Mediation can and ought to be seen as a facilitated negotiation, and the mediator plays the role of a neutral third-party who assists the parties in negotiating an agreement to resolve the conflict between them. Some tactics a mediator might use when there is a significant power imbalance between the parties, arguably present a challenge to remain neutral as a mediator. One source suggests that remaining neutral means, in part that a mediator will not seek to "alter perceived power variance." This definition of neutrality, however, seems counter-productive to the aims of mediation when carried to the extreme. And scholars suggest the notion that a mediator can remain completely neutral is illusory when one considers the mediator's biases and in some instances requires a mediator to "take a stand on issues stemming from dominant societal discourses which create and recreate systems of oppression." Where a mediator acts as a wholly disinterested party who simply manages the process of mediation, and does nothing to address or neutralize a distinct power imbalance between parties, then it is arguable that the mediator may unwittingly serve to further empower the already more powerful party through the process of mediation in a manner that can be unnecessarily destructive. When the process of the mediation is not properly balanced, the overall meaning of the mediation to the less powerful party may reflect her sense of disempowerment where the mediator is seen as further facilitating the more powerful party's control over the less powerful party. In the example above, in seeking to clarify the plaintiff's position for the defendant, the mediator arguably appeared to be advocating for the plaintiff. Further, when a mediator defers to the knowledge or authority of the more powerful party in drafting an agreement, a mediator may effectively be reduced to the role of a scribe where the terms are set forth and dictated by the more powerful party. In these instances, it is arguable that the less powerful party will potentially be ill-served by the mediation process. At best, a mediator can and ought to remain mindful and responsive in each mediation in the sense that she does not fall into a routine where all similar mediations based upon similar facts in which she participates blend into one another without the mediator remaining responsive and sensitive to the manner by which power dynamics work to shape mutual satisfaction of each party in reaching a settlement agreement that is the result of collaboration to fully informed and empowered parties.