KEYS ****

In Small-Group-Meetings of participants in a Workshop-on-Mitigating Our-Own-Alienative-Conflicts - - -

Participants can helpfully make short presentations Affirming Their-Own-Suggestions of Gracious-Ways-to-
Cooperate-and-Collaborate.  Each group can help by Nominating Suggestions which they wish to support by
Small-Group-Consensus - - - followed by later votes of all participants in the workshop using the following 
numbers to individually-communicate personal-levels-of-support - - - to the full group of participants.


         +3 To show high respect for a Suggestion as Likely-to-Help-Mitigate-Our-Own-Alienative-Conflicts     
         +2 TO Show some respect for a Suggestion as Likely-to-Help-Mitigate-Our-Own-Alienative-Conflicts
         +1 To Show bare respect for a Suggestion as Likely-to-Help-Mitigate-Our-Own-Alienative-Conflicts
          0 To Withhold  respect for a Suggestion as Likely-to-Help-Mitigate-Our-Own-Alienative-Conflicts
         -1 To Say in contrast that  a Suggestion is Likely-to-Help-AUGMENT--Our-Own-Alienative-Conflicts
         -2 To Say in contrast that  a Suggestion is Very-Likely-To-AUGMENT--Our-Own-Alienative-Conflicts
         -3 To Say in contrast that  a Suggestion is Almost-SURE-To-AUGMENT--Our-Own-Alienative-conflicts

         (The last three are not to be taken to mean one is willing to actively oppose people making such an effort.)

Regarding the formation of the above small groups:   To be helpful they should be small, but not too small.
They should all be of about the same size.   The following is a workable procedure for maximizing participation
in small groups without running excessive risks related to groups being too small or too large.

A. Form one small group for every three participants; with any extra one or two participants being added
   to a group which already has three participants.  Thus all groups will have three or four participants.
   Two participants could be very disadvantageous in some instances.  Five participants can be a bit
   disadvantageous, but not seriously so.

B. If the total number of participants are as noted at the far left below, 
   3 => 3
   4 => 4                 the group sizes would be as shown below.  
   5 => 5
   6 => 3 & 3
   7 => 3 & 4
   8 => 4 & 4
   9 => 3 & 3 & 3
  10 => 3 & 3 & 4
  11 => 3 & 4 & 4
  12 => 4 & 4 & 4
  13 => 4 & 4 & 5
  15 => 4 & 5 & 5
  16 => 5 & 5 & 5   etc.

C. Small groups should "nominate" to the full group of participants their suggestions that received Majority-Support
   within their small group: 2 out of 3, and 3 out of 4 or 5 in the small groups.

D. The full group can then use a form of Priority-Voting to reveal the levels of Priority-Support for items which have
   clear majority support or hesitency about suggestions; along with an indication of how much priority support or
   hesitency there may be with regard to each suggestion.

E. It is also possible to create a diagonalized tabulation of positive and negative votes by putting votes 
pertaining to each suggestion in a column assigned to the suggestion, and votes from each participant in a line to the 
right of the name of the participant.  With a computer. diagonalization can be done by starting with the few 
participants who most strongly supported some one suggestion; and putting that suggestion in row one, and the tied 
strongested supporter(s) of that suggestion in the first line, or the first few lines.  In like manner turn to other 
suggestions which received less support; with each suggestion being assigned in like way the strongest supporter(s) of 
each additional suggestion. At the bottom will be the participants showing the most hesitency about suggestions.  Of 
course, each participant will show a range of levels of support or hesitency about various suggestions.  Participants 
who show similar patterns of support and/or hesitency will tend to have their votes appear close to each other in 
adjacent horizontal lines.  

F. Participants who differ from each other - - - can helpfully be asked to form small groups in which to engage in open
and honest dialogues about their different: assumptions, perspectives, thinking, reasoning, logic, ideals, values,
principles, virtues, attitudes, moods, etc.
 
G. In the small groups when affirming essential foundations of civility-and-civilization - - - it will be prudent and
helpful to AVOID needlessly irritating alienated-partisans who are involved in alienative-conflicts - - - by using
key-words and/or phrases that are associated with such conflicts - - - when equivalent words/phrases can be used in 
their place - - - to avoid taking sides in such alienative-conflicts.

The foci of Affirmations made by small groups may helpfully be:

   a. Some of the most reliable-virtues, ideals, values and principles that can be trusted most unqualifiedly on-
      their own in the widest-ranges-of-circumstances.

   b. Those virtues, ideals, values and principles that can be trusted well only-when-complemented-by other named-
      balancing-complementary: virtues, values, and principles; in particular circumstances of propriety.

   c. Particular activities by which to build mutual-understanding, cooperation, colaboration and trust.

   d. Helpful Systems-analyses (both objective-and-reflexive) of alienative-conflicts and patterns-of-alienation.

   e. Descriptions of the Natures-of-Gracious-Leaders - - - in the Mitigation-of-Alienative-Conflicts.