Tommy, I put this up so we could have a bit of fun, and play around with the different ways Loomio can be used to discuss and find consensus on policy etc. Like the 'Take a Trip to the Moon' trial thread that we had when we first started the group. Any member who thinks this is a serious thread needs their head examined, and their sense of humour reinstalled.

Careful, there have been other proposals equally absurd that people were serious about, the difference isn't as obvious as you think.

In consensus decision-making, the correct use of a 'block' is to state that the proposal goes against the core principles of the group, or is so unacceptable you would leave the group if the proposal passed. For example, if someone put up a proposal for extension of copyright to life plus 500 years, it would be appropriate to block it. If a proposal is just silly, it's sufficient just to 'disagree', and say so.

Ok, it is now obvious that @davidpeterson objections about non-core policy adoption by 4 members isn't likely to see the adoption of nonsense.

My objection wasn't that nonsense policy would always be adapted, just that it could be (and also this was just one point from a broader argument).

@andrewmcpherson , you've wildly misrepresented my argument

Not really, this whole policy can be used to demonstrate that even with a dedicated selection of the party, the policies that go wildly out of track with our core just won't get adopted unless they are considered to have sufficient merit.
As I said, the results prove your argument is unlikely at the very least to happen.

@andrewmcpherson, your argument implies that, if a proposal way out of the spectrum of core issues would be adopted, it would be because it most likely would have sufficient merit. And your stance is that that would be fine.
I think that @davidpeterson would not necessarily oppose the first part, but the position that he expressed a number of times is that even though there might be merit in the non-core position, it is NOT fine to take the position for the PPNZ.

@hubatmcjuhes and @davidpeterson the whole idea of being able to adopt non-core policies that have merit in the eyes of our supporters is essentially the entire idea of the democratic process.
Admittedly although this not a serious thread, we can see that david's repeated fears that a temporary small majority of members can hijack our party is in fact unfounded.
As I appreciate that I have a particular budget proposal which most members have yet to appreciate how the numbers stack up, I already know just how hard it is to get adoption of policies based on merits.

I suggest that the only thing that will happen when we allow democratic adoption of policies is that we will find that members become more engaged in PPNZ, just as it has happened in PP Germany.

A Marmite thread when we have what, less than 20 members, is proof Loomio won't be high-jacked or dictated to by a faction?
I'm surprised by how well it's currently working, but this is a small focus group. Just wait until there's over 500 members all squabbling with each other and demanding that all sorts of outlandish shit becomes party policy. If we had those sorts of numbers now Kim Dotcom wouldn't need the Internet Party, he could just have a brain-fart on twitter and the mob would make it policy.

This discussion is about Marmite policy (but really about giving new members a sandbox space for learning how Loomio works). Let's stick to the topic. Discussion about whether the Party should adopt "non-core" policy is ongoing here:
https://www.loomio.org/d/diWvRTxb/should-we-have-any-policy-or-positions-outside-our-core-policy

...and discussion about rules and processes for our use of Loomio to prevent abuse is ongoing here:
https://www.loomio.org/d/A0mrXzcH/rules-and-processes-for-our-use-of-loomio