@JohnnyAlphaCZ An insurance does not certify only that you have a insurance. That shows that you do not know much about insurance. An insurance certifies that you assume that there are risks (habitually indicated in the contract) and therefore you want to be compensated in case of accident product of those risks. Insurance companies are concerned to clearly indicate the risks for which you will be compensated.
I do not need to post links to show you how insurance works. You can visit any page of any insurance company, to review the conditions of the contract and the risks indicated in that contract.
Regarding your doubt with the translation system, I can help you by answering your question. No, the military base does not ask to sign a disclaimer. The military base asks for documents that show that you have the insurance contract.. That is, you must show that you have contracted life and accident insurance.
@ChamaleonX OK, so let's say that I get the necessary insurance to visit this portal. According to you I have to list the risks that I am assuming and they are codified in the contract. Exactly what risks would I write down?
Just be clear, what you are saying is nonsense. When got life insurance I did not have write down all the possible ways I could accidentally die.
And no, insurance is not a legal document stating that you know and accept the risks. Such a document would carry no weight in court.
"I slipped on the wet floor of your office and broke my leg. I'm going sue!"
" Ah, but you had accident insurance so you knew and excepted the fact that you might have some kind accident somewhere, so you can't sue."
"Oh yeah, damn"
Yeah, that's not how it works.
You keep saying that it is but provide no evidence.
You keep assuming that the insurance requirement is there because it's dangerous (with no evidence) and when other people point out other reasons there might be for it you start screaming that that is just their opinion and they have no evidence. The hypocrisy is stunning and proves that you are not arguing in good faith.
@JohnnyAlphaCZ You do not seem to understand what I say. When you take out insurance in the document the threats or risks for which you will be compensating are indicated. Many insurances include accidents by fire, bombs, falling buildings or structures and many other reasons. These reasons change according to the type of contract you acquire. You must read the insurance policy completely to know the risks that you have recognized when signing the contract.
If you fall into someone else's office and have an insurance contract, the insurance company can demand compensation from the owner of the office, if it is found that the office was in poor structural condition. You are really confused. Insurance contracts do not create exceptions. On the contrary, they include them. Apparently, you do not know how insurance and compensation systems work. Do what I told you. Check a page of an insurance company or read your own insurance policy, to verify in it the risks that are indicated there and for which you will be compensating if you have an accident.
There is something worse than hypocrisy, my friend. And it is ignorance. The ignorant by not understanding the detail of things, points to the other and attacks him. Be mature and noble and try to debate without disqualifying. show that you are intelligent.
You refuse to post any links that would back what you say.
You claim that your opinion is fact while providing no evidence and claim other people's opinions must be supported by evidence.
You desperately want this portal removed and have made up your mind that this insurance silliness is the way to do it.
You refuse to provide a link to the portal. You refuse to tell us what reason you were given for them asking for insurance. You refuse to provide evidence that you were asked for insurance.
So just do it. Report the portal, appeal the inevitable rejection and let Niantic make a ruling.
@JohnnyAlphaCZ It seems that you do not understand and you do not read what I have explained to you before. I have clearly stated that I have stopped the appeals for that portal, until I have clarity about the criteria that we must apply in the portal. I'm not interested in removing the portal, at this time. All I want is to deepen the OPR criteria. I do not want to bother NIA with appeals that are not complete.
You refuse to read the details of your insurance contract. You refuse to tolerate that I do not agree with you. It seems that you are enraged because I do not agree with you. My friend, calm down. That's the first thing you should do.
Another thing that you do not want to understand is that when you are asked for insurance to enter a certain area, it is because the area has an inherent level of risk that requires taking action and buying insurance. It's something like common sense and it's so obvious that I find it incredible that you do not understand it. Maybe, it's that you really do not want to understand.
I repeat it, my friend. Calm down and if we do not agree, you can follow your path and me too. Peace comes first.
This where we differ. Just because someone, somewhere in the military bureaucracy has decided to make it sound like it is more dangerous does not mean it actually is more dangerous. You have chosen to believe them. I have chosen not to believe them until given a reasonable explanation of why they believe it is dangerous. If they said "oh, it's because it is surrounded by landmines" and showed me picture of it surrounded by landmines, then yeah, that portal is unsafe and should be removed.
Without knowing why someone decided that you need insurance to go there, I can't definitively say it is unsafe. Aren't you curious why it's dangerous? I don't understand why you think that requiring insurance is more important then what the danger actually is.
Personally, I don't trust people in authority not to have hidden motives for the things they do or say. I think it entirely possible that they have asked for insurance simply because it is the policy (which could have been put in place for any number of reasons) for all civilian visitors to any military facility in your country and not because it is inherently more dangerous. If military bases where you live are inherently more dangerous than, say, crossing the road someone should do something about it. Usually, military bases are statisticly one of the safest places to be.
Anyway, it seems we will have to agree to disagree on this one.
@JohnnyAlphaCZ I have already repeated it several times. You can deduct the inherent risks of a site looking at the type of insurance. For this you must put close attention to the type of contract you must have to enter that site. When you think that the military base asks for insurance only to deter or for other reasons that are not dangerous, what you think is a presumption that does not consider or pay attention to the type of contract you need to enter. You are ignoring the risks detailed in the contract that you must present before the authorities.
Honestly, I have not seen in my life any study that says military bases statistically are the safest place in the world to be. If so, it is paradoxical that to enter a military base you need insurance and to enter a shopping center you do not need insurance. His argument of military bases is not sustained by the facts.
I agree to disagree with you.
Got bored of reading after page 2..
Just wanted to say, the vast majority of insurance policies (not content / buildings related) are to protect your wallet against harm cause to other people / things.
You need motor insurance to cover the damage you might do.
Life insurance / accident insurance is one of the biggest cons out there, it doesn't benefit 99% of the people paying for it.
Personal liability insurance sounds more like the type that would be needed at the location of the portal in question, chances are, they only want people to be insured because it keeps their own policy costs down by not having to cover 3rd parties.
I recommend you read all the pages with comments. The argument he cites has already been exposed by other people and has been refuted.
Using that reasoning, there should never be portals that involve hiking as one could be bitten by a snake or break an ankle while walking. In that case, of course, there isn't anyone that you could sue, so nobody is requiring you obtain insurance. The military is most likely covering itself because in the past someone sued and they want to avoid that liability in the future. Just like the warnings on a hair dryer not to use it in the bathtub. People do crazy stuff and then try to avoid responsibility by filing a lawsuit.
I attend dance competitions quite often. They require everyone who enters the ballroom to sign a paper waving liability if for some reason they get hurt. Yes, it is possible to injure yourself while dancing, but that doesn't mean that the dance floor in inaccessible. I think you can draw some parallels here.