[development] RFC: Structured discussion module

Darren Oh darrenoh at sidepotsinternational.com
Thu Apr 12 18:45:50 UTC 2007

I'd like to have module that helps people cut through the rhetoric that
arises during arguments and focus on productive discussion. It could be
called either "Structured Discussion" or "Argument Reconciliation".

The module would make use of the following taxonomy structure:

1. Discussion vocabulary

2. Topics would the first level of terms in the hierarchy.

3. Positions would be the second level of terms.

4. Differences between positions would be the third level of terms. Each
    difference would inherit two terms from the positions level.

5. Evidences required to resolve the differences would be the fourth  
    of terms. Each evidence would inherit one or more terms from the
    differences level.

The module would have the following content types:

1. Topic. When viewed, a table of positions and the differences  
between them
    would be attached.

2. Position. Must have at least one term from the topic level.  
Revising a
    position creates a new position and changes the status of the old
    position to "abandoned" until another user becomes its advocate. A
    position will also be abandoned if its advocate subscribes to  
    position with the same term.

3. Difference. Must have exactly two terms from the positions level.  
    viewed, a table of evidences would be attached. A difference  
starts with
    a status of "open" and is set to "resolved" when the advocates of  
    opposing positions accept and reject the same set of evidence. If  
    differences between two positions are resolved, the advocate of the
    rejected position will be automatically subscribed to the accepted

4. Evidence. Must have at least one term from the difference level.  
For each
    difference, the author must choose which of the positions it  
supports. An
    author may not choose two opposing positions for the same  
evidence. When
    viewed, a table of investigations would be attached. Advocates of  
    position can mark whether they accept or reject the evidence. If the
    advocate of the supported position rejects the evidence and the  
author of
    an opposing position accepts it, the evidence will not be a valid  
    the difference between the two positions.

5. Investigation results. Must have at least one term from the evidence
    level. Investigation status can be either "in progress" or  

Each content type could have terms only from a specific level of the
taxonomy tree. The content type would create a term for the next  
level. It
would be nice to enable RSS aggregation so that topics could pull in
positions from other sites, positions could pull in differences from  
sites, differences could pull in evidence from other sites, and  
could pull in investigations from other sites.

Is anything like this being worked on now?

More information about the development mailing list