Methods of deliberative consultations usually propose expert information materials to increase knowledge among lay citizens about the considered subject. These materials sometimes also include alternative scenarios for action presented with pros and cons. In our study, we pose the following research questions: (1) Do the participants tend to use predetermined scenarios or diverge from them and generate their reference structures for the deliberation’s indeterminate outcomes? (2) How do the scenarios intervene in the “loping to-and-fro form of movement” in the interactions? (3) How is the knowledge about the preexisting scenarios reflected in the “as if” ontology of thought and action? We introduce play and game as two ideal types of deliberation processes emphasizing the opposition of freedom and pre-determination of outcomes. The analysis used empirical material from online group discussions about various aspects of studying at Warsaw universities. The results showed that regardless of the situation in groups, predefined scenarios are the focus of discussions and anchoring points for the “loping to-and-fro form of movement.” However, participants demonstrated some selectivity, and they did not consider all alternatives. Moreover, they introduced some modifications and new proposals. At the same time, participants tended to diverge more from briefing materials in argumentation. Experiential arguments prevailed, and the pros and cons of each scenario appeared rarely across groups. Interestingly, stricter moderation did not necessarily intervene here, and the group with the highest level of own proposals in some instances followed the game rules more accordingly than other groups. Finally, the language of listening and understanding is frequent, regardless of the number of predefined scenarios discussed by groups, which strengthened the “as if” ontology of thought and action.

中文翻译：

---

讨论过程中的讨论自由与预先确定的未来

协商协商的方法通常提出专家信息材料，以增加普通公民对所考虑主题的了解。这些材料有时还包括替代行动方案，并提出了利弊。在我们的研究中，我们提出了以下研究问题：（1）参与者是否倾向于使用预先确定的情景或偏离它们并为审议的不确定结果生成参考结构？（2）场景如何干预交互中的“来回摆动形式”？（3）思想和行动的“好像”本体中对预先存在的场景的了解是如何反映的？我们将游戏和博弈作为两种理想的审议过程类型，强调自由的对立和结果的预先确定。该分析使用了关于在华沙大学学习的各个方面的在线小组讨论的经验材料。结果表明，无论群体中的情况如何，预定义的场景都是讨论的焦点，也是“来回运动形式”的锚点。然而，参与者表现出一定的选择性，他们并未考虑所有替代方案。此外，他们还提出了一些修改和新建议。与此同时，参与者倾向于在辩论中与简报材料产生更多分歧。经验争论占了上风，每种情景的利弊很少出现在不同的群体中。有趣的是，更严格的节制并不一定会在这里干预，在某些情况下，拥有最高级别自己提案的组比其他组更遵循游戏规则。最后，无论小组讨论的预定义场景有多少，倾听和理解的语言都很频繁，这加强了思想和行动的“好像”本体。