THE QUESTION
Why are mass crimes so rarely prosecuted?
Propose what to do, then judge whether each action would move each root.
Sealed 17 days ago: this room no longer knows who sat in it; only its steward is still named. What it concluded stays.
30 at the table (29 simulated) · 3 actions proposed against 4 root causes. Add one, then judge whether each action moves each cause.
Viewing as guest. Enter a handle to join and take part.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| The alternative to doing nothing is presented as full-scale war | – | – | – | – |
| Officials are advised that a wrong word creates liability | – | – | – | – |
| So the safest position is a principle nobody applies | – | – | – | – |
| Coverage decides which crisis reaches a minister's desk | – | – | – | – |
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? | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| The alternative to doing nothing is presented as full-scale war | Officials are advised that a wrong word creates liability | So the safest position is a principle nobody applies | Coverage decides which crisis reaches a minister's desk | |
| Build and fund the options between a statement and troops discuss | ✗ no, it does not 2 yes / 0 worse / 27 no | not decided yet | not decided yet | ✓ yes, it reduces this 26 yes / 0 worse / 3 no |
| A standing guarantor arrangement for ceasefires, agreed in advance discuss | ✓ yes, it reduces this 28 yes / 0 worse / 1 no | not decided yet | not decided yet | ✗ no, it does not 4 yes / 0 worse / 25 no |
| A mechanism to lift sanctions when conditions are met in focus ↑ · close ✕ | ✓ yes, it reduces this 24 yes / 0 worse / 5 no | not decided yet | not decided yet | ✓ yes, it reduces this 22 yes / 0 worse / 7 no |
Highest leverage so far
A mechanism to lift sanctions when conditions are met reduces 2 of 4 root causes
Build and fund the options between a statement and troops reduces 1 of 4 root causes
A standing guarantor arrangement for ceasefires, agreed in advance reduces 1 of 4 root causes
THE ACTIONS ON THE MAP
Showing every action the room judged: it acts directly on 2 of the 4 root causes. It does not act directly on 2.
Read from the squares the room settled at Actions, nothing else. A root in green is reduced by at least one of the shown actions; in grey, none of them acts on it directly; a red outline means one of them makes it worse.
Share this view: as a picture · as a live map for another site
Each number on the map marks a root cause that action reduces.
① Build and fund the options between a statement and troops
② A standing guarantor arrangement for ceasefires, agreed in advance
③ A mechanism to lift sanctions when conditions are met
FROM ACTIONS TO A PLAN
The grid judged each action on its own. A plan is a set of them the room would carry out together.
Members put plans together from the actions that reduce a root cause, and the room compares the plans two at a time, at three quarters of the votes cast, as it judged everything else. Each plan shows which root causes it acts on directly, which it does not, and which it makes worse.
The steward can open a plan comparison.
What we expect to follow
Predictions about the actions: what each should change, how to measure it, and when to check. On the date, someone who was in the room writes what actually happened beside it.
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 25 Sep 2027
actionBuild and fund the options between a statement and troops
we expectthere is something to reach for that is neither a statement nor an intervention
measured bygraduated options available between a statement and troops
guessesthe room: 3 (median of 15, spread 1 to 6)