🚀 go-pugleaf

kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>
>>	"Any restrictions placed on your computing access must be 
>>	 directly related to the charges filed against you.  Any
>>	 restrictions must be approved by the Director of Engineering
>>	 Computing prior to their initiation."
>
>Let me make up a scenario. A user apperently sends a million lines of
>"Wow! I sure can waste paper" to the laser printer." This wastes about
>2000 pages of paper and $25 dollars worth of toner.
>
>You bring him/her up on charges. (At the very least he or she should
>have to pay for the waste and get a formal warning from the school.)

Actually, I'm laid back enough that I wouldn't even press charges on
something like this.  Of course, none of my users have ever done any-
thing this stupid.  8)

>The question is, should you also prohibit the user from using the
>printer while the case is pending? The policy as written seems to say
>yes. But to me this seems that punishment before establishing guilt.

Well, there are aspects of the disciplinary process that cannot be
adequately codified.  The determination of "adequate" restriction is possibly
the most subjective part of the entire process.  In this particular
scenario, I'd slap a page limit on the user (say, 30 pages/day).  As
an alternative, his use of dot-matrix and/or line printers could be
unrestricted, while the laser printers are made unavailable.

I would hope that the approval requirement for restrictions would 
prevent this sort of problem.

>(unless you really think the user is stupid enough to do it again
>while awaiting a University hearing.)

Well, you never know..........8)
-- 
 morgan@ms.uky.edu    |Wes Morgan, not speaking for|     ....!ukma!ukecc!morgan
 morgan@engr.uky.edu  |the University of Kentucky's|   morgan%engr.uky.edu@UKCC
 morgan@ie.pa.uky.edu |Engineering Computing Center| morgan@wuarchive.wustl.edu
        "I was going to rip your head off, but I'm past that now."