--- Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
Suppose we did require cooperation with mediation and consider how the user conducted themselves and sanction those who don't cooperate. What do we gain, what do we lose?
Fred
Generally, I think it's not a bad. It would make for a terrible absolute rule, though - as there's always going to be cases that will need to head straight for arbitration, just as there will always be rulelawyers who will try to stall that if they realise it is coming by "seeking mediation" in bad faith first. I've seen it before; it'll happen again, I'm sure.
Now, Dan,
On 6/7/05, Dan Grey dangrey101@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
I think we'd find mediation was suddenly much more effective.
I've been reading people's comments and sounding out the MC. People *want* to make it work, and there's some clear ideas that people want to try - such as assigning cases. Yes I can see there's potential problems with that but the current method is very broken - why don't we just try it and see what happens? We may find that this debate over a 'content committee' (concom?! :-) ) is rendered moot.
So let's make it happen and see what the result is.
We're just throwing ideas out there at the moment - reviving the mediation committee is one, a content committee is another, and there's quite a few that you haven't mentioned. *If* the mediation committee is brought back, we need to have a clear idea of what we're going to do about it - and I'm a bit confused by your statement about "assigning cases" (it sounds like exactly what we did before).
-- ambi