Purposeful, I was referring to the role of mediation in general especially in RL usage and the way the role is used and notions surrounding it in practice. Which you obviously seem to have no experience of, otherwise youd understand what i mean, no offence intended there.
BTW are you aware of the use of mediation in rape cases, and the roles played etc? I am and let me tell you, it doesnt fit mine or your ideas of what a mediator is and what the role of mediation should be not even in such seriously sensitive issues as that.
I believe a mediator should keep themselves openminded, but I don't believe that this equates to fence sitting. The fact is in cases that need mediation (especially so for the kind that might be needed on Intensity) it isn't always a case of black and white, one party isn't always completely innocent. To me a mediator will listen to both sides without letting their preconceived notions of either side's character colour their judgement- I don't call that fence sitting or wussing out and I actually think that more people should try to do that. Sure a mediator has to try to be unbiased but I don't agree that that means you can never stand up for those who need you to- which is why I think two mediators working together is a much more workable idea than one trying to argue the case for both sides.
I also disagree with you that honesty isn't a neccessary quality for a mediator (I realise you didn't explicitly claim that it wasn't but you did imply it by saying you were too honest for the role)- I believe a mediator has to be honest, especially with themselves- even, no especially if that means they have to look at a situation objectively and realise if their feelings towards a person involved are getting in the way of them making a honest assessment of the situation. There's nothing honest about 'convicting' someone with no evidence other than your gut instinct-especially if both parties involved seem to have something against the other.
Yes Purposeful i can agree with most of that ideology, and find that great if thats the way you would like to see the role of mediator be used, but that isnt really the way the role was meant to be used, or is considered and that isnt the way it is normally used or works in practice, im afraid, which is what im trying to say and that is indeed why it is considered by most who are aware of its old school rules and the way it works in practice (me being one) as a total cop out. Mediation in its typical usage and role is pathetic, it is fence sitting (which is different from being open-minded), no forming of opinions, no taking sides, it is a completely neutral role which is meant to STAY neutral, no emotionally or actively getting involved and yes alot of massaging/fluffing, manipulation and encouraging. Nothing like the way we envisage it could be used or the way we would like to use the role. My views of what i would consider a "better" approach regarding the role of mediator/mediation i have partly already stated and they are in alot of ways similar to yours.
One reason (besides time commitment etc that i already stated) i wasnt interested in putting myself forward for mediator here is because to be quite honest im actually unsure of how many people here are actually aware of the way mediation works in practice, and the way the role is interpretated by them or how many people support that old schooled idiotic approach where being HONEST, outspoken and making your voice heard in relation to situations, which sometimes means taking a side after evaluating etc is considered the wrong thing to do and an abusal of the position and what it stands for (which is why i statedi would be the wrong person for the role due to that, if people here were taking and supporting an old school approach). I was also unsure of how many people would share my defintion of a more modern "evaluator" approach to mediation and support that view. So even if i did find the time, it could have been a waste of it and a tad akward, if i had been nominated especially when it came to teaming up with someone if both didnt share a similar foundation or grounding of what the role of mediator should be etc even though it would be natural they may possibly still both have different approaches in dealing with any conflicts etc, (it would also be frustrating if one was an old school moron and the other more interested in a more modern adequate use of the role which had potential to be more than fake BS and softsoaping). Also yes i too agree that two mediators are better than one especially if they both have a similar outlook regarding the role.
Mcjagger your old school view of mediator as being a "fluffer" or "massager" has basically just lost you any possibility of getting my vote completely, sorry mate. Purposeful however gains my vote and support along with my respect (which can sometimes be hard to acheive
) due to her comments. +1 purposeful good luck with the campaign, and i genuinely mean that, i hope you have a better understanding of what i meant, and you see my comments werent meant in a disrespectful way etc.
