From: "Daniel Ehrenberg" littledanehren@yahoo.com
Fred Bauder wrote:
What went on in mediation should simply not be considered at the arbitration stage. So claims, true or false, are irrelevant.
Fred
Why are you being so formal? This isn't a court of law, it's just a discussion. When you put all of these formalities like inadmissible evidence in, what you have is a month-long court case, not just a short talk to stop an edit war.
L'Dan I agree with your idea of informality, but I think that Fred has a valid point too. Mediation is supposed to be confidential between the parties, if someone starts using what one person states in a mediation against them and the arbitrators allow that this will have a chilling effect upon the mediation process. Mediation is much prefered to arbitration as it is consensual. Arbitration is something that is imposed by the arbitrators upon the parties, they have no control over what the arbitrators do, wheresa mediation is what is agreeable to both parties, people must be encouraged to talk and discuss things in mediation, not think that what they say will be used against them.
BTW I think the term is inadmissible evidence, I have never heard the term "unadmissible" used (maybe it is used some where else than where I have been, excuse my ignorance if that is true).
Alex756