Marko Koskinen (email@example.com)
Tue, 06 Mar 2001 13:36:42 -0500
> I think where things get confused on JC is when we start thinking of JC
> cases as feuds between two people. JC is not about resolving disputes (even
> though I said dispute in my first post - can I take that back?). JC is
> about the embodiment of community norms.
I guess I'm just against these "community norms". I can't really see any
basis for them. ALL issues can be considered personal disuptes. The only
community rules needed could be the procedural rules for the PSs, SMs,
and other possible institutions. And if someone would violate these
"rules" it would still be a personal dispute between the people who were
annoyed by this and the violators.
> The idea that JC resolves disputes is inaccurate, and that's another reason
> why mediation cannot take its place. So that's why to try to turn a rule
> violation into a personal dispute by insinuating that it should go to
> mediation is insulting to the plaintiff *and* the defendant.
And I'm suggesting that all cases except personal disputes are
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Mar 29 2001 - 11:16:55 EST