No Duplicate Information in Sibling Camps
Duplicating information in sibling camps causes myriads of problems:
One of the fundamental parts of the consensus building process is the super camp. The goal is to find similar doctrines in competing camps, indicating both camps agree on them. In all cases, these agreed on doctrines should be pushed up into super camps. In almost all cases (there are a few exceptions) what people agree on is more important than what they disagree on. The super camp keeps the focus on what people agree on, in that super camp. Any time anyone purposefully deviates from this method of operation, it confuses people and obfuscates this critically important part of consensus building, with a focus on what people agree on in super camps, pushing the disagreeable stuff, out of the way of that consensus, into supporting sub camps.
- The only way to find out how many people support duplicated information is to find all the camps that contain that information (if there is even slight variations, one cannot assume they are the same) and then total the support of each camp by hand. If, instead, the duplicate information is pushed into a super camp, you simply look at the canonized score of that camp.
- If people want to support the duplicate information but may not support all the camps containing the duplicate information, this is impossible to do, when information is duplicated in sibling camps.
- The duplicate information in different camps will start to vary over time
- Many people creating new camps and camp modifications will tend to not accurately duplicate the information, leading to inconsistencies.
- It violates the critically important “Single Source of Truth” best software practice.
- It significantly increases the amount of information people need to read, to fully understand all camps.
- The goal is to represent the information in as concise a way as possible. Duplication of information violates this in a terrible way.
- having duplicate information obfuscates the more important differences between sibling camps.
- Even minor differences in statements of similar information enables people to interpret things differently, increasing chances of polarization. Part of the process of pushing it up into a super camp is the negotiation on the best way to say it, so that everyone will agree on it, and so that can be definitively shown. Not doing this type of negotiation just makes things very messy and hard to understand, in ways that everyone can then question.
- Even if you can find some argument that appears to justify pushing information down into duplicate camps, if you stay consistent with such a strategy, you end up pushing towards duplicating all information in every one of the increasing number of camps, at ever deeper levels of the hierarchy. The result being everything is completely obfuscated, nobody able to get any information from any of it. The definition of “consensus” is everyone in one camp. Having one camp at the top, concisely stated, is the minimum possible obfuscation. That is why pushing things up towards one camp at the top is our goal, not ever more obfuscation by duplication of information, pushed ever lower in an increasingly complex tree.
Pushing duplicate information up to the parent camp solves all of these problems.