# Decision Duels

(Crosspost from [my more casual blog](https://threeleaper.blogspot.com/2021/05/decision-dueling.html).)

Decision duels are a feature of *David's Sling*, a novel by Marc Stiegler about technology, nuclear suppression and human rationality. They're used as an organizational means of decision-making, not dissimilar to the double crux - they're not quite debates or policy meetings or games, but they have elements of all three. This is a description of them as they appear in the novel, so that any useful marrow can be extracted. 

*   Duels are best at resolving problems that seem political but are actually engineering problems.
    *   This means that there are, in principle, crisp answers separate from the human element.
        *   Good for: whether a budget is appropriate, which programs to fund, whether to continue a project or stop it, which avenues of research will be fruitful.
        *   Bad for: who deserves a promotion or a leadership position, what an organization's public-facing message should be, which solutions are more ethical.
*   Duels are always between two alternatives, which are stated outright.
*   Both sides are displayed on a screen for an audience, with each side taking up nearly half.
    *   A grey section is left to run down the middle for third suggestions.
        *   Duels that settle on third suggestions tend to produce the best policies.
        *   In some duels third suggestions are prohibited, especially when the question is vulnerable to being redefined or slipped out of.
    *   At the top of this screen are the words "LET ACCURACY TRIUMPH OVER VICTORY"
        *   Winners are not recorded at the end of a decision duel, but whenever possible both sides are judged based on whether decision that results was the *correct* one.
*   Each alternative has a representative, called a slant moderator or, informally, a decision duelist.
    *   Each may receive suggestions from the audience, and decides whether to use them.
    *   Duelists chiefly create text boxes of various colors and draw lines between them.
    *   There are no turns taken, and each duelist acts at their own pace.
*   At the start both sides are written as statements, and under these statements are a list of assumptions, placed in amber text boxes.
    *   Assumptions can, and in many cases should, be multi-part.
    *   Zooming in on these amber boxes shows an explanation for why the assumption is needed.
    *   Most of the duel consists of the duelists each challenging these assumptions.
*   Under the assumptions are the opening arguments.
    *   Any overly popular, bumper-stickerish slogans are usually listed first, even when the decision duelists don't agree with them, just to get them out of the way.
*   Arguments can be colored in by the opposing side.
    *   Purple means an argument exhibits a clear, labelable fallacy.
    *   Red means the argument has another kind of flaw somewhere.
        *   Zooming in on a red text box shows the opposing side's explanation of the flaw.
    *   Other colors are possible but unlisted.
*   Arguments are typically written and then reformulated after the opposite side's criticism.
    *   Duelists can invoke probabilities, spreadsheets of calculations, multiple iterations on an idea, and any other means of reaching as correct a solution as possible.
*   The duel continues until one side concedes.