4 ms·

> Parsing hairs of course It's always much easier to say: "we already have a policy precedent that doesn't allow this." than to say "we can do anything we w

> Parsing hairs of course It's always much easier to say: "we already have a policy precedent that doesn't allow this." than to say "we can do anything we want, and we choose not to do this." And there's a substantive difference beyond just perception. With the former, you're ruling in favor of a principled stand regardless of the person/policy behind the particular request at hand. With the latter, you're ruling against a particular person/request.

mysterypie 10y ago
Be careful, because a written policy can cut both ways. It can be used to attack the slightest inconsistency in your decisions. Real life example: A young lady suffered a slip and fall on the freshly waxed floor of a shop. The shop had a written policy against waxing the floors during business hours, but the janitor had done so anyway. The shop's written policy was used as evidence of negligence in court. They would have had a better outcome if they had no policy at all. Once you have the policy, even though you wrote it, you can't declare that you're ignoring the policy or that you're changing it retroactively. Well, you could, but you'd look foolish and lose all credibility.
- anigbrowl 10y ago
  They would also have had a better outcome if they had invested a little more in training the janitor to follow their policy. If you're going to have a policy, it needs to be substantive rather than merely cosmetic.
- anigbrowl 10y ago
  They would also have had a better outcome if they had invested a little more in training the janitor to follow their policy. If you're going to have a policy, it needs to be substantive rather than merely cosmetic.
- rhizome 10y ago
  They would have had a better outcome if they had no policy at all. "Better outcome" meaning they would have been able to shirk responsibility and the woman would have been sent packing with nothing? I weep for the future. Think about what you're arguing for.
  - gpawl 10y ago
    If they get punished MORE for having the policy than for not, that incentivizes having NO policy, which leads to more minor injuries without preventing the major injury. Similar to how no one in industry reads patents (opposite of the intended purpose of knowledge-sharing) because they get treble damages if they are found infringing while being aware of the patent.
  - derefr 10y ago
    I believe the parent is arguing for act-consequentialism, rather than rule-consequentialism. A similar argument is against the usefulness of case-law in the court system—it often prevents a judge from making the best possible decision for the particulars of the case.
    - rhizome 10y ago
      From the Supreme Court confirmation hearings I've paid attention to, it seems that there are reasonable questions on both sides of stare decisis, but I don't think moving to a non-deterministic legal system would be the answer.
    - mannykannot 10y ago
      An argument for the usefulness of case law is that provides some damping and feedback against the consequences of judgments that the judge merely thinks is the best possible decision.
- kefka 10y ago
  Yep. Same with "Privacy Policies". If you have one, the FTC can come after you for violation of said privacy policy. Fines can result. If you don't have one, FTC has nothing.
  - JadeNB 10y ago
    > If you have one, the FTC can come after you for violation of said privacy policy. Fines can result. > If you don't have one, FTC has nothing. Surely this is in some sense as it should be? If a company has no privacy policy, then it explicitly offers me no guarantees about how it treats my data, and I can do business with it (or not) accordingly. However, if a company has a privacy policy, then I should be able to rely on it; it shouldn't be just feel-good boilerplate.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    If you collext/store certain kinds of personal information, privacy policies are required by law in many jurisdictions, including California. Also, if you make any privacy-related claims, the FTC can come down on you for misrepresentations. A clear, visible Privacy Policy provides an opportunity to clarify what might otherwise be taken as unqualified privacy claims provided elsewhere.
EGreg 10y ago
Blaming a third party is always stronger. Because they are not there to be negotiated with, and there is strength in numbers.

mysterypie 10y ago

Be careful, because a written policy can cut both ways. It can be used to attack the slightest inconsistency in your decisions. Real life example: A young lady suffered a slip and fall on the freshly waxed floor of a shop. The shop had a written policy against waxing the floors during business hours, but the janitor had done so anyway. The shop's written policy was used as evidence of negligence in court. They would have had a better outcome if they had no policy at all. Once you have the policy, even though you wrote it, you can't declare that you're ignoring the policy or that you're changing it retroactively. Well, you could, but you'd look foolish and lose all credibility.

anigbrowl 10y ago
They would also have had a better outcome if they had invested a little more in training the janitor to follow their policy. If you're going to have a policy, it needs to be substantive rather than merely cosmetic.
anigbrowl 10y ago
They would also have had a better outcome if they had invested a little more in training the janitor to follow their policy. If you're going to have a policy, it needs to be substantive rather than merely cosmetic.
rhizome 10y ago
They would have had a better outcome if they had no policy at all. "Better outcome" meaning they would have been able to shirk responsibility and the woman would have been sent packing with nothing? I weep for the future. Think about what you're arguing for.
- gpawl 10y ago
  If they get punished MORE for having the policy than for not, that incentivizes having NO policy, which leads to more minor injuries without preventing the major injury. Similar to how no one in industry reads patents (opposite of the intended purpose of knowledge-sharing) because they get treble damages if they are found infringing while being aware of the patent.
- derefr 10y ago
  I believe the parent is arguing for act-consequentialism, rather than rule-consequentialism. A similar argument is against the usefulness of case-law in the court system—it often prevents a judge from making the best possible decision for the particulars of the case.
  - rhizome 10y ago
    From the Supreme Court confirmation hearings I've paid attention to, it seems that there are reasonable questions on both sides of stare decisis, but I don't think moving to a non-deterministic legal system would be the answer.
  - mannykannot 10y ago
    An argument for the usefulness of case law is that provides some damping and feedback against the consequences of judgments that the judge merely thinks is the best possible decision.
kefka 10y ago
Yep. Same with "Privacy Policies". If you have one, the FTC can come after you for violation of said privacy policy. Fines can result. If you don't have one, FTC has nothing.
- JadeNB 10y ago
  > If you have one, the FTC can come after you for violation of said privacy policy. Fines can result. > If you don't have one, FTC has nothing. Surely this is in some sense as it should be? If a company has no privacy policy, then it explicitly offers me no guarantees about how it treats my data, and I can do business with it (or not) accordingly. However, if a company has a privacy policy, then I should be able to rely on it; it shouldn't be just feel-good boilerplate.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  If you collext/store certain kinds of personal information, privacy policies are required by law in many jurisdictions, including California. Also, if you make any privacy-related claims, the FTC can come down on you for misrepresentations. A clear, visible Privacy Policy provides an opportunity to clarify what might otherwise be taken as unqualified privacy claims provided elsewhere.

EGreg 10y ago

Blaming a third party is always stronger. Because they are not there to be negotiated with, and there is strength in numbers.