Dispute resolution across platforms : offshore gambling industry & EVE online

Contemporary online environments suffer from a regulatory gap; that is there are few options for participants between customer service departments and potentially expensive court cases in foreign jurisdictions. Whatever form of regulation ultimately fills that gap will be charged with determining whether specific behavior, within a specific environment, is fair or foul; whether it’s cheating or not. However, cheating is a term that, despite substantial academic study, remains problematic. Is anything the developer doesn’t want you to do cheating? Is it only if your actions breach the formal terms of service? What about the community norms, do they matter at all? All of these remain largely unresolved questions, due to the lack of public determination of cases in such environments, which have mostly been settled prior to legal action. In this paper, I propose a re-branding of participant activity in such environments into developer-sanctioned, advantage play, and cheating. Advantage play, ultimately, is activity within the environment in which the player is able to turn the mechanics of the environment to their advantage without breaching the rules of the environment. Such a definition, and the term itself, is based on the usage of the term within the gambling industry, in which advantage play is considered betting with the advantage in the players’ favor rather than that of the house. Through examples from both the gambling industry and the Massively Multiplayer Role-Playing Game Eve Online, I consider the problems in defining cheating, suggest how the term ‘advantage play’ may be useful in understanding participants behavior in contemporary environments, and ultimately consider the use of such terminology in dispute resolution models which may overcome this regulatory gap.

An evaluation of the sustainability of agreements reached through mediations conducted by the dispute resolution centres of the Department of Justice and Attorney General, Queensland between 1999 to 2003

In 1990 the Dispute Resolution Centres Act, 1990 (Qld) (the Act) was passed by the Queensland Parliament. In the second reading speech for the Dispute Resolution Centres Bill on May 1990 the Hon Dean Wells stated that the proposed legislation would make mediation services available “in a non-coercive, voluntary forum where, with the help of trained mediators, the disputants will be assisted towards their own solutions to their disputes, thereby ensuring that the result is acceptable to the parties” (Hansard, 1990, 1718). It was recognised at that time that a method for resolving disputes was necessary for which “the conventional court system is not always equipped to provide lasting resolution” (Hansard, 1990, 1717). In particular, the lasting resolution of “disputes between people in continuing relationships” was seen as made possible through the new legislation; for example, “domestic disputes, disputes between employees, and neighbourhood disputes relating to such issues as overhanging tree branches, dividing fences, barking dogs, smoke, noise and other nuisances are occurring continually in the community” (Hansard, 1990, 1717). The key features of the proposed form of mediation in the Act were articulated as follows: “attendance of both parties at mediation sessions is voluntary; a party may withdraw at any time; mediation sessions will be conducted with as little formality and technicality as possible; the rules of evidence will not apply; any agreement reached is not enforceable in any court; although it could be made so if the parties chose to proceed that way; and the provisions of the Act do not affect any rights or remedies that a party to a dispute has apart from the Act” (Hansard, 1990, 1718). Since the introduction of the Act, the Alternative Dispute Resolution Branch of the Queensland Department of Justice and Attorney General has offered mediation services through, first the Community Justice Program (CJP), and then the Dispute Resolution Centres (DRCs) for a range of family, neighbourhood, workplace and community disputes. These services have mirrored those available through similar government agencies in other states such as the Community Justice Centres of NSW and the Victorian Dispute Resolution Centres. Since 1990, mediation has become one of the fastest growing forms of alternative dispute resolution (ADR). Sourdin has commented that "In addition to the growth in court-based and community-based dispute resolution schemes, ADR has been institutionalised and has grown within Australia and overseas” (2005, 14). In Australia, in particular, the development of ADR service provision “has been assisted by the creation and growth of professional organisations such as the Leading Edge Alternative Dispute Resolvers (LEADR), the Australian Commercial Dispute Centres (ACDC), Australian Disputes Resolution Association (ADRA), Conflict Resolution Network, and the Institute of Arbitrators and Mediators Australia (IAMA)” (Sourdin, 2005, 14). The increased emphasis on the use of ADR within education contexts (particularly secondary and tertiary contexts) has “also led to an increasing acceptance and understanding of (ADR) processes” (Sourdin, 2005, 14). Proponents of the mediation process, in particular, argue that much of its success derives from the inherent flexibility and creativity of the agreements reached through the mediation process and that it is a relatively low cost option in many cases (Menkel-Meadow, 1997, 417). It is also accepted that one of the main reasons for the success of mediation can be attributed to the high level of participation by the parties involved and thus creating a sense of ownership of, and commitment to, the terms of the agreement (Boulle, 2005, 65). These characteristics are associated with some of the core values of mediation, particularly as practised in community-based models as found at the DRCs. These core values include voluntary participation, party self-determination and party empowerment (Boulle, 2005, 65). For this reason mediation is argued as being an effective approach to resolving disputes, that creates a lasting resolution of the issues. Evaluation of the mediation process, particularly in the context of the growth of ADR, has been an important aspect of the development of the process (Sourdin, 2008). Writing in 2005 for example, Boulle, states that “although there is a constant refrain for more research into mediation practice, there has been a not insignificant amount of mediation measurement, both in Australia and overseas” (Boulle, 2005, 575). The positive claims of mediation have been supported to a significant degree by evaluations of the efficiency and effectiveness of the process. A common indicator of the effectiveness of mediation is the settlement rate achieved. High settlement rates for mediated disputes have been found for Australia (Altobelli, 2003) and internationally (Alexander, 2003). Boulle notes that mediation agreement rates claimed by service providers range from 55% to 92% (Boulle, 2005, 590). The annual reports for the Alternative Dispute Resolution Branch of the Queensland Department of Justice and Attorney-General considered prior to the commencement of this study indicated generally achievement of an approximate settlement figure of 86% by the Queensland Dispute Resolution Centres. More recently, the 2008-2009 annual report states that of the 2291 civil dispute mediated in 2007-2008, 86% reached an agreement. Further, of the 2693 civil disputes mediated in 2008-2009, 73% reached an agreement. These results are noted in the report as indicating “the effectiveness of mediation in resolving disputes” and as reflecting “the high level of agreement achieved for voluntary mediations” (Annual Report, 2008-2009, online). Whilst the settlement rates for the DRCs are strong, parties are rarely contacted for long term follow-up to assess whether agreements reached during mediation lasted to the satisfaction of each party. It has certainly been the case that the Dispute Resolution Centres of Queensland have not been resourced to conduct long-term follow-up assessments of mediation agreements. As Wade notes, "it is very difficult to compare "success" rates” and whilst “politicians want the comparison studies (they) usually do not want the delay and expense of accurate studies" (1998, 114). To date, therefore, it is fair to say that the efficiency of the mediation process has been evaluated but not necessarily its effectiveness. Rather, the practice at the Queensland DRCs has been to evaluate the quality of mediation service provision and of the practice of the mediation process. This has occurred, for example, through follow-up surveys of parties' satisfaction rates with the mediation service. In most other respects it is fair to say that the Centres have relied on the high settlement rates of the mediation process as a sign of the effectiveness of mediation (Annual Reports 1991 - 2010). Research of the mediation literature conducted for the purpose of this thesis has also indicated that there is little evaluative literature that provides an in-depth analysis and assessment of the longevity of mediated agreements. Instead evaluative studies of mediation tend to assess how mediation is conducted, or compare mediation with other conflict resolution options, or assess the agreement rate of mediations, including parties' levels of satisfaction with the service provision of the dispute resolution service provider (Boulle, 2005, Chapter 16).

Assisting future lawyers to conceptualise their dispute resolution advocacy role

This article discusses the key concepts that underpin an elective subject, Dispute Resolution Practice, offered in the Queensland University of Technology undergraduate law curriculum. They were conceptualised during a Teaching Fellowship when research was conducted into how to assist future lawyers to conceptualise their dispute resolution advocacy role. The unit also contains the majority of content recommended in the recent National Alternative Dispute Resolution Advisory Council Report, “Teaching Alternative Dispute Resolution in Australian Law Schools”. The environments in which lawyers operate and the knowledge and skills they require to represent clients in negotiation, mediation and conciliation processes will be examined.

Gambling & gaming : power relations in dispute resolution

Who, ultimately, has power? Is it the senior executive with his finger on the off switch, is it the users themselves who make the decision to participate and contribute financially, or is it those who report on the actions of the company with the ability to reach large numbers of existing and potential players? In both the gambling and gaming industries, power is up for grabs. This work undertakes to consider how norms are formed in online gaming communities; that is, how the developers and players negotiate amongst themselves both how the game will operate. Also considered is how to resolve disputes that arise, and what power and limitations each side has when they need to make an impact – from developers switching off the server, to players quitting en-mass or causing disruption within the environment (using the recent example of Eve Online). Outside of the direct sphere of the game however a third party lurks – commentators. These may take the form of well established review sites, community forums or, in the case of the gambling industry, dispute resolution services but their power stake is clear – by publicising and interpreting the acts of both developers and players, they are in a position to influence whether current players stick with a company, whether new players join a company and how the company is perceived in the wider community.

Alternative dispute resolution : are apology and forgiveness simply two sides of the one coin?

Alternative dispute resolution (a.d.r.) processes are entrenched in western style legal systems. Forms of dispute resolution are utilised within schools and health systems; built in to commercial contracts; found in workplaces, clubs and organisations; and accepted in general day-to-day community disputes. The a.d.r. literature includes references to ‘apology’, but is largely silent on ‘forgiveness’. Where an apology is offered as part of a dispute resolution process, practice suggests that formalised ‘forgiveness’ rarely follows. Mediators may agree there is a meaningful place for apology in dispute resolution processes, but are most unlikely to support a view that forgiveness, as a conscious act, has an equivalent place. Yet, if forgiveness is not limited to the ‘pardoning of an offence’, but includes a ‘giving up of resentment’, or the relinquishing of a grudge, then forgiveness may play an underestimated role in dispute management. In the context of some day-to-day dispute management practice, this paper questions whether forgiveness should follow an apology; and concludes that meaningful resolutions can be reached without any formal element of ‘forgiveness’ or absolution. However, dispute management practitioners need to be aware of the latent role other aspects of forgiveness may play for the disputing parties.

Lawyers' role options in family dispute resolution

Both family lawyers and family dispute resolution practitioners are“gatekeepers” to the family law system.In this article the authors explore,with reference to recent research, the characteristics shown to be present in successful collaborative relationships between these two groups of professionals. They then apply Rundle’s spectrum of contributions that lawyers can make to mediation to the family law context and explore the various role options for family lawyers in family dispute resolution.

The development of an effective and efficient dispute resolution processes for strata scheme disputes in peninsular Malaysia

Dispute resolution in strata schemes in Peninsular Malaysia should focus on more than just "settlement." The quality of the outcome, its sustainability and its relevance in supporting the basic principles of a good neighbourhood and self-governance in a strata scheme are also fundamental. Based on the comprehensive law movement, this thesis develops a theoretical framework for strata scheme disputes within the parameters of therapeutic jurisprudence, preventive law, alternative dispute resolution (ADR) and problem-solving courts. The therapeutic orientation of this model offers approaches that promote positive communication between disputing parties, preserve neighbour relations and optimise people's psychological and emotional well-being.

Representing clients from courtroom to mediation settings : switching hats between adversarial advocacy and dispute resolution advocacy

In the vast majority of cases legal representation in mediation can provide many advantages for clients. However, in some, progress can be thwarted when lawyers do not understand the goals of the mediation process and their dispute resolution advocacy role. This article will explore some of the similarities and differences between the knowledge and skills that lawyers can draw upon when representing clients in adversarial court hearings as compared with non-adversarial settings, such as in mediations. One key distinction is the different approaches that legal representatives can use to effectively act in the best interests of clients. This article will highlight how an appreciation of such distinctions can assist lawyers to “switch” hats between their adversarial and non-adversarial roles. In particular, an understanding that the duty to promote the best interests of clients in mediation is consistent with a collaborative and problem-solving approach can greatly assist in the resolution process.

Teaching dispute resolution ethics in the law curriculum

Dispute resolution processes such as mediation are now central to contemporary legal practice. For this reason it is critical that the law curriculum includes instruction on mediation ethics, so that law graduates enter the profession equipped to deal with ethical dilemmas arising in this context. However, our recent content analysis of the unit outlines for professional responsibility subjects in Australian law schools indicates that this important area of legal ethics is often excluded from the curriculum. In most Australian law schools, dispute resolution subjects (where mediation ethics might also be considered) continue to be offered as stand-alone electives in the law degree. This means that many law students are graduating without the ethical knowledge and judgment-making skills needed in dispute resolution environments. This is contrary to the intentions of the Threshold Learning Outcomes for Law. This paper argues that the current paucity of mediation ethics instruction in the Australian law curriculum is problematic, given mediation’s relevance to contemporary legal practice. The paper discusses the importance of including mediation ethics in the law curriculum, and the importance of dispute resolution more broadly as a mandatory component of the law degree in Australia. It offers an outline of a possible mediation ethics module that could be included in professional responsibility subjects.

Teaching dispute resolution in the first year for law student well-being

At the QUT Law School, the most recent curriculum review responded to an increasing demand from the profession for law graduates to be equipped with dispute resolution knowledge, skills and attitudes. From 2015, a compulsory dispute resolution subject will be a critical part of an intentionally designed core first year curriculum. It is important for the Law School at QUT that no graduate of the new curriculum will leave our institution without real world dispute resolution knowledge and skills. This initiative is also grounded in evidenced-based research about the benefits for student well-being that derive from the subject content and pedagogy of dispute resolution. This paper explains why teaching dispute resolution in the first year of the law degree is an important strategy for promoting the well-being of law students.

Hearing parties' voices in Coordinated Family Dispute Resolution (CFDR) : An Australian pilot of a family mediation model designed for matters involving a history of domestic violence

This paper discusses the Coordinated Family Dispute Resolution (family mediation) process piloted in Australia in 2010–2012. This process was evaluated by the Australian Institute of Family Studies as being ‘at the cutting edge of family law practice’ because it involves the conscious application of mediation where there has been a history of family violence, in a clinically collaborative multidisciplinary and multi-agency setting. The Australian government’s failure to invest resources in the ongoing funding of this model jeopardises the safety and efficacy of family dispute resolution practice in family violence contexts, and compromises the hearing of the voices of family violence victims and their children.