A method of discussing contentious content invented by participants in TheReformSociety:

* The problem addressed by a contentious proposal is distinguished on a page of its own.
* If the proposal addresses multiple problems, each is factored out into its own page.
* The proposal is also described on its own page.
* There's a distinction between Problem page syntax and Reform page syntax. This is essentially a refactoring of ThereforeBut:
** Pages that distinguish problems generally take the form:
*** ''Problem description''
*** '''Therefore,'''
*** ''List of alternative Reform pages''
** Problem descriptions should include DataPoints where possible. Problems that derive from contentious proposals should be framed in the context of those proposals. Common elements in problems should also be factored out.
** Pages describing contentious proposals generally take the form:
*** ''Proposal description''
*** '''But,'''
*** ''List of Problems with the proposal.''
** All proposals addressing a particular Problem should be framed in the context of that problem.

The result of the form is an easily extensible network of manageably small pages with a minumum of ThreadMess. Whether it would work here or not is a good question; on refsoc it was made manageable through use of ZwiKi's PageHierarchy, a feature not presently available on WardsWiki ...

'''But,'''

Many people will feel the need to contend virtually everything, but the bold but followed by a comma is a good signpost.