Mediation Group

With every passing day and more and more people joining our world, it's inevitable that conflicts will arise.

We have seen what happens when conflicts go on without intervention. Our world, our community, was damaged just a little bit when we lost a group of 130 players. These are also people that might have paid to play, and therefore, we lost some more support to keeping our world alive.

There are many other disputes going on right now. Some are at the level of just yelling at each other, while others have risen to the point of harrassing one another with scripts.

If we are truly hopeful that we, the people who live and work in Second Life, will one day be given governing abilities, I think we must show that we desire the abilities first.

It is therefore my intention to build a Mediation Center, where all parties can come and have their disputes mediated, when they find they can not find a solution that both parties would accept.

Mediation will allow for a neutral Mediator to hear each side, and to investigate each side's claims. The Mediator will then, after giving careful consideration, rule on what should be done to end the dispute.

The Mediator (and there will be more then one) will fairly put forth the compromise that eveyrone must abide by. This compromise, while it won't be something everyone likes, will be something everyone can live with.

There will be a Mediation panel, where either of the parties in a dispute can appeal the mediators decision. This panel of three will then decide if the mediation is fair. If the panel rules that the mediation is fair, then both parties of the dispute must immediately comply with the mediation order.

In order to run a civilized society and community, everyone must live within a certain boundary of rules and regulations. While the TOS are a broad range of rules, it will be up to the Mediator, and Mediation Panel, to apply those rules to every dispute.

Every citizen of our community should be given an opportunity to succeed in their dreams and goals. This means that all of us must be willing to allow each other the chance to chase and capture the dreams we have. But, when those dreams conflict on someone else's dreams and desires, there must be someone with authority to step in and decide how far one can go before they are inflicting their own views or dreams on someone else.

I would be anxious to hear what others think of this idea, and if there would be enough in-world backing to make this a feasable solution to the problems of conflict in our world.



Bob "The Builder" Bunderfeld

Two thoughts here. I really think this is a great idea for the great majority of SL disputes; something we really need. Some of the worst disputes, though, are just so absurd and or rancorous, you'll likely never get them into mediation. It would be great if there were a pool of mediators, so that they could recuse themselves from cases in which they are friends with one or both parties.

Sounds like a very good idea. At the very least, it could serve as an unbiased fact finding panel to supply Lindens with info on a given situation, to aid in their determination of disputes.

I was thinking the very same thing David. We would have between 10 and 15 people that could act as mediators.

This way there would always be someone that could mediate a dispute.

As for the panel if the mediation is appealled, I think with 14 people we should also be able to get three people who again are not influenced by being in the situation.




Bob

Loki:

I agree, and would like to think the Lindens would rather have the community decide the outcome of these disputes on their own.

I think a person, or group of persons, could have a final appeal to the Lindens, and in doing so, the Linden who would decide the fate, would meet with the the panel and the individual mediator to see how/why this compromise was made.




Bob

I gotcha. I am at work and shouldnt even be here, reading too fast

In an effort to present the other side of such an idea, I would also hope that the idea of Mediation would not go on without the ability of players to abstain from being mediated. For example, having an area (something like the Outlands) where people could seek refuge if they do not want to be mediated. Because for SL to really be a place where you can do anything you want, then this flip side to the above posts has to be taken into consideration.

However, I am not advocating some sort of safe-haven for people who continually abuse the system and other players to the point of it being a DoS (denial of service). I agree that there should be a minimum standard of gameplay that each player has the right to enjoy (especially since there is $$ involved, because you know how people get when their money is involved).


Just a thought,
-Noddingham

I totally agree that anyone, no matter who, or where, this dispute takes place, has the right to say NO to mediation.

Of course, this means the Lindens would have to take care of the poblem, and getting banned or suspended might not look as appealling to someone, then having a group of their peers mediate the conflict instead.





Bob

I like it, Bob. I think it's an ambitious project, and a potentially frustrating one for the mediator(s), but one with great potential/value.

I would urge you to choose your mediators with extreme care.

I'd be happy to donate if you're in need of financial backing.

#!

Shebang:

Thank you for your support.

As much as I would like to move forward with something like this, I don't think I should unless it is blessed in some manner by the Lindens.

As a community service, I think something along this nature could provide invaluable service to everyone in our world. Especially if this was the first course of action for disputes. I would think someone in the community would rather have their peers look over the situation and come up with a compromise, rather then have Linden whomever to suspend or ban all involved.

But, if we do see a good outpouring of community opinion, I will be in need of Land and Money for building.

I would hope that maybe some of the Linden Land would be made available for this project (if they are backing the mediation idea) and that one of the Lindens would take the building under their control so no one else would be charged taxes; sort of like a Municipal Building

So let's hear you people? What do you think?





Bob

I don't post too often, Bob, so consider this a compliment.

Your mediation center is a great idea. When tempers flare, it's helpful to have a neutral 3rd party to hear everyone out. I'll support you any way I can. Just let me know if there's anything i can do.

from the devil's advocate.

Are mediators going to be elected or appointed?

If elected, how exactly would you handle that? Nominations, lobbying, campaign trails, etc? How would you handle the voting process? Is it going to be a popularity contest, or a "who has the most L$?" contest? (Let's face it, while not all beta testers are rich, pretty much all rich people are beta testers. This isn't likely to change in the immediate future, either.) Will it be a completely democratic (read: popular vote) election, or will you use a representative system? If we decide to go down the road of democracy, who's going to protect individual rights?

If appointed, who does the appointing? The Lindens? You? No offense, Bob, but I don't know you. For all I know, this is your bid to take over the "world." I'm also not naive enough to think that the Lindens "know" everyone in-world, either. Sure, I have a couple of calling cards, but I seriously doubt any of them know anything about me, or most of us, for that matter. SL is cliquish, after all. And it doesn't matter what I do or how long I'm here, I'll never be a member of the "beta" clique. For that matter, I'll probably never even be a socialite, it's just not in my personality.

What are you going to do 6 months from now, when the world is (hopefully) 4 times the size it is now? Pick/elect more mediators? Assign mediation districts?

Remember, also, we don't all come from the same background. Even in the U.S. and Canada, we have widely different cultures. There are a few international members of our community, already. If/when SL goes fully international, how are you going to deal with situations where two people's cultural views of the world are vastly different, and neither one has done anything wrong, according to their culture?

Are the mediators going to be able to foist their political/world views on everyone in the world? I already have some concern about this with the all-powerful Lindens. I realize this is their sandbox, so I understand why they retain the right. I realize this is your/our "world", and understand that you have certain rights, and responsibilities, too.

And the list goes on-and-on. Bringing politics into SL before without a full-fledged "constitution" is a dangerous thing.

And honestly, how many mediations do you think you'd ever handle that didn't eventually end up in the "Linden Court", anyway?

Don't get me wrong, I think the idea has merit. If I were guaranteed somehow that things will be fair and equitable, I'd be all for it. I just want to know how you're going to make that guarantee, and keep that promise, before I cast a vote.

Grimm:

These are all fair and equitable questions, and I will do my best to address them for you.

First, I don't see the mediators as a political body. The mediators will be here for one thing, helping to end disputes within the boundaries of the TOS and Acceptable Behaviour Policy.

With that in mind, I would think that every mediation decided, at least in the beginning, would be gone over by the Lindens. This will ensure that the mediation was fair and within the scope of the two aformentioned documents.

Do I really believe every mediation won't end up in the Linden's hands? I honestly do see a time when this could happen, especially if the community as a whole decided to police itself.

As for cultural differences, I don't read anywhere in the TOS and Acceptable Beahviour Policy where it gives leniency toward cultural differences. These documents give a broad definition of what is to be expected of everyone. While some may interpret it to mean one thing, and another to mean something completely different, it would be up to the mediator(s) to find the "spirit of the rule" and come up with a fair and balanced decision.

I would think that the Mediators would be appointed by the Lindens themselves, as it would be within the Lindens best interest to see something like this come to fruition. The Lindens would have to setup the guidelines for which they choose candidates from. Just like a TOS, there would have to be a policy written describing the position of the mediator and how someone can become a mediator.

As for how do you ensure a fair mediation? The reason for the mediator panel on appeal would be to decide if this was a faior decision. If a mediation decision is so one-sided, three other mediators will most likely catch this. What if those three are "dirty". Then your last option would be to appear to a LInden.

While I agree that something like this has the ability to turn into an ugly monster of politics and favoritism, I do believe if properly surpervised and decision are investigated for fairness, then this system can work.




Bob

I would be a great mediator since I hate everyone, and would judge on who I hate the least. Usually the av with the largest breasts would win.

This is a great idea Bob. I fully support it. Trying anything is better than just letting shouting matches escalate into full on prim/script wars. In the short time I've been playing here I've seen two such escalations, one directly involving me, and heard tell of at least one other one (nod to Hamlet).

Worst is everyone ignores Bob. If he's trying to take over the world, couldn't we just... not use his mediation anymore? I didn't imagine the suggestion being political at all, like Grim did.

i like your idea bob. this is a great idea...but a truly huge undertaking

good luck

I think it is a great idea Bob, and much needed too.

If you are interested, I will make myself available for tier-2 issues (i.e. mediations that are appealed or for some reason cannot be solved by the initial team). Here's my "resume."

1. I am a curmudgeon. I explore the world broadly, but I do it alone and I do not engage many people in conversations. I do not circulate much socially and am not a member of any "cliques."
2. Among my acquaintances in Second Life, there is one true friend, three casual friends, an archrival, and a couple minor opponents. That's a total of seven people whose potential cases I can't get involved in. Everyone else, I don't really care about. (No offense to any of you, that is simply the nature of things.)
3. Causality (laws of cause and effect), ethics, and standards of evidence are fascinating to me, and I study them as an amateur outside Second Life.
4. I've taken basic law at college. (And sociology, and critical thinking, i.e. ethics.) I've also taken Statistics, which is a surprisingly good way to learn about fallacies.
5. I know the difference between subjective and objective reality, and I'm not afraid to use it.
6. I am a master debater, and a cunning linguist. (OK, I stole that one...)
7. Politically I am very middle-of-the-road, not particularly given to liberal OR conservative ideas. I make a point of understanding both sides anyway.
8. I place logic before emotions. I may generally agree with someone, and have an affinity for what they have said in the past, but I am very quick to question anything they write that strikes me as being pernicious or illogical.
9. I am not influenced by gender, sexual orientation, fatness, thinness, tallness, shortness, humanness, alienness, poor typing skills, inarticulate speech, or anything else of that sort. Many times have I witnessed the subtle (and sometimes not-so-subtle) psychological interactions that go on between avatars. It is totally transparent to me. An avatar with enormous you-know-whats and provocative clothing is merely a Poser figure to me. (Lots of people role play as the opposite gender anyway, you might be surprised.)

Why second-level? I think I have something to contribute, but I don't want to be involved in a lot of day-to-day stuff. (I'm a curmudgeon, do the math. Half the time my screen is completely covered with scripting windows and I LIKE that.) If you run short of mediators, I can help, as long as it doesn't become a regular thing. Call it a "consultant" position if you like.

(I am sorry if this sounds like a bunch of self-congratulatory BS, but these things are very important considerations for a mediator.)

Mediation
One person sits down with both parties (i.e. mediates) and everyone attempts to reach an equitable solution.

Binding Arbitration
Each side has an advocate, and there is a judge. The advocates present their case to the judge, who arrives at a verdict.

Which are we really talking about here? In some ways this sounds like mediation, but in other ways it sounds like binding arbitration (it seems there is a verdict that must be followed). With mediation the focus is more on consensus. With binding arbitration, that mediator turns into a judge who more or less tells you how it's going to be.

And a vital step toward self-government.


PS I can vouch that Huns is the closest to being a Fair Witness (from Heinlein's "Stranger in a Strange Land" that I've met in SL (perhaps anywhere).

Just to let everyone know, I haven't forgotten or given up on this idea, I've just been really busy trying to finish some SL Projects.

To answer a few points brought up.

There are two types of mediation in the real world. First, is the non-binding where a mediator sits down with both parties and tries to find a compromise to the situation.

Second, there is what is known as binding-arbitration, which can take two distinct forms. The binding arbitration can be as described above where a "judge" sits and hears two sides of the case and renders a decision. The second style comes after mediation fails and then both parties agree to binding-arbitration and the original mediator then makes a ruling to be followed.

The first thing that must be understood in this whole idea is that everyone involved must agree to the mediation. If two parties come to mediation and say, "Well, let's see what they say, and depending on whether or not we like it, then we'll act."

The problem I can tell you now is this, in MOST mediation cases each party IS NOT going to be happy about the outcome. Each party will have to compromise, and no matter what people are willing to say, no one likes compromise. Each and everyone of us has in us this voice that says we are right and they are wrong. The point of mediation is to listen to both of those passionate voices and find an equitable middle.

I believe the next step is to probably hold a TownHall style meeting on this idea and see what, if any, support can be brought by the community and perhaps the Lindens.

How about we Schedule a meeting for next Saturday, the 9th of August, at 10:00AM PST. That's Noon CST, 1:00PM EST, and I believe 6:00PM London time.



Bob "The Builder" Bunderfeld

*NOTE*
I have scheduled a TownHall Style meeting to meet Saturday, August 9th, 2003, for an open discussion of this idea. This meeting is scheduled for 1 1/2 hours and will start promptly at 10:00AM PST. Everyone interested in supporting this idea, or even being a "devils advocate" please attend.

Shijuro, thank you so much for your support. I have looked up "Fair Witness" on everything2. I hope I can improve those qualities within myself in real life.



10 on a Saturday morning... *shudder*

It's interesting that although the concept of a peace-making force along side the war-making forces in the United States' arsenal originates back as far as Washington, such an organization never quite occured. This is a pity. I will gladly volunteer in this capacity!

Here are my qualifications:

1. Have nearly completed degree in Psychology.
2. Ardent Quaker, and as such, necessarily a pacifist.
3. As is evident from my posts, I explore each facet of a given problem... even ad nauseam
4. Past experience in conflict resolution.
5. In-game experience.

I have some concerns about this concept:

1. Overlap with Linden jurisdiction. I am glad at every endevour to self-govern. This, I think, may develop into an SL court system, and ergo might be one of those endevours. However, some care must be taken to keep from stepping on Linden toes or implying authority. The Lindens are there to enforce clear violations of the ToS, not to deal with squabbles. Jurisdiction can only be obtained through authority bestowed - whether that be by individual clients or by a group. I love the idea of offering mediation to anyone who comes to the table. But perhaps you should also offer your services wholesale to a group as judicial body over a group's laws.

2. Judges versus counselors. There are merits to each type of mediation. Will you persue one or both?

3. Appointment or Election? I support appointment with strict criteria. Those are hard to verify in-game as we have no colleges, but some semblance of criteria should be maintained.

4. Payment or volunteer work? I'd do it either way. But in the long run, judges/counselors should be paid what they're worth, and not by the Lindens.

5. Do judges get nifty judgin' robes? Will judges enforce Judge Judy justice? Nuggets o' wisdom from the pez dispenser o' peace!

Unfortunately, I won't get to attend the meeting. RL forbids, I'm afraid. But I do want to show my interest and offer my services.

These are all very valid points and questions.

First, let's remember that this Mediation group is strictly volunteer and the participants of it would participate of their own free will. This is no way would be a forced issue where people must mediate if they are having an arguement.

Second, I forsee a combination of both types of mediation for faster turn around. The mediator would do a discover of the issue, talk to all parties involved, invesitgate outside of the parties involved, and come up with (we hope) to be a reasonable compromise.

Now, what do you do if someone doesn't live by the mediation they agreed to? Quite frankly there is nothing you can do, with the exception of posting the mediation case, the finding, and the fact that one party agreed to mediation then backed out when they didn't get everything they wanted.

Third, while I like television, I don't necessarily like television justice. Although Judge Judy may have real world experience, I sincerely doubt she acted the same way on the Public Bench as she does on the television bench. I hope mediators will pass out wisdom through the fairness of their rulings.

Fourth, I don't see where we are crossing over any Linden authority. If someone builds a penis building, or any other type of infraction of the TOS, that will only be handled by the Lindens. A mediators job will be to help two parties reach and equitable compromise when those two parties disagree over something that is not goverened by the TOS.

I would hope that the community as a whole would not only see the need for a mediation group, but also would willingly abide by the rulings of that same group.



Bob "The Builder" Bunderfeld

What is the status of this project?