[WikiEN-l] Using language which represents events

Sun Jan 25 19:56:55 UTC 2004

LDan wrote:

> I wasn't talking about semantics, it's just that when
> you start bringing in formalities like making people
> redo their entire testemony in arbitration that they
> already did in mediation, it makes the whole thing a
> lot less efficient.

As I see it:

If someone writes a summary of their position and the past history for the
benefit of the mediation there's nothing to stop them also using it in
arbitration.  *But* the other party can't use it during arbitration (e.g "he
said these lies about me during mediation"), and neither party can use the
fact that the other called them a poopy-head during mediation as a factor in
arbitration (of course that might be a factor in the breakdown of a
mediation).

A lot of what goes on in the two processes will be irrelevant for the other
anyway because of their differing aims.  While a mediator will have to look
at the history in order to understand the positions of the parties involved,
they are not doing so to decide who is right and who is wrong.  The mediator
is trying to find mutually acceptable solutions not make judgements.

Regards,

sannse