Anonymous

Changes

From Pumping Station One
Line 111: Line 111:     
* 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)
 +
** Putting up something on the wiki (or website) is probably a good idea, especially since we would have something to point to.  I'd rather it not get the "policy" label until it's a membership vote, but I don't have a problem with something being posted immediately to indicate compliance. --[[User:Hef|Hef]] ([[User talk:Hef|talk]]) 20:38, 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 argument 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)
+
* 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 argument 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)
 
* Sylphiae, I was replying to Derek about whether having policies that we can point to to show that we comply would be helpful. we have a lot of exclusions other than the 2 we listed. I didn't mean to make a slippery slope argument but I did huh. --[[User:Skm|Skm]] ([[User talk:Skm|talk]]) 20:17, 25 April 2015 (CDT)
 
* Sylphiae, I was replying to Derek about whether having policies that we can point to to show that we comply would be helpful. we have a lot of exclusions other than the 2 we listed. I didn't mean to make a slippery slope argument but I did huh. --[[User:Skm|Skm]] ([[User talk:Skm|talk]]) 20:17, 25 April 2015 (CDT)
Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.