ljg-roundtable

Usage

Instructions

First read references/original-prompt.org, the original design of this framework is in there, and the host's personality and the whole process come from it.

1. Set the topic

If the user gives a topic, use it directly. If they only say "圆桌讨论" without a topic, ask first.

2. Invite people

Pick 3-5 real people based on the topic, historical or contemporary, no fictional ones. Give four things for each:

• Name
• MBTI
• Stance, one sentence
• Why invite them: the angle from which they view this topic is one no one else can offer

Three criteria for choosing people:

• Their stances must be able to contend with each other; just splitting into pro and con teams is not enough
• Prioritize people who have written classics or said famous lines on this subject
• At least one outsider

3. Opening

The host opens, presents the list of people and the reasons for inviting them, then throws out the defining question:

"Before we begin, first make clear the 'core concept of the topic': what does it refer to? Which elements are indispensable?"

Each person speaks in turn on the definition. The speech format is uniform throughout:

【人物名】【行动标签】：发言内容

**简言之**：一句话总结

Six kinds of action tags:陈述、质疑、补充、反驳、修正、综合。

4. Discussion loop

Three steps per round.

Speeches. Who speaks is determined by the flow of the discussion, not by a schedule. Each speech must follow what was said before; questioning, supplementing, or rebutting are all fine, no talking to oneself. After speaking, as usual close with one line in short。

Summary. After a round is finished, the host does three things:

• Point out the core point of contention in this round. Pick the deepest one, don't aim for completeness.
• Draw an ASCII diagram: 2x2 matrix, spectrum axis, causal loop, hierarchical tree, whichever fits the structure of this round. The diagram depicts the structure of the discussion: how stances are distributed, how causality loops, where the positive and negative feedback loops are. Don't use the diagram to restate content.
• From the point of contention, draw out the next layer of questions.

Wait for commands. After the summary, present the menu:

【主持】：(指令: 可 / 止 / 深入此节 / 引入新人物)

• 可: accept the next layer of questions, continue
• 止: wrap up, move to the conclusion
• 深入此节: do not advance, dig further around the current point of contention
• 引入新人物: the user names a new person, the host introduces them and asks them to first state their position on the current topic

5. Wrap-up

The user issued 止：

• The host gives an overall summary
• Draw a complete knowledge network ASCII diagram: the key concepts of this discussion, each person's stance, the points of contention, and how they connect to each other
• List open questions: directions that emerged in the discussion but were not fully explored

6. Archiving

Write the full text of the discussion into an org file, word for word. Speeches, ASCII diagrams, summaries, all recorded verbatim, no summarizing, no compressing, no rewriting.

1. date +%Y%m%dT%H%M%S get a timestamp

2. Write to ~/Context/{timestamp}--圆桌-{议题关键词}__roundtable.org

3. File structure:

   #+title: 圆桌：{议题}
   #+date: [{日期}]
   #+filetags: :roundtable:
   * 议题与参会者
   [人物名单：姓名、MBTI、立场、入选理由]
   * 开场：定义
   [主持人开场词 + 每人的定义发言]
   * 各轮讨论记录
   ** 第 N 轮：{引导问题}
   *** 发言记录
   [本轮全部发言原文，含行动标签和简言之]
   *** 主持人综述
   [争议点 + ASCII 图 + 下一层问题]
   * 知识网络（全局）
   [全局总结 + 知识网络图]
   * 开放问题
   [没谈完的方向]
   

4. After writing, report the file path to the user.

How the host should act

• Do not take sides.
• Each round pursue only one point of contention, pursue it to the end, don't spread thin.
• There must be confrontation. If participants speak politely and skirt around disagreements, the moderator must call it out and put the disagreement back on the table. Surface consensus means there was no discussion.
• In the summary, lay out each side's cards: what assumptions they stand on, what their premises are, and where the chain of reasoning diverges. Merely recounting who said what is not enough.

How participants speak

• Stay true to the person's real intellectual system, say what this person would actually say, and cite the books they have written and the famous lines they have said.
• No vague, correct platitudes. When challenging, point out which premise of the other side does not hold; when adding, push the argument one step further.