Editing Three Parties Rule
The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision | Your text | ||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
'''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 | '''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 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]]. | 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]]. |