A Goon
For more than 4 generations the IT Professionals were the guardians of qualty and stability in software. Before the dark times. Before Microsoft...
- infodragon
I've been completely hotmail free for 15.532 years.
Modified: August 09 2006.
Hits: 8593806/12491277
User: Anonymous Coward
Time: 0.05 seconds.

Read Message

then we're both missing the point.

Author: Tridus ()
Date: 2000-05-14 00:00:00

On Sunday, May 14, 2000 at 10:11:35 PM SM_007 wrote:
>No, its a question of why. Any permission is a question of why, and not why not. You don't think "well why not give the guest account read access to everything?", or "why not give the users local admin rights?", or "why not do anything". You always think *why*. "Why does user X need this?"
>But I've already discussed the "Why?" aspect of it and made my arguments. Since I am trustworthy and compitent (and besides, if I ever proved myself anything but that, you'd bust me right back down to normal user anyway, I assume and hope), what would the major harm be? So in that sense, I am asking "Why?" but I am asking "Why not let me be an Administrator?" I'm not just saying, "Well, why not? Seems like a thing to do, hyuk hyuk." I have reasons.

Yeah, and you missed the most important one.

"Why does user X need that power?"

You don't.

Someone needs that power when I'm away.

Nobody needs it when I'm not away, how many people editing the user database do we need?


You can make arguments about being trustworthy and stuff all you want, but if you can't explain why more then one person needs access to the user database, any other argument is a moot point.

>Hmmm. I honestly only remember us speaking about it once, and I honestly just wanted to get feedback from the forum, positive or negative, on whether they'd trust me enough to be an Administrator. Now, the fact that so far 6 out of 8 people who voted don't have much faith in my abilities is disappointing to a certain degree, but I'm more interested in what you said right here. If I had the philosophy you looked for? What does that mean? Please explain.

It has nothing to do with ability, it has to do with "how many people do we need doing this?"

Just like we don't need 14 moderators, or 35 poll creators, or god forbid, everybody with html subjects, we don't need two full time admins.

You can't change a stubborn mind... you can't see the world if your eyes are blind. What does it matter anyway... in our darkest hour, all just shades of grey... - Amanda Marshall

why does a forum with 20 ppl need 2 admins? - Az Templar Of Evahl - 2000-05-14 00:00:00
-Replies...very...slowly...and...clearly... :) - The Lord DebtAngel - 2000-05-15 00:00:00
-Lemme make this a little clearer. And stuff. - SM_007 - 2000-05-14 00:00:00
-The real point is that Tridus is not always around. - -=General=- - 2000-05-14 00:00:00
--yeah, and I'm supposed to be reminded to bump up the access when I go away. - Tridus - 2000-05-14 00:00:00
---Well... - SM_007 - 2000-05-14 00:00:00
----when your delaing with security stuff, the question is always 'why?', and never 'why not?' - Tridus - 2000-05-14 00:00:00
-----You missed the point. - SM_007 - 2000-05-14 00:00:00
------then we're both missing the point. - Tridus - 2000-05-14 00:00:00
-------Well, then at least we're both babbling and missing points, hehe. - SM_007 - 2000-05-14 00:00:00
--------by that idea... - Tridus - 2000-05-14 00:00:00
---------No, because it's been proven that we don't need more than two Administrators. - SM_007 - 2000-05-14 00:00:00