Portal that you can only access if you contract life and accident insurance...Is it valid?
I have reported several times a portal located in a military training zone with restricted access. I understand that the portals located in military bases are allowed, although only a few people have access to it.
However, I did an investigation about it and spoke with the people who work in the military training center and they told me that you can access the portal area but only with a written authorization and contracting accident insurance. At the time of the visit you must present a document certifying that you have contracted the insurance they request.
My question is this...
A portal that is in an area that you can enter only if you hire accident insurance can be considered a secure portal? Or does this violate the rule of requiring an environment and secure access to the portal?
I refer to the portal criteria standard that says the following:
PLEASE DO NOT SUBMIT
Please refrain from submitting these candidates, as reviewing these submissions slows down the process for everyone.
Candidates in locations with NO SAFE PEDESTRIAN ACCESS.
As I understand it, if access to the portal requires the contract of insurance, it is assumed that it is not safe access. If it were safe, it would not be necessary to contract life or accident insurance.
Can anyone help me clarify this doubt?
Your "assumption" is wrong and your doubt seems insincere to me. You're just twisting the meaning of words because you don't like that portal.
I think your opinion is respectable, although it seems unintelligent. I have asked this, precisely because I do not know if this type of portals are valid. My assumption may be wrong and that is why I have asked the question publicly in the forum. So that someone, intelligent and with a good argument, explain to me if my vision is wrong or not.
The forum is not for judging players who ask questions. It is to answer questions objectively. I'll wait for someone intelligent and mature, who can respond with an argument of more than one extension line.
Safe access means a person can stand next to the portal without being in harms way (e.g. middle of a highway) and should not be confused with restricted access. If people who work inside the base can reach it safely, then it is a valid portal. If someone who does not work in the base needs an authorisation to get in, it doesn't change the fact it is still a valid portal.
I understand what you say, regarding the difference between restricted access and secure access. I agree with you that portals on military bases are acceptable, even if they are in a restricted area. A resident soldier can freely access and that counts to be a valid portal.
The fact that a portal does not have free access and for all does not mean that it is not valid. These portals are as valid as the portals in public parks or open access.
The issue to be considered in this case that I mentioned is whether the requirement to take out life and accident insurance for players outside the military base is sufficient reason to define that this portal does not have secure access, despite the fact that soldiers or residents of the military base have free access to that portal.
That is my great doubt.
It doesn't mean that the portal is "unsafe". It is just the base's way of covering their rear if an accident ever occurs to a non-military individual on the premises.
Soldiers and residents have safe access to the portal which is all that matters to be valid. Burocracy that people outside the base need to fill to be able to get in are not relevant to the validity of the portal.
@TheFarix I understand what you're saying. But if there is the possibility of an accident, then the portal environment is not completely secure.
This makes me think about the following: if there is a portal in the middle of a road and there is no pedestrian access or a bridge to reach the portal, the criterion is to consider that it is not safe because there is the possibility of an accident.
So, why do not we accept the portal in the middle of the road but do we accept a portal in a place that also has the possibility of an accident and where external players are also asked to take out life and accident insurance?
I do not want to bore you with my questions, but I've been thinking about the portal's criteria for a long time and I want to understand in depth how portals are accepted or rejected. For that reason, I have written my question here and I have not sent the appeals about the portal that I describe.
I prefer to learn more about the criteria, before sending appeals that could waste everyone's time.
@Eucalipt0 We are not sure that the soldiers or those residing in the military base have secure access. They could, like external visitors, have contracted insurance or be protected against accidents that may occur within the base and while performing their duties or training.
Assuming they have secure access is, in this case, a presumption.
Theoretically ANY portal can be classed as unsafe if youre determined to find a reason.
Sculpture on a pavement, you could an out of control car come and take you out.
Portal in a Zoo, an enranged elephant could break free and trample you.
Golf Club house, someone could be a really truly awful shot and hit you with a ball.
What Niantic ate doing is a basic form of risk assessment, portal in middle of road = bad. Portal where there are already procedures in place to mitigate danger = good.
Niantic has said no new military basr portals but agents still submit them. So yes grandfathered ones won't be removed unless the base complains to niantic.
@Theisman I understand your point of view. But here the big difference is that life and accident insurance is requested to access that portal. That makes it different from any other portal in a zoo or the golf club house. At the zoo or at the golf club house they do not ask to take insurance to enter. You simply enter.
It is true that any portal can be, in a twisted and imaginative way, insecure. But if there is evidence that a certain portal has more chances of accident than usual, we are not supposed to reject it?
My criterion for explain this is that the portal in the middle of the road is obviously more dangerous than usual. This is what common sense tells us. So, if the area of a portal requires insurances, is not that something that should also activate that common sense that we have applied with the portal in the middle of the road and without secure peatonal access?
It is important to note that contracting life and accident insurance does not mitigate the risk. The only thing it does is guarantee that you will be covered economically, for what happens next. Life and accident insurance does not protect or mitigate risk.
@kholman1 It is true. That's what an old player told me. If they are elderly portals they will not be eliminated, whatever the reason. They are armored.
When you say accident insurance, do you mean vehicle insurance? I am prior military and did many visitor control center duties. Visitors from the range of contractors, family, friends and others while visiting bases must have all their car information updated and valid (including license). If anything is expired then you can be cited and/or towed right there on the spot. Then you would either need a military sponsor to escort you around or be ejected. Different bases have different policies of course. Reasons being is legality, others have been that the car could be stolen, used for criminal activities on post and other reasons. As for life insurance, I have never heard or seen any one check for life insurance before letting them into an area of a military base but it may be different for other parts of the world. If you contact the base's Provost Marshal Office, or the law enforcement of the base and ask for the specifics on visitation, you may get better information then talking to the workers of the area.
@Engrish Thank you for telling your experience from a military perspective. I think this kind of argument is very useful in this case.
Regarding your question ... no, it's not a vehicle insurance. In a life or accident insurance, designed to compensate financially if eventually your body suffers an accident during the visit of the military base.
I suppose that, in this case, it happen what another forum member said before. The military base knows that there is an accident risk and to cover his back, he demands insurance.
I've already contacted the base and that's what they've told me. I need life and accident insurance to enter. I have the emails where they inform me of everything.
This is an interesting discussion. I can understand the argument of why a portal that requires a form of safety insurance is considered as an invalid portal because it wouldn't be considered as safely accessible.
However the biggest point of discussion is safely accessible or not. Even if someone does access it and doesn't have insurance then it is their fault for accessing said POI in an unsafe manner. Niantic has clearly iterated that it is up to the player to follow the rules to access a hard to access POI. Adding insurance is just a clear preventive measure for the organization to not get sued. If the POI is publicly accessible by a group of individuals and it has a clear point of accessibility that is easily identifiable it is a valid candidate.
A real world example is a Construction Site, you can access said property without having a helmet or checking in with the foreman but it is your choice to access said location in an unsafe manner and you will be at fault for breaking said rules since you didn't follow the current set of rules that all construction sites usually have at the point of entry to the space.
Adding an insurance reasoning isn't really a matter of it being a naturally dangerous area, it is to cover the locations right to not get sued since it is the visitors fault for not following the rules if said individual gets hurt.
@msz21 Your reasoning is logical, but in the real world I think we all agree that life insurance is requested in more dangerous places than normal. Insurance is not requested only so that the companies involved are not sued. They are requested because it is known that there is a greater risk in certain places or areas. And that allows then compensate the injured. That is why to drive a bicycle do not ask for life insurance or accidents but to drive a car yes. Driving a car has a higher level of risk than driving a bicycle.
To enter Disneyland, in a game park or in a Las Vegas casino, they do not ask you for insurance to enter what places them in a normal risk situation. But if you enter areas where you have to have life insurance or accidents, common sense tells us that the risk is greater.
Accidents do not always occur because of mistakes or non-compliance with people's rules. In some places they are something completely unforeseen and alien to the will of the people. Dying in a plane that has fallen into the sea is not the responsibility of those affected. It is the responsibility of other people or mechanical problems on the plane. Likewise, having an accident at a military base does not mean that the error is always the visitor's. That is a presumption. There may be an accident, even if the visitor complies with all the rules. That's why there are places in the world that are safer than others. Because they have an inherent level of risk that, in this case, seems to be warned by the requirement to take out life and accident insurance.
It's as if they told you that you're about to drive a car. That is, you are assuming a greater risk. In the same way that you are assuming a greater risk, if you try to access a portal in the middle of the highway and without secure peatonal access. You are risking.
"They are requested because it is known that there is a greater risk in certain places or areas. And that allows then compensate the injured." Unfortunately companies don't really consider that as their main emphasis. A companies main goal is not about safety, they care more about making money and that is why a lot of companies cut jobs, underpay, and other cost saving methods. There's very few professions that completely focus on life safety and a corporate entity is not one of them.
However we are talking about it from the stance of Niantics rules. If it is accessible to a large group of people and it is a safely accessible point of interest even if they all have life insurance to access said POI then it is a viable candidate. There are plenty of places that require an additional method of ID, verification, or even insurance in this case to access said POI and as a result are all valid Portals. If it is safely accessible for the large group of people then it is a viable candidate.
The insurance component is simply the locations form of not being at fault if any problems were to occur. It is up to an individual whether to follow these rules or break them.
@msz21 You are presumed that "all companies" do not consider the inherent risks of places and areas around the world. And you say that "all companies" are more concerned about saving money. I think that makes it deviate from the situation explained at the beginning of this conversation. It is not about evaluating what intentions have the companies, but to evaluate the level of risk of a physical place through the argument of life insurance.
You talk about sites that demand insurance and that can be visited by many people. But that is somewhat contradictory, since sites that require life insurance and accidents tend to be less visited than those that do not need or ask for it. Like what happens with the portal located in a military base which is only accessed by taking out life insurance. That is not an example of a place visited by many people. In fact, for months that this site has not been visited by anyone. No links are made from the.
Finally, if you presume that insurance only indicates the intention of the companies not to be at fault for possible accidents that affect other people, I think you are using biased reasoning that does not consider that insurance can also indicate that there are places and areas of the world that have more risk and danger than others. Remember the example of driving a car and a bicycle. They are not similar scenaries.
Driving a car will always have more risk than driving a bicycle. And the insurance to drive a car does not just exist so that the car manufacturer escapes from the responsibility of an accident. It also exists because there is an increase in the level of risk and it is necessary to compensate the health of the person affected by the accident that, in that place or situation, is more likely to happen.
Just because a place requires insurance does not make it unsafe, the insurance is there incase of an unforseen accident.
There maybe a higher risk of accident, but risk and safety are different things and if procedures are correctly in place and followed then the risk is managed correctly and therefore it is safe to access, relatively speaking.
In this instance, its going to be on a training area where there are rules and procedures to follow to mitigate the risk of accident if followed correctly, but the insurance is there should a freak accident occur.
As i said above, anywhere can have a freak accident, the fact that this military portal requires insurance incase of such an accident occuring, doesnt mean that it is any less valid
military training base ... visiting some one I know at live on a base here in Canada all game of this time that requires you to interact with the real world at band on her base yet there are portals on the base.
@Theisman Technically, the fact that a place requires insurance indicates that it is more dangerous than other sites that do not require it. Here is an important point to consider and that is the key to using the insurance argument as proof that the area of a portal is not secure.
Risk and security are different things but they are directly connected. If a portal is located in the middle of the road and does not have safe pedestrian access, it is considered a portal with greater risk. You can access the portal, taking all security measures to mitigate the risk that exists inherently and could even hack without accident, but we must admit that a portal in the middle of a road and without pedestrian access is not acceptable. In this case, having to buy insurance to access a portal is a proof argument to indicate that the portal has a higher risk, in the same way that the portal has a higher risk in the middle of the road and without access pedestrian. The increased risk reduces the player's security.
If we hypothetically apply the criteria that you have explained (anywhere can have a freak accident), then we would have to approve portals in unsafe areas or with greater risk of accidents, trusting that the player will be able to mitigate the risk and danger, following a safety directive. Then, all the portals would have to be approved, regardless of their level of risk and trusting that the players will be careful. But for Niantic this is not the case. For Niantic there are portals with higher and lower inherent risk. And to identify them you must apply common sense and observe the conditions of the portal and the security requirements to access it.
A portal that is accessed with insurance does not have a level of risk and security identical to a portal that does not require it. Insurance exists in the event of an unforeseen accident but insurance is also an indicator of danger and greater risk.
Sorry you can't access this portal but it is valid. If the people inside can walk up to it, it is valid. That's the criteria no matter how much you want to zero in on the access requirements.
Also portals on military bases can still be submitted from the most recent AMA on the topic: in February 2018:
“Q12: Tiernan Messmer - You've mentioned about OPR candidates on military grounds in a previous AMA, what about mine sites?
A12: According to NIA OPS, mine sites are treated the same was a military grounds. Only portals on residential single family property should be denied due to property type. Assuming the portal meets all the other submission criteria which includes not obstructing or interfering with the operations of a industrial site as cited in the OPR help article."
I completely agree that the portal is valid if anyone, from inside, can access it. This also applies to military bases and mines. But that is not the discussion of this topic.
The discussion here is what happens when access to a portal is possible by taking out life or accident insurance. This puts you at the same level of risk as a portal located in the middle of a road and without safe pedestrian access. In this case, the insurance is an indicator of risk and makes the portal different from the rest of the portals. In the same way that a portal in the middle of the road and without pedestrian access is different to other portals allowed.
It is important to note that a portal in a mining area is not the same as a portal accessed only by taking out insurance. They are two different situations. The problem is not that the portal has restricted access, is on private property or is on a military base (all these criteria are acceptable for a portal). The problem is in the insurance as an indicator of risk to access the portal. That is the dilemma.
Is the air safe to breath? Is the portal placed where you'd have to stand on a precarious rock formations to reach? The insurance requirement is really not the big deal you're making it out to be. This is like the contract you sign at a gym waiving the right to sue them if you drop a weight on yourself. This is just the requirement they give to use what is essentially a military fitness center and it's still not something that was worth you going through all this research for. Why do you want to take away a portal (that will have an effect in 3 games) from a base that likely doesn't have much?
OMG, people! Stop replying to the troll. He's made it clear that he's going to keep repeating the same disingenuous argument over and over. At this point, flagging him for spamming with be more productive than arguing with him.
He's not a troll because his points are valid and his reasoning is quite sound even if I disagree with him. I think @Theisman worded it best, he is considering the risk of it being unsafe as a reasoning to determine the POI to be unsafe.
@Kliffington It is important to indicate that a contract to access a gym is not the same as hiring life and accident insurance to access a site. They are two completely different scenarios. The gym contract is intended to exempt the gym from responsibility. In the life and accident insurance contract, indicated it is noted that there is a greater risk and a compensation system is prepared in case of accident, which in that site is much more likely to happen.
We can not compare or confuse contracts to exempt companies liability with life and accident insurance contracts. Eventually, a contract could have both points. It could exempt the company from liability but also prepare a compensation system for the accident victim. Still, the issue of exemption and the issue of compensation for being in a higher risk, are different things.
The insurance requirement if it seems important to me. In the same way that I find it important to use common sense to look around a portal that does not have secure access.
My doubts, questions and arguments are not exclusively aimed at removing a portal. I just try to analyze in depth a form of criteria in OPR that seems its not coherent.
@XK150 the funny thing is that you call me troll and your profile has 11 warnings and spam comments for which you have been reported. If you do not want to debate politely, you can review other forum topics. Do not get depressed by reading this one.
@msz21 Thanks for your polite comment. Maybe we do not agree, but we can discuss with calmness and respect. That is the important thing.
Having to have insurance is not necessarily proof that something is intrinsically unsafe, rather that they have polices and procedures in place to deal with unforeseen accidents.
Im an electrician, i get sent to change a plug socket for Joe Blogs, the company I work for have to have public liability insurance to cover any unforeseen accidents.
Joe Blogs decides to change his own plug socket, he doesnt need his own insurance to do so, he can just do it.
Insurance, or lack there of, doesn't change the saftey of either action, its just a procedure in place in case of unforseen accidents.