At NVC-plus, factual discourse is just as important as personal conversations. For factual discourse, we can use the discourse circle to learn how to structure a discourse in a meaningful way. Most people believe that they know how to discuss. However, this is often a case of overestimating one's abilities. A discourse is a meeting of people who are searching together, not a meeting of many people with lonely opinions. You can see in the diagram of the discourse circle that the actual discourse is at position 6, but neither begins nor ends there. A good discourse is based on relevant figures, data, facts, and principles. What is relevant is largely determined by the topic/project/problem. Facts require sources and then an analysis of the facts. If experts from different fields analyze the facts, their analysis may well differ greatly. The individual theses are then built on this and substantiated with arguments. These arguments can be countered with counterarguments. Antitheses can also be put forward and supported with one's own arguments. The end result should be a synthesis, or at least an area of consensus that can then be used as a basis for the next decisions. After all, a good discourse should enable practical solutions to be found (position 8). Ultimately, something should work better or come out differently. To ensure that the work is not problem-centered, the positive (solution) vision is added in position 7. A strategy is developed for this—ideally an NVC-plus strategy. Since people are less capable of discourse than they think and would quickly slip into an exchange of opinions or a debate, moderation is recommended. The discourse can also take place in a fishbowl setting, in which only a small number of people lead the discourse while the other team members sit around them.

For a discourse to make sense, an adequate common level of knowledge is required. Therefore, there will always be a need for a few lectures or presentations that raise the general level of knowledge in certain areas. This asymmetrical form can be described as a "didactic speech": For the most part, one person reports and presents for as long as necessary, while the others listen. Equal parts of speech naturally make no sense here. Once knowledge has been successfully imparted, the symmetrical discourse can be continued.

A problem can have different dimensions, but they do not have to be equal. We can draw these dimensions as levels of a pyramid. Which dimensions/levels need to be considered in the project? What is the best order of these levels of discourse for solving a problem, for example? Which layering has the most constructive effect on the discourse? The discourse pyramid It shows a top-down effect. This cannot be avoided. Different stratifications produce different results. We can ask ourselves which layering would be the best: • for the solution • for the individual interests • for the common good • for the feasibility • for the environment • for awareness

With the NVC-plus StrategyMap, we can support strategic action in complex situations. It can also be relevant when conducting discourse. Formulate the problem as a question and then gradually group further questions based on it. Opinions and other answers are left out. Questions are much harder to argue about. Some important information and parameters can be added to the questions as notes, creating a NVC-plus strategy map. Here you can see a strategy map based on classic non-violent communication: classic NVC strategy map If you use the XMind tool, for example, you can easily create such mind maps. If you want to work together online, you can use other programs such as Miro.