Difference between revisions of "Talk:Proposal/0008-Proposal to Restrict Powertools"
(Added to discussion) |
m (→Why is this proposed?: new section) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Instead of having locking safeguards on there all we need is to have a member nearby to say "Don't touch that, you aren't insured." Put a sign over the tool storage that says "Non-members no touchy!" If they use the tools anyway and cut off a hand then they blatantly ignored our warnings despite our efforts and thus we should not be held liable (feel free to correct me on legalities). We should only let people in on the provision that they don't touch, which we do anyway. We just need to more strictly enforce it. --[[User:Gregabyte|Gregabyte]] 17:11, 9 March 2009 (CDT) | Instead of having locking safeguards on there all we need is to have a member nearby to say "Don't touch that, you aren't insured." Put a sign over the tool storage that says "Non-members no touchy!" If they use the tools anyway and cut off a hand then they blatantly ignored our warnings despite our efforts and thus we should not be held liable (feel free to correct me on legalities). We should only let people in on the provision that they don't touch, which we do anyway. We just need to more strictly enforce it. --[[User:Gregabyte|Gregabyte]] 17:11, 9 March 2009 (CDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Why is this proposed? == | ||
| + | |||
| + | What happened, or is forecasted to happen, for such a proposal? I understand there's several people that are not members yet, but surely there's a better way then locking up everything. Does our insurance cover non-waiver-signing-members at all? | ||
Revision as of 17:32, 9 March 2009
Instead of having locking safeguards on there all we need is to have a member nearby to say "Don't touch that, you aren't insured." Put a sign over the tool storage that says "Non-members no touchy!" If they use the tools anyway and cut off a hand then they blatantly ignored our warnings despite our efforts and thus we should not be held liable (feel free to correct me on legalities). We should only let people in on the provision that they don't touch, which we do anyway. We just need to more strictly enforce it. --Gregabyte 17:11, 9 March 2009 (CDT)
Why is this proposed?
What happened, or is forecasted to happen, for such a proposal? I understand there's several people that are not members yet, but surely there's a better way then locking up everything. Does our insurance cover non-waiver-signing-members at all?
