THE QUESTION
Why do atrocities go unpunished?
Propose what to do, then judge whether each action would move each root.
Sealed 9 days ago: this room no longer knows who was in it. What it concluded stays.
30 at the table (29 simulated) · 3 actions proposed against 6 root causes. Add one, then judge whether each action moves each cause.
Viewing as guest. Enter a handle to join and take part.
Some claims influence each other in a circle
↺ Every state judges the case by what it costs t → So the organisation that knows most says least
A circle can be a real finding — a cycle that feeds itself — or a link whose direction was never really settled. The map treats the group as one node, so nothing inside it is a root on its own. If it is the second, the pair is worth putting back to the room.Score the roots first
why
The method's own practice, before any action is proposed: each root cause is scored 1–5 on how feasible it is to address, how much impact addressing it would have, and how likely it is to resolve by itself with no intervention. Priority goes to roots with high impact, high feasibility and low likelihood of fixing themselves — priority = impact + feasibility − likelihood. Scores are averaged across the group and shown with how many scored.
1 = low, 5 = high. Your own scores; the group's averages beside them.
| root cause | feasible | impact | fixes itself | priority |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Every state judges the case by what it costs them | – | |||
| So the organisation that knows most says least | – | |||
| Naming it triggers obligations, so it is not named | – | |||
| Early warning systems produce reports nobody is obliged to answer | – | |||
| Acting early is politically costly and acting late is not punished | – | |||
| Speaking publicly ends the access that lets us feed people | – |
Would each action move each root cause?
Down the side: the actions people proposed. Across the top: the root causes the map found. Every square is one vote on one question — would this action significantly reduce that cause? One side has to reach 75% of the votes cast to settle it; short of that the square stays split. Each square shows how its votes fell — yes / worse / no — and a square is settled when one of those reaches three quarters of them.
why
Answered at 75% of votes cast, like every other question here. Split means people voted and neither side reached that bar — it is a result, not a queue, and it stays split until enough people change their minds. A square nobody settles stays undecided; it never turns into a no. Judging each pair on its own is what stops a popular action being credited with fixing things it does not touch.
| ACTION | ROOT CAUSES · does the action on the left reduce it? | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Every state judges the case by what it costs them | So the organisation that knows most says least | Naming it triggers obligations, so it is not named | Early warning systems produce reports nobody is obliged to answer | Acting early is politically costly and acting late is not punished | Speaking publicly ends the access that lets us feed people | |
| Protect the mandate of an organisation that speaks discuss | ✗ no, it does not 6 yes / 0 worse / 23 no | ✓ yes, it reduces this 25 yes / 0 worse / 4 no | ✓ yes, it reduces this 23 yes / 0 worse / 6 no | ✓ yes, it reduces this 23 yes / 0 worse / 6 no | not decided yet | ✓ yes, it reduces this 24 yes / 0 worse / 5 no |
| Fund prevention as a line, not as a response in focus ↑ · close ✕ | ✗ no, it does not 3 yes / 0 worse / 26 no | ✓ yes, it reduces this 24 yes / 0 worse / 5 no | ✓ yes, it reduces this 25 yes / 0 worse / 4 no | ✓ yes, it reduces this 26 yes / 0 worse / 3 no | not decided yet | ✗ no, it does not 3 yes / 0 worse / 26 no |
| A standing obligation to answer an early warning in writing, within days discuss | ✓ yes, it reduces this 24 yes / 0 worse / 5 no | ✓ yes, it reduces this 24 yes / 0 worse / 5 no | ✗ no, it does not 1 yes / 0 worse / 28 no | ⚑ the group split 8 yes / 0 worse / 21 no | not decided yet | ✓ yes, it reduces this 23 yes / 0 worse / 6 no |
Highest leverage so far
Protect the mandate of an organisation that speaks reduces 4 of 6 root causes
Fund prevention as a line, not as a response reduces 3 of 6 root causes
A standing obligation to answer an early warning in writing, within days reduces 3 of 6 root causes
What we expect to follow
why
A map says which actions move which causes. It does not say whether anyone did them, or whether anything changed. An entry here is a prediction with a date and something to measure, written after the map settled. When the date comes, what actually happened is written beside it and the prediction stays as it was: a wrong one is the useful kind. Nobody voted on any of this and it changes nothing the room found.
due 24 Mar 2027
Protect the mandate of an organisation that speaks
expected: more warnings get a written answer once answering is somebody's duty
measured by: % of early warnings answered in writing within 14 days
the room: 29 (median of 15, spread 15 to 60)