agentic-govbot/templates/dispute-resolution

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 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 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]