Domain Admins
218
edits
Changes
From Pumping Station One
Talk:Vote on 3 Policy Labels (view source)
Revision as of 01:13, 26 April 2015
, 01:13, 26 April 2015→Mistaken in thinking we had to pass policies
* The thing about having policies (however those come to be) that are in line with the requirements of our insurance coverage is that it makes it very easy to point at how we're complying with those requirements. This may not be a big deal, but it does seem like something to consider to me. --[[User:Dbever|Dbever]] ([[User talk:Dbever|talk]]) 20:02, 25 April 2015 (CDT)
* The thing about having policies (however those come to be) that are in line with the requirements of our insurance coverage is that it makes it very easy to point at how we're complying with those requirements. This may not be a big deal, but it does seem like something to consider to me. --[[User:Dbever|Dbever]] ([[User talk:Dbever|talk]]) 20:02, 25 April 2015 (CDT)
* but it will be ludicrous if we have to make policies for every item. we haven't made a policy to ban parkour or pyrotechnics but we'd need special coverage for those which we don't have right now --[[User:Skm|Skm]] ([[User talk:Skm|talk]]) 20:10, 25 April 2015 (CDT)
* but it will be ludicrous if we have to make policies for every item. we haven't made a policy to ban parkour or pyrotechnics but we'd need special coverage for those which we don't have right now --[[User:Skm|Skm]] ([[User talk:Skm|talk]]) 20:10, 25 April 2015 (CDT)
*Skay, I'm not sure where you're getting the impression that we need a policy for every single item that may break the law? I think that was the slippery slope argumet Sparr tried to use on the list. As for making announcements without having policies, it's sort of a distinction without a difference, I think? De facto instead of de jure, but it doesn't necessarily mean that we wouldn't have gotten the same backlash that we did. --[[User:Sylphiae|Sylphiae]] ([[User talk:Sylphiae|talk]]) 20:13, 25 April 2015 (CDT)
