LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for UCD-STAFFORDBEER Archives


UCD-STAFFORDBEER Archives

UCD-STAFFORDBEER Archives


UCD-STAFFORDBEER@LISTSERV.HEANET.IE


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

UCD-STAFFORDBEER Home

UCD-STAFFORDBEER Home

UCD-STAFFORDBEER  January 2011

UCD-STAFFORDBEER January 2011

Subject:

Re: Any assistance on this?

From:

Stefan Wasilewski <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Forum dedicated to the work of Stafford Beer <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Sun, 9 Jan 2011 11:04:39 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (126 lines)

This is a very important example that leads to a wider issue of self-responsibility and governance in general.

On a quick review I spot a couple of issues to comment upon:

Broadly the issue of self-regulation to specific laws - this one will run and run without consensus that we're in a nested governance process and that a principals-based approach is best.

The second is consensual opinion in unstructured environments where information is not being shared, in this example between the practitioners of kite-surfing and the general public.

A third is the personal interaction between the parties involved - was the initial comment made out of genuine belief of assistance or a bit of a joke (being cocky)? Here the responsibility of B increases if it were the latter.

In insurance there is, or was, a general approach of contributory negligence but this would have to be broken down into the separate relationships between the parties and a judge/arbitration panel involved. This is not a bad process and can get to the bottom of the issues.

For my part I find it difficult to pin exact numbers to such cases, especially when the greater hurt to D seems to be after the public opinion got involved. This seems like a meta-system targeting an individual as a process to achieve a balance in an emerging issue. This is usually conducted by particular individuals who have their own agendas.

A's actions of replacing or making good parts etc was just a good PR choice and the assistance to B a warning not to take opinions of their own without consideration of the overall position - a good life lesson for B.

Separating the governance aspects into their different recursive levels identifies where the ontological structures are and where they may be emerging. The wisdom of Solomon derives from just such a process, the decision of Solomon teases out the truths behind certain actions in order to crystallise an optimum outcome.

My original point remains, shared responsibility starts with identifying where yours ends and someone else's begins; this is not easy or prone to percentages unless legal action is required. In this case I'd say there was some, how much is a matter of opinion but small.

My suggestion would be to use Stafford's approach and tell the kite-surfing community to educate the public and themselves about the risks in an open forum then let any transgressors within be openly punished for risky activities. This dissolves the situation without costly rules, time, and loss of fun. In fact if the process is correctly enshrined in the training it becomes self-regulatory.

Just my thoughts!


On 9 Jan 2011, at 08:46, russell_c wrote:

> One for the legal beagles.
> 
> There is no legal matter in this -- it is just a case study (based on actual events) in which I would like to clarify one fact: shared responsibility and risk. 
> 
> I only need an answer to feel more confident in my discussions with others on this case study. 
> 
> I don't need legal opinion -- but I just would like to know whether in general principle my point about some degree of shared responsibility is valid -- or at least a grey area needing some arbitration. 
> 
> The contention is between two world views: one that holds a 100%:0% 'blame' paradigm; and one that holds a shared risk paradigm somewhere (but not explicit) in the range of 99%-1%. 
> 
> The debate is not legal (although it is ultimately a legal issue if pursued - which is not in this case): it is philosophic. 
> 
> It is just a case study but I'd like to know more clearly whether I'm correct or not. I hold the shared responsibility view (around the 80:20 range). The principle is the focus -- not the actual values. 
> 
> Situation:
> 
> A -- a small company selling kitesurfing equipment and providing training services via 'sub contractors' who ply their trade on a public beach.
> 
> B -- Trainer walking on public beach with C in a training session.
> 
> C -- personal being trained by B through a contract with A.
> 
> D -- Independent person on the beach in an activity with some physical risk to D (only). No risk to others by virtue of ensuring no other public are close by in direction of wind and potential risk zone if event fails.
> 
> D has no relationship with B or C. (and in fact never met)
> 
> D has some historical commercial relationship with A.
> 
> B is wearing a top wetsuit vest that subtly identified her as a trainer for A. 
> 
> B and D have never met before although D has observed her in the distance training others. 
> 
> The location is in D's local beach area less than 0.7km from house. A, B & C most likely travel to the location from elsewhere. 
> 
> There is no suggestion of fowl play or poor intent by any party -- merely poor communications, timing and lack of understanding of shared risk at that time (by B) in a public place with respect to D (and others in same situation).
> 
> At a critical moment in D performing an act (e.g. launching a large kite), B (with C in tow) calls out to D from behind (and to the side a touch) that the "bar is around the wrong way" or words to that effect. D did not realise B was there or only slightly noticed from corner of the eye just moments earlier. B & C were walking along a beach where small sand dunes blocked D's view of their approach. 
> 
> This causes D to hesitate at a critical moment of launch, look down and check the bar (held in the hands to control the kite via 4x25 m strings.) D finds the bar is not around the wrong way. D wonders what B is talking about and replies that he basically 'knows what he is doing' (or at least that the bar is correctly held). The kite lifts abruptly and D is slightly off balance due to B's interruption. D is pulled to the ground , hurts ribs and breaks kite string. D contends that this may or may not have happened without B's uninvited interruption to his private activities on a very deserted public beach (i.e. no risk to others). No one will ever really know. 
> 
> No other party is hurt or was put in danger. D was learning the ways of the kite. Perhaps the kite was not positioned well with respect to wind. However previous self launches by D had been performed and worked ok. Winds were a touch stronger than perhaps wise to launch in by D -- but not excessive.  Position of kite with respect to wind could have been better. There was risk but calculated (maybe poorly in hindsight). 
> 
> B & C walk off.
> 
> D recovers from the spill and packs up equipment and returns home via the premises of A (close by) where the equipment was purchased and where original training was provided (but not by B).
> 
> D claims that B (as A's employed contractor/employee) is partly responsible for the event due to interrupting D without invitation and by sending incorrect 'expert' information at that time (the bar was not around the wrong way). 
> 
> D's original 60:40 shared risk view includes a belief that risk is also to A by virtue of employing B (i.e. commercial law etc).
> 
> D and A agree that 70%:30% (D:B) is reasonable. 
> 
> A agrees to sell D new strings for large discount just above cost. A & D agree this is fair. (basically reflecting the 70:30 split)
> 
> D suggests to A that he advise young B that next time she should be more careful about approaching members of the public while on duty. D suggests some skills training for B so that opening communication can be more polite and in the form of a question -- e.g. "Excuse me, can I assist..." (or words to that effect). 
> 
> A week later in the same place, under similar conditions (but lighter winds and with better kite position etc due to advice from A to D on how to do it better), B walks past and offers to help launch the kite for D. There are no hard feelings and no other communications (D and B are approximately 30 metres apart due to length of kite strings). Standard 'ok' & 'thanks' hand signals are shared by D & B. 
> 
> There is no issue. Both A, B & D seem to have learned something. 
> 
> Some weeks later D relates this scenario in a public forum which is discussing risk on public beaches in respect to 'Show Pony' behaviour that places the public at risk. Public outrage with the 'sport' is rising in the wider community due to bad high risk behaviour by certain experienced people. 
> 
> D receives a public lashing by many people in the small Internet community (but not all) for the suggestion that risk was shared in this complex situation of concern outlined above. Heated debate and bullying attack on D ensue over an extend period by a strident section of the Internet fraternity who believe that 'Blame' is 100% with D as a 'fact'. No one claims to be a legal expert -- it all looks and sounds like opinion. 
> 
> Question: Can D claim that risk was shared in that situation of concern -- or at least that it is a grey area that would need arbitration etc to resolve?
> 
> D's issue is not with B or A. 
> 
> Rather it is with the mindset of the rabid Internet forum attackers who seem unable to consider the situation and who continue to attack D at a personal level from the 100% blame position. It appears to be a very strong blame culture. This community may also have higher insurance premiums to pay if they find out they do share risk in some public-private interaction (especially when commercial trade is going on and a 3rd party is affected). Many of these 'voices' are probably trainers as well. 
> 
> The purpose of D raising this scenario was to develop open discussion. A lot of noise was developed (charge & rebuttal) but not much information or answers. The original Show Pony situation was completely left discussed and unresolved. The Show Pony problem seems to have been raised numerous times before and remained a hot contentious and unresolved item. 
> 
> The kitesurfing community claim to be extremely concerned with self governance and not being pinned down with outside control and regulations "like elsewhere in the world". Certain 'voices' in the Internet fraternity claim this is because of good work by the local association of members which also provides public insurance to members and requires members to agree to indemnity conditions that seem to protect all office holders and all members form challenge. 
> 
> After further analysis of the situation (of the internet community reaction) D concludes this is largely because the local context is in a time warp and that soon there will be public outrage and clamp down as it has occurred in other parts of the world.. 
> 
> Any comments or hints on the original 100% vs shared risk responsibility issue most appreciated. 
> 
> Nothing will be quoted or ascribed. Email to me 1:1 if more appropriate.
> 
> Thanks anticipation.
> 
> Russell
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For more information go to: www.metaphorum.org For the Metaphorum Collaborative Working Environment (MCWE) go to: www.platformforchange.org METAPHORUM eList Archive available at - https://listserv.heanet.ie/ucd-staffordbeer.html Archive of CYBCOM eList available at - http://hermes.circ.gwu.edu/archives/cybcom.html ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
For more information go to: www.metaphorum.org

For the Metaphorum Collaborative Working Environment (MCWE) go to:  www.platformforchange.org

METAPHORUM eList Archive available at - https://listserv.heanet.ie/ucd-staffordbeer.html

Archive of CYBCOM eList available at - http://hermes.circ.gwu.edu/archives/cybcom.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

September 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
August 2017
May 2017
November 2016
October 2016
July 2016
June 2016
March 2016
November 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.HEANET.IE

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager