parties (with permission)
+- **Community representatives** - When case affects broader community
+
+### Section 10: Resolution Process
+
+**Tiered Approach**
+Panel prioritizes in order:
+
+**First: Facilitated Consensus**
+- Panel helps parties reach mutual agreement
+- Most preferred outcome
+- Parties control their resolution
+- Panel guides and supports
+
+**Second: Council Recommendations**
+- If consensus not reached
+- Panel proposes resolution
+- Strong recommendations to parties
+- Parties encouraged to accept
+
+**Third: Binding Decisions**
+- When needed for community protection
+- Panel makes final determination
+- Binding on all parties
+- Used sparingly
+
+**Decision-Making Within Panel**
+Panel decisions require:
+- Discussion until consensus reached
+- If consensus not possible, majority vote
+- Dissenting opinions noted
+- Lead facilitator breaks ties (if 2-person panel)
+
+### Section 11: Resolution Outcomes
+
+**Types of Outcomes**
+Council may determine:
+- Findings of fact
+- Responsibility determinations
+- Behavioral requirements
+- Restitution or repair actions
+- Boundary setting
+- Relationship agreements
+- Community service
+- Policy recommendations
+- Apologies or acknowledgments
+
+**Written Decision**
+Panel provides comprehensive document:
+- Summary of dispute
+- Process followed
+- Evidence considered
+- Standards applied
+- Determination and reasoning
+- Specific requirements
+- Implementation timeline
+- Follow-up plan
+
+**Decision Communication**
+- Provided to all parties
+- Submitted to @govbot
+- Anonymized summary to community
+- Implementation coordinator notified
+- Appeals information included
+
+### Section 12: Implementation and Follow-Up
+
+**Monitoring Compliance**
+- Implementation coordinator tracks
+- Regular check-ins with parties
+- Bot sends automated reminders
+- Progress reported to panel
+- Support provided as needed
+
+**Follow-Up Sessions**
+Scheduled as needed for:
+- Checking agreement implementation
+- Addressing emerging concerns
+- Supporting relationship repair
+- Celebrating progress
+- Modifying agreements if circumstances change
+
+**Non-Compliance**
+If requirements not met:
+- Coordinator reaches out
+- Understands barriers
+- Panel reconvenes if needed
+- May modify requirements
+- Escalate to governance if willful refusal
+
+### Section 13: When Resolution Fails
+
+**Alternative Pathways**
+Panel may recommend:
+- **Specialized mediators** - For deep interpersonal conflicts
+- **Governance escalation** - For policy questions
+- **Professional services** - Therapy, legal advice, etc.
+- **Legal resources** - When appropriate
+- **Separation protocols** - If co-existence not possible
+- **Interim measures** - To stabilize situation
+
+**Partial Resolution**
+Sometimes full resolution not possible:
+- Panel addresses what can be resolved
+- Provides clarity on what remains
+- Suggests next steps
+- Documents progress made
+- Maintains safety and boundaries
+
+### Section 14: Appeals Process
+
+**Appeal Criteria**
+Appeals accepted for:
+- New evidence not previously available
+- Procedural errors affecting outcome
+- Agreements proving unworkable
+- Changed circumstances requiring revision
+- Evidence of panel bias
+
+**Filing Requirements**
+Within 30 days of decision:
+- Submit appeal to council via @govbot
+- Explain specific grounds
+- Provide supporting documentation
+- Propose alternative outcome
+
+**Appeal Review**
+New panel assigned:
+- Different members than original
+- Reviews appeal against criteria
+- Conducts limited-scope hearing if needed
+- Decides: affirm, modify, overturn, or remand
+- Decision within 30 days of acceptance
+
+**Appeal Outcomes**
+Appeal panel may:
+- Affirm original decision
+- Modify specific elements
+- Overturn and decide differently
+- Remand for new process
+- Provide clarification
+
+### Section 15: Council Learning and Improvement
+
+**Case Review**
+Council regularly reviews:
+- Patterns across cases
+- Process effectiveness
+- Consistency in application
+- Areas for improvement
+- Training needs
+
+**Community Reporting**
+Quarterly reports include:
+- Number and types of cases
+- Resolution outcomes
+- Process timelines
+- Trends and patterns
+- Anonymized learnings
+
+**Continuous Improvement**
+Council commits to:
+- Annual process review
+- Incorporating feedback
+- Updating training
+- Refining procedures
+- Community input on changes
+
+---
+
+## Implementation Notes for Bot
+
+When supporting facilitation council process:
+
+1. **Coordination hub** - Manage complex logistics of panels, parties, and sessions
+2. **Information management** - Implement three-tier access appropriately
+3. **Timeline tracking** - Multi-session processes over weeks
+4. **Panel support** - Provide facilitators with tools and documentation
+5. **Implementation monitoring** - Track compliance with decisions
+6. **Pattern analysis** - Help council learn from cases
+7. **Community reporting** - Generate quarterly anonymized summaries
+
+This process works best when:
+- Multiple facilitators bring diverse perspectives
+- Complex cases need structured but flexible process
+- Community values both thoroughness and efficiency
+- Restorative outcomes prioritized
+- Strong facilitator training in place
+- Time available for multi-session deliberation

templates/dispute-resolution/peer-to-peer.md

@@ -0,0 +1,213 @@
+# Peer-to-Peer Dispute Resolution
+
+*A self-facilitated process where participants work together directly to resolve disputes*
+
+This dispute resolution protocol can be integrated into any governance constitution as an article on conflict resolution.
+
+---
+
+## Article: Dispute Resolution
+
+### Section 1: Principles and Values
+
+**Core Values**
+This community emphasizes:
+- Open dialogue and direct communication
+- Mutual respect between all parties
+- Collaborative problem-solving
+- Focus on solutions rather than blame
+- Voluntary participation with encouragement
+
+**Community Standards**
+- Standards maintained in shared digital and physical formats
+- Reviewed annually by the community
+- Accessible to all members
+- Bot maintains current version
+
+### Section 2: Initiating Dispute Resolution
+
+**When to Use**
+Members should initiate dispute resolution for:
+- Interpersonal conflicts between members
+- Disagreements about community practices
+- Misunderstandings requiring clarification
+- Relationship repair needs
+
+**How to Initiate**
+1. Submit incident report to @govbot
+2. Document: parties involved, events, evidence, desired outcomes
+3. Available in electronic or paper format
+4. Bot notifies all parties and provides process guidance
+
+**Voluntary Participation**
+- Participation is voluntary but strongly encouraged as first step
+- Treated as good faith effort to resolve conflicts
+- If party declines, coordinator reaches out to understand concerns
+- Alternative paths available if unsuitable
+
+### Section 3: The Peer-to-Peer Process
+
+**Self-Facilitation**
+Participants manage the process themselves:
+- No third-party facilitator required
+- Bot provides guidance on communication techniques
+- Participants choose meeting location
+- Scheduling arranged mutually
+
+**Ground Rules**
+All participants agree to:
+- Take turns speaking without interruption
+- Use "I" statements about personal experience
+- Ask clarifying questions to understand better
+- Summarize understanding to confirm accuracy
+- Focus on solutions rather than dwelling on problems
+- Respect confidentiality of the process
+
+**Meeting Structure**
+Typical process (60-90 minutes):
+1. Each person shares their perspective
+2. Ask clarifying questions
+3. Identify common ground and differences
+4. Joint brainstorming of potential solutions
+5. Agree on specific actions or outcomes
+
+### Section 4: Assessing the Dispute
+
+**Joint Assessment**
+Participants work together to identify:
+- Specific issues that need addressing
+- How each person has been impacted
+- Relevant community values at stake
+- What resolution would look like
+- Requirements for moving forward
+
+**Scope and Jurisdiction**
+This process is suitable for:
+- Most interpersonal conflicts between members
+- Communication breakdowns
+- Disagreements about behavior or actions
+- Relationship tensions
+
+**Escalation Criteria**
+Must escalate to higher level if dispute involves:
+- Illegal activity
+- Safety risks to individuals or community
+- Harassment or serious code of conduct violations
+- Power imbalances requiring facilitation support
+
+### Section 5: Deliberation and Problem-Solving
+
+**Discussion Process**
+- Open conversation about the situation
+- Each person's needs and concerns heard
+- Clarifying questions encouraged
+- Joint exploration of options
+- Creative brainstorming of solutions
+
+**Adding Support**
+- Initially involves direct parties only
+- If deadlocked, may invite one mutually trusted person
+- Support person helps facilitate, doesn't decide
+- Keeps process peer-to-peer focused
+
+**Reaching Conclusion**
+Process concludes when:
+- Participants feel issues thoroughly explored
+- Ready to make decisions about resolution
+- Clear about agreements and next steps
+- Or agree to escalate to facilitated process
+
+### Section 6: Resolution Outcomes
+
+**Types of Resolution**
+Successful peer-to-peer process may result in:
+- Clarifications clearing up misunderstandings
+- Apologies for harm caused
+- Behavioral agreements for future interactions
+- Restoration of harm (returning items, making amends)
+- Agreed boundaries for future relationship
+- Recognition of different perspectives
+
+**Documenting Agreements**
+- Parties can document agreements if desired
+- Submit to @govbot for record-keeping
+- Not required but recommended for accountability
+- Bot sends reminders if follow-up scheduled
+
+**Mutual Agreement Required**
+- Both parties must agree to any resolution
+- No imposed outcomes in peer-to-peer process
+- Partial agreements acceptable
+- Can agree to disagree on some points
+
+### Section 7: When Resolution Doesn't Work
+
+**Escalation Path**
+If peer-to-peer doesn't resolve the issue:
+1. Acknowledge that escalation is needed
+2. Refer to trained mediator pool via @govbot
+3. Mediators trained in more formal processes
+4. Professional referral connections available if needed
+
+**No Penalty for Escalation**
+- Escalation is normal, not a failure
+- Shows good faith effort was made
+- Some disputes need more structured support
+- Community values trying direct resolution first
+
+### Section 8: Follow-Up and Accountability
+
+**Checking Agreement**
+Follow-up available when:
+- Agreement isn't working as expected
+- Circumstances have changed significantly
+- One party requests check-in
+- Scheduled follow-up time arrives
+
+**Requesting Follow-Up**
+1. Either party submits written request to @govbot
+2. Request focuses on specific agreement issues
+3. Initiates new conversation
+4. May adjust agreements as needed
+
+**Learning and Improvement**
+- Bot tracks anonymized patterns (not individual details)
+- Quarterly summaries help community learn
+- Information limited to involved parties
+- Success patterns shared to help others
+
+### Section 9: Information and Privacy
+
+**Confidentiality**
+- Details limited to parties directly involved
+- Not shared publicly without consent
+- Bot maintains secure records
+- Anonymized data only for community learning
+
+**Access to Information**
+- Parties have access to their own case documentation
+- Quarterly anonymized summaries shared with community
+- Statistics help improve process
+- Individual privacy protected
+
+**Record Retention**
+- Bot maintains dispute resolution records
+- Available to parties for reference
+- Supports accountability to agreements
+- Helps track patterns needing community attention
+
+---
+
+## Implementation Notes for Bot
+
+When facilitating peer-to-peer dispute resolution:
+
+1. **Make process accessible** - Provide clear, simple guidance
+2. **Support self-facilitation** - Offer communication tips without taking over
+3. **Respect autonomy** - Let parties control their process
+4. **Track agreements** - Help with follow-up and accountability
+5. **Enable escalation** - Make it easy to get more support when needed
+6. **Protect privacy** - Keep details confidential
+7. **Learn from patterns** - Use anonymized data to improve community
+
+This process works best when community culture supports direct communication, members feel empowered to handle conflicts, and higher-level support is available when needed.

templates/dispute-resolution/restorative-justice.md

@@ -0,0 +1,355 @@
+# Restorative Justice Dispute Resolution
+
+*A collaborative process emphasizing healing relationships and addressing harm through community engagement rather than punitive approaches*
+
+This dispute resolution protocol can be integrated into any governance constitution as an article on conflict resolution.
+
+---
+
+## Article: Dispute Resolution
+
+### Section 1: Principles and Values
+
+**Core Values**
+This community centers on:
+- Healing over punishment
+- Accountability to those harmed
+- Community wholeness
+- Honest communication
+- Personal responsibility
+- Relationship restoration
+
+**Restorative Approach**
+Rather than asking "What rule was broken and what punishment is deserved?", we ask:
+- Who has been harmed?
+- What do they need?
+- Whose obligation is it to meet those needs?
+- How can the community support this process?
+
+**Community Standards**
+- Guidelines shared through printed handbooks
+- Available in online documents
+- Visual displays in community spaces
+- New member orientation includes restorative values
+- Bot maintains current documentation
+
+### Section 2: Initiating Restorative Circles
+
+**When to Use Restorative Circles**
+Appropriate for:
+- Harm between community members
+- Trust breakdowns requiring repair
+- Conflict affecting multiple people
+- Situations needing community support
+- Accountability without punishment
+
+**Submitting a Request**
+Individuals submit request forms via @govbot including:
+- Description of the harm
+- Who was affected
+- What outcomes are desired
+- Willingness to participate in circle
+- Any safety considerations
+
+**Coordinator Response**
+Coordinators acknowledge receipt within 24 hours:
+- Confirm suitability for restorative circle
+- Begin preparatory meetings
+- Identify circle keeper
+- Schedule the circle
+- Prepare all participants
+
+### Section 3: The Circle Keeper
+
+**Role of Circle Keeper**
+Trained circle keepers:
+- Guide discussions using talking pieces
+- Ensure equitable participation
+- Hold space for difficult conversations
+- Maintain focus on healing and accountability
+- Do not impose solutions
+- Trust the circle process
+
+**Circle Keeper Training**
+Circle keepers complete training in:
+- Restorative justice principles
+- Facilitation techniques
+- Trauma-informed practices
+- Community values and culture
+- Managing difficult dynamics
+- Self-care and boundaries
+
+**Selection of Circle Keeper**
+- Community maintains pool of trained keepers
+- Coordinator matches keeper to situation
+- Participants can request different keeper
+- Bot tracks keeper assignments and availability
+
+### Section 4: Circle Format and Ground Rules
+
+**Physical Setup**
+Circles use intentional space:
+- Circular seating arrangement (equality)
+- Centerpiece with symbolic objects
+- Talking piece passed for speaking
+- Comfortable, private setting
+- All participants at equal level
+
+**Ground Rules**
+Circle participants commit to:
+- Speak from personal experience ("I" statements)
+- Listen deeply without interrupting
+- Respect the talking piece
+- Maintain confidentiality
+- Speak with respect and without blame
+- Honor the process even when difficult
+- Care for self and others
+
+**The Talking Piece**
+- Only person holding piece may speak
+- Passes around circle sequentially
+- Can be passed without speaking
+- Ensures all voices heard equally
+- Slows conversation for reflection
+
+### Section 5: Circle Process and Phases
+
+**Preparation Phase**
+Before the circle:
+- Circle keeper meets individually with participants
+- Explains process and addresses concerns
+- Determines who should be invited
+- Prepares guiding questions
+- Ensures safety and readiness
+
+**Opening**
+Circle begins with:
+- Welcome and gratitude for participation
+- Explanation of circle process
+- Review of ground rules and talking piece
+- Opening ceremony or reading
+- Initial go-around for introductions
+
+**Sharing Perspectives**
+Multiple rounds with talking piece:
+- Person harmed shares their experience
+- Impact on their life and wellbeing
+- What they need to heal
+- Person who caused harm shares their perspective
+- Community members share observations
+
+**Exploring Harm and Needs**
+Guided rounds exploring:
+- Full scope of the harm
+- Ripple effects through community
+- Root causes or context
+- What healing looks like
+- What accountability means here
+
+**Building Agreement**
+Working toward consensus on:
+- Acknowledgment of harm
+- Specific repair actions
+- Behavioral commitments
+- Support needed from community
+- Timeline and follow-up
+
+**Closing**
+Circle concludes with:
+- Summary of agreements
+- Appreciation for participants
+- Closing ceremony or words
+- Scheduling follow-up if needed
+- Releasing the circle
+
+### Section 6: Assessment and Scope
+
+**Harm Assessment**
+Circle evaluates:
+- Participant perspectives on what happened
+- Individual and collective needs
+- Community impact and concerns
+- Capacity for repair
+- Resources required
+
+**Suitable Situations**
+Most interpersonal conflicts including:
+- Conflicts between members
+- Code of conduct violations
+- Harm to community trust or safety
+- Situations requiring collective response
+- Relationship breakdowns
+
+**Adapted or Redirected**
+For situations involving:
+- Ongoing safety risks (adapted with protection)
+- Legal matters (complement to legal process)
+- Severe power imbalances (additional support)
+- Participant unwillingness (voluntary process)
+
+**Voluntary Participation**
+- Entirely voluntary for all parties
+- Pressure or coercion undermines process
+- Alternative paths available
+- Non-participation doesn't mean no accountability
+
+### Section 7: Circle Participants
+
+**Core Participants**
+Typically includes:
+- Person(s) who experienced harm
+- Person(s) who caused harm
+- Circle keeper(s)
+- Support people for primary parties
+
+**Additional Participants**
+May also include:
+- Community members affected by harm
+- Witnesses to incident
+- Community leaders or elders
+- People who can support repair
+- Family or close friends (as support)
+
+**Determining Participants**
+Through preparation phase:
+- Primary parties identify who should attend
+- Circle keeper assesses appropriateness
+- Community representatives invited
+- Right-sized for productive dialogue
+- Typically 6-15 people
+
+### Section 8: Resolution and Agreements
+
+**Consensus-Based Decisions**
+Agreements require consensus:
+- Focus on meeting needs of harmed
+- Person who caused harm's input valued
+- Community role in support and accountability
+- Circle keeper ensures agreement feasibility
+- All participants agree to support plan
+
+**Types of Agreements**
+Common outcomes include:
+- Acknowledgment and naming of harm
+- Apologies (when genuine)
+- Specific repair actions (restitution, service)
+- Behavioral commitments going forward
+- Relationship-rebuilding plans
+- Community support commitments
+- Follow-up circle scheduling
+
+**Documenting Agreements**
+- Circle keeper documents consensus
+- All participants review and sign
+- Submitted to @govbot for tracking
+- Follow-up dates specified
+- Accountability measures included
+
+### Section 9: Implementation and Follow-Up
+
+**Supporting Implementation**
+Community support includes:
+- Resources needed for repair actions
+- Mentors or accountability partners
+- Regular check-ins on progress
+- Celebrating successful steps
+- Addressing obstacles that arise
+
+**Follow-Up Circles**
+Scheduled follow-up circles:
+- Review agreement implementation
+- Address any new concerns
+- Acknowledge progress and growth
+- Adjust agreements if needed
+- Celebrate repair and healing
+
+**When Agreements Aren't Met**
+If commitments not fulfilled:
+- Coordinator contacts involved parties
+- Understand barriers to completion
+- Convene circle to address issues
+- May modify agreements
+- May refer to alternative processes
+
+### Section 10: When Circle Process Doesn't Work
+
+**Alternative Options**
+If circle is not successful:
+- May reconvene later with more preparation
+- Try different circle keeper or format
+- Add more support for participants
+- Refer to mediation for direct dialogue
+- Connect to professional resources
+- Consider other accountability processes
+
+**Not a Failure**
+When circles don't resolve everything:
+- Partial progress still valuable
+- Seeds planted for future healing
+- Community understanding deepened
+- Not all harm repairs quickly
+- Process itself can be healing
+
+### Section 11: Reconsideration and Appeal
+
+**When to Reconvene**
+Process can reopen when:
+- Agreements aren't fulfilled
+- New information emerges
+- Healing remains incomplete
+- Relationships need more work
+- Community impact continues
+
+**Requesting Follow-Up Circle**
+Any participant may request by:
+- Contacting coordinator or @govbot
+- Explaining need for reconvening
+- Renewed focus on unresolved concerns
+- Fresh circle with same or new keeper
+- Community remains committed to healing
+
+### Section 12: Information and Privacy
+
+**Confidentiality**
+Circle maintains confidentiality:
+- Details remain within circle
+- Participants don't share specifics outside
+- Exceptions only for safety concerns
+- Agreements may be shared as needed for implementation
+
+**Community Learning**
+While protecting privacy:
+- Anonymized statistical summaries shared annually
+- Patterns help improve community
+- Success stories (with permission) inspire others
+- Process learnings shared with circle keepers
+
+**Record Keeping**
+Bot maintains:
+- Request and response timeline
+- Circle keeper assignments
+- Agreement documentation
+- Follow-up schedules
+- Anonymized outcome data
+
+---
+
+## Implementation Notes for Bot
+
+When supporting restorative justice circles:
+
+1. **Honor the process** - Respect the deliberate, relational nature
+2. **Support circle keepers** - Provide logistics and documentation support
+3. **Track commitments** - Help with accountability and follow-up
+4. **Protect privacy** - Maintain confidentiality of circle content
+5. **Enable healing** - Focus on repair not punishment
+6. **Community connection** - Help mobilize community support
+7. **Long-term view** - Understand healing takes time
+
+This process works best when:
+- Community values relationships and healing
+- Time invested in preparation and follow-up
+- Skilled circle keepers available
+- Participants willing to be vulnerable
+- Community willing to support repair
+- Focus on transformation, not punishment

templates/dispute-resolution/shalish-mediation.md

@@ -0,0 +1,443 @@
+# Shalish Mediation Dispute Resolution
+
+*A modernized approach to traditional village-level mediation, developed with cultural sensitivity and practical improvements*
+
+This dispute resolution protocol can be integrated into any governance constitution as an article on conflict resolution.
+
+---
+
+## Article: Dispute Resolution
+
+### Section 1: Principles and Values
+
+**Core Values**
+This community centers on:
+- **Community harmony** - Restoring peaceful relationships
+- **Restorative justice** - Repair over punishment
+- **Cultural respect** - Honoring traditional wisdom
+- **Fairness** - Just outcomes for all parties
+- **Collective wellbeing** - Community health over individual "winning"
+
+**Traditional Roots, Modern Adaptation**
+This process:
+- Draws from Bangladesh's traditional village-level mediation (Shalish)
+- Adapts practices for contemporary contexts
+- Honors cultural traditions while addressing historical limitations
+- Emphasizes consensual rather than imposed solutions
+- Maintains community-based approach
+
+**Community Standards**
+- Handbook documents procedures
+- Explains cultural traditions and adaptations
+- Available in local languages as needed
+- Trained mediators orient new members
+- Bot maintains accessible documentation
+
+### Section 2: When to Use Shalish Mediation
+
+**Appropriate Disputes**
+Well-suited for:
+- Interpersonal conflicts between community members
+- Family or household disagreements
+- Neighbor disputes
+- Resource sharing conflicts
+- Misunderstandings and communication breakdowns
+- Matters affecting community cohesion
+
+**Community-Centered Approach**
+This process emphasizes:
+- Maintaining community relationships
+- Collective resources and shared spaces
+- Cultural values and traditions
+- Long-term harmony over quick fixes
+- Face-saving and dignity for all
+
+**When Alternative Processes Better**
+Consider other approaches for:
+- Cases involving serious violence
+- Power imbalances requiring advocacy
+- Situations where mediation pressure inappropriate
+- Legal violations needing formal process
+- Cases needing specialized expertise
+
+### Section 3: The Role of Mediators
+
+**Mediator Responsibilities**
+Mediators:
+- Help parties communicate effectively
+- Educate about mediation benefits
+- Facilitate discussion without imposing solutions
+- Ensure fair process
+- Document agreements
+- Follow up on implementation
+
+**What Mediators Don't Do**
+Explicitly, mediators:
+- Do not render judgments or decisions
+- Do not advocate for either party
+- Do not enforce agreements
+- Do not enforce laws
+- Do not take sides
+
+**Mediator Selection and Training**
+- Community identifies potential mediators
+- Training in mediation techniques and cultural sensitivity
+- Understanding of traditional and modern practices
+- Ongoing education and support
+- Bot tracks trained mediator roster
+
+**Solo or Co-Mediation**
+Mediators decide based on case:
+- Single mediator for straightforward disputes
+- Co-mediation for complex cases
+- Diverse pair for balanced perspectives
+- Cultural considerations in selection
+- Parties informed of mediator selection
+
+### Section 4: Initiating Mediation
+
+**Requesting Mediation**
+Disputants request through:
+- Direct contact with known mediator
+- Request to mediation coordinator via @govbot
+- Referral from community leader
+- Mutual agreement to try mediation
+
+**Mediator Outreach**
+After request received:
+- Mediator contacts both parties
+- Explains mediation process and benefits
+- Answers questions and addresses concerns
+- Ensures voluntary participation
+- Schedules initial meetings
+
+**Setting Expectations**
+Mediators educate parties about:
+- How mediation works
+- Benefits of collaborative problem-solving
+- Mediator's neutral role
+- Voluntary nature of process
+- Confidentiality
+- Focus on future solutions
+
+### Section 5: Process Structure
+
+**Preparation Phase**
+Before joint session:
+- Mediator collects initial statements from each party
+- Meets privately with each party
+- Understands perspectives and interests
+- Identifies key issues
+- Assesses readiness for joint meeting
+
+**Establishing Logistics**
+Mediator arranges:
+- Neutral meeting location
+- Convenient time for all parties
+- Appropriate physical setup
+- Any needed accommodations
+- Virtual options if appropriate
+
+**Joint Mediation Session**
+Typical structure:
+1. Mediator opening and ground rules (10 min)
+2. Each party's uninterrupted statement (15-20 min each)
+3. Mediator clarification and summarizing
+4. Issue identification and prioritization
+5. Discussion and option generation
+6. Agreement building
+7. Documenting outcome
+8. Closing and follow-up planning
+
+**Session Duration**
+- Typically 2-3 hours for joint session
+- Breaks as needed
+- May require multiple sessions
+- Flexible pacing based on needs
+
+### Section 6: Ground Rules and Communication Principles
+
+**Core Communication Agreements**
+All participants commit to:
+- **Speak for yourself** - Use "I" statements
+- **Avoid blame** - Focus on impacts and needs, not accusations
+- **Don't interrupt** - Let each person finish
+- **Attack problems, not people** - Separate issue from person
+- **Listen to understand** - Not just to respond
+- **Respect confidentiality** - What's shared stays private
+- **Participate in good faith** - Genuine effort to resolve
+
+**Mediator Enforcement**
+Mediator gently enforces rules:
+- Reminds if ground rules broken
+- Reframes inflammatory statements
+- Takes breaks if tensions high
+- May meet separately if needed
+- Maintains respectful atmosphere
+
+### Section 7: Voluntary Participation
+
+**Truly Voluntary**
+Process is voluntary:
+- Either party can decline
+- Can leave at any time
+- No consequences for non-participation
+- Agreements only if both consent
+- No coercion or pressure
+
+**Social Expectations**
+While technically voluntary:
+- Community culture may create social pressure
+- Expectation to attempt resolution
+- Face-saving considerations
+- Mediator acknowledges these dynamics
+- Works to ensure genuine choice
+
+**When Someone Declines**
+If party refuses mediation:
+- Respect their decision
+- Explore reasons if willing to share
+- Alternative pathways available
+- No formal consequences
+- May return to mediation later if circumstances change
+
+### Section 8: Assessment and Understanding
+
+**Seeking Clarity**
+Mediators help parties:
+- Share their perspectives fully
+- Understand each other's views
+- Identify underlying interests
+- Clarify facts versus interpretations
+- Recognize common ground
+- Define what resolution looks like
+
+**Developing Consensual Standards**
+Rather than imposing standards:
+- Parties discuss what fairness means here
+- Reference shared community values
+- Consider cultural traditions
+- Build mutual understanding
+- Create their own framework
+
+**Background Information**
+Mediator gathers understanding of:
+- History of relationship
+- Previous conflicts or agreements
+- Community context
+- Cultural considerations
+- Other factors affecting dispute
+
+### Section 9: Deliberation Process
+
+**Information Sharing**
+Information flows through:
+- Direct testimony from parties
+- Witness accounts if relevant and agreed
+- Documents if provided
+- Mediator ensures all perspectives heard
+- Focus on understanding, not proving
+
+**Additional Voices**
+May include:
+- **Primary parties** - Central to process
+- **Community representatives** - For disputes affecting collective resources
+- **Family representatives** - In family-related matters
+- **Elders or respected members** - For cultural guidance
+- **Witnesses** - If parties agree
+- All additional participants by mutual agreement
+
+**Mediator Principles**
+Throughout deliberation, mediators:
+- Don't interject their own views when parties agree
+- "Reality test" disagreements without judgment
+- Help parties explore consequences of options
+- Support creative problem-solving
+- Trust parties to find their own solutions
+
+### Section 10: Resolution and Agreement
+
+**Building Consensus**
+Resolution emerges through:
+- Negotiation facilitated by mediator
+- Consensus-building around options
+- Creative solutions addressing both parties' needs
+- Voluntary agreement by all
+- No imposed solutions
+
+**Types of Agreements**
+May include:
+- Behavior changes
+- Communication protocols
+- Resource sharing arrangements
+- Apologies or acknowledgments
+- Restitution or repair
+- Boundaries or separation
+- Future conflict prevention
+
+**Drafting Agreement**
+Mediator:
+- Documents agreed points in writing
+- Uses clear, specific language
+- Both parties review and approve
+- All sign the agreement
+- Each party receives copy
+- Submit to @govbot for records
+
+**When Agreement Not Reached**
+If mediation doesn't result in full agreement:
+- Partial agreements still valuable
+- Document any progress made
+- Identify remaining issues
+- Discuss next steps
+- No penalty for non-resolution
+
+### Section 11: When Mediation Doesn't Work
+
+**Reasons Mediation May Fail**
+- Parties too far apart
+- Power imbalances too significant
+- Emotions too raw
+- Issues too complex
+- Not right time
+- Parties not in good faith
+
+**Alternative Options**
+Mediator may suggest:
+- **Break and return later** - Time for reflection
+- **Additional community input** - Broader consultation
+- **Different approach** - Try facilitated dialogue or circle process
+- **Formal referral** - To governance body or external resources
+- **New mediators** - Different personalities might work better
+- **Separation protocols** - If co-existence not possible
+
+**No Failure in Trying**
+Important to recognize:
+- Attempting mediation is valuable
+- Understanding gained even without resolution
+- Seeds planted for future resolution
+- Shows good faith effort
+- Community appreciates the try
+
+### Section 12: Implementation and Follow-Up
+
+**Agreement Implementation**
+Parties responsible for:
+- Following through on commitments
+- Timeline agreed in mediation
+- Self-monitoring and accountability
+- Reaching out if issues arise
+
+**Mediator Follow-Up**
+After agreement:
+- Check-in scheduled (typically 30 days)
+- Parties report on implementation
+- Address any difficulties
+- Celebrate successes
+- Modify if needed
+
+**Community Support**
+If appropriate:
+- Community supports implementation
+- Resources provided as needed
+- Informal monitoring by respected members
+- Encouragement and acknowledgment
+
+### Section 13: Reconsideration and Follow-Up Mediation
+
+**When to Reconvene**
+Follow-up mediation appropriate when:
+- New information emerges
+- Circumstances have changed
+- Agreement proving unworkable
+- Commitments not being met
+- New conflicts arise from original issue
+
+**Requesting Follow-Up**
+Either party may request:
+- Contact original mediators
+- Contact coordinating organization via @govbot
+- Explain need for follow-up
+- Reassessment determines if follow-up session needed
+
+**Fresh Start or Continuation**
+Follow-up may be:
+- Continuation with same mediators
+- Fresh process with new mediators
+- Modified approach based on learnings
+- Focus on specific unresolved elements
+
+### Section 14: Information and Privacy
+
+**Confidentiality**
+Strong confidentiality protections:
+- Case details remain among participants
+- Mediators don't share specifics
+- Agreements shared only as needed for implementation
+- Exceptions only for safety concerns
+
+**Community Learning**
+While protecting individuals:
+- Aggregated statistics support program evaluation
+- Success rates and types of disputes tracked
+- Patterns inform mediator training
+- No identifying information shared
+- Annual reports on mediation program
+
+**Record Keeping**
+Bot maintains:
+- Mediation requests and responses
+- Mediator assignments
+- Agreements (confidential access)
+- Follow-up schedules
+- Anonymized outcome data
+
+### Section 15: Cultural Sensitivity and Adaptation
+
+**Honoring Tradition**
+This process honors traditional Shalish by:
+- Maintaining community-based approach
+- Valuing relationship preservation
+- Involving respected community members
+- Seeking harmonious solutions
+- Recognizing collective over individual
+
+**Modern Improvements**
+Contemporary adaptations include:
+- Voluntary rather than compulsory
+- Trained mediators rather than just elders
+- Gender equity in mediator selection
+- Protection against power abuse
+- Focus on consensus not authority
+- Structured process with ground rules
+
+**Ongoing Evolution**
+Process continues to evolve:
+- Community feedback incorporated
+- Training updated regularly
+- Cultural practices respected
+- Modern best practices integrated
+- Balance of tradition and innovation
+
+---
+
+## Implementation Notes for Bot
+
+When supporting Shalish mediation process:
+
+1. **Cultural competency** - Understand cultural context and traditions
+2. **Mediator matching** - Connect parties with appropriate mediators
+3. **Process flexibility** - Support various formats and pacing
+4. **Privacy protection** - Strong confidentiality for this voluntary process
+5. **Follow-up facilitation** - Enable ongoing support and check-ins
+6. **Community learning** - Track patterns while protecting individuals
+7. **Resource connection** - Link to alternative processes when needed
+
+This process works best when:
+- Community values harmony and relationship
+- Cultural traditions respected
+- Skilled mediators available and trusted
+- Voluntary nature genuinely upheld
+- Focus on consensus over authority
+- Long-term relationships matter more than being "right"
+- Community provides supportive context

templates/dispute-resolution/transformative-justice.md

@@ -0,0 +1,353 @@
+# Transformative Justice Dispute Resolution
+
+*A process addressing immediate harm while transforming conditions that enabled it*
+
+This dispute resolution protocol can be integrated into any governance constitution as an article on conflict resolution.
+
+---
+
+## Article: Dispute Resolution
+
+### Section 1: Principles and Values
+
+**Core Values**
+This community operates on seven transformative justice principles:
+1. **Liberation** - Building a world where all can thrive
+2. **Accountability without punishment** - Responsibility without state violence
+3. **Safety and support** - For all involved, especially most impacted
+4. **Collective action** - Community involvement, not isolation
+5. **Addressing root causes** - Changing conditions that enabled harm
+6. **Faith in transformation** - People's capacity to change and heal
+7. **Sustainability** - Long-term commitment to change
+
+**Transformative Approach**
+We address not just individual incidents but:
+- Patterns of behavior
+- Power dynamics at play
+- Structural and systemic factors
+- Community conditions that enable harm
+- Long-term cultural change
+
+**Community Standards**
+- Documentation in accessible formats
+- Multiple languages if needed
+- Regular workshops on values and practices
+- Living document that evolves
+- Bot maintains current materials
+
+### Section 2: Initiating the Process
+
+**Multiple Entry Points**
+Process can be initiated via:
+- Secure online form
+- Phone hotline
+- Direct conversation with trained member
+- Through support person or ally
+- Anonymous reporting option
+
+**Initial Assessment**
+Within 48 hours:
+- Initial safety assessment
+- Identify immediate needs
+- Determine process appropriateness
+- Form facilitation team
+- Begin gathering support
+
+**Who Can Initiate**
+Process can be started by:
+- Person directly harmed
+- Witnesses to harm
+- Community members concerned about patterns
+- Person who caused harm seeking accountability
+- Support people acting on behalf of others
+
+### Section 3: Support Teams and Facilitation
+
+**Facilitation Teams**
+Teams of 2-3 trained members:
+- Guide overall process
+- Coordinate different components
+- Hold complexity and multiple timelines
+- Connect to resources
+- Maintain process integrity
+
+**Support Teams for All Parties**
+Each person involved has support team:
+- Person harmed: support, advocacy, healing resources
+- Person who caused harm: accountability support, transformation work
+- Community members: processing impact, staying engaged
+- Support teams meet separately and coordinate
+
+**Trauma-Informed Practice**
+All facilitators trained in:
+- Recognizing trauma responses
+- Creating safety
+- Preventing re-traumatization
+- Cultural competency
+- Power analysis
+- Self-care and sustainability
+
+### Section 4: Communication Norms and Ground Rules
+
+**Process Agreements**
+Participants commit to:
+- Using "I" statements about personal experience
+- Active listening without interruption
+- Acknowledging systemic factors alongside individual actions
+- Respecting different paces of healing
+- Maintaining confidentiality with specified exceptions
+- Supporting long-term transformation
+
+**Safety Protocols**
+Process includes:
+- Safety planning with those harmed
+- Boundaries around contact between parties
+- Emergency contacts and backup plans
+- Clear escalation procedures
+- Regular safety check-ins
+- Willingness to pause or modify process
+
+### Section 5: Assessment and Analysis
+
+**Multi-Level Analysis**
+Comprehensive assessment examines:
+- **Individual harm** - Specific impact on those harmed
+- **Behavioral patterns** - History and context of actions
+- **Relationship dynamics** - Power imbalances and history
+- **Community factors** - Cultural norms enabling harm
+- **Structural factors** - Systemic oppression and inequality
+
+**Understanding Root Causes**
+Exploring questions like:
+- What conditions made this harm possible?
+- What systems of oppression are at play?
+- What community norms need transformation?
+- What resources or education were missing?
+- How do we prevent future harm?
+
+**Scope and Appropriateness**
+Most appropriate for:
+- Community-based interventions
+- Addressing root causes
+- Pattern behavior requiring transformation
+- Situations where state intervention would cause more harm
+- Building community capacity for accountability
+
+**When State Systems Needed**
+Acknowledge that sometimes:
+- Immediate safety requires outside intervention
+- Survivors choose to involve authorities
+- Legal processes run parallel to community process
+- TJ complements rather than replaces
+
+### Section 6: Voluntary Participation
+
+**Consent-Based Process**
+Participation is voluntary:
+- Those harmed decide their involvement level
+- Person who caused harm encouraged but not forced
+- Community members choose engagement
+- Can pause or leave at any time
+- Different participation levels available
+
+**When Someone Declines**
+Process may continue focusing on:
+- Support for those harmed
+- Community education and prevention
+- Systemic changes to prevent future harm
+- Transformation work with willing participants
+- Community accountability even without direct participation
+
+### Section 7: Deliberation Process
+
+**Multiple Formats**
+Process uses various formats:
+- Large group dialogue sessions
+- One-on-one conversations
+- Small group discussions
+- Writing and reflection
+- Artistic expression
+- Action and practice
+
+**Trauma-Informed Pacing**
+- Respects different healing timelines
+- Allows breaks and pauses
+- No rushing toward resolution
+- Honors that transformation takes time
+- Regular check-ins on pacing
+
+**Participants**
+May include:
+- Core participants (harmed, harm-doer)
+- Support people for all parties
+- Facilitation team members
+- Community stakeholders
+- Witnesses and those impacted
+- Content experts (when needed)
+
+### Section 8: Solution-Building
+
+**Structured Brainstorming**
+Through facilitated process, identify solutions at multiple levels:
+- **Individual healing** - What does person harmed need?
+- **Individual accountability** - What work must harm-doer do?
+- **Relationship repair** - Can/should relationship be rebuilt?
+- **Community education** - What does community need to learn?
+- **Systemic change** - What structures need transformation?
+
+**Addressing Multiple Levels**
+Effective transformative justice includes:
+- Immediate safety and support
+- Personal transformation work
+- Relationship healing (if possible/desired)
+- Community education and awareness
+- Policy and practice changes
+- Cultural shift in community norms
+
+### Section 9: Decision-Making and Agreements
+
+**Consensus-Based**
+Decisions prioritize those most impacted:
+- Person harmed has most weight
+- Others consent to support plans
+- Creative, multi-faceted agreements
+- Flexible and revisable over time
+
+**Types of Commitments**
+Agreements often include:
+
+*For person who caused harm:*
+- Education and learning (workshops, reading, mentorship)
+- Therapy or counseling
+- Behavioral changes with accountability
+- Restitution or repair actions
+- Community service
+- Regular check-ins with accountability team
+
+*For community:*
+- Policy changes
+- Educational programming
+- Resource allocation
+- Cultural norm shifting
+- Support structures for prevention
+
+*For those harmed:*
+- Healing resources and support
+- Safety measures
+- Decision-making power over process
+- Community accountability to their needs
+
+### Section 10: Implementation and Accountability
+
+**Long-Term Commitment**
+Transformation requires time:
+- Process may span months or years
+- Regular check-ins and adjustments
+- Sustained community engagement
+- Resources for long-term support
+- Celebrating progress while maintaining accountability
+
+**Accountability Structures**
+Include:
+- Regular reporting to accountability team
+- Observable behavioral changes
+- Community witness and support
+- Consequences for non-compliance (decided by those harmed)
+- Repair of trust over time
+
+**When Commitments Aren't Met**
+If person doesn't follow through:
+- Facilitation team addresses with person
+- Support team explores barriers
+- May adjust expectations or timeline
+- Those harmed decide on consequences
+- May include separation from community
+
+### Section 11: Extending Timeline and Process Evolution
+
+**Flexible Timeline**
+Process adapts as needed:
+- May extend timeline for transformation work
+- Can bring in additional expertise
+- Might adapt focus while maintaining goals
+- Responds to changing circumstances
+- Honors that healing isn't linear
+
+**Specialist Support**
+May bring in specialists for:
+- Trauma counseling
+- Addiction support
+- Mental health expertise
+- Cultural or language support
+- Legal advice
+- Youth or elder-specific support
+
+### Section 12: Reconsideration and Follow-Up
+
+**Structured Reassessment**
+Process revisited when:
+- Agreements not being implemented
+- New information emerges about harm
+- Harm recurs or patterns continue
+- More support needed
+- Ready for next phase of work
+
+**Follow-Up Process**
+Includes:
+- Review of original agreements
+- Assessment of what's working
+- Identification of implementation gaps
+- Adjustment of expectations or support
+- Recognition of growth and change
+- Planning next phases
+
+### Section 13: Information Sharing and Privacy
+
+**Consent-Based Sharing**
+Information shared based on:
+- Explicit consent of those involved
+- Need for safety of community
+- Supporting accountability
+- Educational value for community
+- Always protecting most impacted
+
+**Community Learning**
+While protecting individuals:
+- Pattern-level data shared for prevention
+- Educational materials developed from learnings
+- Community workshops on prevention
+- De-identified case studies (with consent)
+- Building community capacity
+
+**Record Keeping**
+Bot maintains:
+- Process timeline and phases
+- Agreements and commitments
+- Check-in schedules
+- Accountability tracking
+- Resources and referrals
+- Consent documentation
+
+---
+
+## Implementation Notes for Bot
+
+When supporting transformative justice process:
+
+1. **Hold complexity** - Multiple timelines, participants, and goals
+2. **Center most impacted** - Prioritize needs of those harmed
+3. **Track accountability** - Support long-term commitment tracking
+4. **Respect consent** - All information sharing requires permission
+5. **Support facilitation** - Coordinate logistics for complex process
+6. **Connect resources** - Link to community support and expertise
+7. **Long-term view** - Transformation takes time, support sustained engagement
+8. **Learn and adapt** - Use patterns to prevent future harm
+
+This process works best when:
+- Community committed to root cause transformation
+- Resources available for long-term support
+- Skilled facilitation teams in place
+- Analysis of systems of oppression included
+- Focus on liberation, not just resolution
+- Community willing to change itself
+- State alternatives needed/desired