Valve to Steam users: no class-action suits

[soldant]

So dispensing with any sort of representative body is a step in the right direction?

What the hell are you talking about? You're taking this off into ridiculous directions which have absolutely nothing to do with what I'm saying.

All I've said was that independent arbitration isn't necessarily bad provided it's regulated, it takes stress off the courts particularly for small things without large sums of money involved. It's entirely possible for a court to be biased, whether due to court policy or because they're not truly independent from politics or government. Nowhere, at all, did I ever state or imply that courts or any other institution should be dismissed or disbanded. Enough with the strawman arguments!

[Nalano]

What the hell are you talking about?

I'm asking you why you think private arbitration would in any way be inherently more objective than a court system that was specifically designed to be representative of the body politic.

It makes absolutely no sense to me. I am legitimately boggled.

[Hypernetic]

I feel like I could be a pretty un-biased arbitrator.

[soldant]

I'm asking you why you think private arbitration would in any way be inherently more objective than a court system that was specifically designed to be representative of the body politic.

It makes absolutely no sense to me. I am legitimately boggled.

I am legitimately boggled that you believe that I said that.

Because I never said that.
At all.

All I ever said is that there's nothing inherently wrong with arbitration or alternative dispute resolution services provided they're actually independent. It can help relieve the pressure on the courts and might be a lot cheaper than dragging it through the courts especially if there's small sums of money involved.

For whatever reason, you extended that to mean "destroy all civil courts!" despite the fact that I specifically rejected that statement several posts back...

[Nalano]

I am legitimately boggled that you believe that I said that.

Because I never said that.
At all.

All I ever said is that there's nothing inherently wrong with arbitration or alternative dispute resolution services provided they're actually independent. It can help relieve the pressure on the courts and might be a lot cheaper than dragging it through the courts especially if there's small sums of money involved.

For whatever reason, you extended that to mean "destroy all civil courts!" despite the fact that I specifically rejected that statement several posts back...

I suspect it's the "provided they're actually independent" part that gets my goat, because, well. How would you enforce that.

[gwathdring]

I suspect it's the "provided they're actually independent" part that gets my goat, because, well. How would you enforce that.

Public arbitration systems would be a good start.

[Nalano]

Public arbitration systems would be a good start.

You mean courts?

[gwathdring]

You mean courts?

Har har.

It wouldn't hurt for there to be, in the public employ, folks who do not directly pronounce legally enforceable judgments but rather facilitate mutual discussion of grievances.

I recognize the purpose of the courts and in no way believe we should replace them. But adding additional options for those who seek resolution first and judgement second would be, in my estimation, a good thing.

Arbitration is a great idea. Public arbitration has significant potential over private arbitration in the transparency and purity of intent departments. It's a similar concept to mental health counseling--sometimes it's really helpful to hash things out with observation and input from a professional third party. I'm sure a lot of things currently taken care of as civil suits would benefit from arbitration.

[Nalano]

It wouldn't hurt for there to be, in the public employ, folks who do not directly pronounce legally enforceable judgments but rather facilitate mutual discussion of grievances.

My experience of nonbinding resolutions when public arbitrators step in - for instance, during prolonged union battles that are likely to end up shutting down a city service, in which case an alderman offers to help, or when regulators set emissions guidelines for businesses - is that they're summarily ignored.

[gwathdring]

My experience of nonbinding resolutions when public arbitrators step in - for instance, during prolonged union battles that are likely to end up shutting down a city service, in which case an alderman offers to help, or when regulators set emissions guidelines for businesses - is that they're summarily ignored.

Hmm. Perhaps having a more formalize arbitration system would help ... but that would be an expensive experiment. What about court ordered as opposed to voluntary arbitration? Does that have a better track record for such situations? Or has that not really happened much at that scale?

At a smaller scale, arbitration can be very successful. Small claims, personal disputes, divorce. I don't have stats, and anecdotes make for poor evidence, though.

[Nalano]

Hmm. Perhaps having a more formalize arbitration system would help ... but that would be an expensive experiment. What about court ordered as opposed to voluntary arbitration? Does that have a better track record for such situations? Or has that not really happened much at that scale?

At a smaller scale, arbitration can be very successful. Small claims, personal disputes, divorce. I don't have stats, and anecdotes make for poor evidence, though.

Some courts in other countries stop frivolous shakedowns by forcing the loser to pay the costs of the court battle. Rubber-stamping extralegal means for them to shakedown folks on the grounds that the threat of legal battle would cost more than the shakedown doesn't seem to accomplish much except change the amount they demand.

[deano2099]

My experience of nonbinding resolutions when public arbitrators step in - for instance, during prolonged union battles that are likely to end up shutting down a city service, in which case an alderman offers to help, or when regulators set emissions guidelines for businesses - is that they're summarily ignored.

If those cases then go to court though, the party ignoring the resolution (or in other cases, the party refusing to enter arbitration at all when one is willing) generally find those facts held against them.

[Nalano]

If those cases then go to court though, the party ignoring the resolution (or in other cases, the party refusing to enter arbitration at all when one is willing) generally find those facts held against them.

An important facet of nonbinding resolutions is that they're nonbinding. If they go to court, they are clearly no longer nonbinding.

[deano2099]

An important facet of nonbinding resolutions is that they're nonbinding. If they go to court, they are clearly no longer nonbinding.

You take the original complaint to court, you don't go to court to enforce the arbitration decision. The opposing party having ignored the arbitration doesn't mean you automatically win, but it becomes a factor in your favour.

[archonsod]

Hmm. Perhaps having a more formalize arbitration system would help ... but that would be an expensive experiment.

It's already been done. That's how we ended up with civil law in the first place.

[Nalano]

You take the original complaint to court, you don't go to court to enforce the arbitration decision. The opposing party having ignored the arbitration doesn't mean you automatically win, but it becomes a factor in your favour.

I understand what you're saying. I'm just pointing out that court judgements are binding.

[deano2099]

I understand what you're saying. I'm just pointing out that court judgements are binding.

Ahh, my point was that non-binding resolutions can appear toothless and useless, but that's because it's months or years later when the thing actually goes to court and the consequences for the party that ignored the resolution are actually felt.

[gwathdring]

It's already been done. That's how we ended up with civil law in the first place.

That's not the same thing. The judge has authority to force a decision in civil court. It's very different.

It couldn't hurt to have an extra layer. I really think arbitration has a lot of potential, but agree that as the private arbitration system stands there are some problems with it. I know a fair number of people who have had success with it, and it can save money for both parties.

[archonsod]

That's not the same thing. The judge has authority to force a decision in civil court. It's very different.

That's because it was found that without any means of enforcing a decision, arbitration rarely works. It's generally a non-issue these days; in those situations where arbitration is likely to work it can generally be sorted out by the solicitors without recourse to a judge.

[gwathdring]

That's because it was found that without any means of enforcing a decision, arbitration rarely works. It's generally a non-issue these days; in those situations where arbitration is likely to work it can generally be sorted out by the solicitors without recourse to a judge.

"It was found" by who? I don't think there was ever a massive experiment conducted with government-backed/legitimized arbitration in conjunction with a court system. Also, just because a system has evolved a certain way does not mean it has gotten unequivocally better.

The second point is fair, but it could save both parties money to communicate in a space without solicitors--there would be legal protections related to what is said during arbitration, and the arbiter would have legal knowledge of the general situation and be on hand both to explain legal ramifications of the issue and to act as moderator.

You could be right. It might not be any better, practically speaking, at getting people to cooperate without court action than just having their respective lawyers meet up in an alley or something before going to court. It might not be worth the money it would cost. But I think there's a lot of value in that kind of a system and I do think it would have a very different results from having a user-side cooperative meeting; whether those results would be better is something I'm not sure about.

Also what if arbitration were a required first step for some types of legal problems? It's something to do while waiting for your court date, and we could weed out legal problems that respond poorly to arbitration. But even if it just amounted to a moderated meeting between the opposing parties and their lawyers and not the lawyer-free thing I was thinking of, requiring that meeting before the parties go to court could be a very good thing.