This article presents a method for representing social conflict under disag
reements over its representation, with the view that the resolution of such
disagreements often affects the resolution of the conflict itself. The Arg
umentative Analysis of Options (AAO) method proposed here extends Howard's
Analysis of Options method for conflict analysis. The AAO method highlights
the role of policy discourse in resolving the disagreed representation, an
d models arguments made in these social processes. In this method, people's
arguments are folded into a "strategic map" of a conflict, using a new cod
ing system based on modal logic. The method is designed to be incorporated
into group support systems (GSS) as a non-exclusive, non-specialist communi
cation medium for both principal players and grassroots people. An experime
ntal study is reported in which use of a prototype of GSS with the AAO meth
od resulted in an assembly of rational and structured arguments in an attem
pt to resolve a hypothetical conflict. An evaluation by users of the protot
ype GSS suggested that it was less simple and more difficult to use, but ri
cher than a more traditional electronic mail system. Design implications an
d potential pitfalls of this approach to GSS are discussed based on the res
ults of the experimental study.