"I'll give you 80%" — Gold Team's radical proposal, a gamble to break the deadlock

The Gold Team from the wavve original 'The Community 2: The Invisible Hand' underwent intense internal debate after throwing out a radical proposal to break the existing framework for the sake of the team's existence and victory.

"We must shake things up" vs "Prioritize procedural legitimacy"

In the video, the Gold Team showed starkly diverging opinions regarding their relationship with the Red Team and their future strategy. Some members of the team argued that active action is necessary to overcome the current stagnant situation. They stated, "In the current situation, even doing something because we can't do anything else is doing something," expressing the position that changes to shake up the board are needed to break the deadlock. In particular, they emphasized that "even if it becomes a mudfight, we must stir things up at least once," noting that a process of clashing is necessary even if it is to confirm wrong answers.

On the other hand, members who value the team's decision-making process and procedures expressed concern over such sudden actions. They pointed out that making a proposal as an individual before the team's opinions are sufficiently gathered could damage the team's identity. One member cautioned against the confusion that actions taken before the team's official position is organized could bring, saying, "This conversation is not a conversation between representatives, but a conversation between individuals." In this process, emotional clashes continued as complaints that "decision-making is too slow" met the principled stance that "we must follow the correct baseline." In particular, criticisms were raised regarding how good decisions can be made when internal organization is not complete, and frustration was expressed regarding moving based on individual thoughts rather than the team's opinion.

"I will give you 80%" — An extreme proposal toward victory

At the center of the controversy was a radical negotiation plan toward the Red Team. One member threw out a proposal to hand over 80% of the resources they possess to the Red Team for the sake of victory. This was a proposal born from the desperation of wanting "to win even if we take less," serving as a kind of gamble to break the stagnant environment. The member made it clear that such an action was "a way to break this stagnant environment" and a means to appeal the will for change to the Red Team.

This proposal caused a huge wave even within the team. Some urged rational judgment, saying, "It is not a bad proposal. Please judge rationally," while others put a brake on it, saying, "You cannot represent the position of the Gold Team." In particular, distrust regarding the team's leadership and decision-making methods was revealed, and members raised procedural issues, asking, "Why are we going to talk alone when we haven't even agreed internally?" Meanwhile, tension within the team reached its peak as concerns that "decision-making is too slow so it will become stagnant" clashed head-on with the argument that "opportunities arise only when change is given through war."

Choices amidst uncertainty, the Gold Team's future moves

Ultimately, the Gold Team decided to continue additional discussions while observing the Red Team's reaction. As opinions within the team were sharply divided between "even if we lose, we must clash first" and "internal consensus comes first," how the Red Team accepts this radical proposal emerged as a key variable that will determine the future direction of the game.

Team members continued to confess that "it is hard on the heart" or "one can't help but be pessimistic" due to the difference in their positions, revealing the weight of decision-making experienced as a group. The appearance of the Gold Team, struggling between the desire for victory and cohesion as a team, showed the process where the decision-making structure within a group and individual beliefs collide.