The goal of Canonizer.com is to find consensus, but consensus is not the same thing as unanimity. When you propose a change to a camp, it is possible and even likely that not everyone in the camp will agree with you.
This is the scenario that leads to “edit wars” on Wikipedia, where proponents of one point of view try to silence the opposition. Edits are reversed and then re-reversed, over and over again. Things become heated; much time is wasted, and the victory goes to the most stubborn, not necessarily to the best ideas.
That’s not how it works at Canonizer.com.
Whenever you propose a change to a camp, the statement gets published only after 24 hours, unless anyone objects to it.
For any proposed statement under review, the supporter of the camp can disagree and object to it by clicking on the “Object” button. In addition, the supporter can also specify the precise reason for objecting to the statement.
In order to object, the following criterion should be met:
Each camp has a forum where changes can be discussed and negotiated, and very often differences can be quickly settled here. Disputes are far more likely to be resolved if change proponents can keep things civil and polite and assume good faith on the part of those who disagree.
Still, people of good will can still find that they disagree, and it may be that the existing camp may not be able to accommodate both positions. If that’s the case, move on to the next step.
The highest level camp is the “super camp” that outlines the areas of greatest consensus. “Super camps” should only include statements with which the vast majority can agree. As such, they may be very short, or even consist of only a single sentence. Canonizer.com is designed to highlight the value of competing ideas, which will arise in lower subcamps. If your idea is not reflective of a broad consensus, the best approach is to create a subcamp for that idea rather than to try to incorporate it into the super camp.
However, keep in mind that sub camps do not become necessary until there is a disagreement. It is therefore appropriate to leave ideas in higher camps until such time as an actual disagreement arises.
That does not mean that you can’t continue to try to persuade people in different camps to adopt your position - it simply means that you move the discussion to the appropriate camp. If you are persuasive over time, people will leave their camps and join yours, and the cream will rise to the top.
In some instances, a change will have broad acceptance from most camp supporters, with only a few lonely holdouts - or perhaps just one lonely voice - standing in the way. If civil discussion proves fruitless in changing their minds, the best course of action would be to fork the camp by creating a competing camp that is identical to the previous one, except that the proposed change has been incorporated into the new camp. The majority will jump ship to the new camp, leaving the holdouts alone and likely filtered, but with their unchanged camp intact.