|
And now... a long winded reply.
CalvinTat: Arbitrators must not be involved with either parties in the dispute but in some cases a local Arbitrator may be necessary. The falsifying of information is always a concern and it is the responsibility of both the Arbitrator and disputee's to verify any information that is gathered for the report.
SockMonkey: Small Claims court does work, I am sure, but as Goldman says the "airing of dirty laundry" has some effect. The idea of the CASDRC is to keep this within the community, because there are people out there who will pay attention to what is being taken to court, and may raise a fuss. The last thing we need are headlines like "Judge throws gun case out of court" or "Guns seized after court ruling". Also, the council would not be made up of one person who passes judgement on the disputees; it would be a board of sufficient numbers and backgrounds to ensure that the reccomendations from the Arbitrator are sufficient to resolve the situation.
Bunny: Keep to the thread already started please, thank you.
Brian: I wish such a council existed now, and perhaps this should only be one part of it's birth.
lt_poncho: Thank you for the support.
PTE. Pyle: The parties would have signed a contract to abide by the ruling before the process began. If they say screw it, they are breaching a contract.
made Man: See above. Also note that in order for the CASDRC to become involved, both parties must agree to start the process; it could not be started by only one person.
Goldman: Until a sanctioning body can control airsoft games in a totalitarian way (and that may not be a good thing) there is no way to enforce rulings on those who don't sign contracts.
Thank you for the support and critcism, keep it coming,
Devon
|