Portal that you can only access if you contract life and accident insurance...Is it valid?

2

Comments

  • ChamaleonXChamaleonX ✭✭
    edited July 17

    @Theisman I do not agree with you. If an insurance is not an indicator of risk, then why do you ask for one when driving a car or to jump off a bridge in an activity or extreme sport? Why do not they ask you insurance to drive a bicycle or to use a skateboard?

    There are situations and geographical places whose access is conditioned by the contracting of insurance. Then common sense indicates that this site or activity has a greater risk.

    If you are an electrician your activity is more risky than someone who is sitting on the couch, watching TV. Your activity defines the level of risk and insurance indicates that risk. That's why you do not need to have insurance to watch TV, but you do need insurance to do tasks that involve contact with electricity. If Joe Blogs decides to change a plug without first hiring life and accident insurance, he will have an activity that has more risk than sitting on the couch watching television, so Joe Blogs is not very intelligent, since he is exposed to having an accident and then not be compensated for a possible accident.

    The fact that Joe Blogs does not use insurance does not change the fact work he does is unsafe and have higher risk. This only indicates that Joe Blogs is irresponsible.

  • TheismanTheisman ✭✭✭✭

    Your missing my point, i have insurance to cover me from doing anything from changing a light bulb to installing DB's, just because I have insurance for changing a bulb does not make it a dangerous or unsafe activity, just as changing a DB is not an unsafe activity, provided proper practices are followed.

    This base is going to have strict rules and procedures in place and if they are followed then you are going to be safe, baring any unforseen accidents or an act of god.

    Just because insurance is required does not make something unsafe, it is there as a policy in case of accidents, notihing more nothing less.

  • KliffingtonKliffington ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited July 17

    You very clearly don't want to "clarify your doubt" as we are all making the same point and you refuse to accept it. If our word for it doesn't matter than you should take Niantics word for it, you have requested and been denied removal several times. I HAVE gotten a portal removed for unsafe access. Guess how long it took them from the request to take down? 32 mins.

  • ChamaleonXChamaleonX ✭✭
    edited July 17

    @Kliffington Do not get confused. I want to clarify my doubt but with arguments that seem really solid and indestructible. If they are weak, they do not seem solid to me and then I will not agree.

    The portal to which I refer has been a great learning experience for players in my area. we have understood the reasons that make it valid and we no longer send requests for a portal to be in a military base or to be in a restricted area. We have learned that these reasons are not enough to consider it unacceptable.

    But now, the case is different. We have investigated and we have discovered that we can only enter the portal by contracting life or accident insurance. So, the scenario of the appeal is different and we are faced with a new dilemma. That is the point of discussion.

    That I do not accept his argument does not mean that denies it. It means that I do not think it really convincing and complete so that I can change my mind on this topic.

  • @Theisman There is no insurance in the world that covers everything. All insurances have restrictions and work according to a risk assessment according to the activity you perform or the physical site where you are. There are no life insurance policies that explicitly state that they protect you from having an accident by changing a light bulb. The contracts exist to protect you from the main threats that may occur in your home or outside your home.

    In fact, insurance contracts do not compensate you with the same money if you have an accident in the home that is considered mild or not serious (such as changing a light bulb). However, if the accident is serious, you will receive a greater compensation of money. This happens because the insurance company analyzes the different levels of risk inside and outside the home. And that is true, because not everything has the same level of risk.

    The way insurance compensates those affected allows you to know which things have a higher level of risk and which have a lower level of risk. The compensation for having a serious electrical accident is not the same as if your ankle is damaged while you watch television sitting on the sofa.

    Insurance, especially life and accident insurance, are obvious markers of higher risk. There are many types of insurance, but these I have mentioned are usually those that protect against major threats.

    Regarding his reasoning:

    This base is going to have strict rules and procedures in place and if they are followed then you are going to be safe, baring any unforseen accidents or an act of god.

    If so, then we must approve the portals in the middle of the road without safe public access. Only because we trust that the player will follow strict safety rules to mitigate the risk. But Niantic does not see it that way. Niantic rejects those portals.

  • TheismanTheisman ✭✭✭✭

    No you can not treat them the same because there are laws for not standing in the middle of the road, not walking across a road etc etc

    Having a portal in the middle of a road, where you are quite categorical not allowed to walk or stand is totally different to having a portal in an area where access is allowed if you follow the rules

  • Without knowing WHY they want proof of insurance, this whole discussion is pointless.

    I can demand proof of insurance for people to enter my house. Does that instantly make my house less safe than it was before? No, of course not.

    If, however, I demand insurance to enter my house because I have recently acquired a fully grown and perpetually hungry tiger, then my house no longer has safe pedestrian access. Insurance wouldn't be the issue. The tiger would.

    The requiring or not requiring insurance has absolutely nothing to do with the validity of a portal or its relative safety. There, sorted that out for you.

  • @Theisman So, regarding the portals in the middle of the road we agree. But we do not agree with the portal which is accessed only with life or accident insurance.

  • ChamaleonXChamaleonX ✭✭
    edited July 18

    @JohnnyAlphaCZ Your approach is wrong. If we know the reason for the insurance. That is defined by the type of insurance contracted. It is not the same to have insurance to protect your mobile phone than life and accident insurance. In this case, the type of insurance is a risk marker that defines whether the risk is greater or not.

    If you have a hungry tiger at home, you do not contract insurance to protect your mobile phone. You contract life or accident insurance to receive greater compensation because you are assuming a higher risk. So insurance is a clear indicator of higher risk.

    The type of insurance contracted is, in this case, proof that the area of a portal has a high level of risk and therefore it is not safe to access the portal. You can access the portal, follow the rules to do it correctly, but the fact that that portal is insecure does not disappear. It remains a portal and an insecure area.

  • @ChamaleonX Nope, the type of insurance required is not proof of why that insurance is required. It is not proof of reduced safety. It is not proof anything at all.

    Anybody can demand any type of insurance for anything.

    Say I want to hire a bicycle. Company A doesn't need me to show any insurance. Company B demands that I am insured against being eaten by a tiger (probably the one that recently escaped from my house). Does that prove that I am more likely to be eaten by a tiger if I rent Company B's bicycle?

    No, of course not.

    Again, demanding insurance (any type) is not proof of anything. This a fairly simple concept.

  • ChamaleonXChamaleonX ✭✭
    edited July 18

    @JohnnyAlphaCZ Your approach is still wrong. You must accept that there are different types of insurance and not all indicate the same risk. There are some that indicate low risk and others indicate high risk. Life and accident insurance indicates high risk, because there is the possibility of serious damage.

    The area or situation in which it is located is what defines the level of risk. If company B requests insurance against tigers, it does so because it knows there are tigers that can attack. If company A does not request insurance, it is because they know that there are no tigers or, in the worst case, they do not know they exist.


    Remember that it is you who contracts the insurance, therefore you are the one who knows the type of risk to which it is exposed. Therefore, you choose the insurance you need according to the type of risk you know. The companies or military bases demand the insurance according to the level of risk they know. Consequently, the type of insurance they require is a marker of the risk they know.


    Life and accident insurance is not the same as insurance to protect mobile phones. The type of insurance indicates the difference and it is also a risk label. It is very simple to understand.

    If to access a portal you need insurance to protect your mobile, I accept that you do not make access to the portal unsafe for you. But demand life insurance and accident insurance to access a portal if it seems conclusive proof that the portal and the surroundings are not safe for human life..

    If there is an obligation to take out life and accident insurance, it is because there is a history that indicates that this site has a higher level of risk for the human life.

  • @ChamaleonX You still insist that because someone demands insurance, that somehow proves something. It. Does. Not.

    You have no idea why they want you to have insurance. None. You are guessing. It could be anything from just protecting themselves legally to wanting to make it more difficult for civilians to visit. Have you asked them?

    Hundreds of millions of people have life and accident insurance. Do they get insured because they are all constantly doing incredibly dangerous things? Or do they just want make sure they don't lose money if they fall off their bike, break a leg and can't go to work. Or that their families are taken care of if they get hit by a car when crossing the road.

    Again, I can insist that you have accident and life insurance to enter my house. I don't need a reason to insist on that. I am perfectly within my rights to do so. It does not prove that my house is dangerous.

    I've visited several military bases and I have not been asked for proof insurance. Does that 'prove' that those bases are safer than the one you are talking about? Or is it more likely that different countries have different policies on visiting military bases?

    As long as you think asking for proof of insurance 'proves' something, this argument is pointless. You might want to look up the definition of 'proof'.

  • ChamaleonXChamaleonX ✭✭
    edited July 18

    @JohnnyAlphaCZ I have spoken with them and they have informed me that they are asking for life and accident insurance. They do not ask me for insurance to protect my mobile phone or to protect my car. It asks for one, explicitly, of life and against accidents. Again, the type of insurance indicates the level of risk.

    If you have visited military bases where you have not been asked for life insurance and accident, it is because there is no known risk. When you take out life or accident insurance, you declare legally that there are risks for you and other people. You agree that the risk exists and that is why you want to insure and receive compensation. That is the correct way to understand this matter and observe how the presence of life insurance and against accidents becomes a risk marker.

    If you do not hire or demand life and accident insurance, you admit that there is no known risk. If you hire o request insurance to enter your own home, you admit and declare legally there are risks. if it does not, you are stating that there are no known risks.

    Your argument, from my perspective, remains wrong.

  • @ChamaleonX I asked if you had asked WHY they insist on insurance. You have not asked them WHY. You do not know why. You have assumed that it because it is dangerous. You assuming is not proof. I can think of many other reasons why they would do it. I mentioned some and you ignored it. You ignore the fact that hundreds of millions of people have accident and life insurance, people who don't do anything more dangerous than anyone else.

    You constantly ignore arguments you have no answer for.

    You constantly say that asking for insurance is proof of something. Prove it. Post a link to something that backs up your argument, that asking for insurance is legal, absolute proof of... anything.


    Give up. No one is agreeing with your argument, the portal will not be removed.

  • EngrishEngrish ✭✭✭

    Can you post a link, or gps location and name of said portal? That info may also give a better clarification and understanding of this situation.

  • TheFarixTheFarix ✭✭✭✭✭

    The same exact argument was made for a portal that was in a "hard hats required" area at a loading facility. You know what; Ninatic still didn't remove the portal. The portal (a monument) was located near the employee parking lot and the entire facility was a "hard hats required" simply as a safety precaution. So just because a location has a safety precaution in place does not mean that a location is inherently unsafe. If you want a portal removed, you have to show that the location is unsafe, even to those who are authorized to be there.

  • @JohnnyAlphaCZ I have already answered you but you have not understood. If they ask me for life insurance, I do not need to ask for what. It follows that it is because there is risk within the area in which I will enter. If you hire insurance to protect your mobile phone, do not ask for what. The name of the insurance itself indicates it.

    Insurance does not exist to make it difficult to enter certain sites. They are used to inform that there is risk in certain places and activities. That hundreds of millions of people have contracted insurance indicates that these people recognize the risk. And they will contract insurance for the mobile phone, for the car or to go up to the Himalayas, according to the level of risk they recognize.

    A person who does not have insurance is not in the same situation as a person who does. The person who has the insurance has declared to know the risk, legally. He has stated that the physical site where he is (land, house or military base) has a level of risk.

    You ask for proof of something obvious. If you take out an insurance you are recognizing that there are risks and you want to cover your back. Do you really know how the insurance system works? Maybe I should read more about that.

    That many people say something not indicate that it is true or right. That is a biased way of thinking. The important thing is to debate with arguments and define the truth and the correct according to the arguments and not according to the number of people who repeat it.

  • ChamaleonXChamaleonX ✭✭
    edited July 18

    @Engrish I can not post links yet. And even if I could I would not do it, until I have everything clear about this matter. If I eventually share the link I will do so on a portal appeal, following the rules of the forum. For now I have not wanted to denounce the portal more times, because I want to clarify this topic very well. In order to know if I should do it.


    In case it helps you to better understand the situation of the portal, I can say that the portal is in an esplanade located inside a training center for troops of soldiers. The portal is an old building located on the esplanade. It is not on a mountain or in a cave. It is in an area very close to the central track of the training camp. But it's at ground level.

    In the past it was used as a powder keg. That is, zone to store military equipment (weapons). But currently, apparently, it is abandoned.

    Post edited by ChamaleonX on
  • @TheFarix interesting. Do you have a link to review that case? In that case, life and accident insurance was also requested to access the portal?


    As I understand it, a safety precaution is not the same as life and accident insurance.

  • @ChamaleonX This is going to be last attempt to get through to you.

    Someone saying you need accident insurance to go somewhere does not prove it is dangerous, anymore than me saying "the moon is made of cheese" makes it true. It doesn't prove that the person saying it thinks it is dangerous, it doesn't prove that the people who instituted the policy think it is dangerous. It doesn't prove anything.

    You can sign a binding contract saying 'this place is dangerous' but that does mean it is true. Opinion is not proof.

    You have provided no backing for your argument, other than "this is what I believe". What you believe is not proof.

  • ChamaleonXChamaleonX ✭✭
    edited July 18

    @JohnnyAlphaCZ , If I need life and accident insurance to enter a nuclear power plant ¿does not prove that the place is unsafe?. There are two tests that show that the place is unsafe. First: the news regarding that portal and second: the insurance you need to access that portal. If you do not know that the portal is dangerous, but you are required to have life and accident insurance to enter it, that is proof that you are going to enter an area with inherent risk. insurance is not an opinion, it is a legal document that certifies something. You confuse personal opinion with a legal document.

    Obviously, this is an extreme example. The portal I mention is not inside a nuclear power plant. It's just a military base. But the important thing here, is that you ask for life insurance and accident to enter. And that is a warning of what you can find inside.

    Paradoxically, you have done the same thing that criticizes me. You have not given any support, other than saying what you believe.

  • TheismanTheisman ✭✭✭✭


    No, we dont, i said you cant have a portal in the middle of a road. There are laws in place to stop people just walking into roads to prevent accidents, therefore Niantics policy of treating those as unsafe access is a valid one, as they are following the law.

    Having one in an area where it is policy to have insurance incase of an an accident is totally different.

    Prevention vs payout, they are totally different

  • it is a legal document that certifies something.


    All it certifies is that you have insurance. That is all. Nothing else. Nothing. Everything else is opinion.

    Please post a link that says otherwise (you can post links by leaving off the 'h' in 'http')

    I'm starting think this is translation issue. Do yo mean that they want you prove you have insurance or do they want you to sign a waiver saying that if anything happens to you it's not their fault?

  • KliffingtonKliffington ✭✭✭✭✭

    You have to have insurance to play team sports. A requirement does not equal unsafe access. You're not listening to anyone's arguments, take it to Niantic and give them every piece of information (that it's part of a building that is in no way unsafe to access) and see what they say. Not one person has agreed with you, this is a pretty clear L but if you're going to insist you're correct you should take it higher up. You're not going to find what you're looking for here

  • KliffingtonKliffington ✭✭✭✭✭

    We live in a world where people are careless and like to try to blame someone else. That is why we have disclaimers and require waivers and insurance and all these other things that people didn't really care about 50+ years ago. A requirement is not proof of danger. It's proof of a smart legal department.

  • EngrishEngrish ✭✭✭

    You can share broken links (put spaces in between the https:// and www. , that's also why I said to share GPS coordinates because you can search by that on Intel. Portal name, state/city/province/country just to be able to view this portal would shed some light.

  • TheFarixTheFarix ✭✭✭✭✭

    Ok, lets break this down.

    1. That the base requires non-military personal to be insured before accessing the base does not mean that the base is unsafe. It is simply the base's way of covering all possibilities and to dissuade non-military personal from the base in the first place.
    2. The location is beside a training yard. Training yards are for improving the physical fitness of the trainees as well as their unit discipline and cohesion. But training yards are not inherently unsafe.
    3. The location is on an esplanade, which is a level stretch of ground along a body of water for walking or driving. Since this is on a military base, I would presume most personal will be walking (or jogging).
    4. The location is near a former armory, which is the technical term for a building where weapons and ammunition is kept. Even if the building was still being used as an armory, that doesn't make the location is inherently unsafe to pedestrians who are authorized to be there.
  • ChamaleonXChamaleonX ✭✭
    edited July 18

    My analysis

    1. When you say that insurance is only a form of deterrence, it is it is a presumption. You do not know if they do it for that. 
    2. Then you must explain why there are areas with training zones inside (in other sites, countrys, cities) that do not need insurance to be able to access them. What makes them different? (Remember that the argument of deterrence is a presumption, it is not a fact that you have demonstrated). Training zones are not intrinsically safe.
    3. That is an esplanade does not provide more detail to the analysis of the portal. An esplanade can be safe or unsafe, if there is some inherent risk under it or in its environment. That it is an esplanade does not make it intrinsically safe.
    4. That the building has been an armory or is near a former armory is completely irrelevant to say that it is an acceptable or not acceptable portal. No one has said that reason makes it unacceptable. What, in theory, makes the portal unsafe is the type of insurance required to access the portal, which is a risk marker and which I have explained in detail in other comments.
    Post edited by ChamaleonX on
  • @Engrish I do not think it's relevant to share the location of the portal. In another comment I said that I will only do it if it seems right to make a new appeal regarding that portal. And if I do, it will be following the rules of appeal of the forum. 

    For now I have stopped the appeals process and I will not bother Niantic with that request, until I get a clear idea of the situation with this portal. Obviously, with arguments that seem solid and convincing.

    Anyway, if you need more details about the situation of the portal, you can ask me directly. I will gladly give you all the necessary details, being as honest as possible.

  • ChamaleonXChamaleonX ✭✭
    edited July 18

    @Kliffington If you practice a sport where you need to have insurance, it is because you recognize the risk and declare it. To use a simple bicycle you do not need insurance. But if you use a motorcycle yes. You apparently do not understand the difference and you can not differentiate the level of risk in both situations. That is the central point of my argument.

    I'm sorry you do not like me not thinking the same as you or the majority. But that a thing is repeated many times by different people does not make it more true. That argument you use is a fallacy.

    And do not confuse yourself. I do not say that my perspective is correct. I'm just saying that the perspectives and arguments I've read do not seem convincing. If I see an argument that seems really solid, you can be sure that I will change my mind.

Sign In or Register to comment.