So how do you get 50+ People to agree on anything? You offer them free stuff !!!!!

It was very interesting to observe the class deciding on a course of action to modify our grades on the first test. It was very clear that the most vocal and argumentative individuals were also the individuals who had not done as well on the test. Clearly without Teddy's influence and direction, we as a class would not have been able to organize ourselves and request so many different changes to the test and modifications to the grades and grading system. I personally am not a very vocal individual, and I do not have the outgoing personality that is typical of a leader. Therefore, if I do not need something personally, I most likely do not become involved; This is not to say that I do not care about the discussion or making the decision, but rather I am much more acceptive of reasonable propositions put forth by others-In essence, I become much more impartial when my exposure to the decision is fairly trivial. This is most consistent with the qualities of the accommodator, although at times I displayed the traits of the compromiser; A few times during the decision making process I spoke up and made suggestions; I did so for a few reasons: Reason #1-The group was discussing throwing out the grades of the first test, or lessening their value. Clearly this would not benefit me, and it was in my best interest to speak up and preserve the value of my grade. Reason #2-The group was becoming a little bit unruly and suggesting changes to the syllabus and other "unreasonable" options which I felt only served to waste valuable time; In this case I was acting in the best interest of those around me, rather than in my own interests. Reason #3-I had an idea that I would have liked if I was in the position of those who had bad grades. Therefore, I spoke up to share that idea with the class. Another issue that I noticed with the decision making process is that I am very put-off by arguments and raised voices and potential conflicts. I understand that with a lot on the line, tempers can flare, but truthfully it only serves to exacerbate the situation and detract from potential additions to the solution list. This particular case was a perfect example; The class discussed the options the entire allotted time we were given. The fact that here and there demeaning words were exchanged and arguments occurred, valuable time was wasted. That time could have translated into another reasonable request that would have served only to better position us in the future. Teddy did a great job organizing us as a class, and appointing someone to record the requests, and another individual to monitor the time, but perhaps he should have also appointed someone to control arguments from sidetracking the discussion (granted that this would not be an easy task). I think to have gotten a better result, I would have had to act the role of the collaborator. In fact, I believe that if the group had been totally comprised of collaborators, we would have ended up with the best situation, because we would have had a greater sensitivity to the needs and wants of all the different individuals in the group. I am choosing the collaborator above the compromiser because the collaborator is assuaging and assertive while the compromiser is just assuaging; Had there been too many compromisers, no one would most likely have stepped forth to organize the group or suggest different options. All in all however, considering the shear volume of individual situations, wants and needs represented in the class, we did a great job in decision making and are very fortunate to have been given so much.