Editing Three Parties Rule

'''Three Parties Rule''' states that a situation where there are two parties with conflicting interests should be resolved by including a neutral third party to assess the claims/accusations made. Finding a trusted mediator that will not get errored, possibly by false information, is difficult though.

The single relationship that gets "stuck" between A and B can be "unstuck" only if C shares enough of their common [[bias]] (e.g. [[culture]] or [[values]]) to gain their trust and respect, but not so much with either that they are seen as "biased" relative to the dispute at hand.  Finding [[undisputed facts]] (not "undisputable" or "certain" just "not currently disputed") to agree on helps.  Some [[standard of evidence]] should apply to make this simpler.  If this is part of formal legal systems we call C a "judge" as opposed to a [[mediator]].

Even if not, there are now three relationships where formerly there was one.  A further extension to force A and B to use "mediators" to approach the "judge" ("officers of the court" or "lawyers") means the A=B relationship is broken and the new parties, the lawyers, replace them with a new D=E relationship, while each has a relationship C=D and C=E with the judge.  Meanwhile the A=D and B=E relationships form, with '[[client confidentiality]]' to ensure they trust them and thus do not feel like they have to enter the debate directly themselves.  So the A=D=C relationship and B=E=C relationship is supposed to be good enough even for the to parties to trust their bodies to it!  This is what we call [[law]].

...
----
===See also:===

* [[m:TIPAESA]]
*[http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Multiple_point_of_view Multiple point of view] - Disinfopedia
*[http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Point_of_view Point of view] 
*[http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Systemic_bias Systemic bias]