Below are something I think what's important in this case study.
Opinions and judgments are suspended in dialogue due to too many diverse points of view.
Nobody wants to take on the role of "leader" in group but wants to be heard and wants the ...view middle of the document...
People would pick up each other's words and ideas and internalized them somehow. Everyone is influencing each other in some way.
Compromises are worse than defeat because everyone has given in somehow.
Collective action must be coordinated through imposed external structure.
I think it's a good thing that we do not need to compromise to reach a decision through continuous dialogue. However, it is often not the case in real life because we are usually under some sort of pressure; for example, we usually give in when the opposing power has a higher status/position than us. It is also hard to come to something when there are diverse view point and no one willing to change their standpoint.