Introduction
1.1 The Ineffectiveness of the Current Online Environment in Resolving Conflict
No one has yet attempted to create a website that automates the conflict resolution techniques advocated by Roger Fisher and William Ury. This oversight echoes a scene from The Simpsons where Ned Flanders' father admits to having "tried nothing and is all out of ideas." Similarly, it should come as no surprise that our online forums, which were not initially designed with conflict resolution in mind, often exacerbate issues rather than offering effective solutions.
Conflict, an integral aspect of human interactions, stems from our distinct motivations, divergent values, and individual needs. These differences often exist in group dynamics and individual relationships, where the actions and decisions of others can influence our experiences. Misunderstandings or disagreements over motivations or goals frequently lead to conflict. Despite this, there are currently no dedicated online platforms that have been designed from the ground up to effectively manage and resolve these conflicts.
In the words of Roger Fisher, "The ability to see the situation as the other side sees it, as difficult as it may be, is one of the most important skills a negotiator can possess" (Fisher, 2011). Our current online environment lacks the infrastructure and mechanisms to cultivate this empathetic understanding and, thus, fails to effectively address and resolve conflicts.
1.2 Leveraging the Web for Effective Conflict Resolution
In our globally interconnected society, the web presents untapped potential for effective conflict resolution. To harness this potential, this paper proposes the development of a comprehensive web-based platform designed to foster brainstorming, facilitate debates, and ultimately resolve various contentious issues. The platform encourages users to articulate their interests, needs, and goals, aligning with Fisher and Ury's "principled negotiation" concept (1981).
1.3 Structure and Purpose of the Paper
This paper will detail the proposed platform's design, structure, and functionality, and discuss its implementation. While there are currently no online platforms that specifically focus on conflict resolution, this paper will contrast the proposed platform with existing online platforms that host discussions or debates. The platform's underlying premise is deeply rooted in the principles of successful dispute resolution as outlined by the Harvard Negotiation Project in the seminal book 'Getting to Yes' (Fisher & Ury, 1981). The platform applies conflict resolution techniques from 'Getting to Yes' and procedures from 'The Cost-Benefit Revolution' by Cass R. Sunstein. Additionally, it utilizes a modified version of the Google PageRank algorithm to rank conclusions based on the cumulative strength of supporting and opposing sub-arguments.
2.0 Automating Successful Dispute Resolution Principles
2.1 Automating the Process of Separating People from Problems
The proposed platform aims to operationalize the principle of separating people from problems, as outlined in 'Getting to Yes'. This principle facilitates an objective and unbiased evaluation of issues, crucial in conflict resolution (Fisher & Ury, 1981). Additionally, the cost-benefit analysis principle from 'The Cost-Benefit Revolution' (Sunstein, 2018) is incorporated to enhance decision-making processes.
2.1.1 Ensuring Objective Evaluation through Anonymity and Independent Evaluation
Although not completely anonymous, the proposed platform emulates the benefits of anonymity by ensuring an independent evaluation process. Users evaluate and vote on the merits of ideas or statements without knowledge of other users' views or votes, thereby avoiding potential peer pressure. This process ensures judgments focus primarily on the argument's content, reducing personal bias and conflict. The benefits of this approach mirror those of anonymous systems: fostering an environment conducive to objective and unbiased assessment of ideas.
2.2 Automating the Process of Focusing on Interests, Not Positions
2.2.1 Facilitating Interest-Based Focus through the Platform
The proposed platform seeks to operationalize the principle of focusing on interests, not positions, a critical step in conflict resolution as outlined in 'Getting to Yes'. To achieve this, the platform encourages brainstorming of potential interests of individuals who support or oppose each belief. It further identifies shared and opposing interests between these groups, categorizes them within Maslow's hierarchy of needs, and assigns validity scores based on the performance of pro/con arguments. This systematic process determines the relative importance of each interest compared to others.
By continuously incorporating potential interests from each side, grouping similar expressions of the same idea, and sorting interests by their pro/con validity arguments, the platform ensures a dynamic, continuously updating representation of each side's interests. This adaptive approach keeps the platform current and relevant, effectively facilitating focus on interests over positions.
2.3.1 Automating the Generation of Diverse Solutions
In keeping with one of the essential principles from "Getting to Yes" — generating a variety of possibilities before deciding — the proposed platform solicits the online community to suggest "optimal solutions" for each problem or conflict. This feature stimulates brainstorming, offering a broad range of options before decision-making, thereby augmenting the probability of identifying the most effective solutions.
Fisher et al. noted, "the more attention that is paid to positions, the less attention is devoted to meeting the underlying concerns of the parties" (2011). The platform will streamline this process by grouping similar solutions and categorizing them by type. Each proposed resolution will then be ranked based on a cost-benefit analysis, thereby promoting more informed decision-making.
2.3.2 Encouraging User Engagement with Contemporary Global Issues
Consider a user intrigued by current affairs encountering a topic like 'Climate Change Negotiations.' Upon selecting this issue, they would be navigated to a page detailing potential solutions, along with the interests and goals of various stakeholders. This practice aligns with Fisher and Ury's proposition, "The best way to get what you want is to help the other side get what they want" (1981, p. 12). Therefore, the platform promotes a deeper understanding of the interests of all parties engaged in contemporary issues.
2.3.3 The Organizational Structure and Functionality of the Web Platform
Given the potential enormity of data, the platform may initially seem overwhelming. However, with strategic design and algorithms, the internet will become a potent tool for organizing such information. A voting system will help users to verify the relevancy of certain interests or solutions, allowing the most validated entries to ascend to prominence. This aligns with Fisher and Ury's notion to "Separate the people from the problem" (1981, p. 40), and not distinguishing the idea's merit from the person proposing it.
2.4 Principle 4: Insist on the Use of Objective Criteria
2.4.1 Objective Criteria for Problem-Solving on the Platform
The platform's objective is to foster the use of objective criteria in conflict resolution, echoing Fisher and Ury's suggestion to "Insist on objective criteria" (1981, p. 81). The platform aims to promote rational discourse so effectively that it becomes a universally accepted standard for conflict resolution. Users will be encouraged to engage with the platform's truth-promoting algorithms, rather than competing for transient attention on social media platforms.
2.5 Principle 5: Building a Platform for Direct Engagement and Understanding
2.5.1 From Monologues to Dialogues: Overcoming the Limitations of Current Digital Discourse
In the current digital environment, direct interaction between opposing factions is uncommon. Online discourse often resembles a monologue more than a dialogue, aligning with Fisher and Ury's caution against "Not speaking with the other party in a direct and clear manner" (1981, p. 23). The proposed platform seeks to foster a space for direct engagement and understanding, thereby overcoming these challenges.
3) Challenges and Limitations of Current Digital Discourse 3.1 Echo Chambers and Monologues: The Challenges of Current Digital Discourse Currently, opposing factions on the internet seldom interact directly. The existing structure of online discourse encourages a monologue rather than a dialogue. Parties express their perspectives to receptive audiences, often without regard to or knowledge of the counterarguments offered by their opponents. This results in a multitude of digital soapboxes with proponents and opponents of issues speaking past each other, miles apart. As Ethan Zuckerman notes, the internet can create echo chambers that prevent meaningful dialogue and dispute resolution.
3.1 The Transience of Digital Conversations: Understanding and Overcoming the Limitations
3.1.1 The Problem of Ephemeral Discourse in Chat Rooms
Chat rooms, often heralded as arenas for live discussion, routinely fall short in promoting productive dialogue. Conversations frequently diverge from the topic, and each discussion is initiated anew, disregarding prior arguments or advancements in understanding. This transitory nature of chat room discourse implies that progress made in a discussion evaporates once the chat window closes. Comparatively, it is as if scientific discourse were fleeting and inaccessible to future generations, akin to writing in sand without a lasting record or cumulative body of knowledge. As Van Dijck underscores, the value of knowledge is intrinsically linked to its preservation and accessibility. To tackle this limitation, the proposed platform seeks to create a durable and accessible record of discussions and debates, a concept that aligns with the principles of robust discussion laid out in "Settling Disputes" (Singer, 1994).Principle 4: Encouraging the Use of Objective Criteria
Strategies for Effective Online Discourse
3.4.1 Implementing Objective Criteria for Problem-Solving on the Platform
The platform's objective is to foster the use of objective criteria in conflict resolution, echoing Fisher and Ury's suggestion to "Insist on objective criteria" (1981, p. 81). This involves a three-step process of jointly searching for such criteria, maintaining an open mind about which criteria to apply, and resisting pressure or threats (Fisher and Ury, 1981). The platform aims to reflect these principles in its design, promoting rational discourse so effectively that it becomes a universally accepted standard for conflict resolution.
To further facilitate this, the platform will include a feature for brainstorming objective criteria that could be used to resolve the conflict, complete with reasons to agree or disagree with the criteria. This is in line with Fisher and Ury's recommendation to keep an open mind about chosen criteria (1981), as it allows for a diversity of viewpoints and promotes the possibility of finding mutually beneficial solutions.
Users will be encouraged to engage with the platform's truth-promoting algorithms, rather than competing for transient attention on social media platforms. This approach creates a space where arguments are evaluated based on their alignment with agreed-upon objective criteria, rather than the volume of public attention they can command.
4.0 Strategies for Effective Online Discourse
4.1 Counteracting the Potential for Idea Monopolies
Analogous to business contexts where monopolies pose substantial risks, the proposed platform also confronts a similar challenge - the risk of idea monopolies. Certain concepts may accrue and sustain popularity, leading to a hegemony of ideas. To counteract this, the platform could integrate a feature aimed at elevating promising yet underrepresented ideas, mirroring how the business landscape promotes innovative start-ups or nascent market trends.
4.2 Spotlighting Novel Perspectives
Novel and potential-filled ideas frequently necessitate a platform to gain momentum. The proposed web platform could dedicate a section for this explicit purpose, enabling users to encounter and scrutinize new perspectives and solutions. This strategy would safeguard a diversity of ideas, fostering a culture of creativity, innovation, and critical thinking, in line with the principles advocated by Sunstein in "The Cost-Benefit Revolution" (Sunstein, 2018).
4.3 Interpreting Current Events in a Contextual Framework
A dedicated segment of the proposed platform could be assigned to analyzing current events. This feature would empower users to understand these occurrences within a broader context of societal actions and motivations. It would also provide an avenue for users to discern how news events are employed as supporting evidence for specific actions or stances. For instance, the AIDS crisis in Africa is not merely an isolated issue; it gains significance when invoked as an argument advocating for a particular course of action. Traditional media frequently plays an intermediary role, transmitting information from one entity to another, which can precipitate misinterpretation and confusion. Challenging this status quo, the platform could offer a more direct and transparent medium for information exchange, aligning with the critique of media proposed by Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman in their seminal work "Manufacturing Consent" (Herman & Chomsky, 1988).
4.4 Navigating Anonymity and Instituting Self-Regulation Mechanisms
4.4.1 Harmonizing Anonymity with Responsibility
While anonymity within the platform bolsters unbiased evaluation of ideas, it may also introduce potential challenges. The liberty provided by anonymity could embolden users to disseminate detrimental or unconstructive ideas. Furthermore, as users delve deeper into core issues, conventional impediments may surface in the dynamic exchange of ideas. Consequently, the platform necessitates the institution of self-regulation mechanisms to effectively manage these challenges, a concept akin to Fisher and Ury's principle of maintaining a balance between interests and the approach in dealing with people in conflict resolution (Fisher & Ury, 1981).Community Participation and the Function of the Majority
4.5.1 Facilitating Dialogues: Overcoming the Limitations of Current Digital Discourse
In the current digital environment, direct interaction between opposing factions is uncommon. Online discourse often resembles a monologue more than a dialogue, aligning with Fisher and Ury's caution against "Not speaking with the other party in a direct and clear manner" (1981, p. 23). The proposed platform seeks to foster a space for direct engagement and understanding, thereby overcoming these challenges.Community Participation and the Role of the Majority
5.1 Evaluating the Implications of Majority Rule
The platform's design intrinsically establishes the will of the majority, which is both a strength and a potential pitfall. The assumption that the majority will invariably choose the best option is flawed, aligning with Fisher and Ury's caution against "bargaining over positions" (1981, p. 22). The platform must balance majority rule with the elevation of expert voices and consideration of minority opinions.
5.2 Facilitating Community Validation and Stakeholder Participation
A unique feature of the proposed platform is the possibility of segmenting the evaluation process based on the relevance of users to the issue at hand. This strategy aligns with Fisher and Ury's advice to "Invent options for mutual gain" (1981, p. 57), ensuring the validation process is both accurate and inclusive of the perspectives of relevant stakeholders.
5.1 Appraising the Consequences of Majority Rule
5.1.1 Majority Rule: A Double-Edged Sword
The design of the platform inherently facilitates the establishment of the majority's will, which represents both a strength and a potential downfall. The assumption that the majority will invariably opt for the best solution is fallible. Many individuals lack comprehensive knowledge about intricate issues, and historical instances illustrate that the majority does not always make optimal decisions. This invokes questions about whether principles of science, intricate community planning, or handling delicate diplomatic situations should be subjected to majority rule. The platform will need to carefully balance majority rule with the promotion of expert voices and consideration of minority opinions, aligning with the principles of dispute resolution as discussed by Singer in "Settling Disputes" (Singer, 1990).
5.2 Community Validation and Stakeholder Participation
5.2.1 Ensuring Relevant Stakeholder Involvement
A unique feature of the proposed platform is the potential to segment the evaluation process based on users' relevance to the issue at hand. For example, in the case of issues related to China, only Chinese users might be permitted to evaluate comments about specific interests. This strategy ensures that the validation process is both precise and inclusive of the perspectives of pertinent stakeholders, reflecting an application of Sunstein's cost-benefit principles where relevant parties' input is considered in decision-making processes (Sunstein, 2018).
The Potential of the Platform
6.1 Unrivalled Potential: Potential Applications and Benefits
The proposed platform has the potential to supersede traditional conflict resolution methods, embodying Fisher and Ury's principles for effective negotiation, as detailed in "Getting to Yes" (Fisher & Ury, 1981). For instance, the platform's ability to "separate the people from the problem" (Fisher & Ury, 1981, p. 40) by tracking individual voting patterns and curtailing duplicate voting through a login system, holds promise for an invaluable wealth of data.
Moreover, the platform can "focus on interests, not positions" (Fisher & Ury, 1981, p. 42), providing a valuable tool for political campaigners to enhance transparency and specificity in their campaigns. This could potentially mitigate the prevalence of vague, single-issue political advertisements, aligning with McKelvey's insights on the importance of data in political campaigning (McKelvey, 2018).
Furthermore, the platform's capability to "invent options for mutual gain" (Fisher & Ury, 1981, p. 57) presents significant potential for sociologists. Instead of conducting traditional surveys, they could analyze trends based on a range of demographic factors (Baker et al., 2013). This could represent a substantial stride towards actualizing online democracy. In addition, mediators and lawyers could learn from the problem-solving processes depicted on the platform, gaining insights into how various conflicts are resolved.
6.2 Enhancing Transparency and Specificity in Political Campaigning
One potential application of the platform in the political realm is its capacity to encourage candidates to publicly share their perspectives on a broad array of issues. This transparency could prompt rivals to do the same, thereby promoting specificity and reducing the prevalence of vague, single-issue political advertisements. By "insisting on using objective criteria" (Fisher & Ury, 1981, p. 81), the platform aligns with Sunstein's principles of transparency and accountability, as outlined in "The Cost-Benefit Revolution" (Sunstein, 2018).
6.3 Unleashing Untapped Potential: Sociological and Demographic Insights
The proposed platform is positioned to extend substantial benefits to the field of sociology. Instead of the conventional reliance on surveys, researchers could leverage demographic and societal trends derived from a variety of factors such as age, location, gender, and ethnicity (Baker, R., et al., 2013). This methodology aligns with Fisher and Ury's (2011) assertion in "Getting to Yes" that "The best way to get what you want is to help the other side get what they want." By understanding the diverse interests and positions of platform users, the platform can better serve its user base and contribute to sociological understanding.
6.4 Advancing Digital Democracy and Legal Practices
The proposed platform could potentially signal a new era in digital democracy through the depth and breadth of data it generates. Legal practitioners, including mediators and attorneys, could utilize this platform as a valuable learning tool. By observing how various conflicts are resolved within the platform, they could apply these insights to their own practices. Fisher and Ury's (2011) advice to "Separate the people from the problem" and "Be soft on the people, tough on the problem" could be integral in the platform's conflict resolution process.
6.5 Dissecting Complex Positions: Positional Bargaining in the Digital Age
Inspired by the principles of positional bargaining as detailed in Fisher, Ury, and Patton's "Getting to Yes" (2011), a dedicated section of the platform could be committed to deconstructing complex positions, such as "Late term abortion should be illegal." Users could engage in debates, providing reasons in favor of or against the position, with the most compelling arguments gaining visibility.
6.6 Fostering Informed Dialogue: Embracing a Structured, Process-Oriented Approach
One of the notable strengths of the proposed platform is its structured, process-driven approach. Echoing Fisher and Ury's (2011) emphasis on "Invent[ing] options for mutual gain," users are encouraged to engage with multiple viewpoints supporting a stance before expressing disagreement, ensuring a thorough understanding of the position. This dynamic, iterative process, akin to the scientific method as outlined by Karl Popper, could continually refine ideas and positions, fostering an environment of informed dialogue and mutual learning.
6.3 Unleashing Untapped Potential: Sociological and Demographic Insights
The proposed platform is positioned to extend substantial benefits to the field of sociology. Instead of the conventional reliance on surveys, researchers could leverage demographic and societal trends derived from a variety of factors such as age, location, gender, and ethnicity (Baker, R., et al., 2013). This methodology aligns with Fisher and Ury's (2011) assertion in "Getting to Yes" that "The best way to get what you want is to help the other side get what they want." By understanding the diverse interests and positions of platform users, the platform can better serve its user base and contribute to sociological understanding.
6.4 Advancing Digital Democracy and Legal Practices
The proposed platform could potentially signal a new era in digital democracy through the depth and breadth of data it generates. Legal practitioners, including mediators and attorneys, could utilize this platform as a valuable learning tool. By observing how various conflicts are resolved within the platform, they could apply these insights to their own practices. Fisher and Ury's (2011) advice to "Separate the people from the problem" and "Be soft on the people, tough on the problem" could be integral in the platform's conflict resolution process.
6.5 Dissecting Complex Positions: Positional Bargaining in the Digital Age
Inspired by the principles of positional bargaining as detailed in Fisher, Ury, and Patton's "Getting to Yes" (2011), a dedicated section of the platform could be committed to deconstructing complex positions, such as "Late term abortion should be illegal." Users could engage in debates, providing reasons in favor of or against the position, with the most compelling arguments gaining visibility.
6.6 Fostering Informed Dialogue: Embracing a Structured, Process-Oriented Approach
One of the notable strengths of the proposed platform is its structured, process-driven approach. Echoing Fisher and Ury's (2011) emphasis on "Invent[ing] options for mutual gain," users are encouraged to engage with multiple viewpoints supporting a stance before expressing disagreement, ensuring a thorough understanding of the position. This dynamic, iterative process, akin to the scientific method as outlined by Karl Popper, could continually refine ideas and positions, fostering an environment of informed dialogue and mutual learning.
Furthermore, the platform embodies Fisher, Ury, and Patton's principle of separating the invention of options from deciding among them (Fisher, R., Ury, W. L., & Patton, B. (2011). Getting to Yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in. Penguin.). This principle allows users to freely propose and discuss ideas before any decision-making occurs, further enhancing the process of informed dialogue and mutual learning.
6.7 Overcoming Media Constraints: Facilitating In-Depth Discourse
The proposed platform holds the potential to redefine dynamics of media consumption. Traditional media outlets, often constrained by the need for brevity, summarization, and entertainment, may fail to delve into the complexities of certain issues, thereby omitting nuanced discussions and comprehensive analysis. The platform, by contrast, facilitates direct, unfiltered communication among divergent viewpoints, thereby surmounting such limitations. This aligns closely with Jürgen Habermas's concept of the public sphere, enabling a more transparent and informed discourse.
6.8 Fostering Transparency and Fairness: Constructing a Novel Public Forum
The platform further encourages each side of a debate to engage directly with the other. Arguments may be presented in parallel columns, fostering real-time counterarguments through linked responses. This degree of transparency and immediacy could serve as a deterrent against exaggerations, misrepresentations, and dishonesty. In essence, the platform mirrors John Rawls' concept of public reason, creating an environment conducive to open debate and scrutiny.
6.9 Advancing Open Dialogue: Bridging Divides in Conflict Resolution
Conventional conflict resolution often suffers from a lack of direct engagement between opposing parties, leading to internal group discussions that can foster misunderstandings and impede empathy. This platform aims to bridge this divide by promoting open dialogue, thereby mitigating the phenomenon of passive aggression, as studied by Kip Williams. By providing a space for open debates, immediate feedback on engagement and agreement levels, and the ability to comprehend the primary reasons why others might support or contest their ideas, users can partake in a more transparent, informed, and effective conflict resolution process.
6.10 Charting the Course for a New Digital Discourse: Harnessing Collective Wisdom
There is a clear necessity for a novel type of online platform - one that fosters direct, informed dialogue, and preserves the progress of discussions, ensuring that each conversation contributes to a collective body of wisdom rather than fading into digital obscurity. It is time to embrace a platform that respects past insights and recognizes the importance of collective, open discourse as a means to foster understanding and resolve conflicts.
6.11 The Pitfalls of Media-Driven Discourse
Often driven by profit motives, media outlets tend to prioritize sensationalism over presenting constructive solutions. The objective is not necessarily to facilitate optimal resolutions between political entities, such as Republicans and Democrats, but rather to craft captivating narratives that adhere to simplistic storylines. This approach breeds adversarial discourse, exemplified by sections like "Winners and Losers" in publications like U.S. News & World Report. The media, in this context, acts as an agitator, subtly transmitting each participant's remarks to the other, thereby inciting ongoing conflict. This dynamic raises a pivotal question: why do we allow the media to dictate important issues and shape our perceptions of them? As McChesney articulates in his study of media influence, this dependence is problematic and warrants reassessment.
7. Conceiving the Platform: Analogy and Vision
7.1 Analogizing the Platform: Familiar Concepts, Novel Application
Attempting to compare the proposed platform to existing entities, a host of analogies emerge. The platform could be likened to a perpetual poll, operating ceaselessly, or an interactive discussion board, but with enhanced dynamism and a more structured approach.
7.2 Conceptualizing an "Idea Stock Exchange"
The proposed platform can be considered a fusion of various concepts. It is reminiscent of a stock exchange in its capacity to monitor the ebb and flow of popularity associated with brainstormed solutions, akin to a stock exchange tracking the fortunes of corporations. This "idea stock exchange" advocates for the endurance of the most sustainable ideas, mirroring principles of natural selection. Expanding on the stock exchange analogy, each position or idea could be assigned an Idea Executive Officer (IEO) responsible for its propagation and maintenance. For instance, George Bush might serve as an IEO advocating for tax reduction, promoting his stance on platforms like CNN, much like CEOs discussing their stock forecasts. Ad revenues from the site could potentially act as incentives for the IEOs, who could contribute editorial comments or establish categories for enhancing their sections on the site.
8. Constructing for Conflict Resolution
8.1 Dedicating Spaces for Distinct Conflicts
A specific section of the website could be devoted to conflicts between particular parties. A range of parties are engaged in conflict, such as Al Gore and George Bush, or the Israelis and Palestinians. In other sections of the site, broader problems like "violence in the Middle East" could be addressed without necessarily framing it as Group A versus Group B. Assuming these sections of the website have already strived to enumerate all interests of each individual party, we can proceed with addressing conflicts between specific groups. This section of the site would concentrate on conflicts where violence is ongoing, or where certain groups have declared others as their adversaries. Consequently, this portion of the website might need to adopt a format that presents the conflict as Group A versus Group B.
8.2 Promoting Understanding and Mitigating Tensions
The paramount objective of this section is to alleviate tensions among these groups and foster enhanced understanding. It's crucial to navigate this portion of the website with utmost caution to optimize its effectiveness. Certain groups immersed in conflict have resorted to violence against their opposition, making high emotional stakes inevitable. However, even if this section merely functions as a forum for conflicting parties to express their grievances, it could still serve a beneficial purpose. Nonetheless, I posit that by adhering to the principles of successful conflict resolution, we can achieve significantly more.
8.3 Leveraging Common Interests in Conflict Resolution
Fisher and Ury's "Getting to Yes" enlightens us that mutually overlapping common interests exist among us all. It is most productive when both sides in a conflict collaborate against a problem, rather than confront each other. However, we must also confront the harsh reality of the threats that different groups pose to one another. This website has the potential to assist these groups.
8.4 Front Page Emphasis: Common Interests and Objectives
The front page of this section could prominently feature a list of shared interests, objectives, and values. Perhaps, before users can vote or submit conflicting objectives, interests, or values, they might be required to vote on whether they agree or disagree with the top ten positions of their adversary.
8.5 The Merits of Designated Spaces for Debates
9. User Interactions and the Engagement of Experts
There are significant merits to having a designated space for contentious debates. This would help concentrate attention on the issues that necessitate immediate deliberation. Shared interests, objectives, and values between groups in conflict could be scrutinized.
9.1 Fostering User Self-Regulation and Efficacious Communication
One potential approach encompasses devising a mechanism for users on the platform to self-regulate. This could involve guiding users in the assessment of solutions, interests, and objectives. Users could be prompted to consider if the phrasing of a solution, interest, or objective could potentially instigate conflicts. For instance, a user may have framed their position in a biased manner or employed confrontational language. Each of these factors could influence the visibility of a user's idea on the platform. Preliminary criteria could be established for evaluating ideas, encouraging users to articulate their thoughts more effectively.
9.2 Amplifying Expert Opinions
Consideration could be given to dedicating a section of the platform to spotlight issues where considerable discrepancies exist between expert opinions and those of the general populace. To determine expert qualification, we could consider academia, acknowledging college professors as experts in their respective fields. Colleges could be requested to provide a list of their professors, along with their platform usernames. This data could be assimilated into our database, and the system would automatically assign them elevated status within their expertise domain.
9.3 Structuring Debates towards Solution-Oriented Discourse
A plausible approach could involve hosting a distinct debate for each stated problem, examining the optimal strategies to resolve it. We could introduce a header such as, "What objective criteria could be used to resolve this conflict?" Predictably, a spectrum of solutions will garner popularity for different issues. Some of these suggested objective criteria might encompass: allowing the United Nations to decide, referring the matter to a panel of independent experts, resorting to a coin flip, forming a government task force to study the issue, or leaving the matter to lawyers, the president, Congress, the United Nations, or another institution for resolution. This approach resonates with the principles outlined in 'Getting to Yes.' As the book suggests, every debate essentially comprises two debates: one about the issue itself, and another about the means of resolving the issue.
10. Anticipating Future Implications: Impact and Potential Collaborators
The development of this platform is likely to shift substantial attention towards devising the most efficacious methods for solution attainment. As participants are guided through the process of brainstorming on this platform, it will gradually become an innate response to problem-solving, dovetailing with the other techniques previously discussed (refer to section 4.5 on Problem-Solving Techniques).
10.2 Potential Collaborations for the Platform
Numerous entities may express interest in the development of this platform. Many corporations, including the likes of Yahoo, MSN, NBC, and CBS, currently sponsor discussion forums and chat rooms. This denotes an extensive interest in platforms that facilitate discourse and idea exchange.
11. Capitalizing on the Internet for Conflict Resolution: Concluding Reflections
In summation, the principles of dispute resolution can be ubiquitously applied wherever conflicts surface, provided the involved parties are willing to engage in discourse and address their differences. The internet, serving as the most expansive meeting table humanity has ever known, offers vast opportunities for conflict resolution. However, the degree to which internet communication can bring people together is directly proportional to their adherence to the principles of successful dispute resolution (refer to section 4.8 on Principles of Dispute Resolution). I remain steadfast in my belief that we can construct an online platform that inherently promotes successful dispute resolution.
References
1. Fisher, Roger, William Ury, and Bruce Patton. Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement without Giving In. 2nd ed., Penguin Books, 2011, p. 41.
2. Sunstein, Cass R. "The Cost-Benefit Revolution." MIT Press, 2018.
