Timeline for Should we modify the FAQ to include policy subversion as explicitly Off Topic?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 4, 2012 at 22:27 | comment | added | Wesley | @Gilles You've got that part right. However, we can't ignore when people reveal more than just the facts. If someone asks a question that's technically okay, but then reveals that it's to do unlawful things, then we can't ever come under the shadow of suspicion concerning helping people break laws or rules. Even if those laws are made by entities that we may completely disagree with. =/ | |
| Jan 4, 2012 at 22:16 | comment | added | Gilles 'SO- stop being evil' | @WesleyDavid Hold on, I was the one arguing that “Questions should be evaluated on their technical merit alone”. | |
| Jan 4, 2012 at 22:05 | comment | added | Wesley | @Gilles No, in other words, to get a good answer on ServerFault, we don't need the backstory. Just the facts. | |
| Jan 4, 2012 at 22:03 | comment | added | Gilles 'SO- stop being evil' | @WesleyDavid In other words, to get a good answer on Server Fault, you need to lie. Right, that's really professional. | |
| Jan 4, 2012 at 21:59 | comment | added | Chris S | "It is rather common for a professional system administrator to need to circumvent a restriction put in place by another system administrator ... by policy" <- No way; I do not, in my professional role as an administrator, deliberately circumvent corporate or legal policy. Circumventing a technical restriction that does not conflict with policy is completely normal, but that is explicitly not what this Question is in regards to. | |
| Jan 4, 2012 at 21:59 | comment | added | Wesley | @Gilles The scenarios that you refer to are extremely few and far between, at least as topics on ServerFault. Secondly, those questions can be rephrased to avoid any explicit mention of subverting existing controls. The Iran/SSH question could have simply been "How can I tunnel SSH out of nonstandard ports?" and in that case it would have been allowable. | |
| Jan 4, 2012 at 21:49 | comment | added | Gilles 'SO- stop being evil' | @Holocryptic If you've done any system administration in your life, you very well know that sometimes the other administrator doesn't reply, or doesn't know how, or can't be bothered, or is on an extended tour of Antarctica while your users have a customer on their heels with his lawyers on speed dial. | |
| Jan 4, 2012 at 21:45 | comment | added | Holocryptic | If you need to get around something set up by another admin either through policy or ignorance, then the fix is to disable the the restriction, not find a way around it. That's a policy question, not a technical one. | |
| Jan 4, 2012 at 21:35 | history | answered | Gilles 'SO- stop being evil' | CC BY-SA 3.0 |