Slashdot Mirror
Better Ways to Handle User Conflicts?
An anonymous reader asks: "We are a small startup trying to decide how best to handle the conflicts that will inevitably arise between users which have real-world monetary consequences. While sites like eBay seem to have set the standard for internal/outsourced dispute resolution, it frequently feels like a random corporate drone is choosing your fate for you. Other sites like GimmeNow.com have come up with various variations on the arbitrary mediation (they use rock, paper, scissors for parties that can't come to an obvious agreement) which seem to be more interactive, yet still feels like a resolution system heavily biased by luck. Slashdot, how do you handle user conflicts in a way that feels fair to everyone involved?"
Also, ground them from the internets for 2 weeks! Also, no video games until their attitudes change.
"HEY, you better finish you vegetables!"
Use only one DHCP server but make the range Class A. That ought to be plenty of network space for your users with no IP Conflicts.
This
We don't. Screw'em.
Slashdot, how do you handle user conflicts in a way that feels fair to everyone involved?
The person that "loses" is always going to feel like they were slighted, regardless of the conflict resolution mechanism in place. Nobody on the losing side of a lawsuit says "Welp, I lost. Sucks to be me!" There's always the "they failed to consider all the facts in the case, the jury was stacked, my lawyer was drunk..."
My advice is to pick a system that's out there, and run with it. It saves you the hassle of trying to come up with something "fair" that nobody will consider "fair" anyway.
"It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." -Albert Einstein
DELETED!
Two users enter, one leaves.
Seriously though, you didn't say what kind of site you are, which sort of makes a lot of difference in these sorts of matters. The examples you gave lead me to believe you're some sort of auction/classified ad site, in which case your best bet is probably to just fold now. That space is ridiculously oversaturated, and you're doomed to failure. Just because you're "Ajax-powered" or "Web 2.0 enhanced" doesn't mean you're any different than any of the other 500 sites that do the same exact thing.
If you insist on putting yourself through this despite my warnings, make sure your TOS says that disputes must be handled by an outside arbitrator. For high-dollar items, consider requiring (or strongly suggesting) escrow services. Either way, contract with outside agencies to do these things in order to avoid the appearance of conflicts of interest.
1. Pick a locker at some train station somewhere, and put guns inside. Use several lockers for greater effect. Also, print the street addresses of parties involved and put them in the locker as well.
2. Snailmail the key and location of the locker/lockers to both parties involved.
3. ???
4. Profit!
The world is the way it is because conflict resolution is *hard*. There are plenty of people suffering far more over disputes even less consequential to an outsider than two nerds squabbling over the quality of some manga. It's just not human nature to be rational about these things.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
Thunderdome!
The method of conflict resolution system you choose is really dependant on the type, and value, of the product you are selling. If your startup is mediating resolutions for transactions in the thousands of dollars, a live mediator is possibly your best bet. However, if you're like eBay and primarily setting small value mediations, a simple automated solution is far better.
... e.g. negative feedback, a fee, some loss of 'karma' or something similar. This incents both parties to negotiate a settlement prior to official conflict resolution.
Would rock/paper/scissors or similar solutions work? Sure, if you're settling a dispute that's for $5, or a non-monetary dispute amongst friends. But any type of 'random' solution would reflect negatively on your company's image for high ticket items.
In any case, there should be recourse for both parties entering mediation
Crack - Free with every butt and set of boobs
Assuming you're talking about an auction type site, make sure they're adults - they should take responsibility for their own actions. Set rules. In Real Life, people use contracts. Users of your site can agree to the rules you set- no more access to the site to whomever violates the rules you set. But by all means, keep any financial responsibility of the users at those users. Ebay uses a rating/feedback system - this is a social control system that works pretty well to keep people in line.
Visit http://ringbreak.dnd.utwente.nl/~mrjb/growingbettersoftware to download your free copy of the book
Whoever has more epics wins. If both parties have the same amount of epics, they duel. Best 2 out of 3 wins. Glad I could help. That'll be twenty dollars.
Two users enter, one user leaves.
--saint
Russian Roulette
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
I would look into some mediation training for your CS reps. Mediation, unlike arbitration, is not binding and costs less. By mediation techniques, you should be able to come up with an equitable solution.
In God we trust, all others require data.
I suggest purging those parties which dare to complain. Siberian exile is another popular choice. In Soviet Russia, conflicts resolve YOU!
Slashdot? Handling user conflicts?
:)
Dunno what you're smoking, but *share*!
Skivvy Niner? Email me!
HEY! Look left just ONE MORE TIME!
Successful dispute resolution requires a modicum of empathy and courtesy. It is to easy to miss both when communicating via email or through a faceless intermediary and time delays.
Far and away, the best approach is to meet in person. If that is not possible, it should be possible to talk it over on the phone. Hearing the person's voice immediately has a calming influence. With cross-cultural confusion and general illiteracy making written communication prone to misunderstandings, it is important to revert to more personal modes of communication before tempers flare.
Additionally, the problem should not be publicly discussed until private avenues have been exhausted.
Common courtesy shouldn't be so uncommon.
About 6 feet in length, you can hit people twice as many times as with a short stick, plus they can't get anywhere near you.
[shrug] Works for me.
Deleted
It isn't random at all. You just have to understand a little psychology.
Deleted
... but I doubt the "rock, paper, scissors" defense will hold up in many courts.
The Exploding Barbwire Cage Deathmatch.
What method's best depends on exactly what kind of things you're doing. You don't say what your business will be, so it's hard to say what's going to work best.
The one constant, though, is that you'll always have at least one unreasonable party involved. If both parties were reasonable they'll likely come to some sort of acceptable resolution without needing to go to dispute resolution, so if they get to needing your process at least one of them's being unreasonable and ornery. Whatever process you use has to be able to handle that, and it also has to be able to handle the case when both parties are unreasonable, irrational and generally mule-headed. Any system that assumes both parties are reasonable is doomed to failure from the start.
I'm here to put a rest to your doubts!F ederal_case
/ judgerps_fortune/index.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock_paper_scissors#
Article cited in wiki:
http://money.cnn.com/2006/06/07/magazines/fortune
Each conflict is different so it takes a different approach each time. They differ in all aspects from what the conflict is about to the personalities and egos of the stakeholders involved. Because of that, one single conflict resolution method will not work for every instance.
I have used several methods in the past. Petty disagreements between employees whose feelings are hurt can be solved as easily as getting the two employees away from the workplace for lunch or maybe a drink or two after hours. It removes the environment where the hostilities are most intense and puts everyone in a neutral setting. It helps "take the edge off". Also, because it's a public place, people are less likely to have outbursts and behave poorly because there are more eyes watching and those eyes don't care about the petty disagreement. It kind of leverages the whole social anxiety thing against all parties involved. At work, it's posturing for position and power. At the local Hooters, everyone is on equal footing and a bit of humility is sometimes all a resolution effort needs.
If the issues are not resolved so easily, mediation is required. The whole point of mediation is not to pass judgement but to ensure that all sides have thier fair say and a chance to get thier points across so the involved parties can reach a conculsion themselves. If they both agree to a solution they worked out themselves then they are much less likely to feel slighted or treated unfairly because they had a hand in thier own destiny, so to speak. If a side feels slighted then mediation was not successful. If one side cannot get a fair say without the other side interrupting, a harsher method needs to be instilled. I usually revert to a method that worked with children who couldn't agree. We had a "talking stick". I would control who has the talking stick and for how long. If you didn't have the talking stick, you were not allowed to speak. If you had the talking stick, the floor was yours until you gave the talking stick back to me or if you were abusing your talking stick priviledge through verbal abuse or personal attacks of the other party. If you spoke without the talking stick and were not addressed or asked a question of, you were warned two times. The third time, you would be swatted with the talking stick. The whole point here is that if two parties cannot recognize each other's right to the speaking floor then give them a tool that leave no doubt whose turn it is. The "talking stick" does that and it also requires the other party to curb thier emotions and hold thier thoughts until thier turn. This keeps then from responding with thee knee-jerk, incensing remarks, responses and comments. By the time it's thier turn to speak, the knee-jerk impulse has left and they are more capable of carrying on rationally.
Granted, you don't have to use a talking stick but a physical display of such a tool is effective because it symbolizes a boundry that shouldn't be crossed. Sometimes, without that physical boundry, parties in a heated argument can be blind to any symbolic boundry represented only by an authority figure. An authority figure holds little weight when both parties feel threatened by each other. Give the authority figure the ability to enforce the rules and suddenly they have an equal footing with both parties involved.
Anything beyond simple things like a lunchroom disagreement would require lawyers, an HR department and probably an ethics officer of some sort. Any time a disagreement poses legal liabilities and implications for the company, the company needs to do what it needs to do to protect assets and other employees.
You didn't mention what kind of startup you are. You wouldn't happen to specialize in dispute resolution, do you?
"Hey Joe, the VC isn't coming in so easily for our dispute resolution company."
"Maybe we need a better business model..."
"Yeah, but who has the time to come up one of those in today's environment?"
"Meh, let's just ask Slashdot."
- RG>
Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
I keep the Sceptre of Death in my office.
It looks suspiciously like a 4 wood found next to a trash can, but works just fine for my purposes.