On 10/15/07, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 16/10/2007, George Herbert
<george.herbert(a)gmail.com> wrote:
The downside of this is that taken to an extreme,
it effectively
*requires* that participants get an experienced advocate to help with
the process and motions, which introduces the role that Attorneys play
in real life. And we're a volunteer organization, so we can't make
someone stand up and argue for someone else's defense.
The other downside is that this was tried - the Association of
Members' Advocates, because people who ended up in arbitration tended
to be those who rubbed others up the wrong way and did a really bad
job of representing themselves in the first place. The ArbCom welcomed
the idea as potentially helpful ... then *all* the AMA did was
wikilawyer and try procedural tricks, rather than actually help
translate their clients' positions and thoughts into something that
appeared reasonable and comprehensible. They were literally worse than
useless. I remember having frequently thought "could you please shut
up and stop dragging your client down." Eegh.
I remember hearing a bit about it, but I don't think I saw any of it firsthand.
The question of whether it's necessarily true that any such
organization or role will descend into legalism or whether it depends
on personalities involved is something I am curious about. I can see
why someone who sees their role as pure advocate will try legalism and
procedural fights.
--
-george william herbert
george.herbert(a)gmail.com