I agree with you — there are times when a more rigorous method is warranted. In my experience, the decision on which method will be the most beneficial depends on safety. The safer the participants feel to express their preferences, the faster light weight methods, like Roman Evaluation, get the job done. However, the more afraid participants are to halt the group by pointing their thumb down, the more heavy weight methods, like Gradient of Agreement, have value. In my experience, Gradient of Agreement is useful, but it is slower.

Regardless of which method is used, the process was a failure if upon leaving the meeting room any participant fails to support a consensus decision.

While I agree that the gradient model is complicated, I wouldn’t want to toss it out entirely. I like being about to use simpler models sometimes and more refined models at other times. And I certainly agree that there’s no point overcomplicating things — if indeed, the gradient over complicates as opposed to matches the situation. For example, if consensus is critical, or if hearty support is critical from all, then discerning degrees of agreement can be crucial. With a complicated decision that has major implications and especially when there will be disproportionate impacts, I’d go with the gradient at least some of the time. To decide where to go to dinner, thumbs work just fine.

I agree Its hard to support a proposal or an idea that you don’t like or agree with. It doesn’t feel comfortable backing something you don’t believe in. As my old coach you to say “Give 100% or don’t give anything at all”.