Nice if it works, but I see a lot of problems before this is happening
Tommy

what kind of problems?

ok so you have a up hill battle. You have to prove that you are a good third party negotiator and that you will not be one sided.
Biggest problem is creditability, why am I going to you?

This idea is not new on CH, perhaps you should search though and find others and try to talk to the owners of those ideas to incorporate their views on the idea into yours.

Good luck

Here are a few thoughts...

In any business, credibility is something that's earned and will certainly take time. Finding solid decision makers is paramount.

From a business development perspective, I'm counting on larger corporations acknowledging the benefits of this service and writing a "peacedeal clause" into their contracts. This would mean all disputes resulting from sales would need to be worked out through peacedeals.org. This gives businesses the chance to avoid costly legal wrangling. This is also a way that credibility could be established - through buy-in from larger corporations.

If this is an old idea, or if you have any other comments, I would love to read them.

hmmm... an online negotiator for the consumer you mean? Probably would work for a legal eagles firm... but might not work in majority of the cases since personal appearance and encounter between plaintiff and parties are always demanded.

Why not simply ask the PAO (public attorney's Office) do this website?

I think a website service like this would certainly relieve the strain on the justice system. I don't know if your local public attorney would have either the time or the skill to make a website like this.

I really like this idea, it could take a lot ofhe stupid cases out of the courts, but just like the courts you might win, you will still have to collect. Maybe start off with cases with claims in the $200 - $500 range and set up an escrow that use credit cards to ensure winner gets paid that could be your maginal value add and the aility to build a business/service with legs.

The escrow concept is awesome! Thanks.

I think big-ass companies find the justice system works in their favor. Who has time to fight it out in court? And if they poisoned your water supply... easier for them to wait for you to die, than settle quickly out of court.

Like the idea (as a consumer), but I don't see it benefiting corporations. They know the justice-system deck is stacked in their favor, so why would they opt to use an alternative?

It might get them brownie points in the public eye (to use such a service), but you'll have trouble getting early adopter corporate participation to get the ball rolling.

I like the idea, but I don't think you should aim to high, id est: don't try to solve the Mid-East conflict, try solving issues like a civilian who wants to cut a tree but his disagrees.

@Dutch - I agree, peacedeals is more like small claims court and less like an international diplomacy tool. Most likely best suited for cases under $5000.

@Gordon - You are right, for large companies to be untouchable is certainly a benefit if they were trying to get away with something nefarious on a grand scale. However, it may be useful for something like outsourcing account collection. For smaller business that simply can't afford to go to court, this is a great way to reduce liability.

There is also a growing market for dispute resolution in online worlds where business transactions are being conducted and real money is changing hands on a daily basis. There is no official jurisdiction here. Online gaming companies are busy enhancing the gaming experience rather than policing users. With buy-in from game makers, users would have assurance that business could be conducted safely with policy violators facing expulsion for not settling a dispute through peacedeals.

Really, really and really interesting. I don't see that as a general internet justice court, but as a new feature in social networks such as virtual communities (as you metioned, secondlife, habbo..), irc chats, forums..
This would convert the actual monarchy (of private games) into real democracies, where people are in courts for banning (exclusion from the social network) and cases are taken as models for the rest of community (frightening or just pedagogical purposes).
Go ahead!

Sometimes the reason things end up in court is because there is no consensual way to bring the parties to the table, as in the example of the carpet and damage deposit used in this idea.

Love the name, peacedeals.org.

Don't like the weightism of your idea description. Regardless of my personal opinion, that part of your pitch is unnecessary and lowers the tone; I'd drop it.

@Jill - What do you mean by weightism?

Please keep the comments coming...

Wouldn't the arbitration deal have to be in the contract or lease? If so why would they not use a local arbitrator instead of a virtual one?

I guess for the ease of an online service, it's also less expensive. In addition, if you sell to an out-of-town customer, using a local arbitrator is prohibitive due to travel time and expenses.

How would you establish a physical linkag eiwth the real wolrd judging system??

All decisions would be based upon real world laws and common sense. All decisions would need to be approved by the site moderator who would have a background in legal services.

The only problem I could see with it is the physical aspect that is not reached in the online world. What I means is, with many courts or official documents, physical signatures and proof of identities would be required before any of it would be legally binding.

Those are good points, thanks for the comment. In an online situation, most websites will require you to agree to the terms and conditions of their services before using them. By clicking a check box, this is your "signature". The same will apply here.

As far as proving your identity is concerned, the only thing implemented at this point is e-mail verification. For the most part, it would be hard to fake a case against another person because if your case is fabricated the other party would simply ignore your invitation. But the need for some sort of verification is probably needed. Maybe IP tracking. Or credit card information.

i like the idea! the one point here is building up credibility! all the best man!

Love the concept but have some questions:

Is this site intended for world wide audience? - Could jurisdiction and precedent, not to mention the enormous differences in local laws, cause difficulties?
As mentioned above, key to this site will be establishing TRUST. how will you do this?

Keep up the good work!

Those are good comments, thanks! Most times, because this is more about dispute resolution rather than law enforcement, the idea of fairness and justice will be have a global understanding I think, However, if locality does come into play with different situations, the global nature of the "arbitrators" on the roster, will enable us to match problem solvers to disputes within their geographical context. This will certainly be of benefit.

When it comes to trust, I think this will be a hard road because it's not something you can simply buy. The key factor here, as I see it, it to first and foremost establish a track record of making great decisions. In order to get some cases resolved, advertising and marketing is important.

In this same vein, hiring a good team of "arbitrators", finding good legal advisers, and a solid management team will go a long way in building trust. If some of the people who form this team have industry respect and experience, we can certainly borrow that trust for the short term.

Over the long term, buy-in from online gaming companies (ie: Second Life), who will essentially out-source user conflict to peacedeals and enforce our decisions, will be important. In addition, acceptance from real life business who include a "peacedeals clause" in their contracts will build trust and credibility one step at a time.

I think this will be a useful service once trust is established but it's the part of the plan that will take the most work.

What about looking at the idea from less of a "Web 2.0 Business Model" and more along the lines of an "Open Source Platform." In other words, building an application that local governments could use as a front end to help resolve disputes in their communities.

The "Open Source" approach would allow local governments to download and modify the code in order to interface with their computer systems currently in place. This would also encourage the community to development modules for PeaceDeals, while keeping the project "Fair and Balanced" throughout its development cycles.

ChristopherRitter's suggestion makes a lot of sense - now the question is, can you afford to develop and manage an open-source project of this magnitude, till it becomes so feaure-rich, reliable, and widely used that you and everyone helping you can cash out?

I think the largest value that a site like this could bring is the concept that you mentioned of logistical impracticalities where our current justice system just does not have a place. For me that is the compelling aspect of this idea.

hey! awesome idea

would this possibly work with ebay contracts and other online shopping contracts that are broken, causing lost $$?

also, what is the country you want to do this in .. different places have different cultures, laws an legal expectations .. will this be more of a north american thing?

lastly, there is a new site out called "Tractis.com" that does legal contracts online.. no need for expensive lawyers etc. check into them and see if that helps or hinders your idea

take care.. good luck!

I don't think this would fly in basically all countries as legal.

Hey, thanks for all the comments.

@doaks: yeah, ebay has something called squaretrade I think. There is lots of opportunities to make this work in support of online commerce though. I'm so all about online gaming situations.

@Kevin_Cox: The concept of binding arbitration is a fairly well known concept in most countries. It's basically a fancy term that means agreeing to a contract with another person. Here is some more info:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbitration

Can you give me some reasons why this wouldn't be legal? I honestly need to know.

Well I've given you 4/5 (gee nice site you've put up), only reason its not 5/5 isn't legal concerns... its just I can't imagine using the site myself, and am not sure others can be enticed to use it.

I think you're doing EXACTLY the right thing. The only way to allay my concerns is a market test. You've got your site up. It looks respectable. You can flintstone all the messy procedures to begin with (don't automate too much just yet), just see if you can capture any disputes.

Any suggestions people how thestarwheel can run a market test? AdWords? Ambulance chasing (in MMORPG forums)?

Heck I'll give it a shot next dispute I get into, settle a bet about... I dunno... stuff.

I actually Like this...hope you could return this IDEA on regular tournament!
The weelkly warz is quite bloody =)
Keep us posted ok?

Best,

I am really scared about your money making side, I just can not rap my head around it.

If I am Microsoft I am going to take someone to court because I have the money. If I am James and Henry down the road trashed my truck I may use this service, But still if I am one of those two people involved in the dispute there is NOTHING making me pay the settlement.

You would have to make both party agree that this is a legally binding arbitration.

@Gods_Light: Escrow was one good idea that was suggested by Thought_Drifter. Escrow is where a neutral third-party keeps the money, then hands it over to the correct party at the right time.

This is also a good escalation tool, meaning once you have an agreement through peacedeals, you have a contract with the other party which is something solid you can take to a court of law or a collection agency for further action. Binding arbitration is certainly the name of the game.

Money won't be made on the result of completed cases, rather on the cost of submitting a case. The amount of money involved does not impact the amount of money the website will be making. Each case is opened for a small fee and site advertising is where revenue will come from. Does this make sense?

@Gordon: I know what you mean. I don't think there are many people who would voluntarily use a court of law either, it's expensive and time consuming.

I think if potential consequences would make people use this service, that would certainly be beneficial. For example, if it was outlined in a contract you signed with your cell phone provider that any disputes were settled this way, that would ensure people used this service. Or in an online game, you may face banishment if another user made a complaint against you, and you refused to deal with it.

These situations would require buy-in from business owners of course but it would make peacedeals quite relevant to the consumer and much more appealing than facing a judge.

Hi TSW.

I like you idea a lot, I hope it can be used to satisfaction by the many in dispute, and I think the fees are very moderate.

Some questions that came up;

Are those cases "dummy" cases for evaluation or real?

How did they go in the end?

I looked at the arbirators but most of the pics were missing?!

I was looking for the details around the one that did those rulings, and I was wondering if he had any legal background?

I missed a more comprehensive ruling-text, using perhaps common UN legal terms or generic legal terms perhaps.

Just some thoughts,

Best
Torgrot

Hi there Tor,

- The cases on the site right now are just examples.

- Most the arbitrators have pictures, some don't, it's up to them based on how comfortable they are with it.

- Because the cases used for examples on the site are not real, the person who wrote them had no legal experience.

- Can you specify the kind of common UN legal terms you were looking for? I don't think we have any of those... Not sure.

Thanks for the comments.

Hi Niell.

I did some short googling and I think there should be quite a volume of legal cases done by arbitration at UN, The Hauge, ICC and other bodies that are available to the public.

The reason I suggest such sources are that your site seem naturally international in scope, and people would tend to agree to references from inpartial int. bodies like UN if some of the people in conflict are from outside North-America.

Case in point could be to use UN domain-dispute resolution cases to rule in accordance if there is domain-disputes to settle.

Purchases from places like Ebay and Amazon are often international in nature between seller and buyer, and many cases might not resolve properly using internal processes at Amazon/Ebay.

I think people would like know/read what contemplations lie behind each ruling, perhaps in a shorter and less legalese way. You might even give readers a comment possiblity on the rulings?!

Best
Torgrot

Hey Tor, Feel free to link me to the content you've found. I would be interested in reading it if you find it relevant.

I'm not familiar with the term domain-dispute unless it relates to domain names. I think most of the international tribunals you are talking about are in a whole other league entirely but the information may be useful.

The public will in fact be able to comment on cases, that will be one of the biggest traffic draws I think.

Thanks

I like to used someone's comment: You got to have integrity first and formal affiliation else you will be like a TV reality show.

I can see this working for neighbourly disputes, but I doubt big corporations would sign up to it.

As you are not a legal entity yourself, who is to say that the loser of a case on your website would not take the decision to an actual court?

This would be ideal for smaller, domestic disputes which are too expensive to take to court but still need to be settled.

There is another problem. You liken the idea to Judge Judy. If you are going that way you'll struggle to get any sort of crediibility (especially if you want to work with big companies) as I don't think there are a whole lot of people out there who take Judge Judy seriously.

I think you've come up with a great idea, and as we see transformation in our daily life through Web 2.0, including what appears to be on the horizon Web 3.0, it seems a service like this will eventually be online. Keep progressing! A couple of questions and thoughts...

1. Why is it .org, and not .com. Is it not for profit?
2. Are not disputes handled in the state that has jurisdiction based on the location of the entity originating a contract. If so, how would you solve this. Perhaps as an open source model that another member mentioned earlier.
3. Can your model include getting law firms, or any other service/company that wants to target this market, involved as way for them to market their services and help you make money?

Best of luck!

Please allow me one last comment on this post and I apologize if this comes across as wild ranting and raving. It probably is. I am truthfully disappointed that this idea hasn't seen an overly positive result in terms of voting on CH.

Sometimes you can only draw so many parallels when it comes to describing a new idea and I feel like nobody really gets it. This isn't the long arm of the law reaching through your computer screen to rattle your bones. It's not Judge Judy screeching insults at your ugly cousin either. It's an adaptive technology that changes the way we deal with people, on and off line, the same way the internet is changing the way we deal with people.

Arbitration is a form of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) that is gaining professional traction for it's flexibility and cost effectiveness. It's not the process of enforcing traditional law, where the law is right and someone is wrong. In this sense illegality is not applicable. What's applicable is problem solving between people pure and simple. As more and more of our activities move online, "the law" isn't following. We are too caught up on enforcement which will not work online because the internet too far flung and too diverse to enforce every law of every land.

Every business wants credibility, needs it to survive. It's nothing you can add to inventory. It's hard earned through a respectable track record. You can't discount something for lack of credibility if you've never seen it in action. Credibility will come with time if you give it the chance.

The internet needs a good dose of common sense, a way to help people solve their problems without having to launch a lawsuit over a defaming blog post, a bad avatar haircut or a piece of virtual cake. Even in real life, the court system is overloaded, unwieldy and slow. This is mobile, effective alternative, and it doesn't require all the trimmings which promise to include "common UN legal terms".

I could go on. I won't though. I'm just trying to stick up for a good idea that I think the crowd has somehow stepped on in their stampede toward cheap fortunes through impossible means.

Sorry for being a jerk.

I believe this would work.

thestarwheel, I submitted a case ("Your Mom Is So Fat") based on a forum discussion here on our site. From what I saw of your site its very well thought out. It doesn't feel beta at all.

I wanted to try a "real world" example (even thought it might not sounds terribly serious), and I guess its hit a real world snag. The other party has not responded via PeaceDeals.org (to the best of my knowledge he probably ignored the email you sent).

In such situations, is there anything to be done other than letting the case expire? Do you think both parties will normally have agreed before hand to take their dispute to your site? Or do you expect a slight viral propagation as only 1 of the 2 people involved in a dispute are needed to bring both parties to your site? Maybe if you're expecting that you want the outgoing email to the 2nd party to be crazy-compelling.

Hey there Gord,

Thanks for the props. I think in some instances, you will probably have the other parties e-mail address to send him or her a reminder if they haven't responded in good time. We've tried to make the the case invite e-mail as spam proof and as compelling as possible in order to encourage a reaction without sounding too much like they have broken the law.

I think once things get rolling (ie: reputation/ credibility established) there will be quite a bit of viral propagation involved in making some cases wondrous public spectacles. RSS subscriptions will also be a good notification tool.

Despite the drawbacks of e-mail notification, in online situations, this may be the only common denominator between two parties. It's also a given that theses two people, if they are fighting will have known each other previous to this case being submitted and have other means of prodding each other into responding on the website. But essentially, if people don't want to talk and there are no consequences involved, they simply won't talk.

Thanks for trying things out.

A post I thought was pertinent to your idea / biz:
http://www.burbed.co...-fairness-act-today/

In most cases against consumers, binding arbitration sides with the biz. Even if the biz doesn't show up. Maybe there's an angle there you can use to market peacedeals.

Sweet! Thanks!

Hi,

The idea sounds great, but:

a) How do you enforce the decision?

b) How do you establish a jurisdiction?