Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 2

Taking

a Few Minutes to Address Concerns with eQuibbly's Philosophy


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.

Вам также может понравиться