What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Join the Dragon Age: Origins development team on Facebook view!
facebook.com/DragonAgeOrigins - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
87 Comments
- howismydriving, on 10/12/2007, -5/+88So wait, in the article it doesn't say if they asked for shelter and were told to leave, or asked to stay there overnight due to the bad weather. If they were seeking shelter while the tornadic activity was going on around them, thats a dick move. If they were looking for a place to stay for free due to the bad weather, while not the best PR move, turning them away isn't as bad as it sounds. Any other links with more info?
- brstilson, on 10/12/2007, -9/+47Have you EVER seen that joke dugg up?
I haven't. - Lixie, on 10/12/2007, -5/+29Though it wasn't a very nice move by the hotel, it was in some ways a smart move. Taking in those kids assumes a liability. If the tornado shatters a window and some kid gets hurt by the flying shards of glass, the hotel could be liable for damages (millions of dollars worth).
No good deed goes unpunished in todays civil courts. The hotel wasn't taking on anymore liability than it was obligated to do. - wm2010russ, on 10/12/2007, -3/+19the "article" is from the consumerist. what more bias do you need to let you know that the purpose of their writing is to make the embassy suites look as bad as possible. im surprised they didnt use a picture from Twister and photoshopped in kids swirling around.
- TylerC, on 10/12/2007, -6/+17Legally, they may not have been able to.
All the kids could have put them over thier max persons amount.
If someone had died I am willing to bet that some retarded parent would sue for letting the child into the hotel. - EvolvedAnt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9One time when I was younger I was walking outside and I noticed a van following behind me slowly, then it pulled up and stopped beside the curb. Not knowing what was about to happen, I assumed the worst and ran. There was an expensive hotel nearby, I ran in there and the employee at the desk gave me no trouble staying there until I felt safe to leave.
I'd say this case with the children was simply them wanting to stay the entire night, because otherwise theres no reason they'd kick you out, staying in the lobby temporarily until the danger subsides won't hurt their business any. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12@Lixie:
Taking on liability is the same thing as taking on responsibility. If you refuse to take responsibility for a bunch of little kids during a tornado because you're afraid somebody might get mad at you later, that's pretty screwed up. - AntBing, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11I've seen it dugg up. It was a story about crazy Russian bus stops...so it kinda worked.
- lpcustom, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11Missed an "R" in your title there buddy.
- twinklyJesus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7I don't know the whole story, yet, but I can tell that most of the comments are from people who have ZERO first-hand experience with tornadoes. (beyond the movie kind)
If you "see" a tornado, you don't have time to pull into a hotel and ask for shelter. "If" there had been a tornado, and they were trying to escape it by running into a hotel, it would've been over by the time the manager told them "no." Chances are, as a comment above stated, they were looking for a place to stay while the storms passed (heavy rain, hail, etc.) and the manager said "sorry, full...". They went to another hotel and got a place. Then, coincidentally, a tornado hit.
It's not like in the movies, you don't have time for long conversations and multiple reaction shots when you are "in" a tornado. It happens FAST. Then, it's gone FAST! I've been in 3 tornadoes, I grew up in OKC and trust me NOAA is HQ'd there for a reason. A tornado's duration in a fixed location is less than a minute. These things move from 25 to 75 mile per hour. They are extremely localized.
Just my thoughts... - holydope, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I live in Mobile, AL, about 175 miles southwest of Montgomery, and about 15 miles west of Spanish Fort.
We all knew, way ahead of time, that the weather was going to be really bad that day.
Why didn't the school reschedule their trip? - celopes, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6@author20: you are full of it.
Compassion and ethnicity have nothing to do with each other.
And you are taking a stance on this particular issue based on hearsay, limited information and a bunch of diggers babbling their mouths... Not my idea of a balanced, intelligent approach.
Maybe, just maybe, the hotel didn't do this exactly as described. Maybe, just maybe, there was a reason for doing it. - Sommerlost, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8There wasn't any room in the inn for Jesus either.
- packerbacker89, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6@logicalnoise
But people who stay at a hotel pay for it, and somewhere in contract, I'm sure they waive any responsibility for natural disasters. - blastus7, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5After reading the article it just seems like there is something missing. It is not very well written and for some reason I think sensationalist journalism. Maybe it's just me. Is this a reliable website for news? Do they just not like the hotel chain?
- pathetik, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Please link Original story... not blog spam
Thank you come again - jonmlm, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7um, did you copy and paste that? is that your weapon against the mainstream media?
- loquax, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6I've lived in Monkeytown (what we call Montgomery here in Alabama), and along with it being our capitol, it is perhaps the snootiest place this side of Beverly Hills. However, it may have been an altruistic act on behalf of the manager--the Embassy Suites Hotel is just down from the Alabama Capitol Building and is notoriously the place where state senators go from screwing the state to screwing their mistresses. With that bunch around, I am not sure if a tornado isn't safer for children.
- kisore, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Original article
http://www.nbc15online.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=136f7823-0131-4144-a9b3-36cd9f31f482 - packerbacker89, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6As sad as this is, it was the only thing the hotel could have done. Legally, it was like walking into a house of glass if they allowed the kids in.
If the tornado had gone through, they would have gotten sued out of business because of the kids death (or injury). - dimplemonkey, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5It's still being investigated as of a couple of days ago. They kids were treated better at the other place they went to anyway. Not that it should matter.
- denied, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2silly 4th graders. tornado causes a blackout date. good luck getting into Embassy.
- weister42, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2That article has spelling errors.
- davidadam, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@mleaman,
I doubt she needs anybody's business to be able to spend that kind of money every day, considering that so much of her inheritance is tied up in investments that, the past week notwithstanding, net her several shopping sprees worth of returns every day. The entire Hilton chain could go bankrupt and neither her or her family would feel it.
Their employees would, of course. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@TylerC:
First, I don't believe you. I can't tell you how many urban legends I've heard along the lines of "criminal sues victim and wins." Substantiate your *****.
Second, I did *just say* that there was plenty of unnecessary litigation, but absurd lawsuits are not nearly as common as some people make them out to be.
I don't know if this story about the kids and the hotel has any meat or not, but the attitude that some posters here are taking-- that it's just wise to push kids out into tornado conditions because oh god what if one of them sues you-- is not only self-centered beyond belief, it represents a completely stupid degree of paranoia. - purplehaze420, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4@Condottieri
Dude, if there is anything worse than someone who doesn't read the ***** article and leaves a comment that makes no sense, it's someone who half-assed reads someone else's comment, doesn't pick up / understand the sarcasm, and posts a serious response to a rhetorical question and/or sarcastic comment!
'Get a clue' ... And either way , this should have been a good character building experience for those kids, hah - cderry, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5They wanted shelter from a natural disaster?
Greedy little bastards. - TylerC, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4@siszam - also true, but they could have. We dont have the full story ;)
- twinklyJesus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3NO, I disagree. The worst thing is someone who replies to a comment, but starts a new thread when they do it...
I bet you feel stupid right about now... - siszam, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1True. Though I have no idea why I'm being dug down for saying they could have called around to see what shelters are available. There seems to be no rhyme or reason for people being dugg up or down these days.
- catalysis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Suites"
- mleaman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Hey, 4th Graders don't pay! How else can Paris afford to drop $10,000 during a ten minute shopping spree?
Are you ethical enough to take your business elsewhere?
(The Hilton family of hotels)
http://www.hilton.com/error.html - Thuktun, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I suspect something like this might apply:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Samaritan_law - jello, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Your message needs further explanation. Are you saying that since Americans aren't racist and they are only motivated by money. When in the history of any nation have there not been people that are financial opportunists. Your trying to extrapolate a message out of this story that just isn't there.
- TylerC, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@ caketank
You would be suprised.
A few years ago a man broke into a woman's house, in her garage where he found a chainsaw. He continued to use the saw to destory to woman's house when he slipped and cut his left arm off below the elbow.
A month later he sued the woman for leaving the chiansaw out in the open for use and he won the lawsuite. - drdank, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1He could have been crucified in style if he sued and won.
- Dracomantis, on 10/12/2007, -11/+12Somones going to be fired....
Hotel full or not, there is always room for a group of kids in a situation that could leave some of them dead... Am just trying to get my head round the mindset of the guy who turned them away - TylerC, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1No, its not thier fault.
By law if they can only hold so many people, or the reliability is to high, its in there best intrest to make them leave. - Jasoniswatching, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Dugg Up for Accuracy
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1We'll Leave The Light On
- betasp, on 10/12/2007, -9/+9See consumerist, marked as spam! Tired of Digg front page linking to that site everyday. Are they paying for this?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@lixie:
Six of one, man. You're more worried about covering your own ass than a bunch of kids in a tornado. That's just sorry. - linuxmagick, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I really doubt that the hotel's maximum number of occupants came into play here. In a situation like this, I seriously doubt the hotel would face any legal repercussions for allowing the group of children to put them over their occupancy threshold. Several of you have also stated that you believe the hotel was merely avoiding liability issues. What if something had happened to the children while they were seeking out shelter after they were turned away by the hotel? Don't you think the hotel would have found itself on the receiving end of some angry parents' lawsuits? I mean, there have been plenty of successful lawsuits with a lot less merit in the past. Just my two cents.
- zephc, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Stay classy, Montgomery.
- CypherXero, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Heh, I live in Mobile, Alabama, too. Small world. I'm a college student at South.
- radish, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Lixie, you assume much more responsibility and potential liability by turning the kids out. You can be sued for anything. Which case do you think you'd be more likely to lose: the one where you take the kids in and a NATURAL DISASTER you have no control over leads to injury, or the one where you turn them away and YOUR ACTIONS result in the endangerment of the kids?
Now, all that said, I don't buy this article. There's something not being said here. - Lixie, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@caketank
I wouldn't be afraid of them gettting mad at me. I'd be afraid of some kid getting hurt and the parents suing me for millions in court. That's just for one kid, now multiply that risk by an entire class. This isn't about being good people; this is about covering your ass. - smackhero, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@wm2010russ:
from their FAQ:
"3. What kind of biases should we expect from you?
We're biased towards the consumer. We favor bad company stories over happy customer tales. We're not anti-capitalist; we're anti-stupid-capitalist. Our premise is that good customer service isn't a goal in and of itself, it actually makes and saves more money in the long run. Ben is biased against Cingular, having never liked them since he first saw their unironic Superbowl ad with the painting quadriplegic (Cingular was said to help him be more expressive)."
so assuming that they are just out to make all businesses look bad is illogical. that wouldn't help consumers at all. i think the blog is meant to provide cautionary tales about bad businesses, not out to paint all businesses as bad. but go on ahead bashing organizations for trying to look out for consumer interests.
@lixie:
you're confusing legal obligation with moral obligation. you also have a poor understanding of argumentation (or at the very least you use very flawed logic in your arguments). your statement regarding "what this is about" has no logical meaning--at least that phrase doesn't have any useful meaning to anyone except you. just because you choose to ignore the moral dilemma to focus on covering your own ass doesn't nullify the ethical value of the action.
i could say that not stopping a rapist "isn't about being a good person, it's about my own personal safety/minding my own business/not missing my favorite TV show" but it is utterly meaningless and illustrates selfish indifference to other people's plight; just because i choose to rationalize the decision by framing it as purely an issue of self-interest doesn't change the inherent nature of the situation. that kind of thinking demonstrates a very disturbing egocentric indifference towards the well-being of others. that is a very sociopathic mentality.
i will give you the benefit of the doubt that you are trying to assume the role of the business unit rather than voicing how you would react to the situation personally. that is understandable, and is actually the problem with a lot of corporations which commit unethical acts (although it's really individuals who are committing these acts since businesses are not sentient beings). people who work for soulless corporations (especially large bureaucratic ones) tend to adopt that kind of thinking which depersonalizes decision making processes, giving the false impression that those business decisions are all amoral by nature so that the decision maker only has to make considerations for the bottom line. laws allowing for the creation of corporations are dangerous themselves because it removes personal accountability from actions perpetrated under the aegis of the corporation. - argyle747, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Did the children end up sleeping in a manger??
-
Show 51 - 88 of 88 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is