Instead of using the words "inadmissible evidence" I could have said, "during arbitration the users shouldn't be able to drag in everything that happened during mediation", but the short phrase
(from
law, after all I was a lawyer) serves. It doesn't imply all the bullshit that goes with formal court proceedings, after all we are talking about mediation followed by arbitration for participants in a voluntary cooperative effort. Nevertheless it is useful to use short hand exppressions which represent events or things which otherwise have to be spelled out at length. Having to reinvent a new language for our particular proceeding would be quite burdensome although we probably will develop some language unique to our situation.
I wasn't talking about semantics, it's just that when you start bringing in formalities like making people redo their entire testemony in arbitration that they already did in mediation, it makes the whole thing a lot less efficient.
LDan Fred
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it! http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/
When folks in mediation begin planing their moves in order to influence the arbitration procedure rather than actually trying to come to agreement neither mediation or arbitration is going to work well.
Fred
From: Daniel Ehrenberg littledanehren@yahoo.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 07:34:41 -0800 (PST) To: wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Using language which represents events
I wasn't talking about semantics, it's just that when you start bringing in formalities like making people redo their entire testemony in arbitration that they already did in mediation, it makes the whole thing a lot less efficient.
LDan
LDan wrote:
I wasn't talking about semantics, it's just that when you start bringing in formalities like making people redo their entire testemony in arbitration that they already did in mediation, it makes the whole thing a lot less efficient.
As I see it:
If someone writes a summary of their position and the past history for the benefit of the mediation there's nothing to stop them also using it in arbitration. *But* the other party can't use it during arbitration (e.g "he said these lies about me during mediation"), and neither party can use the fact that the other called them a poopy-head during mediation as a factor in arbitration (of course that might be a factor in the breakdown of a mediation).
A lot of what goes on in the two processes will be irrelevant for the other anyway because of their differing aims. While a mediator will have to look at the history in order to understand the positions of the parties involved, they are not doing so to decide who is right and who is wrong. The mediator is trying to find mutually acceptable solutions not make judgements.
Regards,
sannse