In addition to the FACTS survey thread, there is an ongoing thread about the good things in FACTS (started by Terry Scidmore, a self-proclaimed detractor who I have difficulty getting mad at) and another about the bad things, started by JRB (who I sometimes get mad at, but generally respect anyway.)
People complain that FACTS is too complicated, and I see it getting more complicated by the minute here on The Grumble.
In my mind, there is a big difference between operating a business with all due diligence and conducting it with the expectation that the next customer though the door is going to take you to court. The latter puts you in an adversarial position with the very people who are paying the bills.
My support of FACTS has nothing to do with whether it will put me in a better or worse position in the event of litigation. Given the climate of our legal system, I agree with others who have said that, in the event of a suit, you may as well settle or just kiss your *** good-bye.
My support of FACTS is all about a desire and a need for as much information as possible regarding the materials and procedures we use in our business. I really don't care whether we call them 'standards' or 'guidelines.' It makes no difference to me if we discuss 'maximum preservation' or 'minimum.'
I rely on my experience and alleged good sense to tell me when it's appropriate to apply which standards, and I am comfortable that nobody from the FACTS steering committee is going to come and arrest me if I don't apply 100% of them 100% of the time.
FACTS is part of the mix for me. I'm not ignoring the PPFA guidelines. I'm not ignoring what I read on TG (not all of it, anyway.) I'm not a FACTS evangelist and I don't really expect that it will ever enjoy the support of the majority of framers.
I just don't understand this notion that support of FACTS, or lack of support, is dependent on who you think will benefit most in the courtroom. And I surely don't understand how it is that information becomes a threat.
People complain that FACTS is too complicated, and I see it getting more complicated by the minute here on The Grumble.
In my mind, there is a big difference between operating a business with all due diligence and conducting it with the expectation that the next customer though the door is going to take you to court. The latter puts you in an adversarial position with the very people who are paying the bills.
My support of FACTS has nothing to do with whether it will put me in a better or worse position in the event of litigation. Given the climate of our legal system, I agree with others who have said that, in the event of a suit, you may as well settle or just kiss your *** good-bye.
My support of FACTS is all about a desire and a need for as much information as possible regarding the materials and procedures we use in our business. I really don't care whether we call them 'standards' or 'guidelines.' It makes no difference to me if we discuss 'maximum preservation' or 'minimum.'
I rely on my experience and alleged good sense to tell me when it's appropriate to apply which standards, and I am comfortable that nobody from the FACTS steering committee is going to come and arrest me if I don't apply 100% of them 100% of the time.
FACTS is part of the mix for me. I'm not ignoring the PPFA guidelines. I'm not ignoring what I read on TG (not all of it, anyway.) I'm not a FACTS evangelist and I don't really expect that it will ever enjoy the support of the majority of framers.
I just don't understand this notion that support of FACTS, or lack of support, is dependent on who you think will benefit most in the courtroom. And I surely don't understand how it is that information becomes a threat.