The Movie Night Veto Chain Exception
A household has been selecting movies for two hours. Four options have been proposed and rejected. A fifth is currently under evaluation. No one has explained what they actually want to watch.
Memorandum on Movie Night Veto Chain November 13, 2021
To: All parties involved in the selection process Re: The veto chain, its mechanics, and the finding that it cannot be fixed
Background
A household of three adults attempted to select a film at approximately 8:45 PM. At the time of this memorandum, the time is 10:52 PM. A selection has not been made. One member has fallen asleep on the couch. The remaining two are scrolling.
Finding 1: The Veto Mechanism
Each member of the household holds an effective veto over any proposed film. The veto does not require justification. It requires only an expression of insufficient enthusiasm, which takes the form of a slight inward breath, a neutral face, or the word "sure" delivered with insufficient conviction to constitute agreement.
These signals are universally legible. They are never contested. A vetoed film is removed from consideration without discussion.
Finding 2: Proposing Into the Veto
The person who proposes a film takes on risk. If the film is vetoed, they are mildly associated with a bad suggestion. If the film is accepted but disliked, they are directly associated with a bad selection. If the film is accepted and liked, the credit is distributed across all parties.
The risk-reward structure of proposing is unfavorable. This produces a rotation of reluctant proposers who pitch films they are confident will be accepted, which means they pitch films they are confident will not be vetoed, which means they pitch safe films with broad appeal and low ceiling.
Finding 3: What the Veto Chain Optimizes For
The negotiation is not about finding a good film. It is about finding a film that cannot be vetoed. These are related but different objectives. A film that cannot be vetoed is one that offends no preference, which is distinct from a film that satisfies any preference.
The output of the veto chain is the least objectionable option. This has been the output of every movie night in the past eleven months.
Finding 4: Why the Process Continues
An alternative would require each person to state what they actually want to watch. Stating a specific desire makes the person accountable for the quality of their desire. If the desired film is bad, the person must experience it in the presence of people who agreed to it because they requested it.
Explicit preference is a liability. The veto chain distributes responsibility for the outcome so evenly that no one is responsible for it.
Governing Note
The resigned acceptance documented here is specifically of the finding that the process cannot be improved while the underlying preference structure remains unstated. Stating preferences would improve the process. The process will not improve because preferences will not be stated.
The member on the couch has the right idea.