[MR] Fwd: FW: Waterbearing going forward.

[Cian Conor MacQuaid]

Thank you Lady Maire.

Well, since you asked. ;-)

I think this is an unneeded intrusion of the concept of potential
liability into our activities. If there are known cases of either
illness or lawsuits arising from similar activities that may alter that
perception, but we know of none. In the case of any activity if a lawyer
is asked "Is there a possibility of liability arising from <activity>?"
they will say yes. There is no activity, including inactivity, that is
free from the potential for liability. I would suggest that what this
has done is taken a needed activity, hydration for the fighters and
populace at large, and made it impossible for groups manage or execute.
It is good that the explanation explicitly states that groups are
allowed to fund self-service water, or this policy would be even harder
to swallow. I suppose making the populace responsible for their own
containers would reduce the potential liability.

Given the rigor of hygiene I have seen enforced in the waterbearing
community here I would find it hard to believe that it would not meet
any "reasonable effort" stricture in any locale. If we want to check,
why not measure against a food-service chain that has locations in every
jurisdiction? It seems farcical that the choices are "abandon control or
regulate into oblivion." It fails the common sense test. Unfortunately,
that is all too often the case in the legal system, particularly as
regards liability. Perhaps if we had access to the details behind the
decision it would be easier to support, or explain.

Sir Cian


Mary Lumpkin wrote:
> Unto the Populace of Atlantia,
> I have been asked to forward this missive to the Kingdom of Atlantia 
> to see what the populace thinks about this change in Society Law.
> In Service to Kingdom and Crown,
> Ldy. Maire Eriksdottir of Telemark