NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="LordEntrails" data-source="post: 7699991" data-attributes="member: 6804070">But these judges did not take a "job". They signed up for a voluntary program. I love kids, I love dogs. So if I go get my dogs certified to be emotional companions (which is highly regulated), and then go get myself and my dogs certified at the local children's hospital to bring my dogs in to help the kids. Why the heck would I ever expect to go back and sue the hospital for not paying me? I offered my services. I accepted the terms of the arrangement. If and when I feel that the terms are unfair. My obligation is to stop participating! Not sue the hospital because now that I've learned that I might have legal recourse.No it is is not. Absolutely not. Your next logical step is to complain. Then your next logical step is to stop participating. IMO, unless you have reason to believe that the other party was knowingly and intentionally engaging in illegal activity, according to my morals, you are done. Challenging the policies is not unethical, but that's not what they have done, at least not in a responsible way. Their is no moral justification for suing someone because YOU did not know that YOU might have been engaged in illegal work activities.Thanks for telling me how I could possible view a situation. Of course, you did that after implying I was crazy. Personal attacks don't strengthen your case. They weaken it.It doesn't surprise me that personal responsibility makes no sense to you, if that's what you are saying. Again, I have never said that these judges should not have tried to change the situation. What I have said is that the way they are trying to change the situation is immoral, and that they are failing to acknowledge their own responsibilities to resolve this issue in a responsible & ethical way.I stand by the opinion that this lawsuit by the judges is unethical. - If you believe the judges claims, then they themselves were engaged in illegal activities. Failing to take personal responsibility for one's own actions is unethical.- - The judges are just are responsible for knowing and following the law as any company is.- These judges willingly engaged in activities that they did not believe was "work" or a "job". There is no reason to believe that WotC (or the tournament sponsors) believed that they were engaging people in such activities.- - If these judges believed these activities were "work" or a "job" when they agreed to do them, then I hope you post a picture of you wearing a tin foil hat.- - Ignorance of the law is no excuse, for either side. That is one reason I won't engage in the legality of this. But, legality does not equate to morality.- When these judges decided they were engaged in illegal activities, their is as yet no evidence, they did not take the course of least harm. Instead they took the course of action that is most likely the most harmful to everyone but themselves, and the most likely to result in monetary reward for themselves. That smacks of selfishness, which according to the morals and ethics I was raised with, is bad.</blockquote>

Verification