62
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 138:
Line 138: +
Talk:Vote on 3 Policy Labels (view source)
Revision as of 13:53, 26 April 2015
, 13:53, 26 April 2015no edit summary
* 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)
* I agree with Derek here and would say it is a very big deal. We can't have people drinking in the space at 3 AM claiming that it isn't a real policy so the Board can't enforce it. If the person is drinking at 3 AM, drives home, and gets in an accident, we need to prove that we weren't responsible. "Hey, see here, we enacted a policy, he violated the policy, so it's 100% on him, not us!" is our defense. We can't have someone argue "Well, it's not really a policy, so you kind of did allow the person to drink, so you share in responsibility for the accident." --[[User:Rdpierce|Rdpierce]] ([[User talk:Rdpierce|talk]]) 01:43, 26 April 2015 (CDT)
* I agree with Derek here and would say it is a very big deal. We can't have people drinking in the space at 3 AM claiming that it isn't a real policy so the Board can't enforce it. If the person is drinking at 3 AM, drives home, and gets in an accident, we need to prove that we weren't responsible. "Hey, see here, we enacted a policy, he violated the policy, so it's 100% on him, not us!" is our defense. We can't have someone argue "Well, it's not really a policy, so you kind of did allow the person to drink, so you share in responsibility for the accident." --[[User:Rdpierce|Rdpierce]] ([[User talk:Rdpierce|talk]]) 01:43, 26 April 2015 (CDT)
* One of the biggest issues I've seen is that policies can be too descriptive, and then when the commitments change, the policies do not. Why not a blanket policy that says "we will comply with facility requirements as spelled out by insurance policies" or something to that effect? That way we are not locking in overly specific language, but showing, for the record, that we intend to comply with requirements (As Derek pointed out above). --[[User:Bioguy|Bioguy]] ([[User talk:Bioguy|talk]]) 08:53, 26 April 2015 (CDT)