Difference between revisions of "SvsG Benefits of Written Negotiation"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m (→in Griever-ese: maimonides quote) |
|||
Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
* You won't have to see Nick, speak with him, or be in his presence | * You won't have to see Nick, speak with him, or be in his presence | ||
* You can take the necessary time to recover from the ridiculousness and spun-ness of Nick's absurd claims before having to reply, thus allowing truth and righteousness to prevail | * You can take the necessary time to recover from the ridiculousness and spun-ness of Nick's absurd claims before having to reply, thus allowing truth and righteousness to prevail | ||
* Or, as you [[2004-02-21 SvsG Emails|once said]], "Lose with truth and right rather than gain with falsehood and wrong." – [[Wikipedia:Maimonides|Maimonides]], "Tzavaah" |
Revision as of 17:35, 22 October 2005
Staddon vs. Griever: Advantages to Written Negotiation
Written negotiation has clear advantages to both parties, especially in a complex case like this one; I have not been able to think of any disadvantages.
in objective terms
- Anyone who gives false or contradictory information, or who replies without really answering the questions at hand, will go on record as having done so.
- In the event that either party feels that the process was unfair (either during or afterwards), they will have documentation of this unfairness
- Neither party will have to be inconvenienced by the stress and slowness which is inevitable in any situation where negotiation can only take place when both parties meet face-to-face, and when
- negotiation can only take place on on a date when both parties are available and prepared to lose an entire day
- said parties have had great difficulty agreeing about anything much in the past, especially meeting dates
- one party has to travel 325 miles each direction in order to be at said meeting, and has to make arrangements to deal with being away from home overnight
- both parties have very busy schedules, inevitably resulting in much rescheduling of each meeting date
- Parties will not have to meet face-to-face, which would obviously be stressful for all involved
- More time is allowed for each party to process what the other party has said, calm down if necessary, and compose a solid, carefully-considered reply, leading to better dialogue
- Taking time to reply accurately, as well as to do research towards one's answer, is not penalized as harshly as it would be in the heavily time-constrained environment of face-to-face negotiation in a courtroom
- Each party's ability to research information will not be constrained by whatever documents they happen to have brought with them to the courtroom
in Griever-ese
- If Nick says something really outrageous, his idiocy will be on record for the whole world to see
- If you end up getting screwed by the process, you will have written proof of how insanely corrupt and unfair the legal system is
- You won't have to see Nick, speak with him, or be in his presence
- You can take the necessary time to recover from the ridiculousness and spun-ness of Nick's absurd claims before having to reply, thus allowing truth and righteousness to prevail
- Or, as you once said, "Lose with truth and right rather than gain with falsehood and wrong." – Maimonides, "Tzavaah"