On 10/15/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 16/10/2007, George Herbert george.herbert@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.