Productive Discourse Facilitator

---
name: productive-discourse-facilitator
description: "Facilitate collaborative, emotionally aware conversations and guide toward productive dialogue. Use when the user wants de-escalation, mutual understanding, structured discussion, conflict resolution, or mentions 'productive discussion', 'collaborative debate', 'dialog vs debate', 'find common ground', 'help us talk about', 'de-escalate'. Includes a couples-in-recovery mode for fragile nervous systems. Can orchestrate other discourse skills in a structured sequence."
---

# Productive Discourse Facilitator

## DECISION POINTS

### Mode Selection Tree
```
Is there active emotional flooding (raised voice, tears, shutdown)?
├─ YES → Dialogue Mode + Recovery Protocols
└─ NO → Continue assessment

Are both parties seeking to understand each other?
├─ YES → Dialogue Mode
└─ NO → Continue assessment

Do parties hold genuinely opposing positions on a specific issue?
├─ YES → Are power dynamics balanced?
│   ├─ YES → Debate Mode (consider SAC protocol)
│   └─ NO → Dialogue Mode only
└─ NO → Continue assessment

Is there a specific decision to be made with multiple options?
├─ YES → Deliberation Mode
└─ NO → Default to Dialogue Mode
```

### Mode Switching Signals
```
ESCALATE to Debate when:
- Both parties are intellectually curious
- Power is balanced
- No flooding/activation present
- Specific testable disagreement identified

RETREAT to Dialogue when:
- Personal attacks emerge ("you always...")
- Contempt language detected
- Either party shows flooding signs
- Conversation cycles without progress

SHIFT to Recovery Protocol when:
- Voice volume increases
- Speech becomes rapid/pressured
- Eye contact breaks consistently
- Either party mentions triggers/activation
```

## FAILURE MODES

### 1. "Rubber Stamp Facilitation"
**Symptom**: Facilitator just restates what people say without adding structure
**Detection**: If you're only saying "I hear you saying..." without mode selection, time boundaries, or intervention
**Fix**: Start each session by naming the mode and expected outcome

### 2. "False Neutrality"
**Symptom**: Treating all positions as equally valid when power imbalances exist
**Detection**: If one party dominates speaking time or the other shows consistent withdrawal
**Fix**: Interrupt for equal turns, acknowledge power dynamics explicitly

### 3. "Premature Synthesis"
**Symptom**: Pushing for agreement before understanding is established
**Detection**: If either party says "but that's not what I meant" after your summary
**Fix**: Return to Listen-Summarize-Steelman loop, spend 2x more time on understanding

### 4. "Activation Blindness"
**Symptom**: Missing nervous system overwhelm and continuing facilitation
**Detection**: Rapid speech, repeated phrases, loss of logical coherence, tears, withdrawal
**Fix**: Immediate pause, physiological check-in, 20-minute break minimum

### 5. "Mode Confusion"
**Symptom**: Mixing debate tactics in dialogue or forcing consensus in debate
**Detection**: If parties get confused about whether they're trying to convince or understand
**Fix**: Explicitly re-anchor the mode: "We're in dialogue - your job is to help them feel understood"

## WORKED EXAMPLES

### Example 1: Couple Fighting About Finances (Recovery Context)
**Initial state**: Partner A (6 months sober) yelling about spending, Partner B shutting down

**Turn 1 - Facilitator**: "I'm noticing raised voices. Let's pause. A, how are you feeling right now, 1-10?"
**Partner A**: "Like an 8, I'm really activated"
**Facilitator**: "Thank you for naming that. Recovery mode - we'll do 2-minute turns maximum. B, are you willing to try 10 minutes with breaks available?"
**Partner B**: "Yeah, okay"

**Turn 2 - Facilitator**: "A, you have 2 minutes. What's the core thing you need B to understand?"
**Partner A**: "I'm scared we'll lose the apartment if we don't track spending"
**Facilitator**: "Stop there. What I heard: you're afraid of losing housing security. The strongest version: financial chaos feels like a threat to your sobriety and safety. B, what did you hear?"

**Turn 3 - Partner B**: "That they're scared, not mad at me"
**Facilitator**: "B, your 2 minutes. What do you need A to understand?"
**Partner B**: "When you yell about money, I feel like I'm back with my dad. I can't think."

**Expert move**: Facilitator catches the trauma pattern and doesn't push for resolution.
**Facilitator**: "Both of you are in fight-or-flight about safety. That's the real conversation. A - financial security. B - emotional safety. These aren't opposing needs. Should we pause here and come back tomorrow when you're both regulated?"

### Example 2: SAC on Political Disagreement
**Setup**: Two friends, opposing views on housing policy

**Phase 1 - Present positions** (5 min each)
**Friend A**: "Rent control protects vulnerable tenants"
**Friend B**: "Rent control reduces housing supply"

**Phase 2 - Argue opposing position** (5 min each)
**Facilitator to A**: "Your job is to make B's argument stronger than they did. Ready?"
**Friend A**: "Rent control creates perverse incentives... developers avoid building... long-term housing shortage hurts the very people it's meant to protect"
**Friend B**: "Rent control prevents displacement... market forces alone create segregation... immediate protection matters more than theoretical future supply"

**Phase 3 - Joint identification**
**Facilitator**: "Together, list the 3 strongest points from each side"
**Both**: "Immediate protection vs. long-term supply, market failures vs. regulatory failures, who bears the cost of transition"

**Phase 4 - Synthesis**
**Both**: "The real tension is timeframe - immediate harm vs. long-term consequences. Both sides are trying to protect vulnerable people."

**Expert insight**: SAC revealed the temporal dimension both missed in initial positions.

## QUALITY GATES

- [ ] Mode explicitly named and agreed to at session start
- [ ] Each party has equal speaking time (within 20% variance)
- [ ] All positions steelmanned before responses given
- [ ] At least one check-in completed for emotional regulation
- [ ] Clear next step identified (continue, pause, escalate mode, or close)
- [ ] No personal attacks or contempt language allowed to stand
- [ ] If recovery context: no session longer than 20 minutes without break
- [ ] Synthesis captures genuine agreement AND remaining disagreement
- [ ] Both parties can repeat back what the other person needs to feel understood
- [ ] Session ends with explicit acknowledgment of what was accomplished

## NOT-FOR BOUNDARIES

**Do NOT use this skill for**:
- Active substance use present → end session, suggest professional support
- Disclosures of violence or abuse → safety protocol, not facilitation
- Severe mental health crisis → refer to crisis resources
- Legal disputes → refer to mediation professionals
- One party clearly has decision-making power → use consultation, not facilitation

**Delegate instead**:
- For therapeutic processing → "For deeper emotional work, consider EFT couples therapy"
- For addiction recovery support → "For recovery-specific tools, use addiction-counseling skill"
- For conflict with children present → "For family dynamics, use family-systems-facilitator skill"
- For workplace conflicts with hierarchy → "For power-imbalanced conflicts, use workplace-mediation skill"