Timeline for Handling illegal/immoral questions and answers
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 29, 2011 at 17:17 | comment | added | J. M. Becker | If something is 100% illegal if performed as stated, I can see the point. Things that "Might" be illegal if performed, should be given the benefit of the doubt. More importantly, I personally, believe if something is not illegal for serverfault to publish, it should slide. Knowledge itself is w/ exception not illegal, I assume I don't need to provide the legal interpretation of the first. | |
| Sep 29, 2011 at 17:11 | comment | added | J. M. Becker | What about system security???? I have definitely asked questions about subverting security to test my servers! I also could easily imagine IT themselves attempting to subvert IT. Should we make those cases explain themselves, who the hell are we other than sysadmin? | |
| Jun 22, 2011 at 2:19 | comment | added | John Gardeniers | @Gilles, you're forgetting that SF is essentially a community driven site and the community collectively makes decisions that affect the site. As most of us take the concept of professionalism pretty seriously we see only harm in allowing questions that conflict with that view. Sometimes it's not enough to just ignore those questions that we find offensive, we need to actively cull them to try and maintain a site that we feel comfortable using as part of our toolkit as professional admins. | |
| Jun 21, 2011 at 19:59 | comment | added | Chris S | @Gilles, I fail to see how keeping away from legally questionable topics is morally or practically "wrong". I don't 100% agree with Erik, but disagree that we should get lawyers involved to determine the legality of a question before closing it. Who's being impractical now?! | |
| Jun 21, 2011 at 19:44 | comment | added | Gilles 'SO- stop being evil' | Yes, I do know I'm outvoted. But it would be unethical for me not to speak up when the majority is doing something that's wrong, both morally and practically. | |
| Jun 21, 2011 at 19:38 | comment | added | EEAA | @Gilles, you're free to disagree, but you'll find that most of the mods and frequent contributors will agree with 100% of what I said. There are times when something about a post just doesn't seem right - perhaps when the OP doesn't appear to be giving the whole story. In an ideal world we'd be able to assume that everyone has good intentions, but unfortunately that's not the case. The mission of this site is to promote and encourage good systems and network practices - when something doesn't adhere to that, it needs to get closed. | |
| Jun 21, 2011 at 19:26 | comment | added | Gilles 'SO- stop being evil' | A “sniff test” is not a proper way to judge posts. Apply the mod hammer on licensing violations? Ok, if you're sure they're licensing violations: are you a lawyer? in the asker's juridiction? Did you review this particular license? If you didn't, you're not in a position to reject the question. (You're free not to answer, of course.) Subverting IT policy? That's a pretty common job requirement in my experience. | |
| Jun 13, 2011 at 14:57 | history | answered | EEAA | CC BY-SA 3.0 |