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@gmail.com Reply-To: Brian M brian1954@gmail.com, English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 16:43:40 -0500 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@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@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l