# 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]