[WikiEN-l] Arbcom

[George Herbert]

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


-- 
-george william herbert
george.herbert at gmail.com