Mediators should explore what is likely to happen if the parties take the
matter to arbitration. Those possible negative consequences should serve to
motivate a settlement at the mediation level. This is another reason to
continue to look at possible infractions on both sides of any dispute. Once
we give someone carte blanche to let it all hang out if the other party is a
bad guy they will have absolutely no reason to settle at the mediation or
lower level.
Fred
From: Brian M <brian1954(a)gmail.com>
Reply-To: Brian M <brian1954(a)gmail.com>om>, English Wikipedia
<wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 16:43:40 -0500
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] ArbCom - too attached to 'equal treatment'?
That is a role that mediation should play.
-- mav
Why separate "mediation" from "arbitration"? Why such complicated
dispute resolution procedures? It is almost as if we want to make
it hard and complicated to resolve disputes, something you can only do
if you are determined. What is the logic behind that?
Wouldn't mediation work better if the parties knew that the mediator
seeking a resolution to a dispute/behaviour problem had the ready
means to impose a sanction on any parties deemed not to be
cooperating? Iron fist in the velvet glove. At present, in the
case of real a behaviour problem (as opposed to a good-faith
difference of opinion) mediation is a hoop people have to jump through
to get to arbitration, and anyway it is broken.
--Brian M (BM)
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l