Overview of my approach to disputes via gradual escalation as needed from experience in personal connections, ethical concerns with business/volunteer scenarios and the invocation of legal/contractual duties. December 2025.
Christopher Clayton
12/02/2025
Developing the use of facts and logic in my original approach to disputes within Internet communities; rough start with outright emotions-focused aggressive assertiveness
Some of my initial tense interpersonal encounters and disputes came from video game communities on the Internet. I have alluded to volunteering in creating video game modifications before in other articles in particular.
Much of my initial enthusiasm for interpersonal communication, before developing a sense of attachment anxiety and going through a bout of what I'd describe as depression, came from interacting with a few different video game communities (starting with Sim City or The Sims-related communities, as well as Half-Life).
As part of this overview, I'll specifically say that much of what significantly informed me came from participation in a few different communities for the video game Mafia (the original third-person shooter of that franchise by Illusion Softworks). I finally made forum accounts in those communities after the game came out because it matched my expectations compared to how hotly I was awaiting its release. That is, to me I representing a video game finally providing some semblance of realistic vehicle handling and damage physics, on top of shooting mechanics with an overarching plotline.
Even before I explicitly started to make modifications for the game, I did get into some petty spats but that formed the basis for some of my approaches to social disputes. In one instance, I put out a message in an explicit advertisement sub-forum in one of the community's websites about another unrelated website my father was getting involved in yet drew ire about even mentioning the potential for making any money off of viewership or from clicks. This was before Internet ad serving systems and affiliate sponsorship systems were very common, if extant at all. So, I put together a diatribe of a reply contesting the basis for why I was being criticized. I thought that the criticism, mostly coming from forum moderators, over the website possibly having a capability of making money was hypocritical because that entire sub-forum was meant to be a general space to advertise. I did go over-the-top with a lengthy reply, yet I didn't resort to insults and have kept that idea at the forefront of my mind from there in every other dispute I got into; even though if I'm completely convinced of a factual basis for an argument I will tend to repeat the point even now if I feel it isn't being understood.
I also went on to make a few snarky responses in a second message board within the same community regarding criticism of my modifications when I did start making some on my own after getting a taste for it in a team (focused on scripting unique level events within the limitations of modification support for the game). I couldn't believe people would offer criticism of products offered for free without making any semblance of what I could discern as constructive criticism; just pointing out what was supposedly bland or not very fun without any specific suggestions for improvement from what I could see and without regard for the limitations of the tools available. However, I also responded in a frustrated way and in detail as part of expressing irritation over that, and I was punished with the taking away of something I bought with on-site currency. This was a point where websites were starting to have on-site currency that could be earned via completing various activities and that particular website had started doing that after a while. Overall, the experiences made me rethink how to approach such scenarios and I decided to back off from really getting into that level of commentary.
Even so, eventually I found a scenario that I couldn't ignore on that message board, which had become in essence the most popular for that game's community. Someone outright advertised a similar modification to one of mine in my forum thread on the topic and I found that to be a completely inappropriate, attention-stealing move. This wasn't a matter of simply making one's own thread and hyping it up within that one thread; it was a redirection of attention. So, I called it out in that user's thread but I didn't explain my position well enough in retrospect. I mainly centered on the modification being similar to mine so I wanted some credit in a readme file or in some other location in the mod like I had been doing for others in that overall game's community (spread across multiple websites) when I published modifications that took any inspiration from others' work. However, that person resisted incredibly and other community members wondered why I kept making public messages about it; likening it to a copyright-like dispute when there would be no such claim possible in a video game modding content.
I was mainly disturbed by the undue method of grabbing attention over similar work without providing any credit to me; it was the zero-sum approach to attention and promotion that disturbed me as the ethical basis for having a problem with that behavior. Still, this represented my most involved dispute within the overall game community and one in which I made a more-detailed case in the nature of the act and in the impact on my motivation still work within the community in good faith to explain why I was disappointed. This went on for multiple messages until a former teammate from the original mod project I contributed to convinced me to drop it, and the person I was targeting then agreed to credit me but I have no idea if the person ever ended up doing so anywhere in their creation or in readme files.
That effectively was offensive enough that it led me to outright retreat from that overall game community as it existed then. It was too intractable of a problem in that none of what occurred inspired me to want to keep providing free volunteer labor. Further, that was on top of more frequent contested interactions with someone else in a third such community who was acting as webmaster and had also helped in the original mod project I had participated in, where I helped prop up the website he managed by convincing my parents to fund its hosting fees to keep it going at least for another year after a previous backer ceased funding.
Perhaps now I see much the same attachment anxiety and/or depression in that person as I went on to experience later, but I was trying to come up with ways to monetize the site where that person had plenty of PHP skills and had added an interactive game to the site, but then he would back out from responding to further messages or get nervous about the continued existence of the site by taking any suggestions as threats of defunding. Or something to that effect was happening as far as I can determine; I simply made suggestions for the site and there was either no follow-up or a number of very concerned messages in response without any serious thought to making more mini-games for the site under a monetization scheme. That in itself was something of an ongoing negotiation and because no progress was being made, that contributed to my sense of being finished with that whole game community after multiple years. Website hosting dues were expensive at that time, proportionately; and there had been enough hair-trigger interactions as part of working in modding teams that I was finished.
I still thought about pursuing a grander total conversion modification of my own for the game, but I had also vowed that I wasn't into people management that much such that I wasn't accepting of a lot of help to create it; even though I had some people wanting to help from other team projects I had been on. That's why with all of the combined issues, I decided I had learned enough from that community but took away a desire to be less assertive in my interpersonal dealings after that because I found my style to be too aggressive for little actual results in productively solving core ethical issues or other disputes. I finished up a car model for the game and released it, but that was my last contribution after a few months of reflection and then I stopped visiting any of those communities. I also simply ceased using instant messaging programs until MSN Messenger eventually merged with Skype, where I only ended up using the personal version of Skype for limited work purposes in my job.
Development of caution in responding with assertiveness; initial impact on approach to attachment concerns in personal connections and to work/business connections
I went over my personal experience with attachment anxiety in general in my article on attachment theory, but I didn't go over completely as to how the risk for that kind of vulnerability built up and how it impacted my willingness for dispute resolution on a personal level until I underwent emotional healing.
After dealing with what felt like more admin and interpersonal concerns than actual scripting/programming and 3D modeling in video game communities, I moved on to focusing on high school studies and eventually volunteering for an Internet archive. I kept a small circle of friends, but one person who kept expressing interest to initiate conversation with me stood out.
Eventually, after some years, I started to feel particularly deep in feelings and didn't know the exact source for them at first. It felt like I was missing someone or that something just wasn't interpersonally feeling well with me. I had vowed not to feel one-sidedly about someone else after one such experience but it definitely felt like it was happening again anyway. So, I reflected on it and told the one person expressing continual interest with interacting in me how I was not sure if the friendship was going well since I wasn't initiating all that much of the activity, and I was reassured but it still didn't feel right. I felt like I was ignored after that; all the initiative-taking on that person's part was gone. I then started to socialize on a mass superficial scale with multiple people in school in an explosion of extroversion, which I normally have no interest in doing but I decided to try something else. Yet I felt like I had experienced a huge loss, and it was difficult to have brought up even a hint of how I was feeling in the first place but I felt it was highly important to do so. Then any sort of suggestions I made to do more activities together were simply ignored or I was outright run away from, so I eventually gave up trying to do anything more.
I couldn't put into words how I was feeling at that point and never could for years after when I went through a similar experience in college, which finally cracked me into feeling numbness and depression for years until eventual recovery after the high school situation had already made me vulnerable. I already went over the latter situation in the article on attachment, but the experience in high school, and generally being very cautious about expressing my feelings and trying not to be too assertive unless absolutely backed into a corner definitely made me susceptible to feeling this way. Much like the college experience, I could have told the respective person to back off and stop talking to me, but that would not have been conductive to building a connection at all and I didn't feel anything for a while; let alone any sense of emotional risk. I didn't know quite how vulnerable I was to feeling a strong sense of attachment, yet. Therefore, I hadn't developed an idea of what it would take to make a close-feeling connection feel stable for me.
In that sense, I didn't have a basis for negotiating in how each such connection should develop further. I was fine with the status quo other than that I felt a massive urgency about how it was going anyway on an emotional scale, yet didn't want to intrude on the other peoples' lives too much; especially because they already had significant connections of their own. I was in a state of wondering why in each respective situation the person was taking so much prolonged interest in taking the initiative without seeing what I might do.
Because of my lack of assertiveness to try to keep a smooth interplay going, I didn't do more than just briefly state how I felt at first in each of those situations. Yet both situations went too far in my eventually taking an overwhelming sense of urgency to keep initiating contact myself (a complete flip in what had been occurring until then), but without bringing anything substantive to negotiate over other than that I felt completely disturbed by the sense of intense emotions without any clear direction in each connection. I was expecting more direction from the other person in each situation since they were the ones pushing to get to know me over and over in each situation.
In the later such connection, I was clearer about stating explicitly that I felt upset and asked for suggestions on what we should do when I didn't know what to do out of consideration for that person already having no apparent room for another close connection. However, as I outlined in my article on attachment, that is the exact situation which spiraled out of control into depression from disenfranchised grief after feeling what I would describe now as attachment anxiety because I felt I had been so one-sidedly used up for months without any productive response to my concerns that I eventually shared.
I should have backed off sooner to heal as soon as there was an obvious lack of intent to negotiate especially in that connection, and that was my largest mistake because that's the situation where I kept sending text messages after the fact to repeatedly make my case. I also could have identified how I felt more effectively after reflection and research, and to state what I personally would have liked to see in the connection to definitively provide a negotiating point towards a concrete, compromise-based result. Instead, it was still mostly about conveying how I was feeling upset without understanding why. I really wouldn't understand why until later after recovery from the prolong sense of depression and loss because that's when I finally had less propensity for emotional sensitivity while also realizing the pattern that was occurring in me.
Regardless, I continued a pattern of learning argumentative essay writing within my international studies degree courses in relation to a variety of international business and economic topics from the foundation of writing skills developed in high school. The hypothesis, argument and conclusion-based style of argumentation is what I eventually featured in such writing samples on this site, particularly in the Research section.
When I went on to work, though, I developed an internal company attitude of apologizing quickly even for the many events that were outside of my control working in a low-level admin-oriented finished goods supply job. I outlined that generally in my article about that particular work experience. Even when I felt justified in bringing forth certain suggestions, I'd sometimes hold back and only did so when I felt absolutely backed into a corner on an ongoing problem. I.e., such as feeling like I was being treated as a personal assistant consistently on invoice proofreading tasks when it was only a backup verification process that the logistics company (shipping intermediary) wanted versus decisions they'd make in what I saw were inefficient shipping lanes in spite my also having to act as the coordinator on setting up shipments. The shipping intermediaries that we used could have been doing some of these admin activities after so many years, for example. This definitely came out of trepidation of getting into embroiled disputes that would only potentially impact my mental health even more without any clear pathway to a resolution in a hierarchical company impressing its will on lower-level employees.
As far as how I approached business relations with suppliers, I received little of the same attitude as I did from international-wide internal 'customers' (coworkers in the sales departments and other supply departments). I.e., the constant demands and absolute requirements set upon the US supply department for on-time delivery and to pass information around goods status. There was little room to negotiate substantively with suppliers, however, because of internal factors; such as the price of the goods already having been negotiated by other departments which then impacted lead times on top of very tight delivery requirements by retailer customers all the same. However, there was a willingness to discuss the challenges in a mutual way and to explain the reasons behind what could or couldn't be done. In difficult circumstances such as during the pandemic, I eventually was able to take more of an assertive stance at times, including with executive approval, to move for air freight reimbursement when lead times slipped. I still backed up the reasons for a reimbursement in presentations related to promise dates versus actual dates relative to plans already agreed to, which took into account promised capacities and how many varieties of models could be produced in a given month (tool change-out limitations). Besides, I would normally emphasize the urgency of special makeup models for certain customers anyway throughout my tenure.
Re-evaluation of willingness to assert feelings/concerns more quickly after foundational interpersonal disasters and healing
After a rapid succession of personal connections to which I felt highly attached but within which I never was initially assertive or equally initiative until I absolutely felt backed into a corner, I eventually recovered in finding a dynamic back-and-forth in taking the initiative with a language exchange partner. I had quickly stated a desire to meet more frequently and there was always a sense of starting conversations or to text/instant message agreements to meet in equal frequency.
However, after working in a supply-oriented job for a while and after that relatively equal connection that did not rile up any sense of urgency in itself (besides some final reminiscent feelings of trauma from previous situations that I still had to work on), and years after absolute interpersonal disasters, someone at that supply job started continuously initiating conversation and other interchanges with me. I felt no inclination to do the same for a while, but I knew conceptually there was an emotional risk for me. Eventually, after a year, I started to feel the same sense of urgent connection without any sort of outlet in the same way as previous intense disasters.
Having a lot of distance from previous situations and less sensitivity to feeling emotional urgency in general, I decided that making very concrete suggestions was the only way to let the connection continue in a way which would be acceptable to me, or to save me from extremely intense grief if it failed to allow the most room for effective healing. I made a few social suggestions which worked out, and then brought up how I was feeling anxious to continue such a pattern every few weeks to make me feel more secure while leaving it open to suggestions of what should be done. Yet there was no productive response and eventually discomfort was expressed on that person's end, so that was the end of the whole matter. That is, I decided immediately to stop talking to and messaging with that person at all after acknowledging the boundary set, even though I was bringing up my own feelings to compromise and to set up my own boundaries in the first place.
It was either going to be disenfranchised grief or allowing a status quo that would only continue an ongoing intense sense of urgency for me, which I then finally researched further and eventually landed on how to explain the pattern I tended to experience. I.e., that it was likely a sense of attachment anxiety (active anxiety to keep a personal connection of some sort going and active). I figured that getting the disenfranchised grief activated via a complete break from most contact was the only way forward under such conditions to get a start on healing on my terms, and took more agency in that regard than ever. I very clearly stated what it would take to make the connection comfortable for me, but the very act of doing that caused discomfort for the other person in itself without any sense on that person's part of taking it as a challenge for personal growth. It was all apparently perceived as a very negative and intractable level of change being proposed to the other person, in spite of how I tried to keep it open-ended. So that was that; there was no basis for healthy conversation if my feelings were not seen as legitimate in any productive way. The only path in such a negotiation setting is to walk away.
Like other personal situations, I will never fully understand why someone would initiate contact with me hundreds of times and then back away right when their intended social status quo wasn't going to work anymore relative to their social target (me). However, it has to be taken at face value after an attempt at compromise; meaning an earnest disclosure of feelings and suggestions for what could be done. Such a connection stuck at that point has to be fully backed away from, or else it will be one-sidedly exploitative which is the only way in which any further interactions can be interpreted without any further agreement. I could have initiated my own forms of contact sooner and in more detail about what I minimally wanted, but I felt no need to do that a while even in that scenario since I'm slow to feel any emotional motive anyway. However, when that same feeling of urgency did occur, this was finally the exact situation where a willingness to go through those feelings was reinforced by a sense of my original assertiveness to state what I needed at absolute minimum out of a given interpersonal situation to make it work, and to do so in enough detail for a lack of ambiguity as a basis for compromise. All of the factors of experience, self-understanding and increased knowledge came together. If someone takes an honest disclosure and attempt at compromise as a threat to a status quo of their own construction, there's no basis for negotiation in a personal connection.
Approach in facts and logic to dispute resolution in legal disputes with tempered approach to employing assertiveness
As I've outlined continuously in an ongoing article on solving a digital assets theft situation for a family member, it has turned into a negotiation and dispute-resolution process with various companies over equitable relief (finding the identities of service users). That is, various issues over both the quality of relief already provided as well as in outright refusals to provide any disclosures at all have featured in these disputes.
This provided a test-bed for combining my original, natural assertiveness with a long-term strategic mindset, alongside employing a developed sense of an initial willingness to compromise or to be conciliatory. If receiving reasonable answers via such companies' inquiry web pages don't work, then the next step is to seek third-party discovery as part of a legal case against service users. In my situations, if a response didn't meet certain standards or where a response didn't occur at all, I looked for Statutory or civil procedural reasons to compel responses. Those didn't work because of jurisdictional issues for the most part, as outlined in that article.
Finally, that meant filing into different jurisdictions, such as a seat of arbitration for contractual disputes or in non-US jurisdictions, to seek this kind of relief. As part of that process, as in others, an overwhelming sense of justice in the facts prevailed within me or else I wouldn't be doing all of that activity. Because the focus is on non-monetary relief, it's very reminiscent to me of the ethical and personal concerns that I bring up in other contexts, but with a legal basis for them. To me, that is the baseline necessity towards consideration of initiating and escalating such disputes. After that, having an understanding of jurisdiction, type of entity and basis for duty has to be reasonably developed, but only so much can be researched before filing a case. I do as much as I can, but then a case has to be filed once I feel I've outlined enough of a basis and can't think of anything else to research. That's why the article on all those legal matters has been iterative in each section in terms of adding on to knowledge that I gained through various processes which then informed next steps.
As expected, in those situations, the basis for a duty or which entity was targeted ended up being challenged by the other parties. I did find some counter-arguments over basis for duty in one situation to be decent but by that point, I had gone through a trial by fire through ex parte motions in the original case regarding various service users' harms or alleged duties such that I didn't see much updating had to be done. I did acknowledge counter-arguments and provided thanks for them if they were genuinely useful, but it didn't change the need for some level of minimal relief and the overall basis for the duty in my mind.
I still experienced some trepidation over receiving replies from corporate defense lawyers, but like multiple other personal or work situations, the point is that I was convinced that a basis in facts was already overwhelmingly established and I had a baseline explanation of the basis for the existence of resulting duties. Which I was able to refine as needed in the decent counter-argument situation through further reading of the contractual source and all of its clauses. Unlike other types of matters, these situations involved outlining a legal basis for a duty rather than an ethical basis or in expressing interpersonal emotional concerns, which then entailed a chance for enforcing relief rather than someone simply being able to walk away and not care about the matter. However, to me, the overall dialog process is similar.
I don't blame any particular employees of companies for fighting to defend an obstruction-oriented corporate policy so intensely even after a basis for a duty has been reasonably established alongside a thorough basis in facts. That is how it is with centralized corporations that get large not because of equality in basic treatment of comparative advantages of each employee but based in exploitation; including in buying up smaller companies under conditions where they otherwise might not sell themselves out. This control-oriented, aggressive policy on the excuse of serving the owners' interests as the primary concern can clearly extend the same way into avoidance of fulfilling duties to the public and thus demanding employees (lawyers, paralegals) to put up resistance to any inquiry or claim at all, even as they receive a relatively small amount more in compensation than other employees in a relative sense compared to total corporate revenue. I have less sympathy for third-party counsel, especially partner-level persons (owners), putting up this kind of resistance because they could realistically push back on their clients over a policy of total resistance. Such companies in the least, for example, could explain why customers cannot be identified if a mistake occurred in data acquisition and retention as part of providing Norwich-style relief of any sort voluntarily, but that is how it is.
As usual, the personal values of justice and dispute resolution that lead to making a legal claim, which can be the same as expressing any emotional or ethical concerns in interpersonal or work/business matters, have to be held fast to move through such a process. Refining the basis for a legal claim to any further extent can come as part of negotiation or in reading counter-filings from the other party. The point is to only resort to that step (a legal or arbitral filing) when all other lines of negotiation have failed, which in itself provides justification for escalation; and where the factual basis for a duty is overwhelming. As I've described in the other article regarding my specific situations, the legal basis for invoking equitable duties is ultimately answered in the contractual and/or case precedent norms of each situation, even if this comes about as part of refining an initial argument that left some aspects to implication or assumption out of limitations in what can be achieved from initial understanding of legal concepts (the who, what, and for whom is ultimately answered in such authorities, however).
In one of the situations I outlined, part of the issue has been Federal protections for Internet service companies which I didn't fully consider at first before launching an arbitral case after getting nowhere in Federal District Court on that matter. However, the governance contract that came about in place of US Statutes (ICANN's Registrar Accreditation Agreement) still answered the who, what and for whom in specific contractual clauses; and third-party content-neutral relief as stipulated in the contract was still possible in a way which I found could overcome Federal protections (identity data under the full contractual control of such companies under the purview of that framework, and so some minimal level of accountability solely focused on the data such as a reasonable explanation over data processing mistakes should be possible). That was part of the update process in response to the few counter-arguments that I found to hold some applicability when I finally did receive counter-arguments of any detail. Again, though, the point was to hold fast to the factual basis after exploration of an initial basis for equitable duties, or else I would not have made it that far and would not have been adaptable.
I had studied US Title 19 C.F.R. extensively in multiple attempts to pass the US Customs Broker exam, but that gave me a complete top-down enforcement-minded perspective to law which I've had to break from in overall solving this harm by service users against my family given that private civil cases in the United States require explicit private rights of action within a cognizable harm context (modern US Federal District Court proclivities), or in explicitly-defined duties to certain intended persons outlined in an authoritative source otherwise (such as relevant contracts). There's little in the way of invoking violation of a standard on its own unless it's an implied negligence claim in a State Court, and then certain laws can end up protecting certain entities from such claims anyway. That was part of the adaptation I had to make in terms of the basis for harm or basis for duties otherwise even when initially filing a case against unknown tort harmers under a Commodity Exchange Act claim, and then having to refile a claim multiple times for that reason as outlined in my legal case article on the matter.
Combined application of knowledge, sense of ethics/justice and emotion in attempting to maintain or salvage social contracts of all sorts
I focus heavily on emotion when considering social connections of any sort because I am still highly emotionally sensitive even after some callousing, and so I have an innate sense of caution. However, when I do want to more actively maintain a social connection of some sort or attempt to solve an issue I'm having that will involve some sort of a social contract, I will dive in. Having more experience in reading emotions and understanding when I need a break, even a temporary one, only informs how to approach such matters.
However, still, I only truly dive into bringing up concerns if I have a sense of ethics or justice about the situation, or sense of attachment or grievance, about any particular matter. This requires subject matter knowledge to some extent for legal matters in the least, but a sense of ethics and collecting facts to back up the concern has been a core part of my method. They have largely been non-monetary matters, but I figure that the only way to prevent further damage in any sense is to bring up an issue, even if it seems small to the other party. I've of course had to become more effective at timing in terms of not waiting too long but in personal matters, there also has to have been a chance for some sort of connection to develop at all before I will care.
I focused on personal connections in this article and in my article on attachment theory, but that is the basis for informing all sorts of formal social contracts and to develop an emotional fortitude for dealing with all types of interpersonal matters. Of course, personal connections can also become part of a host of formal legal concerns in the form of business partnerships or marriage.
What I don't tend to get involved in so much anymore is mass communication via forums or modern social media, especially with all of the personal issues I've had that involved digital communication in part as well as in spats within Internet communities. However, combining emotional experience with industry knowledge generally applies to marketing campaigns or other customer acquisition endeavors. This need not involve personal involvement by the ad campaign creator/marketer/surveyor in interacting with customers, but creating such campaigns still amounts to engaging an entity (such as an overall company) with the general public in a way predicted to yield conversions or other responses (hopefully ongoing and positive in creating customers that like the product/service, can access it and can afford it). Likewise, internal corporate policies matter for managing productivity, morale and just compensation results inside of a company, which is why an ongoing concern of mine has been the way companies are structured; per my article on worker co-operative business models.
Contrast of my negotiation style with suppliers in previous work versus what I see from corporations in latest legal/arbitral disputes - 12/18/2025
Given that I have been involved in various disputes with corporations as outlined in the previous section and in detail within an ongoing article on the topic (finding out identities of customers who I assert caused harm to a family member), I see a further need to analyze the complexities of the opposing sides' negotiating styles with my own in previous supply planning work (maintaining ongoing relationships with finished goods suppliers). Those disputes have now reached a highly specifically defined basis in duties (authoritative bases that answer the who, what and for whom) after I was forced to keep defining the bases further over separate entity and exact basis counter-arguments (total resistance from the corporations to providing any form of relief, and despite my repeat stated willingness to negotiate over minimal equitable relief).
As I've stated, I sympathize with those people providing counter-arguments to such situations because they are largely merely wage employees (essentially non-owners of the corporations by any significant measure); either internal to the corporate entities that are the subject of the disputes or at third-party legal counsel. Some of them are partners at third-party law firms so I find there is greater accountability as owners to perhaps push back at clients over absolute resistance policies when it's clear they are not working, even though I acknowledge that represents a risk of losing the contract or breaching part of it.
However, ultimately, I myself as an employee at a winter sports company previously had to deal with many suppliers in Aisa and Europe for finished goods production and shipping, and the realities of being squeezed between long lead times versus customer dates due to engineering and sales already working together to set up such conditions from department-exclusive negotiations that they conducted with the suppliers. The standard corporate policy for the supply planning department was to keep pushing suppliers to create products earlier anyway even in spite of the contradictory framework already set up by other departments. I always took it upon myself to then attempt reaching understanding with suppliers on what could be done to accommodate them under such conditions, such as which products could be made later and moving up others, instead of pounding on delivery dates universally. If I wasn't given any basis for improving deliveries via being able to have influence as a supply planner in providing input on factory prices and manufacturing techniques, I had no real basis to push for absolute delivery expectations; yet the sales department usually kept railing about deliveries anyway and the finance department held air freight budget use against the supply planning department.
Perhaps what I did to sympathize with suppliers and to put out the concerns from a multi-department standpoint didn't adhere to absolute corporate policies of promoting self-interest in all ways (on-time deliveries while also being inexpensively produced, and at a high wholesale and retail value). However, even despite being a part of one of the lowest-paid and admin work-heavy departments in the company regarding the low-level employees, I stuck to my operational ethics. Ultimately, I can't see how pursuing absolute corporate self-interest policies makes any sense in manufacturing because it's to no-one's benefit if an established supplier becomes resentful and can't produce products at all. This again became more difficult as the equity company owner in that situation became more aggressive in cutting costs as soon as a downturn in immediate revenue became apparent due to the common tactic of sucking profits out of a vassal company and utilizing debt to fund operations during such periods, but I made my stance known anyway whenever I could. Sometimes to the chagrin of the replacement executive team that had eventually taken hold.
For that reason, in a legal/arbitral dispute where employees or third-party counsel are absolutely doggedly resisting minimal negotiation except for the dispute to be closed with prejudice at threat of an expensive fight, at some point I perhaps can't entirely sympathize. It's within their power in some way to push back on their managers or executive teams or ownership teams (or to otherwise send recommendations successively up the chain) to start making concessions if an issue is highly fundamentally defined already or is at risk of a litigant/claimant figuring out how to do so anyway; especially if separate entity and jurisdictional issues have clearly been resolved via changes of jurisdiction and if a principal place of business has been targeted.
I find various corporate defense policies to be unethical as I analyzed most recently in an add-on to my article on worker cooperatives because of the focus on pure procedural concerns, but a few back and forth exchanges of that variety can be forgiven in my mind. However, if a litigant/claimant has the entire factual basis on their side and has made requisite updates to their procedural arguments, it doesn't make sense to me in any ethical sense even for employee lawyers to keep negotiating from a standpoint of absolute resistance and attempts at absolute refutation. At some point, to me, it's bad faith negotiation and even being a mere wage employee representing a corporation's policies is not a complete excuse for such a negotiation style. It also, to me, in the long run isn't healthy for such a corporation because it becomes apparent that pure procedural/jurisdictional/separate entity arguments will eventually fall short at the corporation's expense versus agreeing to negotiate sooner.
Obstructionist tactics as such may scare off some potential litigants/claimants and I find that a worker cooperative would not even engage with such tactics at all out of a higher likelihood of voting to adopt honest and ethical procedures to begin with in service/product provision, but I give some benefit of the doubt to employees tasked with such negotiations or inquiries since corporations that treat workers as commodities are going to engage in dishonest tactics to some extent (laxities in procedures/etc. that increase the risk of harm to third-parties or to the public generally, followed by some level of procedural obscurantism such as unclear request forms across multiple entities to attempt not needing to deal with such claims at all on top of that). But the difference between myself as an employee who conducted supply negotiations and the negotiation tactics of lawyers/paralegals in disputes that I've encountered is that I adhered to personal ethics in the first place by pushing back against ultimately self-harming corporate negotiation policy in not offering total resistance to the needs of such suppliers. I've rather experienced total resistance in negotiation over the issues I've put forward to corporations, and unlike personal attachment situations they in fact have had basis in specifically defined duties. I've offered the exact same to these lawyers in offering to negotiate and was ultimately minimally after equitable relief (request to cross-check financial records when inaccurate data is provided that can't actually identify customers relative to public records; or to address a lack of data provision at all from initial inquiries via request forms).
I did not have the duties in those disputes entirely specifically defined at first which provided an opening for procedural counter-arguments, but as I said in my tactical view, getting concerns out there even if a basis is not perfectly defined makes most sense to me. Only so much can be researched before a dispute has to be launched. Then it's a corporation's operational problem as well as their employees' problem of personal honor if they keep resisting to an absolute degree even when any procedural holes are plugged later. That is the nature of adversarial dispute resolution systems rather than inquisitorial systems; arguments can be modified but a determined litigant/claimant is going to benefit the most when the facts are absolutely on their side. I say this knowing full well that I relate to the employees much more than the corporations themselves, but at some point offering total resistance with no evidence of having brought concerns up the corporate chain becomes absurd, and it's not as if employees have zero agency in such circumstances even if treated as wage commodities in their roles.
Now that the equitable disputes with those corporations have been highly specifically defined in the basis for duties, I find myself less and less willing to check for any further counter-arguments. Especially in the situation being handled by arbitration, I've already filed all my allotted responses anyway. I have to assume even in that such situation that highly aggressive and absolutely resistive negotiation tactics will persist. However, because the situations are in fact mediated disputes (either via arbitration or a legal case), I find at least in advanced such situations with entirely uncooperative entities where arguments and counter-arguments have already occurred that it's fine not to read any emails or filings to any detail if it's obvious that they still demonstrate full resistance. To me, it's bad faith negotiation at that point, and I don't care to over-activate a sense of avoidant attachment, annoyance or irritation by suffering to read them further; especially after multiple attempts at minimal negotiation where the specific bases for minimal relief were further identified and specifically defined as part of the argument process.