Dispute Resolution

Dispute Resolution by resident mediators -- that was the topic for today's Thinkers meeting in my sandbox, and it generated a lively discussion.

The focus on mediators originated from a comment by Andrew Linden who was taking over from Pathfinder at Path's recent discussion on LL tools for dispute resolution. Andrew commented favorably on the prospect of residents taking on the role of professional mediators, and building up their in-world reputations over time.

We had two resident mediators at the meeting: Neal Nomad and Liz Marlowe (who could only stay briefly due to RL committments). These people have good RL qualifications. I'm interested in seeing if they can make a difference in SL. We also had newcomers wearing the title 'Not Plastic Duck'. Hmmm...who could those be?

Participant opinion was divided concerning whether dispute mediation should be impersonal or not. The former was illustrated by the example of SquareTrade, associated with eBay. It sounds like an automated process with anonymous mediators. Other participants wanted the freedom to choose their own mediator in the event of a dispute. People warned against the nascent mediation effort ballooning into out-of-control bureaucracy. One worst-case scenario looked a lot like a player-run government, so I'm posting here to see what people who were not at the meeting think.

Thanks to Traxx and the Thinkers for an excellent meeting. A new group has been formed in response to the meeting: SL Mediators. We are going to be meeting soon to formalize our process and we welcome any feedback, advice, assistance, etc. If you have any ideas, interest, experience in the area of conflict resolution and mediation, please contact me, a group member, or add something to this thread. Thanks

I don't rember participating in this event. Perhaps I have been confused with another Linden?

Could it have been Adam Linden? I'm thinking of all the A-Lindens, it wasn't me although I did enjoy attending a previous event of Thinkers.

Yes, you were at the first Thinkers meeting on dispute resolution, Altruima. And you came in during the Linden Village meeting Pathfinder held to get residents' views on this sort of topic, particularly what tools we might want from LL.

But Pathfinder's meeting ran overtime, and nobody would go home! I guess Mystery Linden was helping out when Path had to leave. Mystery Linden was big and scary-looking...sort of like this pic.... Does anybody recognise him? Does he recognise himself?

But I beleive that could be me
Let me clarify. Resident dispute resolution is something that has been tossed around for quite some time, by both residents and LL alike. However, it is my understanding that no such program is in place (I could be wrong on this).

I'm sure there are many residents in SL that have the RL qualifications to handle such dispute resolution, but if to be implemented, it would be important to not select a few select individuals to handle the program. A program that will require the attention, dedication and tools to handle a dispute of small or great magnitude, would have to most importantly be known and trusted by SL as a community. Which is why at this point, it probably has not come into effect. It is needed, as the population of Second life grows, but once again, and I state this in world often, while LL is there to help enforce the TOS and Community Standards, it's up to the residents to try and work out such a program. We need to know what tools are needed for such a program and what the needs from LL would be to implement it.
We can't be involved in "he said this, she said that". So it is obviously a neccessity, as SL progresses.

As for this meeting. I did state it was important for residents to work it out on their own, but as far as the thinkers are concerned, or any other group for that matter, I do not advocate anyone to take on such a roll. I do not know enough about those mentioned, and furthermore, it's not my place or position to make such a choice of grid wide policy implementation.

And that Picture looked nothing like me ;P

Adam

The best way to setup a dispute resolution group would be for the Lindens to hold a sort of vote for each sim on the mainland and in each sim, give 1 or 2 residents,who want to, the responsibilty of handling disputes for that sim and they can also be responsible to try and have at least one of them online at all times. Once a month the selected residents from each sim can get together to discuss what problems seem to be developing over all the sims and one person from that group can then send any unresolvable disputes the the lindens. For the private owned sims, the owners of them sims can setup the exact same things.

All that would be required would be a 512 plot of land in each sim setup with a designated dispute office that would be uniform across SL, therefor recognizable. A "law" stating that what the dispute resolution groups say are more or less so, with of course an appeal process. And perhaps a little extra $L each month for the dispute resolution people.

ty and just my 2 cents on it as someone who has help settle a few disputes.

COMING SOON = THE DARKWOLF CLUB

Neal Nomad wrote:



Here are some suggestions of steps in setting up the process and ensuring there is a good likelihood of success in your mediation efforts:

1. Categorize the kind of disputes that will be covered and won't be covered. If possible, break down the disputes that will be covered into some logical groupings based on size, number of parties, type of dispute, etc.

2. Develop and post some guidelines for the types of disputes that will covered, the rules of evidence, and the expected timeframes. It is important to make clear that your group is involved ONLY at the request of both parties. If possible, you may want to have a level of appeal, preferably to LL, but if not then to a very senior person in the group.

3. You can be most effective in those disputes that have a factual basis, and where some factual evidence can be provided by the parties. As has been mentioned before, only deal with the principals in a dispute - there is no value in third-party accusations. Develop a standard outline for case submission - it can be titles to sections only, but it is best to have the people disputing take the time to assemble and organize this material so that mediators can work more efficiently.

4. Timeframes are very important. You need to have a deadline in a dispute by which evidence must be submitted, and no further items will be considered after that point. This will help keep the workload reasonable, and prevent scrounging around or twisting the import of items to keep a case going.

5. Have a very clear process as what will be included in a judgement, and how the publication of the judgement will be handled. You may conclude that all judgements should be public - if so that should be a posted rule and understood. You may decide that it will be public unless one or both parties request otherwise. My recommendation would be for a private judgement unless both parties agree - that will help bring more people into the process, and prevent it being used for griefing.

6. Make some reasonable estimates of how much time will be required from your mediators. This is not a full-time RL job, so likely one dispute per month per mediator would be a reasonable workload. That assumes about 15 - 20 hours per dispute, around a half day per week. Really small disputes would take less time, but it is doubtful that participants would go to the trouble of assembling material for something really small.

Good luck- I think this is very positive.

Thanks Ferren

Maybe quarelling neighbours could call on Judge Judy?

Oh oh- is naming a minor TV celebrity a TOS violation????

Whatever this system is, what it shouldn't be is a small group of people, self appointed, rl experience or not. To make it effective as wide a group of people as possible are needed to ensure there is no situation where the friend of someone in a dispute mediates between the two parties.

Alexa

Uh-oh, Mystery Linden doesn't really look like that pic. My career as a portrait artist is doomed! I appreciate the historical perspective, Adam. My first exposure to dispute resolution as a forum topic occured fairly recently so I've missed a lot of discussion.

You use the term program, which makes me think of solutions like the Greeters, Mentors and Liasons programs. Some contributors to this discussion speak in terms of resident organizations. I like to imagine some favorite Neualtenberg folks thinking, 'mmmmmm -- systems'. ; ) My favorite approach from among those I've heard so far is the fine-grained emphasis on the individual: a resident who sets up as a professional mediator, then gains experience and a good track record over time in a free market for this type of service.

Alexa, I was wondering if you'd join this thread to steer us away from the shoals of SL-wide government. Some of the recent discussions seemed to meander in that direction from time to time. As you know, I'd be opposed to implementing dispute resolution by some SL-wide political process. You present an an equally valid warning however: To prevent this scenario we could adopt the common RL procedure first mentioned by Ferrn Xia: each party in the dispute chooses the individual mediator who will represent him/her, then the two mediators jointly choose a third.

John, as you've probably inferred from the previous paragraph, I'd categorize your suggestion as a political solution. Now and then I check this forum to see if anything sets off alarm bells. We need to back away from instituting any kind of system that could be replicated across one sim after another by some future tyrant-wannabe seeking to rule as leader of a de facto SL-wide government.

Previous threads made mention of organizations such as RATE. Those folks sound like they're offering a different but equally valuable contribution. I've also heard talk of a blacklist and 'investigations' by some organization. In my personal opinion that sounds counterproductive. I'd prefer a whitelist, BUT...even that can be gamed. The idea of individual residents serving as mediators is different from 'let's get together and form a bureaucracy'. The onus is on the individual to develop a track record for objective problemsolving. As Ferren suggests, each mediator is likely to have a particular area of expertise. This is how I see Neal Nomad's group.

Thanks for replying Traxx By the way, I looked up the SL mediators group but it doesn't show the names of the members. Why so secret? I am a bit phobic about little groups huddled in corners, as you know lol. So since we cannot find that information in the group tab, perhaps you could tell us in this thread, the names of the members please.

Many thanks

Alexa

Initially I did not hide the members names. Fortunately, as it turned out, I had also neglected to check the 'show group' box. I say 'fortunately', because someone (who shall go unnamed here) immediately came after me with complaints and acusations. It was disturbing to say the least. I decided at that point to hide membership to prevent the same thing happening to others in the group.

At this point the mediators group is nothing more than an idea with a group name and a few members. We still need to put together what we can offer and how we can offer it. If anyone is interested in joining they can contact me.

And frankly, at this point, the community reaction has been somewhat discouraging.

Some people seem intent on seeing a simple offer by a few professionals to try and help out as a threat to impose some kind of legal or political system. Others are convinced that it must of necessity involve favoritism.

I made the offer to serve as a mediator simply to be of service to the community.

I have many years of experience as a therapist, and many years of training in the Zen and Sufi traditions. I am not here to find fault or take sides; but simply to offer what I can to help the community evolve.

This is very understandable given that this group has no official Linden support. Dispute Resolution is inherently a function of any organized government, of which you have no backing. So why would anyone respect ANY decision your group made, knowing they could appeal to the Lindens if disatisfied? All that I see happening is adding a new level of bureaucracy to an already beleaguered system; despite any intention you might have had.

Zebulon Starseeker wrote:



In a narrow sense you are correct, however in business there is more and more effort to implement mediation solutions that do not rely on the government (i.e. the court system). This has been found to be more effective because of the less adversarial nature of mediation and the lower cost of the whole process.

In SL, "appealing to the Lindens" would not be as guaranteed an avenue as going to court in RL. The Lindens are leaving as much as possible in the hands of players - in many of the disputes that this group would cover, the Lindens would have no interest in getting involved.

So there is value in this approach, and because of its voluntary nature, it is not "another level of bureaucracy".

My take on the public/private membership issue is let the individual members decide. Neal is not an authoritarian group leader. He made a decision to avoid unilaterally exposing all group members to notecards containing personal attacks.

Each member of Neal's group is quite capable of deciding whether to announce his/her membership in the group, then let the notecards fall where they may. : D

I'm a member. Like Neal, I want SL to evolve. I'm not interested in the drama type disputes or nebulous disputes where it doesn't look like mediation will work. I'm not interested in reopening disputes that have already been ARd and processed by LL. What interests me is the type of dispute that has a chance of successful resolution, and where resolution is an obvious benefit to SL. A good example is here in the shopping forum

Well yes, my approach is from a more absolutist direction. I'm not versed in business law, and as you outlined earlier Ferren:
(1. Categorize the kind of disputes that will be covered and won't be covered. If possible, break down the disputes that will be covered into some logical groupings based on size, number of parties, type of dispute, etc.)

There will be certain catagories that cannot be settled through a 3rd party - and those are the sort of situations I'm guessing that people grumbling to Neal are worried about. Dividing that line might be tricky and I tend to think most would sooner wait for LLs call on the matter than just another paying customer, or worse - an aspiring kleptocrat.

I think that last example of Traxx's is a great illustration of where such a service might come in handy; since LL doesn't have much of a say about the matter themselves.

Zebulon Starseeker wrote:



Yes, this is an important point. I would suggest some of the disputes that would not be suitable for 3rd party mediation would include:

1. Clear violations of the TOS (that would be for LL to address)
2. Personal disagreements, including claims of bad behavior or abuse
3. Any events related to activities in RL or outside SL, like postings in external websites
4. Disputes where one or both parties have left SL

The kinds of disputes that would be most suitable to mediation would include:

1. Sale or rental of land
2. Ownership of objects
3. Intellectual property such as scripts or designs
4. Building agreements

As in business law, the ownership and disposition of property, including intellectual property, are the areas where this approach is often suitable.

Several points:

(1) You can't have effective mediation without the concept of contractual obligation - which currently doesn't exist in SL. (To my mind, a contractual system with enforcement is the single most significant economic and social need in SL.) Contractual obligations would mean that contractual mediation and binding arbitration are possible.

(2) The relationship between "law" (the Lindens) and mediation run by residents can be extrapolated from RL examples - where mediation and arbitration services are sponsored and sanctioned by the state. Those who use the services are presented with a choice: accept the results of mediation, or present the case to the state and risk consequences that are often worse. Mediation and arbitration are often a deterrent to further action. Therefore, any mediative process in SL would consist of at least two progressive stages - resident, and Linden.

(3) I agree with Ferren as to the typologies of mediation versus Linden enforcement in SL. I suggest that there are three general categories of mediation possible here: Personal (or therapeutic), business and contractual, and diplomatic (between groups). Resident-involved mediation, at least initially, would be possible in all three.

Interesting isn't it how something so simple can get so complicated. I deal with people every day who have problems getting along with one another. (Marriage and Family Counseling). I listen. I say what I see and hear. I offer suggestions. People find it helpful, or don't. It's really pretty simple.

I'm not sure I agree with Seth Kanahoe in saying "You can't have effective mediation without the concept of contractual obligation". Mediation is simply the application of a set of techniques by a neutral third party to assist people to reach, for themselves, a solution to their dispute. The solution is created by the parties not imposed by the third party, albeit the latter helps them both in reaching that goal.

The solution,therefore, does not have to reflect or pre-empt in any way any existing contractual obligations or law. Its true that in RL, settlements will usually be subsequently embodied in a binding contractual agreement, but the settlement still exists even if one party refuses to sign. The only purpose of the agreement is if one party attempts to resile. If there is no court to which to go to to enforce such a settlement agreement, then one is not necessary.

In SL, if the parties are assisted by a mediator to reach a settlement, then it is then up to the parties to honour that settlement otherwise they are simply back to square one.

There seems to be an issue as to who would perform the mediation. In RL, there is much discussion about online dispute resolution (ODR) in which, given the remoteness of the mediator/arbitrator as well as the asynchronous nature of the discourse, has flagged the issue of trust as central to building confidence in ODR. This problem is exacerbated in a virtual community , especially if standard rules are enforced denying RL information about the mediator.

In view of this, how would people feel about bringing in RL mediators? If there was support for outside mediators, I am closely involved in RL with a number of mediator networks and would be happy to assist opening discussion. Payment would obviously be an issue to consider. Was the intention that SL mediators would not charge and perform it as a community service?

I can also provide an ODR platform that will enable the mediators, within a secure online file dedicated to each dispute, have private conversation with each person in turn and with them both together so as to reflect how shuttle mediation works in RL. One of the additional benefits of ODR is that ,over time, the system builds up its own knowledge base of how typical disputes are best resolved, thus helping mediators to improve consistency of dispute handling and also, with anonymised aggregated outcome reports, helping the SL population to better resolve disputes in future by themselves and thus improving interpersonal conduct and, in turn, the ethic of SL society.

An alternative procedure to mediation , and much shorter and at less cost, is a neutral review process. This is more like arbitration where the neutral reviews the arguments of both parties and then declares an outcome which is either binding or non-binding according to the rules.

As is often the case, the issue here rests on definitions and semantics. A key word in my original statement was "effective". If that word is ignored, then my statement was certainly nonsensical.

There are many different kinds of mediation for many different kinds of disputes. Mea culpa; perhaps I should have clarified that I was speaking more toward the issue of binding arbitration in a commercial, property, or political context, and not about "marriage counseling" or other forms of personal mediation. Of course such mediation is not imposed by a third party; rather, the disputing parties agree to have a third party help them resolve a dispute, and failing that, resolve the dispute upon its merits. That decision can be "binding" and cannot be appealed unless through a formal, legal process. (See my point #2 above.) The concept of contractual obligation helps immeasurably in these specific circumstances, both in terms of contracting with a mediative party, and in "deterring" appeals to a higher authority.

Given your second paragraph, I'm not sure we're disagreeing.

On your third paragraph, you are correct, of course. However, this discussion concerns what might exist in SL, not what does.

Concerning your second post, Wotsthe, I don't think either option for mediation you mention precludes the other - both might be necessary in circumstances that may arise in a virtual environment such as SL.

Are you proposing a private, contractual service for two parties in personal dispute? Or would this be somehow connected with Linden procedures and enforcement in a corporate-sanctioned, phased approach?