True Causes
EN
Bahasa IndonesiaDanskDeutschEnglishEspañolFrançaisItalianoNederlandsNorskPolskiPortuguêsSrpski (latinica)SvenskaTiếng ViệtTürkçeΕλληνικάРусскийСрпски (ћирилица)Українська中文日本語한국어

ILLUSTRATED GUIDE

Online deliberation formats, drawn

Eight ways a group can think together online, each drawn as the mechanism it runs on: what one person puts in, what the software does with it, and what comes out the other end. They answer different questions, so the right one depends on the question you have.

Opinion mapping

What does this crowd think, and where do its groups agree?

TOOLS Pol.is, Remesh

STATEMENTS, ONE AT A TIMEBuses should run all nightParking should cost moreThe centre needs a tramCycling lanes are enoughagree · disagree · passeach person, each statementvotesONE ROW PER PERSONfilled = agreedsame pattern, same groupgroupedOPINION GROUPSgroup Agroup B“The centre needs a tram”agreed by 81% of A and 74% of B
Short statements are voted on one at a time; people are grouped by how they voted, and the statements most of every group agrees with are the result.
WHAT PEOPLE DOWrite short statements. Vote agree, disagree or pass on other people’s, one at a time. There is no reply.
WHAT COMES OUTOpinion groups, drawn from the votes, and the statements most of every group agrees with.
WHERE DISAGREEMENT GOESKept as groups. The picture shows where the room divides and what crosses the divide; nobody has to resolve it.
FITS · STRAINSThousands of people and a question with sides. Not for finding out why something happens: a statement can be agreed with and still be wrong about the cause.

Argument tree

Is this claim true, and what is the best case each way?

TOOLS Kialo

Thesis: the city should ban cars fromthe old townPROAir gets cleaner in a yearPROShops gain foot trafficCONDeliveries have no routeCONResidents lose parkingattacksCONJams move to the ring roadsupportsPROCargo bikes already do40%impact 4/5impact 2/5every branch can be argued against in turn; readers rate each claim’s impact on its parent
One thesis at the top; every claim for or against it hangs underneath and can itself be argued against. Readers rate how much each claim matters to the one above it.
WHAT PEOPLE DOAdd claims for or against a thesis, or against any claim already there. Rate how much each claim matters to its parent.
WHAT COMES OUTA tree of the arguments, with the strongest branches marked by the readers’ impact ratings.
WHERE DISAGREEMENT GOESStays as branches. A thesis is never settled; the tree records how well each side was argued.
FITS · STRAINSDebate clubs, classrooms, a policy with a yes-or-no at the top. Strains when the question is not a thesis but a situation with many causes.

Small groups on video

What do these people think once they have talked it through?

TOOLS Stanford Online Deliberation Platform, Frankly; the deliberative poll

SurveyBriefingSmall groupsPlenarySurvey againONE GROUP OF EIGHT, ON VIDEOspeaking · 1:30timed turns, a queue to speak,the moderator is softwareAGENDA1. What is the problem?2. Option A3. Option B4. What would you accept?OPINION, BEFORE → AFTERtram38% → 61%ban52% → 44%A random sample issurveyed, reads thebriefing, talks insmall groups, then issurveyed again. Theresult is whatchanged.
A sample of citizens is surveyed, briefed, talks in moderated small groups on video with timed turns, and is surveyed again. The finding is how considered opinion differs from first opinion.
WHAT PEOPLE DOAnswer a survey, read a briefing, talk in a moderated group of eight to twelve with timed turns and an agenda, then answer the survey again.
WHAT COMES OUTConsidered opinion: how the numbers moved between the two surveys, and what the groups asked.
WHERE DISAGREEMENT GOESMeasured. People leave with their own view; the finding is how much the views moved and in which direction.
FITS · STRAINSA representative sample on a public issue, with a budget for recruitment and briefing. Not for a team that needs to act on its own problem next week.

Proposals and decisions

What do we decide, and who stands where?

TOOLS Loomio

THREADMaraCan we move the meeting online?TomásOnly if the minutes get better.AnaI’ll take the minutes.MaraThen let’s decide.raisePROPOSALMeet online from May.closes Friday 17:00agree 9abstain 2disagree 3block 1a block must say whyrecordOUTCOMEDecided 12 OctOnline from May.Ana keeps minutes.Review in September.discussion first, then a proposal with a deadline, then a recorded outcome with a name on each next step
A discussion thread leads to a proposal with a closing time; each member takes a position, a block must give a reason, and the outcome is written down with owners.
WHAT PEOPLE DODiscuss in a thread. Someone raises a proposal with a closing time; each member takes a position; a block must give a reason.
WHAT COMES OUTA recorded outcome with a date, and a next step with a name on it.
WHERE DISAGREEMENT GOESCarried in the positions, and a block stops the proposal until it is answered.
FITS · STRAINSCooperatives, boards, any group that must decide and keep the record. It decides between proposals; it does not say which problem the proposals should have addressed.

Participatory process

Which of the residents’ proposals get done, and with what money?

TOOLS Decidim, Consul

Proposals340 submittedSupportsthreshold 150Budget vote€200k to spendFollow-upwhat got builtRepair theLido poolby a residentpool212tram stop168skate park96150 supports to reach the vote€110k pool, €60k tram stop; the€45k skate park is over the capand waitseach voter spends the budget ontheir own picks; the most-fundedprojects win until the moneyendspool60% builttram stop15% builtthe city reports progressagainst each funded item
Residents submit proposals; those with enough supports reach a budget vote; the most-funded projects win until the money runs out, and the city reports on what it built.
WHAT PEOPLE DOSubmit a proposal, support others’, vote by spending a budget across the ones that reached the vote, and follow what the city built.
WHAT COMES OUTA list of funded projects, and a public record of their progress.
WHERE DISAGREEMENT GOESDecided by the vote. Competing proposals are not reconciled; the better-supported one is funded.
FITS · STRAINSCities and institutions with money to allocate and a legal duty to show how. Heavy to run; the question is always what to fund, not why the problem is there.

Open board

What is on our minds, and how does it group?

TOOLS Miro, Mural, FigJam

EVERYONE POSTSsomeone sortsA FACILITATOR GROUPS THEMAccessCostSafetythe grouping is a judgement calldot voteDOTS DECIDEAccessSafetyCost3 themes, 11 dots: no recordof why, and nothing says whatleads to what
Sticky notes go up, a facilitator groups them into themes, and dots are placed on the themes. Fast and open; the structure is one person’s reading of the board.
WHAT PEOPLE DOPost sticky notes, move them, group them, put dots on the groups you care about. Whatever the facilitator sets up.
WHAT COMES OUTA board: themes, votes, drawings. Whatever the room made.
WHERE DISAGREEMENT GOESWherever the facilitator puts it. Nothing in the tool records a split or how it was settled.
FITS · STRAINSA workshop with a good facilitator and an afternoon. The freedom is the point and the weakness: the structure is one person’s reading of the board.

Structured Democratic Dialogue

What causes what, and which causes are deepest?

TOOLS True Causes; earlier Cogniscope and the ISM programs

Generate›Clarify›Cluster›Select›Structure›Map›Actionsa cause,unsignedeveryone writesalone, no nameseach card isexplained once,never arguedalike cards sittogethervotes pick thecards to compareDoes Asignificantlyinfluence B?yes 9 · no 3kept: 75% said yesone pair at a time,every pair thatmattersroots(deepest)red, dashed:contested12mergeRooms of about fifteen each work the same question; their maps merge, and a link counts whenindependent rooms found it.
Causes are written unsigned, clarified without debate, clustered and voted into a shortlist; the group then judges one pair at a time whether one cause significantly influences the other, and the links that reach three quarters form a map with the deepest causes on the left. Actions are judged against the roots.
WHAT PEOPLE DOWrite causes unsigned. Clarify each once, without debate. Cluster, vote a shortlist, then judge one pair at a time: does this cause significantly influence that one?
WHAT COMES OUTA map of causes, deepest on the left, with every link that three quarters agreed on and every split published as contested. Actions are judged against the roots.
WHERE DISAGREEMENT GOESKept on the map. A link under three quarters goes to another group; if that splits too it is drawn red and dashed, not dropped.
FITS · STRAINSA team, a faculty, a town that has to act on a problem and wants to know what is upstream. The pairs take hours; a quick poll it is not.

AI-mediated consensus

Is there one statement most of us can stand behind?

TOOLS the Habermas Machine (Google DeepMind, 2024)

EACH PERSON WRITES“Ban cars, fully.”“Only deliveries.”“Weekends first.”“Never.”“Try it for a year.”opinionslanguagemodeldraftsCANDIDATE STATEMENTS“A one-year trial, deliveries allowed.”group rating 4.2/5“Weekend closures to start.”group rating 3.1/5“Keep the status quo.”group rating 1.8/5the model redrafts until onestatement rates highestrankings and critiques go back
Everyone writes an opinion; a language model drafts statements meant to be acceptable to the room; people rank and critique them; the model redrafts. The output is the statement the group rates highest.
WHAT PEOPLE DOWrite your opinion. Rank the statements a language model drafts from everyone’s, write what is wrong with them, rank again.
WHAT COMES OUTThe statement the group rated highest, and the drafts it beat.
WHERE DISAGREEMENT GOESFolded into the wording. The model searches for a sentence that loses the fewest people; the losing views are visible only in the rankings.
FITS · STRAINSFinding common ground in words on a divisive question, at scale. The model writes the result, so the result is only as good as the room’s trust in it.

At a glance

FormatThe questionOne person puts inWhat comes outDisagreement is
Opinion mappingWhat does the crowd think?a statement, a voteopinion groupsshown as groups
Argument treeIs the thesis true?a claim for or againsta rated treekept as branches
Small groups on videoWhat do they think after talking?a turn, a survey answerbefore/after numbersmeasured
Proposals and decisionsWhat do we decide?a position on a proposala recorded outcomea block, with a reason
Participatory processWhat do we fund?a proposal, a budget votefunded projectsdecided by the vote
Open boardWhat is on our minds?a sticky note, a dota boardthe facilitator’s call
Structured Democratic DialogueWhat causes what?a cause, a pair judgementa map of causespublished as contested
AI-mediated consensusWhat can we all sign?an opinion, a rankingone statementfolded into the wording

Most real processes chain two of these: a board to collect, a map to find the causes, a proposal to decide. The formats are not rivals so much as stages, and the question to ask of each is what it leaves out.

Checked in October 2026. Product names belong to their owners. If anything here about another product is out of date or unfair, write to hello@mg.truecauses.org and we will correct it.

All comparisons · Why True Causes · Try it in five minutes