Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Yesterday was a big day for us; we officially announced eQuibbly's launch and have already seen an increase in awareness among the general public. Within discussions following the announcement, there have been some concerns and misperceptions expressed about the services eQuibbly is offering. Thats why I wanted to take a few minutes to write this post and educate people more about what eQuibbly is all about to do my best to address those concerns and clear up those misperceptions. If you have any questions or concerns not covered here that you would like me to address, please let me know by posting comments! Concern: eQuibbly will only attract superficial arguments! Response: eQuibbly has already attracted both superficial arguments as well as very meaningful disputes to resolve. You can browse the disputes for yourself at https://www.equibbly.com/disputes (1) Example of a meaningful dispute: http://www.equibbly.com/disputes/my-child-s-father-is-not-being-resonable (2) Example of a superficial one: http://www.equibbly.com/disputes/my-roommate-should-buy-his-own-damn-beer-booze Concern: It's just a popularity contest where the Party with the most friends always wins! Response: Thats not necessarily true, although it can happen. Anyone can vote, and eQuibbly visitors seem to vote whether they know the parties or not. The more popular eQuibbly becomes and the more traffic we get, the less reliant the parties will be on their friends since the other users will far outnumber them thats the plan. The intent is really not to be a popularity contest. And if theyre good friends, they will vote for the party who is in the right; not just for their friend. Concern: The disputes posted publicly are not legally binding so the losing Party can't be forced to carry out the winning resolution - that's useless! Response: That is true for the disputes posted using the Public Vote & Non-Binding option when a user clicks the "Post Dispute" button. In this situation it's up to the Parties themselves to figure out an agreement ahead of time if they want it to be enforceable. Most people will likely have a "gentleman's agreement" (or gentlewoman's agreement). eQuibbly also offers a Private & Binding dispute option that is legally binding (the public wont be able to see it and vote - only the arbitrators the Parties invite to participate will have that ability). It is as legally binding as any signed written contract, and just one small step removed from a court judgment it just requires a summary application to the court to convert the arbitration award into a judgment. This is a quick and inexpensive procedure that courts typically grant without issue. The various State/Provincial and Federal Arbitration Acts (legislation on arbitration) express a presumption that courts shall confirm
arbitration
awards
(the
arbitrators'
decision),
and
the
trend
in
the
courts
in
both
the
U.S.
and
Canada
is
to
enforce
arbitration
awards
instead
of
allowing
an
appeal,
unless
there
are
extenuating
circumstances
such
as
fraud,
or
obvious
and
extreme
bias.
Concern:
You
can't
trust
the
public
to
make
good
decisions
-
there
are
too
many
idiots
and
too
many
biases!
Response:
This
may
be
true
at
times
for
some
posted
disputes
that
don't
garner
much
attention
and
therefore
have
few
voters.
That
is
why
eQuibbly
provides
the
Parties
with
a
way
to
invite
more
voters
using
their
social
networks;
every
dispute
has
a
"Share
this
with
others"
button
to
post
it
on
Facebook
and
Twitter.
But
this
is
no
different
than
what
happens
at
times
in
a
courtroom
trial
where
a
jury
is
relied
on
to
make
decisions.
The
jury
is
supposed
to
be
representative
of
the
accuseds
community
a
jury
of
the
defendants
peers
is
often
how
it
is
described.
If
we
trust
a
jury
of
the
defendants
peers
(typically
between
6
and
12
jurors)
to
make
the
right
decision
of
whether
someone
should
live
or
die,
or
whether
they
should
be
imprisoned
for
life
or
set
free,
and
we
accept
that
every
citizen
should
have
one
vote
when
electing
governments,
why
would
it
not
be
acceptable
for
resolving
disputes?
eQuibbly
believes
that
although
you
will
get
the
odd
idiot
posting
an
opinion
or
voting
once
in
a
while,
for
the
most
part
the
communitys
opinion
in
aggregate
will
be
valid,
reasoned,
logical
and
wise.
Biases
will
typically
fade
away
as
the
number
of
voters
increase.
This
concept
is
explained
in
our
blog
post
"Crowdsourcing
Online
Dispute
Resolution
The
New
ADR"
Concern:
This
is
not
a
good
way
of
resolving
disputes!
Response:
Most
Parties
to
a
dispute
turning
to
eQuibbly
for
a
resolution
will
have
likely
already
exhausted
the
one-on- one
negotiation
strategy
without
success.
What
other
options
does
a
person
have?
They
could
take
it
to
court
if
they
have
either
thousands
of
dollars
to
hire
an
attorney,
or
a
lot
of
time
and
patience
to
do
it
themselves.
It
is
not
an
easy
process
to
understand
for
the
layperson;
it
is
riddled
with
possible
technical
pitfalls
that
could
destroy
their
chances
of
winning,
it
requires
a
lot
of
paperwork
and
carefully
following
rules
that
are
often
confusing,
and
given
the
backlog
of
cases
in
the
court
system
it
will
likely
take
many
months
if
not
years
to
conclude.
And
in
the
end
they
may
end
up
with
a
judge
who
has
his
or
her
own
biases,
or
a
jury
that
decides
for
the
other
party
simply
because
they
don't
like
the
way
the
plaintiff
presented
himself
in
court.
Contest:
eQuibbly is holding a "Pen the Best Tagline" contest on Facebook and Twitter until October 15, 2012 where the winner will receive $400. See details on eQuibblys Facebook Page. About eQuibbly eQuibbly offers a free web application to help resolve disputes quickly and fairly online. The company believes decisions should be rendered according to what impartial third parties perceive as being fair to the persons involved given the circumstances surrounding the dispute, rather than the uncompromising laws of the judiciary. eQuibbly offers two options: (1) Post a dispute in public so users of the site and your social network can vote for the winner, or (2) post a confidential private dispute where only invited arbitrators or mediators can participate.