Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JamesonCourage" data-source="post: 6042985" data-attributes="member: 6668292">Again, we're talking in the context of RAW, and I'll accept any Core source or any errata. That was the question in the original post, and that's why I'm sticking to it. I'm not commenting on whether or not I agree with whether it's a mistake, or how'd I'd run it.I actually quoted the first part of "gross negligence" when I explained my reasoning. From <a href="http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Gross+negligence" target="_blank">a very reputable source</a> <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />Gross negligence is a conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care, which is likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm to persons, property, or both. It is conduct that is extreme when compared with ordinary Negligence, which is a mere failure to exercise reasonable care. I took this to mean "conscious and voluntary disregard" of the code, and not just any violation, regardless of intent. And I think that's a fair interpretation. As always, play what you like <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Edit: more definitions for discussion!<a href="http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=838" target="_blank">Another reputable source:</a>gross negligencen. carelessness which is in reckless disregard for the safety or lives of others, and is so great it appears to be a conscious violation of other people's rights to safety. It is more than simple inadvertence, but it is just shy of being intentionally evil. If one has borrowed or contracted to take care of another's property, then gross negligence is the failure to actively take the care one would of his/her own property.This interpretation might mean breaking the Code in any way that results in "a conscious violation of other people's rights to safety" would constitute "gross violation" of the Code. I could see that one. Again, as I've said twice, I could see a lighter interpretation than "conscious and voluntary disregard" of the Code, and may even use one, too. But I don't think mine in unfair.</blockquote>

Verification