[@mention:454478741268114544] so I hear two questions, one about the specifics of ranking tensions, and the second about how this may relate to interpreting the constitution in general. So, if I’m following, then my response to the first issue is “that’s sounds like a good way of doing it...and I wouldn’t want to bake that into the constitution for everyone, but that makes sense.” So, you could either make that a part of your decision when doing facilitator elections, or if you wanted it more formal you could propose a policy to require that. 

And that leads to response two, because I think this is an important point, that constitution needs to apply everywhere to everyone. It then defines the governance process, which can then be used to further define any specifics for your organization. So, to me, this doesn’t seem like a constitutional interpretation issue. 

What comes to mind is actually the whole “rules/authority versus good judgment,” which kinda explains why the constitution intentionally ignores specifying some things. I’ll have to link it below because I’m on my phone. 

https://link.medium.com/IMMh2YznOU

Thanks Chris!

[@mention:454478741268114544], I'm curious about your comment that "It is starting to seem like a manifestation of shadow power." In what way does it seem like shadow power to you? Is it just because your custom (to rank urgency in tensions) is not specified in the Constitution or in Governance? Or is there some other aspect that seems wrong or nefarious to you? Are some people consistently getting their tensions pushed to later while others always get theirs addressed right away?