Alex R. wrote:
I would keep the mediators and arbitrators two distinct groups. If you go in front of a mediator and know they have been or might be an arbitrator then you may not consider them your friend.
Mediation and arbitration are two very different processes. Mediation is trying to get people to talk, communicate and come to some kind of compromise. Mediators allow people to take any position they want and then they try to have the parties see the position of the other side to appreciate it and see if there is any merit in the other side's POV. It is really a lot like the NPOV process we encourage here.
An arbitratror (from ancient Roman origins) is a neutral decision maker who looks at the differentPOVs and tries to find the proper interpretation of the parties differing POVs to find the controlling opnion in terms of rules and events and the interpretation of those rules in relation to the events. While the arbitrator (or arbitration committee) must only come to one opinion it may not even be the opinions of the parties, they may decide on a third opinion. Also the parties going into arbitration basically agree that whatever decision the arbitrator comes to will be binding on both of them. Thus they are giving up their particular position in an appeal to the impartiality of the arbitration process.
You can't talk to an arbitrator the way you talk to a mediator. Also the arbitration process is open to some scrutiny (though it may not be public as in a court because it is done by the consent of the parties not through the coersion of the state). Mediation cannot really work unless it is confidential and the parties do not fear a penalty for somehow failing in the mediation process.
Sorry for goiing on but these are two incredibly complex processes that have very long histories and many different types of manifestation in the behavior of groups of people so it is very difficult to take all the knowledge I have about these two processes and condence them down into layperson nutshells. Please excuse my verbosity!
Compared to some of your previous legal explanations, this one was remarkably succinct. :-)
Ec