Club rules, site rules, and legalities

On Dave's request I am posting here what I hope is the beginnings of a discussion, that I broached with Dave and everyone else who attended the social at Denny's after the November CQB night.

I have some thoughts about how we, the NIA, operate.

I have now had a chance to visit and play with many other areas, sites, and clubs all over BC. What I find is, despite all us wanting standardized rules, and seeing the value of that, ESPECIALLY for those of us who enjoy playing with different groups like myself, the rules end up being somewhat different.

Why is that? Do we not all run similar equipment? Could we all be coming to different conclusions as to what constitutes safe? Do we not all care about the health and happiness of our fellow players? Or do we all just don't want another level of administration in our lives, telling us how to play airsoft?

Or is it all the above, or some weird regional mishmash of these.

When I look at why that is, the adage I am reminded of in investigations is to 'follow the money.'

Now unless we are talking about commercial operations were someone IS making a living off Airsoft, what this resolves to is the question of 'if shit hits the fan', who would LOSE money, ie who would get held legally responsible, or in simpler terms, sued.

Right now, the ones that could be sued are

a) Dave Horton (it is HIS rules that were required to play in the game)
b) the site owners (they allowed this to happen on their property)
c) the game organizers (they were responsible to enforce the rules, right)

Lets look at each in turn.

a) Dave

Why do I say Dave specifically?

Because NIA is NOT a legal entity. There is no board of directors, and there is no directors insurance (that could protect them from loses as a result of legal action).

Which means it will resolve to having Dave held responsible. He IS the de facto head of NIA. He is the chief motivator and administrator. (This is very easy for any lawyer to prove). For all Dave's wonderful efforts he gets the fame, and the payoff of there BEING airsoft, and unfortunately he gets the risk.

This is REALLY unfair to Dave and his family. In my opinion, he takes an unacceptable risk every time we play a game of airsoft under the auspices of the NIA.

I thank him for it, but we can do better than this.

Dave's only real protection is that he doesn't have that much money or assets to sue FOR. A poor defense at best, depending the energy level of the lawyers involved.

which brings us to

b) The Site Owners

The site owners are held responsible chiefly as they have the visually most obvious assets to lose, if legal action is successful. While others maybe named alongside site owners, ultimately by the laws in Canada we are responsible for what happens on our property.

This includes rural property owners like myself and the other main field here in 100 Mile House. We play, we own it, we enforce the rules.

This also includes private fields lent to NIA use in PG, like the recent snow-day out at Rusty Fenders' cabin.

It certainly includes commercial property like what is rented for most indoor games.

(How crown land use goes ... I have no idea ... but the gov can afford to cover its own legal ass, although I suspect they would involve site organizers and Dave in any lawsuit)

As a sad result many of them have gone to site insurance, which then raises the costs of playing airsoft.

However the REAL reason I describe it as 'sad' is that the insurance company then imposes on the site the only safety standard they understand (grrr) which is what works for paintball.

I am talking about non-mesh paintball masks, which I hate.

On the coast this is already a de facto reality. Most sites won't take the risk we are taking up here, thus airsoft means NO MESH, and insurance and following the safety regs they stipulate. This is enforced by the organizing clubs down there with a heavy club, which brings us to the next group on the vulnerability list.

c)The Game Organizers

They essentially act as manager of the use of that property for airsoft, and as such are held responsible to ensure that all rules required by the site owners are enforced. They also act as representatives of Dave, as having agreed to use the NIA's standards for safe play.

So they have 2 bosses AND have to ride herd on each individual airsoft player... which may explain the tired distracted look many game organizers eventually develop....fortunately this is remedied by being able to occasionally participate in an Airsoft game, and being able to SHOOT SOMEONE This helps immensely.

Regardless of Game organizers' other woes, they are distinctly in the sights of any lawyer looking for a return for their clients.

-----------------------------------------------------------

So what AM I getting at? A few things...but first I wanted to as accurately as possible sum up the existing situation.

Firstly, MESH ROCKS. I consider it a personal safety requirement for me playing Airsoft. The day someone tells me I HAVE to wear paintball equipment during an Airsoft game is the day I do not play. I will allow, nay, PREFER it on any game on my property. I don't require it yet, but I may one day.

I don't want to buy insurance to use my property. That is my personal decision. I have researched insurance companies who DO understand AS rules and regulations, but so far they either don't apply in Canada, or want too much money. I have a event waiver that I have had a lawyer review and that suits my needs. Anyone coming to any of my games has seen and signed one.

Also, I don't like being dictated as to WHAT is safe for my players. An insurance company looks at it just from the standpoint of how much it will cost to reimburse a player after they are hurt.

I prefer to look at it from the viewpoint of the maintaining the happiness and health of my players. I care about them and want them to be happy, if for NO other reason, that AIRSOFT CONTINUES HERE!

....this post is getting long, but there is a lot going on here. Please bear with me.

Currently the way the NIA operates is that NIA sets the rules.

While I respect Dave's risk here, as a site owner, I believe I have the final say.

1) It is unreasonable for site owners to take the risk for rules they did not set.

2) It is unreasonable for Dave to be held responsible for a game held literally hundreds of miles away, with no ability to monitor.

What I propose is this.

NIA move to a decentralized rules structure that removes Dave from the vulnerability list, and allows site owners the control to match their vulnerability to legal action.

Those site owners that want insurance and the rules they impose, may do so. Those that do not, but have rules that work for them, as long as they are posted, stick to them. Those that are happy with just waivers, use their own or a generic one the NIA CAN provide.

But I cannot stress this enough...the NIA SHOULD DO EVERYTHING IT CAN TO PROTECT DAVE!

The NIA's ONLY role should be in providing suggestions and facilitate the fostering of safety standards...NOT enforce them, as then that make Dave and his family vulnerable, in the eyes of the law.

The NIA can create a generic waiver, which if it the NIA is mentioned to outline its NON-INVOLVEMENT.

There may be games that happen where the site owners have no idea as to the risks involved or what rules could be applied.

Would the site owners not be thankful for the NIA offering a waiver to them along with the suggested safety rules, with the game organizers assurances that every player will abide by them and sign the waiver, admitting that each player agrees to the rules outlined and the risk implied?

If this is done on a game by game basis, the game organizers (NOT THE NIA) are seen as doing due diligence, while the NIA distances it self from legal action, as they act in a purely advisory role.

Ultimately while the opportunity to discuss and examine these issue are important for NIA members and administration, I believe the realities that I have outlined, already exist and are already in play by the rest of the world, whether the NIA agrees with it or not.

The NIA can not absolve site owners of their risk and their responsibility to use their best judgment and due diligence to protect the safety of their players, despite whatever rules this non-existent (legally) entity attempts to dictate.

And for Dave's sake and that of every game organizer out there, nor should they.

Lets get our rules in line with the legal realities, and protect those brave few of us who take the risk for the sake of airsoft in our areas.

I would now like to have a discussion period.

There are some great points in here that we really should discuss. I would be interested to hear from the Quesnelians and their stand point on this. I have some thoughts but will put them up Saturday or Sunday sometime.

No one has ANY opinions here....? I find that VERY hard to believe.

I would have thought for the reasons I have mentioned that this would be something of interest to ANYONE who plays, or hosts games.

Or is everyone fine with it all landing on Dave's Families shoulders?

Or If no one objects to the proposal made, can we assume that we can move ahead with it?

Time to step up, and make your opinions known. Its cards on the table time everyone!

I am still chewing, I have thoughts but not the time to post them yet.

thats cool Dave....consider this topic bumped

Dave may be the leader but he didn't make the rules... ultimately we all did. We established the rules via discussion and concensus on these forums. I agree that Dave is definitely taking on too much responsibility with regard to games played in other locations under the NIA banner when he has no physical way of ensuring the club rules are respected.

We could simply drop the rules (which I think would be a mistake) or we could change the rules to "field safety guidelines" to ensure that anyone hosting an event has addressed all the safety issues prior to hosting an event. That would relegate the liability more towards the host rather than the club while still allowing us to make safety recommendations at a club level. Then if the field operator chose to ignore/modify those rules it would ultimately be their own ass on the line if something happened.

a) Dave Horton (it is HIS rules that were required to play in the game)
b) the site owners (they allowed this to happen on their property)
c) the game organizers (they were responsible to enforce the rules, right)

Reading over the rules page I would hope that they look more like the clubs than mine. I propose change and I get shot down...hopefully a sign of a non dictatorship.

What Wayne is describing is really what I think is already happening. I choose not to enforce every rule in there and I am the one responsible for not enforcing should something go wrong.

I can hear you on the not wanting to be dictated to but to cover the reputation of the club name we insist on clubs following the posted rules as we trust them (this is not just to you Mike but to anyone who hosts PG, Quesnel...whatever). If they don't want to follow them and give us the "I am going to do this anyway" then we can simply distance ourselves from them. If they are followed in theory nothing should happen, if they choose not to follow the posted rules then we can nail the organizer (not legally...I really have no idea about the legal side) and tarnish their name instead of the NIA. If the organizer posted their own rules and was open to discussion on them I am sure we would eventually end up with something usable.

From my experience in the camping world (limited) my understanding of waivers is that they are toilet paper. If you do something that would make you liable to be sued then you are liable and the waiver will not protect you. Mind you I have had some heart pounding moments when players have stepped on nails in an area and I thought I was done for, they signed a waiver but I still led them to play in an unsafe area.

That's all I can muster for now...it is boxing day...turkey puts me to sleep. I am looking forward to the continuation of this discussion.

My thoughts on me being the club head are such
-I appear to be leading the PG side just because others are not. If and when others want to lead ( and we trust them...we not just me) then they are welcome to and it has happened.
-When it comes to out of town clubs I am just simply another member of our club that wants to make sure that their games are safe, fun and inclusive. I talk more but simply because others will not or have not...that being said others sure have done some better talking than me.
-As a site admin I appear to have power...I do not...I can change things on the site which appears to be power but people are going to play with or without this site. (example those guys a few years back that were playing in city limits and we would not accept it as good airsofting) The club exists from this site, if this site went down (either crashed or was taken over) we would probably go by a different name and run a differently. The site exists to make airsoft accessible, standardize some safety and game play and to make things more transparent and accountable so that airsoft gets better and not worse. It's a meeting place online.

Very well, if no once else sees that the 'club' legally doesn't exist, and likes the way things are currently handled, and while I would have liked to see more discussion, and less 'statement of position', then I will drop this issue.

I have pointed out the realities that currently exist. I will discuss this with Chris, and other 100 mile house players and in all likelihood we will distance ourselves from the Prince George website that calls itself the NIA club. Right now, I will be putting my families interests first and based on the risks the NIA represents, opting out effective IMMEDIATELY.

I have removed the 100 mile portions from the website (via read/write permissions...now admin only). You may retain my posts as an explanation of OUR position, but I can not remain as an admin here, which can be seen as supportive of the current website ruleset.

I would have preferred that the NIA remained a meeting place to promote discussion of what works and what does not, but all I see is political positioning with it wanting to be a ruling body even though the 'club' retains no insurance or clout as its own entity. This appears to be a trend to 'devour its own' by risking Dave, then attempting to defame or shun surrounding areas, and its organizers.

As a meeting place its value as is less so if, upon seeing differences it chooses to dictate 'one rule set to rule them all'. instead of simply promoting healthy discussion.

I have grown tired of promoting the NIA concept to locals who see little value in the position of an 'NIA', especially when the NIA website refuses to see the larger issues, beyond their local interests.

If the NIA wont start operating AS a regional group instead of just a local airsoft club, that wants its own way via (as far as I can tell from here) inertia then I suggest that they rein in their aspirations and recognize the scope that the interest/energy level of the group is capable of.

The NIA is a good concept but it is currently flawed in current implementation and as such very hard to support.

I am left a little confused, I thought the discussion was just starting not ending.

We do what we do in PG, Wayne in the north runs his own way as well. You are more than welcome to run your games how you please we just want to know what it is.

Very plainly what would you like to see changed? I would hate to lose players in the north going on this site because I may not understand the changes that you are looking for.

My hope for this site is that each area runs it own club independatly of each other but still under an agreed set of boundaries for the benifit of airsoft in the north. To keep everyone in one place not for the sake of numbers but so that we can take part in each others games and discussions easily without having to log into 3-4 different sites.

Hi guys,

Just to weigh in on a subject on which I have far too MUCH experience

1. Waivers.

Over and over I hear laymen say "waivers aren't worth the paper they are printed on." And yet, everyone uses them. Want to join the after-school soccer team? Want to join the Girl Guides? You're signing a waiver. Hell, I even had to sign a waiver to birng Karl to a reading group at the library because there was an end-of-year picnic and they didn't want to get sued if some kid choked to death on his sandwich.

Going skiing? Turn that chairlift ticket over and read it. By using the ticket you are agreeing that you are aware of the risks involved, up to and including death. They are providing the field; you are responsible for all risks; they are libel for nothing.

Going to the PNE? Check out the tickets there. Same thing. Hell, they may even have a giant sign as you walk in stating it but I forget for sure.

Paintball fields, even though they have insurance, do the same thing, and for very good reason.

No, one can't sign away one's right to sue. But waivers still provide a very valuable service to the organization/site owner/whoever.

See, if you get hurt during any kind of an organized activity and want to sue for damages (which admittedly doesn't happen as often in Canada where we don't rack up medical bills the way they do in the States-- although it DOES still happen, especially if someone has been badly hurt; also, dental work (i.e. repairs to teeth, an area at risk in Airsoft) usually isn't covered so you may be sued for that)-- if you want to win your suit, you first have to convince the judge that a reasonable person could not have reasonably anticipated that injury. Say you're playing basketball, for example-- a non-contact sport-- a reasonable person might expect to land badly after a jump and break an ankle; but they aren't going to expect to be tackled from behind and have their back broken.

So they sue. And they say that a reasonable person could not have reasonably expected to have taken an injury like that.

Buuuut... then the organization they're suing pulls out a signed, dated waiver, which states explicitly that they are involved in a sport which carries certain risks of injury, up to and including death (which is a standard clause for everything), and that the person signing it is thereby stating that they have been made aware of the risks and are voluntarily participating in the activity with full knowledge of said risks.

At which point the judge will find that, despite the "reasonable person" statement above, they did in fact know of the risks. And a "reasonable person" who has signed a waiver stating the risks, before the activity took place, is aware of them. It is then either thrown out, or, if damages are ordered to be paid, they will be greatly reduced.

2. Liability.

I also hear, all too often, "No one's gonna bother suing me; I don't have anything to take." WRONG. Judgement against a person is NOT based on a person's ability to pay. It is based on what the judge figures reasonable compensation would be, and then you pay it. One way or another, you pay it.

Don't own anything? Just renting, got a beater car and a joe job? YOU WILL STILL PAY. The car will have a lien registered against it; if you sell it (or crash it or what), the money will go to the settlement before you see a penny. Want to buy a house? HA. Good luck. Want to get a loan? Not bloody likely. Hell, a lot of employers do credit searches these days (bad credit = no responsibility = bad employee, apparently); hope you like that joe job because you may not get another. Also, your cheques WILL be garnished. That means that your employer is legally obligated to pay a certain amount of your cheque to the courts before you even see it. And if you don't have anything worth anything, and aren't making any money, then this just means that this will be going on pretty much for the rest of your life.

THAT is the risk that we ALL incur, as things stand right now. Yep, ALL of us. Every single registered member of the site.

Why? Because the website IS the NIA, right now. And under the Society Act of BC, it legally is a social club. It's a group of people who meet regularly to share a common interest. At this point it really doesn't matter if it's a registered society or not; its membership can be sued as an entity.

If it's a registered society then only the directors can be sued, and not the members. And the group can have director's insurance to cover that. As things stand, though, as an individual member, you too can be named in a suit. YOU.

As stated above, the membership as a whole agreed to the rules the NIA plays by, and decided what they should be. It is admitted that this is tough to enforce; but still, it is expected that if a group is going to be considered part of the NIA, then it's gotta play by the NIA's rules.

That statement right there, though, means that if someone gets hurt while playing at an NIA field under NIA rules, they will be able to name the entire membership of the NIA in a suit. And since the NIA is mainly this website, membership here will constitute membership in the NIA, unless each individual can somehow prove legally that while they are registered here, they are not a legal member of the NIA itself.

*Ahem* Having said that, let me state that as of this post I am not a legal member of or in any way affiliated with the NIA, and that my participation in these online forums for discussion purposes does not constitute membership in the NIA, and that I am in no way legally responsible or libel for any actions or decisions the NIA makes or the consequences thereof.

(Shame, that, because it's a nice-looking badge and I guess this also means I can't use it.)

*Cough*

Because, you see, if someone gets hurt at a game and decides to sue, we can ALL be named. Except me. Because I don't have anything to do with the NIA. *Cough*

Unfortunately, by making agreeing to the FPS etc rules a condition of registering on the website, technically I can't even keep my membership here in the forums to be able to discuss this without opening myself up to legal liability. That should probably be changed.

To illustrate with a scenario:

George (to pull a name out of my ass) goes to an NIA game in PG. It's been advertised here on the forums, it sounds like good fun. He has all his own equipment. He's playing within the fps; he has acceptable eye protection on. Nevertheless, accidents happen, and he takes a round to the face JUUUUST wrong and breaks a tooth off. It happens; it happened nearby very recently.

Well, he's just a kid in college; he's got no dental insurance and no money. He has to get the tooth repaired, though. And the bill is about $500, which is pretty damned cheap; it could easily mount up to over a thousand, depending on what the damage was. Not much to some people, but far too much to him.

Maybe he manages to come up with the money ahead of time, maybe he doesn't. Let's say he doesn't; I know I can't just produce $500 at the drop of a hat no matter how desperately I might need it. Times are tight all over.

Anyways, poor George has a front tooth snapped in half, he's in considerable agony, and he can't afford to pay for the dental work. What options does he have?

(A) Live with it. Not likely.
(B) Sue.

Who's he gonna sue? Well, the place to start is usually the owner of the site where the game was held, and the game organizers. The NIA will get dragged in too, at some point: Either he sues directly (it was the NIA who organized the game, after all, even if it was Fred and Bob who actually ran it), or the site owner and organizers sue (if they lose), saying that they were following NIA rules at an official NIA game; it therefore is the NIA's responsibility if someone gets hurt.

George sues for the costs of his dentalwork. He also sues for the costs of filing the small claims suit (about $130). He will also need a lot of painkillers covered, and probably antibioticsif he doesn't want to risk an infection that could lose him his teeth, his jaw, or his life (I say this as a trained industrial first aid attendant). He will also probably sue for pain and suffering. We aren't so big on that in Canada, but from personal experience, again, if you have an injury, you can be awarded about $20,000. Seems to be the usual.

The maximum you can do under small claims is $25,000, so George won't be suing for more than that because he just can't afford a lawyer. But for the $130 filing fee (which is much easier to come up with than the $500 dental bill), the NIA could end up on the hook for $25,000.

However, if he's signed a waiver.... See point 1.

Sadly, an inability to enforce the rules doesn't absolve the group from legal responsibility if they are insisting that those same rules be followed at all NIA events. Just 'cause the cops didn't stop you from going 120 in a 80 km zone doesn't make it legal to do so.

However, as Mike said, there are ways around all this. But it should be addressed, and soon, because, sadly, "it's always worked for us like this" only works until it doesn't. My advice as someone who has been in court far too often, and had to deal with waivers from both sides in many different organizations, and who has about 20 years of experience with one kind of "extreme" sport or another, is: Close that legal loophole before it bites someone-- or everyone-- in the ass.

_____________________
** My participation on this website, shall not be construed as my agreement with any or all of NIA airsoft safety, fps, or game day rules. Further I am not to be held responsible for any damages incurred under NIA sponsored games to other players.

My registration on this website is ONLY for discussion purposes, and while I agree with and will uphold the rules pertaining to the use of this website, I do not necessarily agree with or accept any NIA rules outside of the use of this website.

What I proposed is this:

"You attract more bees with honey, than vinegar"

1) NIA move to a decentralized rules structure that allows site owners the control to match their vulnerability to legal action. Rules will be assigned at the field level by the field owners but posted on the NIA website for disclosure purposes.

2) The NIA's ONLY role should be in providing suggestions and facilitate the fostering of good safety standards...NOT enforce them, as this makes the NIA, its admins and its members, in the eyes of the law libel.

3) The NIA as a minimum due diligence, promote the use of a standardized waiver to inform players to their risk, to inform and protect site owners from that risk. Not demand it, suggest it. Provide a template that can be built on by the site owners who agree to the risks involved based on rules that reflects THEIR risk.

4) Remain a website only to promote discussion, and not use field/club rule variances as excuse to shun, slander or demean its website participants or anyone who has a differing point of view.

I believe that this would go a LONG way to achieving what the NIA has stated as their objectives...to be a 'one stop shop' for the interior...but in order to do so, it can NOT be an authoritative body.

Devils advocate: Yes you COULD incorporate as a society, and restrict liability to just its directors. Then you will have to get director liability insurance to protect them.

What you just did was make the NIA a juicier target to sue. Cause now its an insurance company that pays. Deeper pockets and less guilt for the average person considering legal action.

A waiver is a step (and only A step) in the direction of making the NIA LESS sue-able. Its not foolproof but helps (for the reasons Chris has already gone in to)

And if you get insurance, than they may require a waiver as well (less payouts, eh) and by the by may also begin dictating what our safety regs are based on what they know...paintball..(did anyone READ my first post?)

So does this help or hurt AS in our area? Who would opt in or out?

The NIA should be an community discussion site with an advisory capacity only.

Cause at the end of day, if the NIA still decides to try to act as an authority, people will just go 'who needs ya' and do their own thing..(sounds like something PG has already experienced locally) Then someone WILL get hurt, or do something oninformed and give airsoft a bad name cause you are not including them in the local airsoft discussion, so you can educate and inform them of risks, and prevention...no....the NIA way right now is penalize, defame, and shun. Or at least that is the stated threat.

Does this help or hurt Airsoft?

We need a community of airsofters more than a ruling body with no insurance, sorry. And if the NIA is to be seen as working towards that, should reflect that need.

dang you guys write long messages..ha ha ha.

Chris I am going to have to catch up on yours later, I appreciate the detial in it. We used to do waivers and I have a digital copy I'll post up later, I still have all the signed ones we used to use. Love for you to see them and get your thoughts on the wording.


1)
I like the sounds of this and I think I have been agreeing with your idea on this. The other areas so far have just worked with and liked the existing rules so this has not come up yet.

2)
Is there an example of how we have enforced our rules that you are thinking of inparticular? The local guys that we purposly put at a distance were doing things that the majority agreed were dangerous and bad for the sport so we put them at arms length and let them know our opinion and that they can do whatever they want but just not here. Does that overstep the lines that you are thinking?

3)
I will post what we have used for a waiver in years past.

4)
I feel this is really aimed at a specific event or incident. If I or someone else has done you wrong or you have felt attacked by something please let them know and let's work it through.

The deletion of the 100 mile area, your sigs and some of this conversation make it feel as though we are battling. I write my responses smiling and hoping for a conclusion. I won't write if I get worked up about something, never comes across the way I intend it. Again I am glad we are talking this through and addressing concerns, the more I am protected and other organizers the better. Let's keep it going.

Also note that I might not get back to messages that day as I only do airsoft because it is a great hobby and lots of fun. If I have the fun sucked out of it because I feel like I have to answer ASAP then I run the line of getting out...I don't want out of airsoft...I like getting shot!

With all of this we are really going to need to hear from the whole community and not just the 4 of us. If we want to change anything it can't be done by a few, we have to do it the way we always have...talking it through with the active members.

Hi Dave,

I agree absolutely that a discussion on the whole thing with more of the members would be an excellent thing. No, I'm not upset myself; if I come across as testy on the subject I apologize. It's more a feeling of "Oh god here we go again" re: waivers lol; nothing to do with the NIA itself. We've gone through it not too long ago, in a slightly different flavour, with another, completely unrelated group.

Suffice it to say that while it's a loophole that is pretty simple to close, the potential damage to you, the NIA itself, and the members at large is huge; the sigs etc are just an attempt at covering our own buts, legally, until the subject is more properly dealt with.

It'd be a shame to have a really good, productive discussion going-- and then someone went and sued while we were in the process of sorting things out. It's just an attempt to prevent that and not meant personally.

I find that in forum posts, I tend to do two things regularly: I end up posting Wall o' Text posts far more often than I probably should, lol; and I usually seem to come across far more vehement or annoyed than I actually am. I just like to communicate very clearly; that seems to result in an inordinate amount of detail.

I agree with re-instating waivers. In any case we should remove the NIA rules and leave the rules up to the game host/field owner. We can change the site to a purely announcement, information and discussion board. We can then discuss safe gameplay, fps limits, etc... but leave the actual specifics to the field owners/hosts rather than trying to enforce rules when we can't physically ensure they are being followed.

Oh, and I suggest that effective immediately we stop calling games "NIA events" or referring to "NIA rules" as I don't want to be held liable for games that I can't physically attend. If anyone wants to host games they should use the rules the host is comfortable with as ultimately he should be responsible for safety at the games he is hosting. I am freezing local Chetwynd games until we get this straightened out (not that I had anything planned when it's this cold anyway).

From now on when hosting a game the host should be responsible for posting all safety rules in the game announcement and should have each player sign a liability waiver which outlines the hazards and risks involved and references the rules to which he/she has agreed to abide.

that is the waiver that we used to use, I still have signed copies for lots of our players. If we are now just releasing the organizer how should it be worded? Please respond with a changed copy so we can keep editing each others work.

For the leaving the rules up to the host were we not doing that with you and me Wayne? As 2 seperate hosts we agreed that the rules we had posted were what we wanted to work with. Do we just want to add a page for each hosts personal rules? Make it an easy reference for people to find what a game will entail if a certian person hosts? I have been hinting (not strong enough I guess ha haha) at this already.


Posting the rules and guidlines in the game announcment like this?
https://pgairsoft.forumotion.com/t1949-jan-8-2010-cqc

I think we should remove all references to "NIA rules" from the website. We can refer to field rules and then list our field rules on our waivers for each location which should ensure that the person signing the waiver has had the opportunity to see the rules and has agreed to abide by them when they sign the waiver. You could then post a copy of the waiver with the game announcement and people could review the rules prior to going to the game to ensure their guns meet fps requirements, etc...

If we continue referring to "NIA rules" then we leave the entire club open to liability. If you change it to "Horton's rules" then you leave yourself open to liability, he said she said, etc... If you refer to "field or event rules" and you have them listed on the liability waiver you can show exactly what rules the player has agreed to abide by on a document that he/she has signed which should help reduce your personal liability.

We also need to seperate safety rules from the gameplay rules. Gameplay rules such as armor hit rules, respawns, etc... are not really something which could be a basis for a liability lawsuit and likely don't need to be listed on the waiver.

OK,

This sounds like something we can start on right away as it will be up to each host in each area to look after their own waivers and rules.

EDIT- it would be nice to have a basic waiver that all of us can take from though I guess. What are your thoughts on the waiver I posted yesterday?

I can remove the private games section and change all the NIA-PG, NIA Chetwynd etc to just the area name. Also remove the This is where OFFICIAL club games will be posted. Only moderators or administrators can post here but everyone can reply. line that is the description. Should this also mean we make it so anyone can post anywhere on the site?

This would make the NIA the site where we gather and nothing more correct? When people play 5 games and own gear should we still sell the badges and officially welcome them as members of the site? Should we also get ride of the NIA player tags like "new member" and "nia member"?

This sounds pretty much like what we had in mind. Rules have to be site-specific (a game you host out in the gravel pit, for example, isn't going to be run by the same rules as those you use at CQC games), and I think also that that change right there will make some of our other locals down here more open to participation with you guys.

Mike points out as well that having a list of fields we play on (maybe even some pictures/vids of the field/games there) looks good. Like, okay, yeah, maybe we've got 20 (or 50 or 100 or whatever) regular members-- but seeing that we also have three or five or ten or what different established fields is pretty awesome. It aids to promote Airsoft in that area.

Information on the field (private Airsoft field vs, say, a field that is also used by Paintballers-- hopefully not while you're in the middle of your game aargh!! Panther, I'm looking at you, you bastards), basic field description (treed, level, open, snaggy, whatever, whatever), etc would nice too. Not everyone is fully mobile, or they may prefer fields with cover to openones (or vice versa); it's nice to have an idea of what a particular site is like ahead of time. As Mike gets older, for example, he may prefer to play exclusively on golf courses. It's something where the NIA as a website could really shine.

We have a waiver that we use ourselves for games:

http://airsoftbc.com/Hold_Harmless_Airsoft_Waiver.pdf

Mike is suggesting the addition of a second page, an "addendum," which could be filled in with site-specifics (fps, etc etc) on the day, instead of having to change the wording of the main document every time. The main page would simply refer to "...as per Addendum A." (it's a standard practice in business contracts).

Organizers could then simply print off a stack and fill the day's details out in the field instead of having to edit the text document each time.

Heck, it doesn't even have to be a second page if there's room on the front. And it would be easy to take out references to specific sites and individuals and just have blanks that are filled in each time as needed.

You've got some good things in your one that I quite like. I do wonder about the fifth paragraph, though, where you say that the one waiver covers all subsequent games the signee attends? Might be better to have one for each game.

We run 'events' down here, not just 'games'. Meaning we have full weekend camping events, in which the wording of any waivers should be made to cover that as well. For example. Dad comes to play, brings his 17 year old (that may or maynot play, depending on the site owner) and his 12 year old daughter who does not. The daughter then gets hurt playing with a tent peg hammer...nothing to do with the game, but by using the word 'event' instead of 'game' we cover ourselves.

Some careful vernacular initially can save us a lot of work later.

Here is my attempt to merge these 2:

http://airsoftbc.com/hold_harmless_Airsoft_Waiver_draft_b.pdf

The appendixes are very crude, and I am just spitballing...sorta hoping that the last part of this waiver can act as a site handout of all rules and regs. I will probably re-order them later. I just listed them as I thought of them.

If I have missed anything sing out.

Hmmmm...we better at the very least, fill out the 3 lines on the first page...not have it a COMPLETELY generic form. Otherwise there is nothing to link any one signed release to the second page of appendices...which then a lawyer could have thrown out.

So here is the revision;

http://airsoftbc.com/hold_harmless_Airsoft_Waiver_draft_c.pdf



Gaah...this sorta stuff puts me to sleep.

I have to work this weekend but come the 3rd I will do some revamping on the site and clean out the NIA games and change (not delete) the rules stuff.

Ragraghragh. ><

Wrote something back and then seem to have somehow COMPLETELY FAILED TO POST IT. However, I DID succeed in erasing said post. *facepalm*

Anyways, what I was saying was than rather than doing a new waiver for each ordinary regular weekend game, we can probably just do a seasonal waiver. You know, like when you're in soccer after school, your parents sign one to allow you to play for that year, rather than one for every practice and game. We should still have separate ones for the special events, though (like the full weekend Airsoft/camping ones we do, eg. the "May Day!" one we did here last year).

The idea is that the first game of that year, you sign one for that location and year, and then, so long as the FPS/equipment/whatever rules don't change, you're good for that year. You WILL have to sign separate ones for each location (for example, we might not be running under the same equipment/FPS rules here as the other Airsoft field; and I KNOW the PG guys have different rules for their out-in-the-woods games and their CQC games); but once you HAVE signed for that location, unless the rules change, you're good for the rest of that year.

This does two things: (a) it saves on paperwork all round, meaning people don't have to sign every weekend and the organizers don't have to store so many; and (b) it allows waivers to be found quickly if there IS a need. Was it a special game? Then look in that game's file folder. Was it just a regular weekend game? Then look in the folder for those waivers; you don't have to search through multiple waivers from that one person to see if they signed one that one time. Makes it easier all round.

I've just finished doing a little work on Mike's conglomeration of the two waivers; I think he'll be posting it shortly after some formatting touch-ups.

Okay, Mike's done with the formatting, sounds like. Take a look at this version, guys, and see if it's usable for everyone, please?

http://airsoftbc.com/legal/hold_harmless_Airsoft_Waiver_draft_e.pdf