Branding and Trademark Disputes: 7 Things to Keep in Mind

Of the challenges that craft breweries face, the dark cloud of trademark infringement is one of the ugliest for two reasons: a trademark dispute can cost time, money, energy and perhaps the business; and it is reminiscent of corporate industry, which upsets the camaraderie or community aspect of craft brewing.  Yet this cloud persists and can hover over any brewery. If it comes your way, here are some things to keep in mind:

1. While your business is a large personal investment, challenges against your trademark or brand (or accusations towards you of such) should not be taken as a personal attack.  Easier said than done, no doubt, but if this dispute turns personal, it can get ugly and lose focus of the original concern
2. Most trademark infringements, real or perceived, are accidental. With so many breweries in operation today, it is becoming increasingly difficult to find uniqueness in branding, naming and image.  An accused brewery may not intend infringement or harm.  This may sound trivial, but intent draws a line between hostility and honest mistake
3. We all make mistakes, which are, by definition, accidental.  Most of us feel bad when we mess up and the last thing we need is scolding.  The best thing we can do is to learn from them and not admonish others for their mistakes
4. Injuries of social media. Nothing can escalate a dispute more quickly, with more damage, over a wider area, than social media. The reward for using social media is minimal while the impact of damage is almost inevitable
5. Talk it out.  While a cease and desist letter might be required, it is a cold and impersonal communication.  Yet, it is available at any time; if talking does not go anywhere a C/D letter remains an option.  Nothing to lose by talking
6. Get help to talk it out.  This is where OvalOptions can help.  Sometimes disputes become heated exchanges, communication shuts down, and parties run to the courts, bypassing an important, and often overlooked, step.  Mediation and other alternative dispute resolution (ADR) methods provide effective, cost efficient and sustainable solutions without negating one’s right to seek legal avenues.  ADR also helps maintain the communal nature of craft brewing
7. In some cases, litigation may be appropriate.  While this can be a long, drawn-out and expensive option with no guarantee of positive results, it might be necessary.  This is not for OvalOptions to decide or advise.

Behind the Dialogues: Part 4

The GoalThe Pub Dialogues series is our vehicle to highlight that open, honest and civil conversations are possible during difficult circumstances.  We hope people will see how disagreeing with someone does not prohibit discussion, conversation and dialogue.   Honest Dialogue is not easy; it takes time, effort and even some pain. However, the benefits are fantastic for those involved and, indirectly, the world at large.The Pub Dialogues aim to:

• (Re-) Introduce interpersonal communication skills
• Help people address contentious topics and understand differing view-points
• Showcase how people with opposing view-points can engage in constructive conversation without reverting to debate and animosity
• Bring awareness to the importance of open discussion and its salience with social, political and cultural issues
• Entice people to have more conversations face-to-face in a civil and open manner (with local pubs and businesses in mind for the setting)
• Offer an opportunity for people to learn from each other

We want to change the world.  Delusions of grandeur to be sure. Still, we follow a common platitude, ‘if you want to change the world, start with yourself’.  The practitioners at OvalOptions have taken this rather difficult first step.  While we are far from perfect, we turned the focus of conflict resolution skills on ourselves first to view firsthand the changes, understanding and personal development they afford.  Our dedication to these skills is strong, and our passion to avail them to others is resilient.  The Pub Dialogues series is one way we can share our skills with others, for free, and open to all.Part 1Part 2Part 3

Behind the Dialogues...

Part 2: Peace Peace: Two definitions seem worlds apart:

• the normal, nonwarring condition of a nation, group of nations, or the world. (dictionary.com)
• harmony in personal relations (Merriam-Webster Dictionary)

Conversation, and the skills it requires, is important to peace. The first definition is incomplete if it does not include the second.  Is “non-war” peace?  For example, it is difficult to believe Syria and Israel maintain a peaceful condition just because their armies are not warring.Communication between possible belligerent nations is vital before unleashing the destructive apparatuses of war and warfare.  The United Nations is a governmental forum where nations can communicate about pressing issues as an effort to eliminate, or at least curtail, war. What about the people?Following the practices of John Paul Lederach and Harold Saunders, we believe that communication is complicated, multi-layered, fragile, and essential for peace, and begins on the personal level. Daily conversations, what we say, how we say it, the words we choose, our tone, to whom we are speaking, and the issues discussed are important in the personal realm as well as the international scene.An antagonistic conversation with someone tends to influence our overall view of that person, and others who share that person’s views.  We may conclude that someone who disagrees with us is an idiot or worse.  The idiot label taints whatever else that person, and those like them, says and does.  It takes effort to have this label removed.  Consequently, we shut down, do not listen to what people are saying, or understand their reasons.  As such, we close off the real possibility of learning something, not to mention coming across as rude (we won’t make many friends that way), and no one will listen to us.  If we ignore learning opportunities, then we fail to communicate, which is the key to overcoming disputes, and thus vital to harmony in personal relations.In today’s world, personal relations extend beyond borders. They are powerful tools for seeing that country as a non-enemy. As like us--human.  As such, we listen to them more, try to understand their perspectives, and wish to maintain or strengthen a relationship.Going from individual relational harmony to international peace may seem a stretch, but harming people we know is more difficult than harming those we do not. This starts with communication, and the skills it demands.Read Part 1 here

Behind the Dialogues...

Part 1: Out of the chat room, into the pub If you have ever witnessed an online conversation that quickly moves off topic and turns into name-calling animosity, then you will understand the primary motive for The Pub Dialogues. This type of online bickering is quite annoying, and when about important topics it gets us nowhere and impedes progress.  Chatter is destroying conversation.  Face-to-face conversation is vital for learning, dispute resolution, problem solving, and progress.Conversations about important and sensitive topics are not always easy, especially when involving opposing viewpoints.  Emotions can run high.  People tend to voice their concerns without listening to others, and engage in debate, where winning is the goal.  However, conversations are not zero-sum; there is no winner or loser.  Just because someone has a different opinion does not mean they (or we) are wrong….or right.During these difficult conversations, it is important to adhere to certain principles or rules. Easier said than done, but skilled facilitators can help. A facilitator is a neutral party who utilizes certain techniques, skills and methods to keep interlocutors on topic, respectful and engaged.  It is important that facilitators capture ideas that emerge (sometimes quite quickly), points of commonality, areas of disagreement, and clarify statements/questions that may be confusing.The Internet has no such facilitator. Online communication is raw, instant and commonly unchecked. This style of communication seeps into real-life situations, where offense, confusion and emotions can increase enmity, polarization and stagnation. Online behavior in real-world situations is ugly. It’s time to return to the social scene and talk. Read Part 2 here

From the Inside Out: First Level Conflict Management

The field of Conflict Resolution has grown in the last 30 years, concentrating on processes such as peace building, mediation, truth commissions, and reconciliation to name a few.  The impact of Con-Res has become increasingly noticeable and its methods sought after. Yet these reactive efforts do not go far enough. Like the old saying goes, Give a man a fish; you've fed him for a day. Teach him to fish; and you've fed him for a lifetime, education of Con-Res skills needs to focus on the individual and daily life to establish a proactive approach to managing conflict.The above services (mediation et al) are enacted as a conflict intensifies, at the cessation of violence, or after it concludes (although this is a gray area).  Damage has already been done, or is accruing. Many people do not possess basic Con-Res skills, which increases the possibility that seemingly harmless misunderstandings will escalate to damaging conflicts, and the need for third party intervention becomes more and more evident.  Effective management of conflict requires personal Con-Res skills, with reactionary services on-board as important back-up procedures.If more people (ideally everybody) were to possess basic Conflict Resolution skills, then many problems, disputes, and conflicts can be prevented or managed effectively at the “first” level, thereby decreasing costs (financial, emotional, relational, physical, etc) of prolonged discontent. It is important to note that this approach will not solve every problem, or eliminate every conflict. Conflict is inevitable and a necessary condition of life; managed effectively it promotes change, progression, and innovation. To take advantage of contentious situations requires proactive measures as well as reactive services.Now is the time to teach, provide, and encourage personal Con-Res skills, especially to the youth and future generations. I see four pillars upon which more advanced methods can be learned and practiced:

• Intrapersonal Communication: Communication as it pertains to an individual (one side of an exchange).  How language, word selection, tone, volume, phrasing, body language, listening and understanding the audience affects communication.  “How did your leg break?” isn’t as accusatory as “How did you break your leg?”
• Critical Thinking: Analyzing a situation to better select communication methods, understanding consequences of actions, acknowledging the role of emotions, increase clarity in explaining interests/positions, and recognizing the impact each of these may have on others. Does placement of trash cans inhibit easy access for the sanitation workers? How would sanitation workers be affected if I place the cans in a cumbersome way? How would they react?
• Situational Awareness: Understanding the context in which conversations, actions, disagreements, and commonalities exist. Should I ask my friend for some money while within a group of people, or in private?
• Patience: To deal with emotions effectively and efficiently, not jump to conclusions, in explaining situation/reactions/motives/etc. Frustrations and emotions arise in disputes and even common communications. The ability to endure these with a clear (or clearer) head is vital to the resolution of conflict. Is someone going through a difficult time and needs to vent, not really meaning what they say even if it’s offensive to me?

Essentially these pillars become a way of life more so than a way of thinking. These basic skills would enhance reactionary services when they are needed (such as the NFL Lockout mediation). They can be built within the person, preparing them to better manage whatever conflict situation they encounter in their walk in life.  Although conflict management is never easy, people can be more empowered to resolve many conflicts themselves prior to sustaining damages.This education can be applied within public school curricula, personal coaching or tutoring, community classrooms and corporate on- and off-premise training sessions. The lessons and skills can be applied along the broad landscape of human interaction: from space exploration to day-care; from daily family life to business marketing. As long people interact the need for conflict management will persist. 

NFL Lockout: How Mediation is Helping

The NFL owners and players completed another round of mediation last week in their ongoing efforts to negotiate a new collective bargaining agreement (CBA) in time for the start of the 2011-2012 season. This most recent session was court-mandated and, as expected, did not lead to a settlement.It’s possible the parties may have made more progress had the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals not stepped in on the same day as the mediation conference, but that’s unlikely. The Court decided to reinstate the owners’ “lockout” of the players, keeping the freeze on all NFL business - including payments to players - in place. This is technically a temporary order by the Court until it issues its final ruling after oral arguments in June. Both sides want to see this particular legal challenge through before negotiating further.Given all the fits and starts to this labor dispute, many are questioning whether mediation has been largely a waste of time. A new CBA seems no more likely today than it did before the two negotiating groups met for 16 days in February and March during their first attempt at a mediated settlement. We have only vague public statements about “progress” and speculation regarding what, if any, movement has occurred from either side in negotiations. Instead of consensus, the parties exit each meeting as entrenched in discord as ever.All of these mediation sessions must appear rather pointless then, right? Doubtful.What Is Happening in the Negotiating RoomThe truth is we don’t know what is happening behind closed doors. But I suspect mediation has already proved more productive to this point than anyone is letting on. I’d even go so far to say that not only is mediation exactly the right process for this dispute, but that it will prove to be the foundation around which a resolution is finally achieved. Despite all of the hand-wringing, this negotiation is unfolding as it must before a new CBA will be reached. Too much money (some estimates range in the neighborhood of $9 billion) and too many competing agendas are at stake for this to be resolved without a few false starts.Consider the dynamics in play. Not only is the NFL a multi-billion dollar industry, the parties are ensnared in a very public dispute as both sides - owners and players - vie for public sympathy for their respective positions. Further, each “party” represents a larger group with diverse interests and agendas that do not always align in-house. Owner divisions include small- vs. big-market teams; cash-rich vs. cash-strapped operations; and traditional vs. progressive sensibilities. Compare that against player tensions arising between top-tier vs. middle-of-the-pack and league minimum contracts; stars vs. “role” players; and current vs. retired members.And, to complicate matters further, every discussion is surrounded by participants with ultra-competitive personalities that have been forged in a tradition where wins happen only when the other side loses.Why There Is No Deal YetAt this stage, the owners and players are bent on gaining whatever leverage they can before either gets serious about working out a deal, and they each have many cards to play away from the negotiating table before narrowing their respective bargaining positions. For the owners, the primary point of leverage is the lockout. They hope it will put financial pressure on enough players to force the union (despite efforts to decertify) to yield to negotiations in order to get its members back to work. For the players, they have a laundry list of legal challenges they can bring to risk the current structure of the league, and which, in turn, could cast this wildly successful joint enterprise into a world of uncertainty.So much of the commentary surrounding these events has been preoccupied with the endgame of getting a deal done. The problem with this approach is that it fails to acknowledge the subtleties inherent in the negotiating process as a whole. Every negotiation involves stages of preparation and discovery before bargaining begins in earnest. The NFL owners and players have not been ready to bargain, because they do not yet feel adequately secure in their bargaining positions. Some of these ongoing legal challenges will have to play out before either side begins to accept their stations at the negotiating table.Mediation Is the FrameworkNegotiations with this many moving parts take time and involve more than a few bumps and bruises. Mediation has provided the NFL owners and players a framework to help them navigate through the necessary preparatory phases of their negotiating process and, perhaps most importantly, a confidential setting in which to do it. Public airings are far from an ideal platform for parties with a long and contentious history to come to terms on an agreement. Mediation requires open and honest communication, and offers a safe space to air discussions outside of the public forum. By invoking confidentiality, information shared during these sessions cannot be used in court, freeing the parties to explore areas and interests that they would not otherwise discuss.Additionally, part of a mediator’s job is to help the parties get to a point where they each feel comfortable bargaining. This may mean helping them better clarify their positions and focus their respective strategies. It may also mean acting as a facilitator to create a collaborative environment for the parties to discover where they have joint interests on which they can build consensus.As a neutral third party who is not there to decide right or wrong on any given issue, the NFL mediator would have been well-suited to help the owners and players sift through their many (often competing) agendas, grievances, concerns and goals. That process would have been constructive regardless of whether it led directly to a deal. In fact, it would not surprise me to learn that the current legal strategies working their way through the courts were refined as a result of such an exercise.Common Goal: Keep the League ThrivingAs it stands now, the NFL owners and players remain in the positioning phase of these negotiations. Both groups’ positions will come clearer into focus as some of the current legal challenges are decided. How the parties respond in the short term remains to be seen, but I am confident they will be back in mediation to further negotiations and ultimately strike a deal. Using the courts to garner leverage in negotiations can only take them so far. Eventually, the risk of uncertainty associated with relying too heavily on the courts to “solve” their differences will outweigh the utility of litigation to improve bargaining position.In the final, both sides know they are partners in a very profitable enterprise and they will be forced to bargain with one another to keep it thriving. Mediation will continue to be a critical tool that guides those negotiations much of the way.

Resolving Disputes When Logic Collides with Emotion (Part III)

(Part III of a Three Part Series)Return to Part IISo, what can the Achy Breaky (“A/B”) person do to deal with someone who can’t get out of the way of their own calculations?Cheat Sheet for the Achy/Breaky Person

• Get your facts straight before wailing and keening. Before diving into conflict (legal/domestic/employment), figure out your best/worst case scenarios. Talk with an attorney, CPA, or investment advisor – get the real story. So when Mr. Facts & Figures (“F&F”) brings his numbers game to the table, you have cards to play; rationally evaluate his proposal based upon your own research.    
• Take a breath, then make a practical offer. Just like you don’t shop when you’re hungry, don’t make proposals based upon how you feel at a particular moment. If you do, at best, you confirm his opinion that you’re a basket case – at worst, you lose credibility, confirming that F&F is better off taking his already calculated chances in court. He’ll respond more positively to a realistic proposal, but he’ll still question your offer- So what?  
• F& F isn’t rejecting you – He’s getting his head around your figures and how you arrived at them. When he offers a counter proposal, (a salary figure, a purchase price, a personal injury settlement offer), ask him to explain how he arrived at the figure, so you know where he’s coming from. Trust, but verify them with your professional.  Let F&F explain his logic – Listen and try to hear what he is saying. Try to repeat back what was said (it may be difficult, so be patient!). “Facts & Figures” people also need to be heard and validated – it’s everything.  
• No Yelling for “Judge Judy.” Give the situation a chance; listen, dialogue, validate the other side’s reasoning, if not his actual proposals. If resolution is impossible, then tell Mr. F&F what you’re going to do – don’t waste emotion on threats - a Facts & Figures guy already knows his chances in court. Besides, threatening to go to court is a “be careful what you wish for” kind of problem for you too – what you may receive from a judge financially, may never make up for what you might lose emotionally (increased hostility, new financial fears, grief over a lost opportunity). Clinging to your emotionally driven offer may ultimately cost you more money, time, and energy. Finally, when a Facts & Figures person threatens to go to court, don’t panic. Use his F&F mentality to your advantage: you know he has already penciled out his chances of winning/losing. So, until he really files, he’s still open to informal resolution. Remember, he deals in numbers – it’s his Woobie security blanket. Inhale….Exhale….Repeat.

So, whether you’re a logic person, or an emotions person; each side needs to be heard, understood and acknowledged in a dispute. Each needs to be a part of the decision making process, even if the ultimate decision is not what he/she envisioned. People who can honestly listen, remain open and respectful to the other side’s concerns and interests, and give good faith effort to mutually resolving a situation - can resolve it in spite of their differences.

Resolving Disputes When Logic Collides with Emotion (Part II)

(Part II of a Three Part Series)Read Part I HereSo, how do Logical (Facts & Figures) People and Emotional (Achy/Breaky) People work with each other personally or professionally? 

• Remember that you both have different ways of looking at things, and neither is right or wrong – they’re just different. That alone will get you further down the path of resolution.  
• Pay attention to how the other side sees the issue. You don’t have to agree, but you do need to sincerely acknowledge it. Each party’s concerns/interests are his or hers; they’re not ridiculous or worthless. Respect them, though you may oppose them.

Cheat Sheet for the Facts & Figures (“F&F”) Person: 

• Stop and listen to what the other person is saying. It’s hard, but try to actually hear what the other party is saying – pretend it’s a complicated, but intriguing algorithm. Try to repeat back to her what she said (which may be difficult - be patient!). Give the conversation a chance to progress before you jump into the crux of your logistics (actual figures). Let the other person know that you can understand and respect her point of view, even if you disagree with it. “Emotion based” people need to be heard and validated – it’s everything.  
• Let your proposal breathe. Remember, an Achy/Breaky (“A/B”) person has to feel like her comments have moved you, literally and figuratively. So, your ultimate position needs to “reflect” her emotions. No need for extremes here, just don’t figure out the entire problem on your own then throw out a “take it or leave it” position. Give her interests and concerns due consideration. Engage in dialogue; allow your numbers to be flexible in light of the A/B’s emotions-based counter proposals. If you process her reasoning with the same determination as you devised your proposal, you may be pleasantly surprised at the result.  
• Stop with the “I’ll call my lawyer‼” Give the situation a chance; listen, dialogue, validate the other side’s reasoning, if not her offer. If resolution is impossible, then tell her what your next move is – (especially since you have already calculated the win/loss ratio) – don’t waste threats. Threats intimidate an Achy/Breaky person (it’s personal, not just business), and ruin any chance to informally resolve the dispute. Threatening to go to court is a “be careful what you wish for” kind of problem – what you may get from a judge could be far worse than what you might have gotten by continuing informal dialogue. Clinging to your facts and figures may ultimately cost you much more money, time, and energy. Finally, when Achy/Breaky threatens to go to court, don’t recalibrate. Until she really does, you still have a chance to resolve the conflict. Remember, A/B’s deal in emotions – hitting the panic button is reflexive. Whatever emotion they are communicating is most likely a knee jerk reaction to the “logic” you have tossed onto the negotiating table. Inhale…Exhale...Repeat.

In the final section, we offer suggestions for the Achy/Breaky Person to positively engage in disputes with Facts & Figures People.Contiue to Part III: Cheet Sheet for Achy/Breaky People

Resolving Disputes When Logic Collides with Emotion

(Part I of a Three Part Series)We’ve all seen the ad: the stunning model snuggled up to the nerdy, disheveled genius – and we giggle at the dichotomy. But when we deal with conflict between those of us who are “logical” and those of us who are “emotional,” it’s no laughing matter. (For this discussion, let’s focus on the stereotypically obvious, though either gender can have one or both personality traits.)“Facts & Figures” People (“F&F”) revels in his verifiable, tangible data. For him, emotion is secondary; he’s tabulated the correct value of the inheritance, quantified the relevant ratios of a business deal, or the tax ramifications of taking the house in a divorce. To him, his calculations are irrefutable; to question his numbers is to question his integrity, to disrespect his intelligence.“Achy/Breaky’” People (“A/B”) on the other hand, are emotional - feelings based; the numbers be damned – the issue is what’s right or what’s fair. To her, the house isn’t an “asset” – it’s home, pseudosacred – an integral part of her world. To award the house to the other spouse or to suggest its sale is an outrage – it’s wrong. To reject an A/B person’s proposal is to reject her (or him). Usually, the A/B person’s demand is unreasonably high – and I guarantee it’s outside the scope of what F&F has considered. This is because the numbers don’t really matter: it’s what she feels she is owed – at least in her opinion.The problem arises when these two people must interact – as a couple, co-workers, or as employer/employee. Facts & Figures people don’t have time for emotional silliness. They know that in a business deal, workplace dispute or lawsuit, somebody pays or gets paid; they’ve figured out their chances of success or failure, and just want to get on with the business of the bottom line – which means - the numbers that they have already crunched; end of discussion.Achy/Breaky people on the other hand, aren’t sure what they want as a conflict outcome – it depends upon how they feel at the moment: if they’ve been cut out of the will, they feel abandoned, insecure – so, they feel entitled to what whatever they need. If their spouse left them for another, they may be angry and frightened for their financial future. They deserve to be justly compensated for the years of selfless devotion to that miserable soon-to-be ex-spouse. If the boss has given someone else the profitable new project, the A/B person needs vindication. Think of it as “comfort resolution,” – kind of like a warm gooey brownie and a glass of milk at 10pm…In part II, we offer suggestions for the Facts and Figures Person to move forward productively in a dispute with an Achy/Breaky person.Continue to Part II: Cheet Sheet for Facts and Figures Person

The Story Behind Oval Options

The majority of research in our field of practice revolves around academic study and theories. These theories suggest that people should always sit at a round table -- both literally and figuratively. They suggest that all decision makers should be present at meetings and that power and other factors should be balanced evenly among all participants in the process. You’ll even find that our competition often refers to “round-table solutions.” We see a round table as a very idealistic approach to conflict. Although we have a round table in our office, we recognize that a round, balanced table is an option, and even something to strive for, but it is rarely the reality in conflict. If differing power dynamics didn’t exist, the conflict probably wouldn’t either. It is our job to work with the situation that is presented and help our clients find the most realistic and appropriate resources. With these factors in mind we chose an Oval to represent our company and the processes we use, because it more accurately displays the imperfections of the world in which we work. Finally, options are what we offer our clients. We don’t offer only one type of service, such as mediation or facilitation, but rather a whole spectrum of services. Consumers don’t often research our services before they find themselves in conflict, and when you’re in conflict, you may find it difficult to take the time to consider your options. We take pride in our understanding of the field and our ability to educate prospective clients on our products, as well as when other options, such as the legal system, might be most appropriate. We will explain your options and allow you to make a more informed decision about what is right for you in your situation.

Can Mediation Help Oprah Guest?

Imagine being the victim of a horrible act of violence. Watch this short segment of the Oprah show and put yourself in Carolyn Thomas’s place. Now imagine sitting in the same room and talking to the man responsible. Would you want to be a participant in this mediation?  When Carolyn refers to “mediation,” she is actually talking about a very specialized practice called High Risk Victim Offender Dialogue (HRVOD). The primary distinction between HRVOD and a “typical” mediation is that in most mediations, the goal is to reach some form of agreement. There is no agreement in HRVOD. The keyword in this process is dialogue. HRVOD is a process that gives victims the opportunity to ask their offenders tough, focused questions with the goals of achieving closure. Unlike the legal system, HRVOD gives victims a voice. One of the most fundamental aspects of HRVOD is the recognition that when offenders are prosecuted for a crime, that crime is against the state or the government – not against the victim. The intention of the court system is to protect the actual victim as much as possible. The problem is that it greatly reduces the victim’s say in the process. Victims rarely have the opportunity to ask questions or recommend actions. This segment began with one of Oprah’s producers interviewing the offender and asking what he remembered and why it happened. He blamed the incident on a Black & Mild, a type of cigar, that he claimed to be laced with another drug. After hearing this and considering that Carolyn wants to talk to him in a mediation, Oprah’s obvious question, is, “What is there to learn from him?” Many in the audience thought, “You already heard that he blamed everything on a cheap cigar laced with something that made him black out. What else is there to know?” Based on this information, the offender hasn’t fully accepted responsibilities for his actions. What is so different and special about mediation that will help Carolyn heal? Simply put, the difference is confidentiality. You won’t see the follow-up segment with Carolyn, the mediator and the producer on the next Oprah Show. If the mediator is doing her job, she has already sat down with both people and discussed the incident in great detail with the promise of complete confidentiality. This makes a difference because Mr. Kelly is more likely to be open and honest with Carolyn in a mediation than he will be in front of cameras, bringing a large viewing audience into the conversation. In HRVOD cases, the mediators engage in extensive interviews and want to make sure that the offender expresses remorse and accepts responsibility for his actions before they will consider putting him in the room with his victim. Re-victimizing is a huge concern to practitioners in these cases. Knowing the information that mediators are looking for and that the mediation is going forward suggests that Mr. Kelly has given more information than “the cigar made me do it.” The most interesting thing about this type of process is that the victim will have an opportunity to both hear and be heard. She can tell him how his actions have impacted her life, and in turn, she will be able to ask the questions that have been on her mind for the last six years. She will find her voice.