833
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 137:
Line 137: +
Talk:Vote on 3 Policy Labels (view source)
Revision as of 05:37, 26 April 2015
, 05:37, 26 April 2015→Mistaken in thinking we had to pass policies
* Skay, I'm not sure where you're getting the impression that we need a policy for every single item that may break the law? I think that was the slippery slope argument Sparr tried to use on the list. As for making announcements without having policies, it's sort of a distinction without a difference, I think? De facto instead of de jure, but it doesn't necessarily mean that we wouldn't have gotten the same backlash that we did. --[[User:Sylphiae|Sylphiae]] ([[User talk:Sylphiae|talk]]) 20:13, 25 April 2015 (CDT)
* Skay, I'm not sure where you're getting the impression that we need a policy for every single item that may break the law? I think that was the slippery slope argument Sparr tried to use on the list. As for making announcements without having policies, it's sort of a distinction without a difference, I think? De facto instead of de jure, but it doesn't necessarily mean that we wouldn't have gotten the same backlash that we did. --[[User:Sylphiae|Sylphiae]] ([[User talk:Sylphiae|talk]]) 20:13, 25 April 2015 (CDT)
* Sylphiae, I was replying to Derek about whether having policies that we can point to to show that we comply would be helpful. we have a lot of exclusions other than the 2 we listed. I didn't mean to make a slippery slope argument but I did huh. --[[User:Skm|Skm]] ([[User talk:Skm|talk]]) 20:17, 25 April 2015 (CDT)
* Sylphiae, I was replying to Derek about whether having policies that we can point to to show that we comply would be helpful. we have a lot of exclusions other than the 2 we listed. I didn't mean to make a slippery slope argument but I did huh. --[[User:Skm|Skm]] ([[User talk:Skm|talk]]) 20:17, 25 April 2015 (CDT)
** The membership cannot be expected to read 100 pages of dense insurance-speak. Ultimately, triage is necessary. The thought process here is: 1. Are we allowing/enabling something that is excluded by our policy? 2. Is it happening, or likely to happen? 3. Could it give rise to a liability claim, and is that risk high enough and/or the consequences serious enough to make taking action prudent? We regularly had dogs in the space, they could bite people, and if they did, insurance claims can be expensive. We did have late night drinking at the space, and alcohol liability risks are so extreme that we have a separate policy to cover it. And we were having parties that we weren't disclosing to our insurer which could have been really bad for us; going forward, we need to get coverage for events, and cancel/modify the events if the coverage gets declined. Knowing this, failing to take these actions would have been negligent. It makes no sense to ignore all insurance issues just because we can't create policy to cover every circumstance possible.