White Cat wrote:
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 8:41 AM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Are we dealing with the Arbcom in general, or your own personal problem with them?
You guys asked me to give an example and I have given you an example that I am most familiar with, cases I had been involved with... This kind of prosecution is exactly why I did not want to give examples. So pull the other leg...
OK. Maybe some did, but I didn't, so I can let that issue go, on the basis of misunderstanding.
I am a causal user. I do not have any reason to even glance at the workshop.
Then why bother bringing it up. If you had no reason to look at it, why would you have any reason to complain about what is or is not in it..
Because Arbcom payed very little attention to it that is the complaint on my end, something you do not seem to comment on.
I didn't know we were keeping logs of who has only looked at the page.
It is the duty of arbitrators to look at all aspects of the case to make the
best judgement calls.
Arbitrators need to objectively read the workshop and pull out anything they
feel is worth a vote. Why else is the workshop there? If it has no purpose,
abolish it
Looking at and reading its contents does not imply an obligation to comment on evry drive-by rant. If they find a good idea they use it, and adjust their decision accordingly.
Commenting on some of the issues may be necesary. Avoiding each and nearly every workshop entry particularly in complex cases are not helpful. Parties may reach a voluntary compromise in the remedies if arbcom participated in the discussion. Arbcom participation in workshop discussion has no harm and lots of potential benefit. That is exactly why the rfar workshop is divided into 3 parts. One for arbitrators which is typically underused/unused, one for involved parties, and one for everybody else.
Voluntary compromise is the aim of mediation. By the time it gets to Arbcom one assumes that all attempts at mediation have failed.
Imagine arbitrators actually talking to people. Since trolls may abuse it we
must punish everybody as if they were trolls.
I get the impression that what you mean by talking with them is getting into exchanges with the peanut gallery. It's a an arbitration not a mediation. They can ask questions, and they can issue a decision. Going much beyond that brings their credibility into question
Talking to arbitrators is not a compromise from credibility, on the contrary such a thing reinforces their credibility if anything. They have a responsibility to hear out everyones perspective to help determine the middle ground. Arbitrators are not gods that we cannot reach or interact directly. They do not need such a protective veil. This isn't a legal court system and arbitrators are not judges that need to live in complete solitude from the case they are reviewing.
Hearing evryone's perspective is not the same as commenting on every perspective that's expressed. Private obiter is exploitable by those who want to restrict the arbitrator into a particular system of bias. They then have an excuse for arguing that he should recuse himself for bias, when they really mean that he should recuse himself because he won't support their point of view. True it's not a "legal court system"; it's much less than that, but if over the years the courts have developed useful rule of practice there is no problem to adopting them. It isn't talking to the arbitrators that compromises their credibility; the compromises arise when they answer all those comments directly.
Ec.