Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in or
create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
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, possibly by false information, is difficult though. | | '''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]].
| |
|
| |
|
| ... | | ... |
| Line 10: |
Line 6: |
|
| |
|
| * [[m:TIPAESA]] | | * [[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]
| |