mediation?

[Mike Barskey]

MaineShark wrote in another thread, in response to comments between shyfrog and I that were getting the thread off-topic:

Guys, would it be possible to convince you two to sit down for some sort of mediation?  Even if you can't solve your differences, maybe you could agree to some sort of rules of conduct regarding these forum interactions?  "You ignore me and I'll ignore you," or "you ignore me unless I say X, and I'll ignore you unless you say Y," or whatever?

Or at least actually post whatever happened between you two?  Even if any of us should be ostracizing either of you, the innuendo isn't helpful in determining that.  All I can gather is that you dislike each other, and each feel the other has acted in some ways immorally.  You've each said or hinted at some details beyond that, but nowhere near enough for this back-and-forth to even be meaningful to observers.  I'd suggest a separate thread, and each of you post your story, without responding to the other (you obviously each feel the other is being dishonest in certain ways, so let's take that as a given).  Then allow others to ask questions, and respond to them (but, again, never to each other).  That might at least help shed some light on all this, because when you address each other, you're obviously going to be assuming certain things as known, that the rest of us don't know (hence addressing questions from the audience, only).

I like both of you, and I'm optimistic that that won't change substantially.  Nor do I expect you guys to become bosom buddies.  But it would at least help those on the outside of all this, if you guys could either agree to some mutually-acceptable method of explaining what's going on, or to some mutually-acceptable terms under which you can ignore each other.  Because it's just all-fired confusing, right now.

Joe

Joe, what would mediation do? Do you mean: have a third party hear each of our stories and then recommend how we should behave around each other?

[shyfrog]

I'm actually looking for mediation between myself and Brigitte, not between me and Barskey (except for that whole violation of private property rights thing...) All else consists of resolving issues that have absolutely, positively nothing to do with Mike Barskey (therefore he is uninvited) and everything to do with Brigitte Eastman.

[Tunga]

Previous thought deleted to preserve the peace. 

[Mike Barskey]

I did address my question to Joe, not you, Lou. But I do realize this is a public forum and that if the public responds, they are not talking out of turn. Though I'm not talking to only Joe and I would appreciate other people's input, even yours, you didn't address my question.

I don't understand what mediation would do for our relationship. I do understand what arbitration would do, if you requested it for me allegedly violating your property rights. If you request such arbitration, I'll be glad to do it. But I'm wondering what mediation would do.

[Ron Helwig]

I don't understand what mediation would do for our relationship. I do understand what arbitration would do, if you requested it for me allegedly violating your property rights. If you request such arbitration, I'll be glad to do it. But I'm wondering what mediation would do.

<Pretending to be Mike Ruff>
Arbitration is an attempt by adversaries to "play nice" by having someone else come up with a solution to their issues and impose it upon them.

Mediation is an attempt to solve the issues by those involved by talking to each other with a sort of referee. The mediator is explicitly not trying to impose a solution, but help the parties come up with their own.
</Pretending to be Mike Ruff>

[Mike Barskey]

Mediation is an attempt to solve the issues by those involved by talking to each other with a sort of referee. The mediator is explicitly not trying to impose a solution, but help the parties come up with their own.

Ah, thanks.

My solution to deal with people I don't like is to not deal with them. Lou is not looking to fix his relationship with me:

I'm actually looking for mediation between myself and Brigitte, not between me and Barskey...

Back in October I tried to restore our friendship (Lou has since corrected me, saying he was never my friend) or at least act civilly toward each other, but Lou did not choose to work with me toward that goal. I stopped trying.

It Lou requests arbitration about my alleged violation of his private property, I will do it.

[Russell Kanning]

i think any of those paths would be good for either situation
anything but the status quo

[MaineShark]

Back in October I tried to restore our friendship (Lou has since corrected me, saying he was never my friend) or at least act civilly toward each other, but Lou did not choose to work with me toward that goal. I stopped trying.

The mediator, as Ron notes, is there to facilitate.  He doesn't order you around, or make decisions for you.  He's told what the goal is, and will say something if negotiations get off-topic, or offer some neutral suggestions if things stall (eg, "if you compromise on X, and he compromises on Y, would that be acceptable?").

Joe

[the_central_scrutinizer]

I recommend Mike Ruff. He was my introduction to the FSP a few years ago and has left a very good impression on me for that. I will also offer to be a mediator between Lou and Mike. I won't claim to be unbiased - they are both good friends of mine for reasons all their own and wish to see the animosity between them resolved.

this is Josh K. by the way.

[David]

- they are both good friends of mine for reasons all their own and wish to see the animosity between them resolved.

My sentiments also.
Hatred is a poison that warps the mind and destroys the soul.