XXIIVV
Maude
Maude

A cheatsheet on Discourse.

The three gates of speech: Before you speak, let your words pass through three gates.

You should attempt to re-express your target's position so clearly, vividly, and fairly that your target says, "Thanks, I wish I'd thought of putting it that way."
—Rapoport's First Rule

Argument Ranking

●●●●●High-level generatorsDisagreements that remain when everyone understands exactly what's being argued, and agrees on what all the evidence says, but have vague and hard-to-define reasons for disagreeing.
●●●●○OperationalizingWhere both parties understand they're in a cooperative effort to fix exactly what they're arguing about.
●●●○○Survey of evidenceNot trying to devastate the other person with a mountain of facts and start looking at the studies and arguments on both sides and figuring out what kind of complex picture they paint.
●●●○○Disputing definitionsArgument hinges on the meaning of words, or whether something counts as a member of a category or not.
●●○○○Single StudiesBetter than scattered facts, proving they at least looked into the issue formally.
●●○○○Demands for rigorAttempts to demand that an opposing argument be held to such strict standards that nothing could possibly clear the bar.
●○○○○Single FactsOne fact, which admittedly does support their argument, but presented as if it solves the debate in and of itself.
●○○○○GotchasShort claims that purport to be devastating proof that one side can't possibly be right.
○○○○○Social shamingA demand for listeners to place someone outside the boundary of whom deserve to be heard.
How to apologize: Quickly, specifically, sincerely.
—Kevin Kelly

arguments

responses

beliefs

A leader is best when people barely know they exists, when their work is done, their aim fulfilled, people will say: we did it ourselves.
—老子(Lao Tse), 道德經(Dao De Jing)

The first principle of Wikipedia etiquette has been said to be Assume Good Faith.

Bad FaithGood Faith
AnswerJumping into a conversation with endless unapplicable, unrealistic or unrelated answers to the question.A clear and honest response to the central point of a question without an aggressive attempt to convince.
QuestionSpouting accusations while cowardly hiding behind the claim of just asking questions, and ignoring the answers. Asking loaded questions.A question asked with the intention to be fair, open, and honest, regardless of the outcome of the interaction.

Social rules are expected to be broken from time to time, in that regard they are different from a code of conduct.

Response Ranking

●●●●●●Central pointCommit to refute explicitly the central point.
●●●●●○RefutationArgue a conflicting passage, explain why it's mistaken.
●●●●○○CounterargumentContradict with added reasoning or evidence.
●●●○○○ContradictionState the opposing case, what.
●●○○○○Responding to ToneResponding to the author's tone, how.
●○○○○○Ad HominemAttacking the author directly, who.

Interaction Ranking

Discussion●●●●●ReleaseInitiating a discussion on the lessons learnt from a project.
●●●●○UpdatePresenting the recent development of a personal experience, ongoing event or work in progress.
●●●○○SoapboxSpontaneous and or enthusiastic posts about a general topic of interest or finding.
Low-Effort●●○○○RantVenting frustration publicly without explicitly looking to have a conversation about the matter.
●○○○○ShitpostAggressively or ironically looking for the biggest reaction with the least effort possible. Includes subtoots and vague-posting.

Emotional Reaction

SeductionYou are led to feel that the fulfillment of your dreams depends on your doing what the other is encouraging you to do.
AlignmentThe interests of the system are presented as fulfilling your emotional needs. You are led to feel that your survival, your viability in society or your very identity depends on your doing what the other is requiring of you.
ReductionComplex subjects are reduced to a single, emotionally charged issue.
PolarizationIssues are presented in such a way that you are either right or wrong. You are told that any dialogue between different perspectives is suspect, dangerous or simply not permissible.
MarginalizationYou are made to feel that your own interests (or interests that run counter to the interests of the other) are inconsequential.
FramingThe terms of a debate are set so that issues that threaten the system cannot be articulated or discussed. You are led to ignore aspects of the issue that may be vitally important to your own interests but are contrary to the interests of the other that is seeking to make you act in their interests.
Kings speak for the realm, governors for the state, popes for the church. Indeed, the titled, as titled, cannot speak with annyone.
—James P. Carse, Finite and Infinite Games