[WikiEN-l] Unadmissible Evidence

[Alex T.]

From: "Daniel Ehrenberg" <littledanehren at 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