►
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
So,
let's
get
going,
we
begin
with
a
old
new
yorker
cartoon.
It
goes
something
like
this.
A
businessman's
kind
of
walking
down
the
street
three-piece
suits,
got
a
suitcase
or
I'm
sorry
briefcase,
and
up
behind
him
comes
this
very
intimidating.
Looking
mugger
puts
the
gun
in
the
business
person's
back
and
says
your
money
or
your
life
and
the
businessman
doesn't
panic.
Doesn't
freak
out
in
fact
seems
to
ponder
the
question
before
finally
answering
I
never
take
the
first
offer,
and
so
in
life.
A
It
seems
that
everything
is
a
negotiation,
those
of
you
out
there
who
have
a
spouse
or
worse.
Yet,
a
teenager.
You
know
that
everything
in
life
is
a
negotiation.
That's
especially
true
in
a
context
of
the
legislature
where
the
clash,
constant
clash
of
agendas
and
priorities
and
objectives
equals
a
constant
churn
of
negotiation.
I
think
that
might
even
be
more
so
true
in
something
like
the
realm
of
redistricting.
A
So
it's
worth
pausing
here
this
morning
to
ask
ourselves:
are
we
doing
if
that's
what
we're
doing
all
the
time?
Are
we
doing
it
in
the
most
effective
way
and
the
way
that
can
solve
the
problems
that
plague
us,
whether
those
are
problems
of
policy
or
in
redistricting
process
and
procedure,
and
are
we
doing
it
in
the
way
that
creates
the
most
optimal
solutions
for
all
the
stakeholders
who
are
involved?
So
I
want
to
welcome
you
here
this
morning
to
day
two
of
the
redistricting
seminar
and
to
the
art
of
legislative
negotiation.
A
My
name
is
kurt
stetter
and
I'm
the
director
of
legislative
training
at
ncsl,
and
what
you're
about
to
experience
over
the
next
hour
is
a
partnership
with
the
results
of
a
partnership
between
ncsl
and
our
academic
partners
at
harvard
university
and
american
university
to
create
a
training
module
for
negotiation.
That's
specifically
oriented
to
the
legislature.
That's
not
necessarily
what
you
might
see
in
the
business
or
the
legal
realm,
and
so
what
we're
trying
to
do
is
develop
a
skill
set
and,
I
think,
more
importantly,
a
mindset
to
achieve
results
more
like
this
I'll.
A
Let
that
sort
of
sneak
up
on
you
and
less
like
this,
because
there
are
particular
challenges
to
negotiating
effectively
in
a
legislative
environment
that
are
different
than
you
might
see
in
the
legal
environment
or
the
business
world.
So
just
to
kind
of
get
us
warmed
up
it's
early
in
the
morning
and
by
the
way,
when
I
asked
you
to
do
this
several
times
so
keep
your
fingers
limber
and
loosened.
A
I'm
going
to
ask
you
to
put
your
fingers
on
your
keyboard,
go
to
the
chat
and
actually,
let's
get
a
list
of
some
of
the
challenges
that
you've
experienced
or
you
anticipate
experiencing,
that
get
in
the
way
the
barriers
to
effective
negotiation
in
the
legislative
setting,
maybe
as
it
relates
to
redistricting
or
frankly,
even
as
it
relates
to
any
other
topic
that
you
have
experienced
trying
to
negotiate.
So
what
are
some
of
those
barriers
that
get
in
the
way
throw
those
into
the
chat?
A
So
we
can
all
sort
of
see
your
ideas
and
your
collective
wisdom
about
this
particular
topic.
What
gets
in
the
way
of
us
negotiating
effectively?
Okay,
intimidation
by
the
majority
party
time
and
the
rush
the
process
gets
condensed
right
being
in
a
super
minority
where
you
feel
like
you're,
not
even
part
of
the
negotiation
process.
Emotions.
Thank
you,
kate.
For
that
one,
that's
a
great
one.
People
get
all
upset
about
things,
adherence
to
ideology,
two
different
sets
of
facts.
Oh
my
god,
you
guys
are
doing
really
really
well.
A
So
all
of
those
seem
to
have
some
connection
dovetail
a
little
bit
with
what
our
research
has
shown
us
in
interviews
with.
You
know
hundreds
of
legislators
over
the
last
few
years
we
find
these
are
the
four
main
problems
that
get
cited
over
and
over
and
over
again,
this
partisanship
and
polarization
that
we're
all
so
familiar
with
also
the
fact
that
we
are
negotiating
now
not
in
the
you
know
the
smoke-filled
room
of
your
closed
off
from
the
world,
but
we're
doing
this
in
a
constant
fishbowl
where
everything
is
being
broadcasted
out.
A
It's
a
state
of
permanent
campaign.
I
mean
look.
The
georgia
election
ended
yesterday,
they're,
probably
campaigning
again
starting
today
for
the
next
election
and
then
finally,
this
idea
that
we
are
con
simultaneously
negotiating
externally,
perhaps
caucus
to
caucus
or
chamber
to
chamber,
but
we're
also
at
the
same
time
negotiating
internally
within
the
caucus
or
within
the
chamber,
and
all
those
things
lead
to
very
strong
obstacles
in
our
pursuit
of
effective
solutions
to
our
problems.
A
So
if
this
redistricting
meeting
was
happening,
live
in
a
room
somewhere
in
a
more
human
environment
than
zoom,
what
I
would
do
right
now
is.
I
would
you
each
have
a
role
and
we
do
a
simulation
of
a
negotiation
and
the
reason
we
do
that
is
twofold,
one,
to
see
what
our
natural
negotiating
tendencies
are,
and
also
to
have
a
little
bit
of
a
context
to
reference
back
from
some
of
the
things
we're
going
to
talk
about
here
later
this
morning.
A
Unfortunately,
in
a
zoom
scenario,
it's
impossible
for
me
to
pair
you
up
and
give
you
the
roles
that
you're
going
to
play
so
that
you
can
actually
have
that
simulation.
So
we're
going
to
have
to
do
something-
that's
not
quite
as
wonderful,
and
that
is,
I
am
going
to
do
a
one-man
show.
I'm
gonna
act
out
the
simulation
that
you
would
have
been
a
part
of,
and
I'm
gonna
warn
you
at
the
outset.
I
am
not
a
trained
thespian.
A
This
is
going
to
be
awful,
but
you
know
bear
with
me
it's
only
about
a
minute
long.
So
here's
how
the
scenario
would
have
played
out
had
we
been
all
together.
I
would
have
shown
you
this
wonderful
tea
keller.
I
said
we're
at
a
flea
market
right
now,
and
one
of
you
in
the
pair
is
the
prospective
buyer
of
this
tea
kettle,
and
one
of
you
in
the
pair
is
a
prospective
seller
of
this
tea
kettle,
and
each
of
you
would
have
a
prep
sheet
with
some
information
that
only
you
knew
about.
A
A
This
customer
said
that
they're
going
to
come
back
later,
but
who
knows
if
they
really
will
the
buyer
on
the
other
hand
or
the
right
hand,
column?
They
have
70
in
cash
in
their
wallet
or
their
purse.
That's
all
they're
willing
to
pay
earlier
today
at
the
flea
market
on
another
aisle
somewhere
else.
They
saw
a
different
tea
kettle.
That
was
only
55,
but
they
liked
this
one
a
little
bit
better
and
then
I
would
do
this
instruction
before
we
started
the
simulation.
A
I
would
tell
both
sides
to
say
your
goal
is
to
get
the
best
possible
deal.
I
let
you
define
what
best
possible
deal
means
according
to
your
own
definition,
and
so
with
all
that
in
mind,
you
would
have
done
the
simulation,
but
instead
I'm
going
to
act
out
the
tea
kettle
scenario
for
you
and
you
can
sort
of
see
that
information
there
and
watch
it
as
I
go
through
the
simulation
again,
a
warning.
I
am
not
a
trained
actor.
This
will
not
be
up
for
the
academy
awards
this
year.
A
So
here
we
go
my
that's
a
beautiful
tea
kettle.
I
really
admire
the
colors,
how
much
you're
asking
for
it.
Well,
it's
a
very
rare
tea
kettle.
Indeed,
in
fact
it's
an
antique
and
I
am
impressed
that
you
notice
it's
beautiful
colorization,
I'm
asking
a
hundred
dollars
for
that.
Oh
a
hundred
dollars
that's
way
way
past
my
budget
well
go
ahead
and
make
me
an
offer.
Perhaps
we
can
make
a
deal
today.
Well,
I
hope
this
isn't
insulting,
but
probably
thirty
dollars
about
the
most
that
I
could
possibly
pay
for
that.
A
Well,
it's
far
more
valuable
than
thirty
dollars.
I
mentioned
that
it's
an
antique
and
we've
already
agreed
that
it
has
beautiful
coloring.
You
seem
like
a
really
nice
person.
I
guess
I
could
come
down
to
80,
but
just
for
you
well.
I
saw
another
one
earlier
today
for
a
lot
less
than
that,
but
this
one
is
a
little
bit
nicer.
I
do
prefer
it.
I
guess
if
you
come
up
to
40
dollars.
A
A
Oh
the
most,
I
could
possibly
I
mean
the
most
I
could
possibly
possibly
pay
would
be
50.
I
guess
I'll
just
have
to
go.
Look
at
that
other
one
that
I
saw
earlier
today.
Goodbye,
oh,
no,
no,
no,
no,
don't
go,
don't
go.
I
can
see
how
much
you
like
it
and
I
feel
like
you
should
be
together.
How
about
60?
That's
the
absolute
lowest
I
can
possibly
go.
I
don't
know,
that's
still
awfully
steep.
I
think
50
is
as
high
as
I
can
go.
It's
an
incredible
deal.
It's
very
rare
and
it's
beautifully
colored.
A
A
This.
The
way
this
played
out
this
sort
of
mindset
and
method
is
the
most
common
method
that
we
see
in
the
business
world.
In
the
legal
world-
and,
unfortunately,
I
think
in
the
in
the
legislative
world
as
well,
but
as
we're
going
to
explore
today
and
play
around
with
some
ideas
today,
it
may
not
be
the
most
optimal
method
to
try
to
find
effective
solutions
when
that
constant
clash
of
agendas,
priorities
and
objectives,
particularly
in
the
redistricting
realm
happen
in
the
legislative
environment.
A
So
with
all
that
is
a
preamble,
we're
gonna
refer
back
to
the
tea
kettle
several
times
today,
let's
get
started
on
this
sort
of
material,
I'm
gonna
introduce
you
to
two
cool
negotiation
terms
today.
So
if
you
get
nothing
else
out
of
the
hour
that
we
spend
here
today,
next
time,
you're
a
dinner
party
next
time,
we
can
have
dinner
parties
and
someone
talks
about
negotiation,
you'll
be
able
to
drop
these
two
terms
in
and
they'll
think
you're
a
master
negotiator.
A
So
the
first
of
those
terms
is
what
we
call
the
zopa
the
zone
of
possible
agreement.
What
you
see
there
is
the
range
of
the
seller
and
the
range
of
the
buyer
sort
of
what
the
seller
wants
to
get
and
what
they're
willing
to
come
down
to
what
the
buyer
would
like
to
get
it
for
what
they're
willing
to
come
up
to
and
that
overlapping
that
in
the
green,
that's
what
we
call
the
zopa
the
zone
of
possible
agreement.
So
now
I'm
going
to
show
you
what
the
zopa
was
for
the
tea
kettle.
A
A
The
buyer,
of
course,
would
love
to
get
it
for
free,
but
they're
willing
to
come
up
to
70,
which
is
how
much
cash
they
have
in
their
wallet,
and
so
our
zopa
in
this
scenario,
was
between
40
and
70,
and
you
will
note-
and
by
the
way
this
is
the
point
in
the
simulate
when
we
do
it
live
that
somebody
goes.
Oh,
I
could've
got
it
for
less,
you
know,
or
I
could
have,
could
have
sold
it
for
more
than
it's
called
the
winner's
curse.
A
Once
you
kind
of
know
what
they're
willing
to
do,
you're
upset
that
you
made
the
deal
problem
with
the
zopa
is
it
creates
an
expectation
of
haggling
once
both
sides
start
to
realize
there
is
a
zopa
all
of
a
sudden.
This
idea
is
we
need
to
haggle.
In
fact,
if
we
weren't
in
zoom
I'd,
show
you
this
great
clip
from
monty
python
any
millennials
out
there.
A
You
need
to
know
that
monty
python
was
this
comedy
troupe
from
britain
in
the
70s
anyway,
they
did
this
great
bit
where
a
person
walks
into
essentially
a
flea
market
asked
hey.
How
much
for
this
item
and
the
seller
says
20
shekels
and
he
says
fine
and
he
gives
him
20
shekels
and
then
the
seller
goes
no,
no
we're
supposed
to
hang
and
then
there's
this
whole
funny
bit
about
how
the
the
buyer
doesn't
know
how
to
haggle
and
the
seller
has
to
teach
him
how
to
handle.
A
So
it's
hard
wired
into
us,
it's
in
our
art.
Certainly
it's
the
reason
we
didn't
like
to
go
the
car
dealer
before
like
the
standard
pricing,
because
we
knew
that
we
were
going
to
be
involved
in
this
haggling.
So
that's
the
problem
with
the
the
zopa
is.
It
creates
this
expectation
of
haggling
and
our
natural
tendency
takes
us
there.
So
we're
gonna
look
at
two
different
negotiation
paradigms
today:
one
positional
bargaining,
which
is
what
just
happened
in
the
tea
carnival
scenario
and
then
the
second.
A
This
idea
of
an
interest
base
an
alternative
way
to
think
about
negotiation.
So
positional
bargaining
show
you
know
shown
in
that.
Venn
diagram
is
oppositional
everything
I
get
comes
at
your
expense,
everything
you
get
comes
at
my
expense.
We
are
adversaries.
We
are
not
partners
interest-based
completely
different
mindset
completely
different
paradigm.
We
are
trying
to
overlap
our
venn
diagram
circles
to
get
the
widest
possible
overlap.
We
don't
see
ourselves
as
adversaries.
A
We
see
ourselves
as
creative
partners
coming
together
for
the
most
elegant
solution
that
we
can
possibly
have
so,
while
we're
going
to
spend
obviously
a
lot
of
time
on
that
second
paradigm
of
interest-based
negotiation,
it's
helpful
to
look
at
what
positional
bargaining
is
and
why
it
may
not
be
useful
in
the
legislative
setting,
because
that's
what
most
people
are
naturally
inclined
to
do.
So
what
is
positional
bargaining?
Well,
essentially,
it
is
this
strategy
that
asserts
a
position.
A
This
is
what
I
want
and
that's
what
I
want
and
once
those
positions
have
been
articulated,
that's
what
the
whole
conversation
is
about.
We
can
only
see
things
in
terms
of
those
positions
and
we
ignore
these
little
interests.
These
things
called
interests
that
I'm
going
to
defend
or
define
here
in
just
a
minute
too
much,
and
we
spent
our
time
talking
about
positions.
A
A
So
one
once
we've
established
these
flags.
What
happens,
then?
Is
the
haggling
kicks
in?
We
sense
the
zopa,
and
we
do
what
I
like
to
call
this
dance
to
the
middle
of
the
zopa.
We
just
sort
of
here's
what
I
want.
Here's,
what
I
want
well
I'll
come
to
here,
I'll
come
to
here
I'll,
come
to
here
and
we
dance
to
the
military.
We
engage
in
this
kind
of
gruesome
relationship,
burning
tense
process
coming
to
an
almost
pre-ordained
solution.
That
leaves
both
sides
unsatisfied.
A
So
what
we
saw
in
the
tea
kettle
right,
I
started
with
100
started
with
30
where'd.
We
end
up
right
in
the
middle
of
zopa
at
55,
so
I
want
you
to
know
two
things
about
this
dance
to
the
middle
though
the
first
is
when
we
get
to
that
middle,
we
sort
of
have
a
sub-optimal
outcome
for
both
parties.
It's
solomon
splitting
the
baby
in
half,
it's
half
a
loaf.
You
don't
get
all
the
things
you
want.
In
fact,
you
very
often
don't
get
any
of
the
things
you
really
want.
A
Those
things
called
interest,
we'll
talk
about
in
a
minute.
That's
the
first
thing.
That's
a
problem
second
thing
is
a
problem
is
the
arbitrary
nature
of
where
we
tend
to
plant
those
flags?
Let's
look
back
at
the
tea
kettle
scenario
for
a
second,
the
seller
is
asking
a
hundred
dollars
for
the
tcat,
but
they
only
paid
forty
dollars
for
it.
That's
ridiculous,
markup!
Anyone
out
there
who's
in
business
knows
that's
a
wonderful
margin.
I
wish
I
could
get
it,
but
the
best
offer
today
is
55.
A
So
that's
really
what
the
bad
of
that
tkl
is,
but
they're
planning
their
flag
at
100..
The
buyer,
on
the
other
hand,
is
only
willing
to
pay
70
and
that's
a
function
of
an
arbitrary
thing,
which
is
how
much
cash
they
brought
to
the
flea
market.
What
if
they
brought
20
in
cash?
What
if
they
brought
90
in
cash,
the
flags
would
have
been
planted
in
different
places
and
the
dance
to
the
middle
would
have
resulted
in
a
different
outcome
and
the
biggest
problem
with
positional
bargaining
is
this.
A
It's
easy
doesn't
take.
A
lot
of
preparation
doesn't
take
a
lot
of
skill.
It
may
not
be
the
right
method
for
something
as
complex
as
the
legislature,
particularly
in
the
sub-context
of
redistricting,
where
we
have
multi-party,
multi-stakeholder
multi-issued
all
combining
together
in
the
crux
of
that
one
particular
negotiation.
A
So
positional
bargaining
isn't
the
best
method
for
the
legislature.
What
might
be
an
alternative
to
consider
by
the
way?
I
do
want
to
note-
and
I'm
saying
to
consider
I'm
not
a
proselytizer
here,
I'm
not
I'm
not
ordering
you
to
use
this.
I
just
want
you
to
understand
the
two
different
paradigms
and
you
decide
when
to
apply
either
or
neither
so.
A
The
other
option
that
you
have
is
what
we
call
interest-based
negotiation
completely
different,
not
that
oppositional
zero-sum
game,
but
a
creative
way
between
two
partners
to
meet,
not
the
positions,
but
these
things
we
call
interest
that
I'll
define
here
in
just
a
minute.
Those
two
quotes
there
that
I
think
sort
of
sum
up
the
spirit
of
interest-based
negotiation.
They're
not
my
quotes.
They
come
from
our
partner,
brian
mandel
at
harvard
he
says
the
art
of
letting
other
people.
Have
it
your
way,
that's
kind
of
a
good
way
to
think
about
interest-based
negotiation
or
write.
A
The
other
side's
victory
speech
give
them
something
to
go
home
and
crow
about
to
feel
good
about.
I
like
to
add
one
on,
and
that
is,
I
think,
the
difference
between
positional
bargaining
and
interest-based
negotiation
can
be
summed
up
in
this
way
in
a
spirit
and
the
spirit
is
to
deliver
rather
than
to
deny
too
often
we
go
into
a
negotiation
thinking.
I
need
to
deny
them
things,
but
if
you
go
into
it
with
a
spirit
of,
I
can
deliver
things
for
them
and
hopefully
reciprocally
get
things
that
I
want
as
well.
A
Deliver
not
deny
that's
the
big
shift,
that's
the
big
change,
so
maybe
the
easiest
way
to
explain
the
difference
is
with
a
visual
metaphor,
so
I'll
use
this
one
positional
bargain,
as
you
see
there
on
the
left,
is
a
fixed
pie
game.
Every
crumb
that
I
get
comes
at
your
expense
and
I'm
gonna
fight
and
burn
relationships
and
really
make
it
difficult
and
I'm
gonna
try
and
get
a
few
more
crumbs
on
my
side
and
a
few
less
crumbs
on
your
side.
A
Alternatively,
in
the
interest
based
world,
we
want
to
expand
the
pie
before
we
start
to
carve
that
pie
up
in
negotiation
speak.
We
say
we
want
to
create
value
before
we
start
to
claim
value.
So
let's
do
a
little
bit
of
math
here.
Maybe
you
weren't
expecting
to
do
math
this
early
in
the
morning,
but
we're
going
to
do
some
math.
So
imagine
on
that
left-hand
pie,
that's
100
units
of
pot
looks
like
one
person's
got
about
80
units
and
the
other
person's
got
about
20
units
of
pie.
A
So
that's
the
deal
that
they've
got
in
a
positional
bargaining
game,
but
imagine
if
we
could
have
some
ways
to
expand
that
pie
from
100
units
to
200
units
of
pie.
Now
we
have
a
200
unit
pie
and
even
if
we
carve
it
up
in
the
exact
same
proportions
as
before,
you've
gone
from
20
units
of
pie
to
40
units
you've
doubled
your
pie.
You've
made
a
much
better
deal
for
yourself,
but
here's
the
hard
part
of
interest-based
negotiation.
A
A
I
will
stick
with
my
20
units
so
that
you
don't
get
those
160
units
and
both
of
us
come
out
and
our
stakeholders,
our
constituents,
the
citizens
of
our
states,
end
up
losing.
So
in
order
to
accept
this
paradigm
on
the
right,
we
have
to
change
two
really
common
definitions
that
are
part
of
negotiation.
The
first
is
this
definition
of
a
good
compromise.
A
If
we're
in
the
room
right
now,
I'd
say:
what's
the
old
definition
of
a
good
compromise
and
somebody
raise
their
hand
and
say
it's
when
both
sides
are
unhappy
right,
we've
all
heard
that
one
before
you
need
to
change
that
in
your
mind,
to
instead
of
both
sides
are
unhappy.
Both
sides
are
as
happy
as
they
could
possibly
be.
The
second
definition
you
have
to
be
willing
to
change
is
this
idea
of
the
best
possible
deal?
That's
what
I
instructed
the
tea
kettle
participants
to
try
to
get
in
the
old
method.
A
The
definition
of
the
best
possible
deal
is,
I
have
to
be
you,
that's
the
old
definition.
I
have
to
beat
you,
but
the
new
definition,
an
interest
based
definition,
would
say.
I
need
to
beat
me
if
I
can
come
up
with
a
deal,
that's
better
for
me
than
the
deal
I
had
before.
I
should
accept
that
deal,
no
matter
how
much
better
it
is
for
my
negotiating
partner.
A
Look,
don't
take
it
from
me.
Take
it
from
jay
paul
getty,
who
at
one
point
was
the
richest
private
citizen
in
the
history
of
the
world.
You
would
expect
him
to
do
the
most
cutthroat.
Toughest
nails
negotiator
tries
to
win
everything,
but
he
tells
us
this.
He
says
you
must
never
try
to
make
all
the
money
in
a
deal.
Let
the
other
person
make
some
money
too,
because
if
you
have
a
reputation
for
always
making
all
the
money,
then
you
won't
have
many
deals.
A
Think
about
this,
particularly
in
the
context
of
the
legislature,
if
you're
always
out
there
to
win
every
single
time,
nobody
wants
to
play
the
game
with
you.
You
win
every
time.
Why
should
I
continue
to
interact
with
you
so
with
all
that
as
a
preamble?
Let's
get
in
to
the
really
nitty-gritty
of
interest-based
negotiation,
we
have
four
principles
that
we're
going
to
try
and
understand
and
discuss
and
process
alternatives
options
and
this
concept
of
legitimacy.
A
A
So
I
told
you
I
was
going
to
introduce
you
to
two
negotiation
cool
negotiation
terms.
The
first
was
zopa
that
zone
of
possible
agreement
between
two
parties.
The
second
is
also
an
acronym
and
it's
batna
best
alternative
to
a
negotiated
agreement.
So
you
see
that
same
graphic
up
there.
You
got
the
seller
what
they
want
up
here
and
what
they're
willing
to
come
down
to.
But,
let's
just
say,
the
seller
came
down
to
40
and
the
buyer's
still
only
offering
thirty
dollars
they're
not
going
to
make
a
deal.
A
The
seller
has
to
consider
what
their
batna
is.
What
are
all
the
alternatives
I
can
do
if
I
don't
make
a
deal
with
this
buyer,
whatever
the
best
one
is
that's
their
batna.
The
buyer
came
up
to
seventy
dollars
all
the
cash
day
in
their
wallet,
but
the
seller
still
wants
eighty
dollars
they're
not
going
to
make
a
deal.
The
buyer
has
to
consider
what
are
all
my
alternatives,
whatever
the
best
one
is
that's
their
bag.
A
So
in
the
tea
kettle
scenario,
both
of
them
had
alternatives.
The
seller
could
wait
for
the
other
person
to
come
back.
They
could
bring
it
home
with
them
today
and
bring
it
back
next
week
to
the
flea
market
trying
to
sell
it.
They
could
take
it
home
and
make
it
their
own
teaco,
whichever
the
best
one
is.
That's
their
batna
and
the
buyer
has
alternatives
as
well.
They
could
go,
buy
the
other
tea
kettle
they
saw
earlier
that
day.
They
could
stop
at
target
on
the
way
home
and
buy
a
tea
kettle.
A
They
could
use
the
tea
kettle
they
have
at
home
already
they
have
some
alternatives,
whatever
they
think
the
best
one
is
that's
they're
bad.
Now
now
bad
news
are
important
to
consider
because
they
determine
leverage
in
the
negotiation
and
knowing
you're
bad.
Being
aware
of
your
back
and
being
aware
of
your
your
opponent
or
partners,
batna
is
a
really
important
thing.
Sometimes
you
have
a
good
bat.
Sometimes
you
have
some
leverage.
I'd
argue
when
you're
shopping
for
a
new
car
you've
got
a
pretty
good
battery.
You
can
go
to
four
dealer
number
one.
A
A
Sometimes,
though,
you
have
no
leverage
at
all,
sometimes
you
have
a
terrible
bat.
All
your
alternatives
are
terrible
and
argue
when
you
are
a
hostage
negotiator,
you
do
not
have
a
particularly
strong
batna.
You
better
keep
negotiating.
Keep
that
dialogue
going,
treat
trying
to
find
a
solution
to
your
problem.
A
Bottom
line
for
this
first
principle
is
that
good
negotiators
assess
their
bad
nut
and
the
batten
of
the
person
they're
negotiating
with
in
advance.
You
think
if
we
can't
make
a
deal,
what
are
the
things
I
could
do
what's
the
best
one,
what
are
the
things
they
could
do?
What's
the
best
one
so
that
you
begin
that
conversation
knowing
those
things
in
your
mind,
at
least
having
some
sense
of
those
things
which
leads
me
to
a
little
bit
of
a
shadow
principle
for
our
hour
here
today,
and
that
is
this
idea
of
preparation.
A
Look
I
know
time
was
listed
in
the
chat
box
is
one
of
the
real
pressures
to
good
negotiation
in
the
legislature,
and,
and
that
is
a
problem,
but
you've
got
to
do
your
homework
in
advance.
I'm
going
to
talk
about
that
probably
three
different
times
here
this
morning.
The
first
is
thinking
about
these
batnas
before
you
get
into
the
room,
you're
walking
down
the
hallway
and
you're
having
the
negotiating
season.
That's
the
first
time
you've
thought
about
what
you're
gonna
do.
A
If
you
don't
make
a
deal
or
you
thought
about
what
their
bat
is,
if
you
don't
make
a
deal,
that's
not
the
time
to
do
it.
You
need
to
do
those
things
in
advance,
so
that's
the
first
principle.
Alternatives.
Second
principle
talked
about
this
term
three
or
four
times
now
we're
finally
going
to
define
it.
This
idea
of
interest
interests
are
different
than
positions.
Positions
are
the
flags
they're
the
thing
they
say
they
want,
but
interests
are
what
they
really
want.
They,
I
like
to
think
of
them
as
the.
A
Why,
behind
the
position,
people
ask
for
a
thing,
but
there's
a
reason.
They
want
that
thing
and
that
reason
is
sometimes
very
different
terrain
than
the
thing
that
they
are
asking
for.
I'll.
Give
you
another
visual
metaphor
to
try
to
explain
the
difference
between
positions
and
interests,
I'll
use
an
iceberg
here,
because
you
can
see
some
of
the
iceberg,
but
then
there's
a
lot
of
it
submerged
beneath
the
water
line.
So
what
you
want
that
position?
That's
pretty
clear!
That's
what
they
state!
That's
the
flag,
they're
flying,
why
they
want
it.
A
Those
are
the
interests
that
are
often
submerged
they're,
not
going
to
throw
those
cards
on
the
table.
So
let
me
give
you
a
con
a
real
example
here
for
context.
Let's
say:
you're
a
business
owner
or
something
or
a
manager,
and
someone
comes
to
you
and
says
one
of
your
employees
says
I
want
a
5
000
raise
you're
like
right,
that's
a
flag
right!
It's
five!
That's
a
position,
I'm
taking
position!
I
want
five
thousand
dollars
and
you're
thinking.
Well,
I
can
only
give
you
one
thousand
dollars
and
then
you
sense
this
open.
A
You
start
to
dance
in
the
middle
and
you
arrive
at
three
thousand
dollars.
The
problem,
of
course
with
that,
is
they
wanted
five
and
you
wanted
one
both
of
you
are
unhappy.
So
that's
what
happens
in
positional
bargaining?
That's
what
happens
in
the
dance
in
the
middle
when
we
think
about
interest
all
of
a
sudden,
we
start
to
probe
a
little
bit.
Why
do
you
want
five
thousand
dollars?
Well,
I
need
the
money
I'm
going
to
be
moving
soon.
I've
got
some
short-term
moving
costs
to
get
there.
A
I've
got
some
long-term
increases
in
rent,
okay,
we're
starting
to
get
somewhere.
You
keep
probing.
Why
do
you
need
the
five
thousand
dollars?
Well,
I
just
want
to
be
clear
here.
I've
gotten
raised
in
three
years.
I
feel
stuck
in
my
position,
my
job,
I'm
just
sort
of
in
a
rut-
ding
ding,
ding,
ding
ding.
I
don't
feel
appreciated.
A
So
I
want
you
to
note
two
things
here
right
one.
The
position
I
want
five
thousand
dollars
is
completely
different
than
the
interest.
I
want
some
validation
and
appreciation
for
the
work
I've
done
here.
Here's
a
really
important
thing
to
know
satisfying
a
position.
The
five
thousand
dollars
is
not
the
same
thing
as
satisfying
the
interest
very
often
in
our
redistricting
or
other
legislative
negotiations.
A
We
can't
give
them
the
position
they're
asking
for,
but
very
often,
if
we're
willing
to
probe
enough
and
have
enough
of
a
conversation
to
find
out
the
why
and
really
dig
out
interest,
not
just
one
but
multiple
interests.
Very
often
we
can
give
some
high
value
to
them,
interests
that
are
low
cost
to
us,
even
though
we
can't
satisfy
that
position.
So
once
again,
there's
a
little
bit
of
a
preparation
theme
here
and
that
is
to
think
in
advance
about
what
your
interests
are.
A
A
The
answer,
of
course,
is
to
talk,
talk,
talk,
talk
and
specifically
to
ask
a
question
over
and
over
and
over
again,
and
that
question
is
why
why
why
why
why
why
don't
stop
asking
why,
until
you've
uncovered
a
number
of
interests
that
might
possibly
be
part
of
a
deal,
even
if
a
position
cannot
be
rewarded,
look
eli,
brode,
famous
industrialist,
maybe
you've
been
to
the
broad
museum
in
los
angeles.
He
this
is
his
his
philosophy
of
negotiation.
A
He
says
the
best
move
you
can
make
in
a
negotiation
is
to
think
of
an
interest,
an
interest,
not
a
position,
an
interest
that
the
other
person
hasn't
even
thought
of
and
then
meet
it
in
your
conversation
of
why?
Why
why
why
why
you
may
uncover
some
reasons
they
want
things
that
they
didn't
even
know
or
understand,
and
now
you
can
actually
deliver
that.
Remember
it's
to
deliver,
not
to
deny
that's
the
spirit
of
interest
based.
A
Let's
practice
this
for
a
little
bit,
get
your
fingers
warmed
up,
we're
going
to
be
in
the
chat
bar
here
in
just
a
second.
Maybe
some
of
you
are
fans
of
hgtv,
home
and
garden
television,
if
so,
you've
seen
all
these
kind
of
flip
or
flop.
These
remodeling
shows,
but
one
that
I
really
like
is
house
hunters,
because
house
hunters
is
a
case
study
in
negotiation
every
single
week.
A
If
you
haven't
seen
the
show
it's
a
couple,
they're
looking
for
a
new
house,
they
have
their
wish
list
that
don't
match
up,
they
see
a
couple
properties
and
they
have
to
sort
of
have
a
negotiation
about
which
one
they're
going
to
end
up
buying.
So
let's
imagine
that
in
that
we
have
this
class
they're
at
loggerheads,
because
one
member
of
the
couple
wants
a
third
bedroom
they're
stating
a
position
they're
flying
a
flight.
I
need
a
third
bedroom.
A
It
doesn't
matter
how
many
gorgeous
two
bedrooms
in
the
right
neighborhood
at
the
right
price
in
the
right
school
district
with
the
right
features,
no
matter
how
many
two
bedroom
houses,
I
see
they're
not
going
to
make
a
deal
because
this
person
wants
a
third
bedroom.
So
right
now
in
the
chat,
I
want
you
to
imagine
the
interest
that
underlies
this
position.
They
say
they
want
a
third
bedroom,
but
the
question
to
you
is:
why
do
they
want
a
third
bedroom?
A
Why
all
the
possible
reasons
that
somebody
would
want
a
third
bedroom
go
ahead
and
just
toss
them
in
the
chat.
How
many
different
reasons
are
somebody
would
need
one
privacy:
they
want
their
home
office
they're
going
to
expand
the
family.
They
want
an
office
space
storage
exercise
room
plan
on
expanding
the
family.
Okay,
you
guys
are
all.
On
the
same
page,
I
walk
in
oh
in-law,
suite
yeah
far
away.
They
want
a
third
bedroom
in
the
back
corner.
Okay,
wonderful,
wonderful
wonders.
The
question
here
is,
and
this
is
rhetorical-
don't
answer
in
the
chat.
A
A
So
options
are
the
thing
that
I
think
allows
an
interest-based
negotiation
model
to
be
a
little
bit
more
enjoyable
than
the
slog
of
position
of
argument
right.
It's
finding
creative
ways,
you
and
your
partner
working
together
to
find
creative
ways
to
fulfill
the
maximum
amount
of
total
interest,
your
interest
and
their
interest.
It's
a
very
different
mindset
right
than
denying
them
those
things
remember.
A
So
the
way
to
do
this,
of
course,
is
also
through
conversation,
and
it's
another
set
of
questions.
Only
this
question
isn't
why
why
why
why
why
which
uncovers
interest?
But
it's
what?
If
what?
If
we
tried
this?
What
if
we
did
this?
What
about
this
solution?
What
what
what
and
their
response
to
that
helps
guide
you
toward
more
optimal
and
elegant
solutions?
I
actually
like
the
second
question
construction
there.
What
would
be
wrong
with
x,
y
or
z?
The
reason
I
like
that
question.
I
strongly
suggest
you
use
that
constantly
in
your
negotiation.
A
Conversations
is
when
they
tell
you
what's
wrong
with
x,
y
or
z.
They
are
also
telling
you
new
interests,
things
that
they
may
not
have
been
willing
to
reveal
or
even
knew
that
they
held
as
important.
What
would
be
wrong
with
this?
Well,
this
would
be
wrong
with
that,
and
that
would
be
wrong
with,
and
that
would
be
wrong
with
it.
Now
you
start
to
get
a
better
sense
of
what
their
interests
are.
Let
me
give
you
an
example,
another
metaphor:
to
sort
of
explain
this
idea
of
options.
A
Let's
say
that
two
people
show
up
at
a
supermarket
they
park
in
the
parking
lot
they
both
have
in
their
mind.
I
need
an
orange,
an
entire
orange
for
something
that
I'm
about
to
to
make
and
they
both
enter
from
different
entrances
in
the
supermarket.
They
weave
their
way
back
to
the
produce
section
and
they
see
the
orange
stand
and
there's
one
orange
on
top
of
the
stand
and
they
race
to
the
orange
and
they
both
grab
a
hand
on
it
and
they
have
this
tug
of
war.
A
Now,
in
the
old
positional
bargaining
method,
we
do
the
salomon
cut
the
baby
in
half
we
do
half
a
loaf
and
we'd
end
up
with
option
one,
of
course,
the
problem
with
option
one
is
that
it's
a
sub
optimal
outcome.
Both
of
them
came
to
the
supermarket.
Wanting
an
entire
orange
and
they're
going
home
with
half
an
orange.
It's
the
old
definition
of
a
good
compromise.
A
Both
sides
are
unhappy,
but
a
whole
orange
is
just
a
position.
I
need
an
orange.
I
need
an
orange,
it's
just
a
position,
but
now
we
know
about
interests
and
we
start
to
probe
with
the
yyyy
questions
and
one
person
says
well.
Why
do
you
need
the
orange
and
the
person
says?
Well,
I
need
the
meat
of
the
orange
from
mandarin
salad
that
I
am
creating
and
then
the
other
person.
Why
do
you
need
the
orange?
Well?
I
need
some
zest
off
the
rind
of
the
orange
for
a
cake
that
I'm
making
and
voila.
A
A
So
imagine
somebody
actually
said
this
that
the
interest
for
that
person
had
for
the
third
bedroom
was
a
workout
space.
That's
the
interest
you
finally
through
the
yy
and
cover
hey,
that's
the
reason
they're
just
stuck
on
this
third
bedroom.
So
in
the
chat
bar
right
now
go
ahead
and
list
every
possible
way
every
possible
option.
You
can
come
up
with
to
deliver
the
interest,
the
workout
space
without
delivering
the
position,
the
third
bedroom,
let's
see
what
kind
of
creative
ideas
you
come
up
with
for
that.
A
Okay,
convert
the
garage
yeah
make
the
garage.
What,
if
they're
the
homes
near
a
new
gym,
give
them
a
membership?
Well,
you
can
use
the
basement
the
garage,
okay,
a
lot
of
same
ideas.
Out
of
okay,
that's
fun!
I
haven't
heard
before
good
job
gina,
very
creative
you're
good
at
this
create
foldable
workout
equipment.
Okay,
we
can
put
it
under
the
bed.
We
can
hide
it
into
a
closet,
an
attic,
oh
madeline,
good
job.
I
haven't
heard
that
one
before
either
excellent.
A
These
are
all
very
low
cost
to
you
by
the
way,
if
you're,
the
two
bedroom
person
and
high
value
to
them
so
you're
getting
it.
This
is
the
spirit
of
options,
but
you
don't
get
to
this
option
until
you
understand
what
the
interest
is,
if
you're
still
staring
at
the
three
bedroom
flag
and
I'm
over
here
with
the
two
bedroom
bed,
there's
no
way
to
get
a
two
and
a
half
bedroom
place.
You've
got
to
get
to
interest
first
before
you
can
get
to
options.
A
What
I
like
about
the
gym
membership,
one
so
for
all
of
you
that
just
typed
in
gym
membership,
one!
The
party
that
wanted
the
third
bedroom
gets
their
workouts
based
the
party
that
wanted
the
two-bedroom
house
gets
the
two-bedroom
house
they
wanted
in
the
neighborhood
they
wanted,
and
the
beauty
for
both
of
them
is.
A
It
ends
up
being
win-win
and
then
another
win,
because
the
difference
in
price
of
a
two-bedroom
house
in
that
neighborhood
to
a
three-bedroom
house
in
that
neighborhood,
is
about
150
thousand
dollars,
and
now
both
of
them
have
a
extra
150
000
that
they
can
spend
on
their
kids,
education
or
trips
to
white
or
whatever
it
is.
They
want
here's
what
I
would
say
options.
This
principle
is
the
reason
you
joined
or
are
part
of
the
legislature
in
the
first
place.
A
This
is
why
you
came
to
the
legislature
to
be
creative,
to
engage
with
the
brains
of
others,
to
figure
out
elegant
solutions
that
have
maximum
power
and
deliver
the
most
elegant
or
the
most,
the
widest
amount
of
interest
to
all
stakeholders
involved.
This
is
what
options
is
why
you
became
a
legislator
or
you
became
a
legislative
staff.
Let
me
give
you
the
fourth
and
final
principle
here
and
for
this
I'm
going
to
show
you
a
quick
little
video.
A
Those
of
you
that
have
used
zoom
in
videos
know
that
sound
is
weird
in
this
in
the
zoom
world,
and
so
what
I'm
going
to
do?
I'm
going
to
narrate
this
video,
it's
very
short,
I'll
narrate
for
you,
since
you
won't
be
able
to
hear
the
sound
before
I
show
it
to
you,
though,
I
need
you
to
understand
one
thing
about
capuchin
monkeys:
they,
like
cucumbers,
they're
perfectly
fine
with
cucumbers,
they'll
leave,
you
cucumber,
but
they
love,
and
I
mean
love,
love,
love
above
grapes.
A
So,
having
said
that,
let's
check
out
what
happens
here,
so
this
person
gives
a
rock
to
the
researcher
and
they
get
a
cucumber
all
right.
They
did
the
task
they
get
a
cucumber.
The
other
person
gives
a
rock
to
the
researcher
and
here's
the
rock
and
they
get
a
grape
and
the
other
one
sees
that
they
got
a
grape
for
that.
So
then
they
get
a
rock
back
and
they
get
a
cucumber.
A
And
they're
very
upset
about
that
something
about
that
has
rubbed
them
the
wrong
way.
So,
if
we're
in
the
room
together
right
now,
I'd
say
what's
the
problem
here,
why
is
the
monkey
so
upset
and
somebody
would
say:
well:
it's
unfair.
It's
unjust!
It's
violation
of
the
principles
of
of
justice
and
you're
right.
A
When
that
worker
comes
in
and
says
I
want
a
5
000
raise
why
that
number
is
that
in
line
with
our
salary
bands,
is
that
you
know
somewhat
attached
to
the
merit
or
the
value
bring
the
organization
why
that
number?
So
we
already
talked
about
the
arbitrary
positions
that
people
are
incentivized
to
take
in
position
of
argument
right.
You
have
an
incentive
to
plant
your
flag
as
far
away
as
you
possibly
can,
because
you
think
you're
going
to
do
this
dance
to
the
middle,
but
those
are
often
very
illegitimate.
A
A
So,
in
the
real
estate
market,
people
fall
in
love
with
their
houses,
they've
lived
there
for
20
years,
they're
emotionally
attached
to
it.
They've
had
holidays
there,
their
kids
have
grown
up
there.
They
have
some
door
frame
somewhere
where
they
checked
off.
How
you
know
tall
johnny
was
every
year.
A
A
Imagine
if
you
hadn't
done
your
homework
in
advance
theme
number
three
on
preparation
and
you
didn't
come
with
your
standard
of
legitimacy
and
you
actually
engaged
in
positional
bargaining
dance
in
the
middle
here,
a
million
dollars
500
000.
You
would
have
paid
750
000
for
that
crappy
house
on
the
left.
That's
the
problem
without
having
a
standard
legitimacy
by
the
way,
a
little
side
note
if
you
live
in
california-
and
you
see
a
house
like
that
for
a
million
dollars,
you
should
buy
it
because
that's
a
steal.
A
In
fact,
if
you
have
the
resources
you
buy
two
of
them,
because
that
is
a
super
good
deal.
So
the
reason
we
want
to
have
a
standard
legitimacy
is
threefold:
it
limits
the
playing
field,
it
sort
of
rains.
Things
in
right
creates
this
parameter
around
the
conversation
of
the
negotiation.
It
keeps
it
real
if
you
will
to
use
the
millennial
or
gen
z
term,
it
rains
in
those
extreme
positions
that
positional
bargaining
incentivizes
us
to
take.
So,
as
I
mentioned,
it's
a
preparation
thing.
You
need
to
come
to
the
table.
A
Having
done
your
homework
in
advance,
having
had
a
sense
of
what
the
standard
of
legitimacy
should
be,
because
if
you
don't
have
one
you're
going
to
be
stuck
using
theirs
in
the
end,
I
urge
you
to
simply
become
the
true
car
of
the
legislature,
always
ready
with
the
information
to
rein.
Those
crazy
asks
in-
and
I
think
that's
particularly
important
in
the
redistricting
realm.
So
let's
review
what
we've
already
talked
about
here
today,
we've
learned
a
lot
in
45
minutes.
A
First
principle:
is
this
idea
of
alternatives?
What's
my
best
alternative?
What's
my
batna?
If
this
thing
doesn't
happen
and
how
strong
or
weak
is
that
relative
to
them?
What
is
their
bad?
We
don't
make
a
deal.
I
need
to
project
myself
into
their
brain,
what
are
their
alternatives
and
what's
the
best
one
that
they
have
interests?
A
What
do
I
really
want?
I
know
I'm
asking
for
this,
but
what
do
I
really
want?
I
know
they're
asking
for
this:
what
do
they
really
want?
Let's
dig
down
and
find
out
what
those
interest
is
satisfying
an
interest,
not
the
same
thing
as
satisfying
a
position.
Very
often
we
can
satisfy
interest,
even
if
we
can't
satisfy
our
position.
Third
principle
is
the
reason
you
join
the
legislature
that
creative
process
of
coming
up
with
elegant
solutions
to
the
problem,
trying
to
cobble
together
a
deal
that
satisfies
the
maximum
amount
of
interest.
A
A
Earlier
I
said
that
the
whole
spirit
of
interest-based
negotiation
was
to
expand
that
pie
first
before
we
start
to
chop
it
up.
You
do
better
for
yourself.
They
do
better
for
themselves.
You're
willing
to
accept
their
betterness
you'll
get
your
betterness,
but
it's
one
thing
for
me
to
say:
you
need
to
expand
the
pie.
It's
another
thing
for
me
to
tell
you
how
to
expand
a
negotiation
theory
has
a
number
of
different
ways
that
you
might
do
that.
A
We
don't
have
a
ton
of
time
to
explore
all
those,
but
I'm
going
to
give
you
one
here
today
and
that
is
to
add,
when
you
find
yourself
unable
to
expand
the
pie
and
you're
really
stuck
in
a
bad
scenario.
Add
new
stakeholders
get
other
people
involved
in
a
negotiation,
get
other
people
to
the
table.
When
you
add
new
stakeholders,
you
automatically
add
new
interest,
so
you
expand
the
interest
pool
and
the
more
interest.
You
have
the
more
options
you
now
have
to
cobble
together
a
solution
that
works
for
all
parties.
A
I
add
a
second
element
to
this.
Don't
just
add
any
new
stakeholder
to
the
table.
Add
someone
to
their
side
of
the
table,
someone
who's
interest,
aligned
more
with
them
than
they
do
with
you,
someone
who
they
perceive
as
an
ally
on
their
side
rather
than
someone
that's
an
adversary
on
your
side.
Why
is
that
the
best
type
of
stakeholder
to
add
into
the
scenario?
It's
twofold
one?
A
It
increases
momentum
toward
an
agreement
or
a
deal,
because
that
person
often
has
different
interests
that
they
want
to
satisfy
and
they
are
eager
to
get
those
interest
met,
and
so
they
create
a
little
test,
snowball
effect
and
momentum
towards
a
deal.
The
second
thing
is
when
they're,
on
the
other
side
of
the
table,
that
person
you've
been
negotiating
with,
sees
them
as
their
partner
and
ally,
and
if
they
are
inclined
to
take
the
deal,
it
puts
a
little
bit
of
pressure.
It
nudges
them
toward
the
agreement
toward
the
deal
as
well.
A
I'm
going
to
give
you
a
real
life
example
for
this.
If
you
can
see
behind
me
in
my
zoom
setup
here,
you
see
some
renderings
of
some
homes
as
a
side.
Hustle
a
partner-
and
I
here
in
denver,
have
a
home
building
company.
We
do
build
about
50
custom
homes
in
denver
and
we
often
find
ourselves,
as
you
might
imagine,
as
a
seller
of
homes
in
a
negotiation
loggerheads
with
a
prospective
buyer.
A
Whenever
that
happens,
whenever
we're
stuck
the
way
I
expand
the
pie
is
I
bring
a
new
stakeholder
to
the
table
and
the
person
I
bring
is
not
our
broker
our
real
estate
agent.
I
bring
their
real
estate
agent,
the
person
who
sits
on
their
side
of
the
table,
because
that
person
brings
a
new
interest,
which
is
their
commission,
which
is
completely
different
than
the
interest
we're
talking
about,
and
they
want
that
commission.
A
They
want
that
interest
satisfied
and
they
put
mild
polite
pressure
and
since
they're
perceived
as
an
ally
very
often
is
the
thing
that
helps
close
the
deal.
So
that's
the
first
tip
I
have
the
second
tip
goes
back
to
interest,
but
it's
thinking
about
interest
in
a
bigger,
broader
way-
and
this
is
that
preparation-
you
gotta,
think
get
in
their
mind
a
little
bit
before.
You
actually
start
the
conversation
and
don't
ignore
the
elephant
in
the
room.
A
A
A
You
need
to
consider
interests
that
they're
not
talking
about
that
are
political,
because
sometimes,
if
you
can
simply
satisfy
that,
they
will
give
you
the
deal
as
it
relates
to
the
topic.
That's
actually
legislative,
so
don't
ignore
those
they're
there
they're
shaping
the
process
they're
having
an
impact
on
the
conversation
and
if
you
simply
ignore
them
and
talk
about
the
stuff.
That's
germane
to
the
topic.
Then
you're
missing
out
on
an
opportunity
to
cobble
together
an
option
that
satisfies
some
of
those
interests.
A
Okay,
remember:
the
spirit
is
to
deliver
not
to
deny.
If
you
can
deliver
political
interest
very
often,
you
make
it
much
more
likely
that
you
come
to
a
deal.
Third
tip
out
of
four
here
follows
under
the
sort
of
overall
umbrella
of,
but
what,
if
they,
but
what?
If
they
keep
moving
the
goal
post,
what
if
they
play
hardball
what,
if
they
walk
away
from
agreements
that
we've
already
had
on
the
other
day
before
and
all
that
sort
of
to
me
falls
under
the
umbrella
of
what,
if
they're,
being
a
jerk?
A
So
this
is
my
second
time
I
have
to
explain
this
to
maybe
the
younger
members
of
the
audience,
the
jerk,
this
wonderful
movie
about
this
comedian
named
steve
martin,
it's
really
funny
in
the
70s.
If
you
want
to
see
that's
probably
on
one
of
those
streaming
services,
it's
just
a
little
plug
for
the
jerk,
what
if
they
are
being
a
jerk?
Well,
I
guess
I
have
four
responses.
A
You
do
it
and
if
they
had
the
power
to
make
you
do
what
they
wanted
you
to
do
they'd
do
it
the
fact
that
you're
still
negotiating
means
that
there
are
some
interests
out
there
that
neither
of
you
can
by
force
claim,
and
so
you
still
have
to
have
that
conversation
regardless
how
jerky
they
may
be
to
you.
Second,
you
either
keep
talking
or
you
have
to
turn
and
look
at
your
batna,
all
the
alternatives
that
you
have.
A
If
you
can't
make
a
deal
with
them
and
if
none
of
those,
if
your
best
alternative
your
batna,
is
not
good,
you
better
keep
talking,
no
matter
how
much
of
a
jerk
they
are,
how
many
tactics
they're
using
that
you
think
are
unfair.
You've
got
a
good
batten,
then
maybe
you
go
ahead
and
just
take
that
batman.
But
if
you
have
a
bad
bat
now
you
have
to
keep
talking
now.
Some
of
you
are
going,
but
what?
A
If
they
won't
talk
at
all,
what,
if
they're
so
jerky
that
they
won't
even
engage
in
a
dialogue
with
you?
They
see
you
coming
down
the
hallway
and
they
run
the
other
way.
They
see
you
coming
across
the
chamber
floor
and
they
hide
under
their
desk.
Well
then,
this
is
an
important
time
to
add
a
new
stakeholder,
because
there's
nothing
in
negotiation
theory
that
says
I
need
to
directly
interact
with
my
negotiation
partner
face
to
face.
I
can
create
a
chain
of
relationships
and
partners
that
lead
me
to
that
person.
A
So
if
they
won't
talk
to
me,
fine,
but
I
know
phil
or
sally
and
they'll
talk
to
phil
or
sally,
and
I
can
now
have
a
proxy
negotiator
make
that
happen,
and
that
really
this,
what
they're
being
a
jerk
thing
and
bringing
this
new
stakeholder
in
really
leaves
us
the
most
important
tip
that
I
can
give
you
for
negotiating
legislation.
It's
quite
obvious
to
you,
but
I'm
going
to
say
it
anyway,
and
that
is
relationships
are
absolutely
crucial.
If
you're
going
to
succeed
at
this
interest-based
negotiation
mindset,
it
simply
can't
happen
without
them.
A
You
need
to
have
the
conversation.
You
need
a
relationship
that
allows
you
to
have
the
conversation.
Ask
those
why
why
why
why
why
questions
that
uncover
those
interests
or
those?
What
if
we?
What
if
we?
What
if
we?
What
if
we
that
assess
options
you
need
to
have
a
relationship
so
that
you
can
trust
those
standards
of
legitimacy
that
you
bring
to
the
table
or
that
they
bring
to
the
table
now.
Some
of
you
are
saying,
but
what
if
we
don't
have
a
relationship?
What
if
it's
so
broken?
A
A
You
have
a
relationship
with
find
a
chain
and
connect
the
dots
of
relationship
and
negotiate
through
that
chain
changes
the
dynamic
in
powerful
ways,
so
we're
coming
to
the
close
of
our
time,
let's
wrap
up
and
do
a
quick
review
of
what
we've
learned
and
experienced
and
thought
about
so
far.
Today
you
have
two
choices,
as
I
said
before:
I'm
not
a
preacher
or
one
or
the
other.
You
can
be
a
positional
bargainer
dance
to
the
middle
or
you
can
adopt
the
mindset
of
interest-based
negotiation.
A
If
you
do
it's
the
real
difference
between
that
fixed
pi,
oppositional
mindset
and
this
idea
of
expanding
the
pie
first
before
we
actually
carve
that
thing
up
to
deliver,
not
to
deny
to
try
to
beat
you
not
beat
them,
which
means
you
have
to
allow
them
to
win
some
things
as
well.
The
spirit
is
deliver
rather
than
deny
and
you're
going
to
focus
on
those
interests
and
options
instead
of
those
flags
that
are
flying,
those
positions
that
often
can't
be
satisfying,
and
the
big
thing
is
that
you
are
seeing
them.
A
A
Oh,
I
didn't
I
didn't
know
there
was
going
to
be
a
quiz
at
the
end
and
there
would
be-
and
I'd
say
this
I'd
say
everybody
at
your
table
lock
up
in
the
traditional
arm
wrestling
posture,
and
then
I
announce
the
rules
of
the
game
for
15
seconds.
I'm
going
to
time
you
and
you
get
one
point.
Every
time
your
opponent's
hand
hits
the
table,
you
mark
get,
set,
go
and
look
around
the
room.
A
Some
of
you
would
be
failing
the
final
exam.
Some
of
you
would
be
locked
up
in
moral
battle,
trying
to
get
the
other
person's
hand
down
at
the
end
of
15
seconds.
You'd
have
zero,
or
maybe
one
point
some
of
you
would
be
acing
the
final
exam.
I
look
around
the
room
and
I'd
see.
Some
people
have
figured
this
out
and
in
15
seconds
they
might
have
30
or
more
points
each
and
there
in
lies
the
difference
between
positional
bargaining
and
interest-based
negotiation.
A
Hopefully
those
of
you
out
there
today
would
have
aced
this
final
exam,
and
with
that
I
bring
our
art
of
legislative
negotiation
session
to
a
close
hope.
I've,
given
you
something
useful
that
you
can
take
back
into
what
would
have
been
the
redistricting
wars
and
maybe
turn
them
into
a
redistricting
conversation
where
creative
minds
come
together
to
cobble
together
the
best
elegant,
optimal
solutions
to
satisfy
the
maximum
number
of
interest
for
all
possible
parties
seems
a
little
like
a
naive,
pipe
dream.
A
Given
the
world
we
live
in,
but
it's
got
to
start
somewhere
and
I
hope
that
maybe
some
of
you,
it
will
start
with
you.
So
last
thing
I
want
to
say:
if
you'll
indulge
me
for
a
quick
commercial,
we
barely
scratch
the
theory
of
negot
the
the
surface
of
negotiation
theory,
particularly
as
it
relates
to
legislatures
here
today
and
one
hour
that
we
can
hardly
get
deep
into
it.
But
if
you
want
more,
if
you're
really
interested
in
this-
and
you
really
want
to
develop
this
skill
set,
we
have
a
legislative
negotiation
network.
A
So
if
you
really
want
to
take
this
to
the
next
level,
you
want
to
learn
way
more.
Do
some
real
simulations
in
the
room
and
apply
these
principles
in
a
far
more
powerful
way.
Please
send
me
an
email,
I'll,
be
happy
to
add
you
to
that,
and
you
will
get
that
invite
sometime
in
2021
other
than
that.
I
hope
you
have
a
very
wonderful
rest
of
your
redistricting
seminar.
A
We
know
that
it's
not
just
a
thankless
world,
but
I
absolutely
use
the
term
it's
an
anti-thank
world,
sometimes
you're
anti-thank
for
selflessly
and
tirelessly
working
to
make
the
lives
of
your
constituents
and
the
citizens
of
your
states
better
and
so
for
a
group
that
knows
that
better
than
almost
anyone
else,
certainly
better
than
your
friends,
maybe
even
better
than
your
spouse.
Ncsl
thanks
you
for
that
service.
Thank
you
all!
I'm
going
to
stop
sharing
my
screen
I'll
stick
around
and
answer
any
questions.
A
If
anyone
has
any
and
if
not,
I
know
you
got
things
you
got
to
do,
go
off
and
do
those
orlando,
you
can
probably
turn
off
the.
I
can't
mute
myself
function
so
that
people
can
unmute
themselves
and
if
they
have
a
question,
I
am
happy
to
indulge
that
otherwise
have
a
wonderful
session
a
wonderful
day
and
a
wonderful
redistricting
seminar.