[DarthBBerry]

I disgree with modifying the Default policy. What if you need to go back to a less restrictive one temporarily?

I have the more restrictive Policy in the default template for each group. Assign a person t a group and they instantly get that Policy assigned to them.
No group = no Policy.

[Frank Castle]

I have to side with using the 'Default' policy as it is a huge benefit knowing everyone who is added inherits that policy. I have 6 policies in all and one is 'clean' which is what the Default starts out as (empty).

I also heavily use Groups and have over 100, mostly for software configurations or user management / reporting. Tying different policy to the Groups as needed.

I can see both sides but with over 25 people with access to Add / Remove users here I need to rely on knowing everyone gets a policy.

[acnst]

Originally Posted by DarthBBerry

What if you need to go back to a less restrictive one temporarily?

Create a new one and don't modify any settings on it.

[AlanM]

I'm going to have to go with the "Modify the Default" crowd. Main reason is to make sure a restrictive policy is applied should someone forget to assign the correct policy. I have several policies and have created basically a blank policy that "resets all". I have to be very restrictive at my location, so I have to make sure a newly added BB is sufficiently locked down.

[fadmin]

Originally Posted by DarthBBerry

I disgree with modifying the Default policy. What if you need to go back to a less restrictive one temporarily?

I have the more restrictive Policy in the default template for each group. Assign a person t a group and they instantly get that Policy assigned to them.
No group = no Policy.

Stop fighting. Everybody said you are wrong ... Joking man, do as you think is right. With small BB environment where you have 1 or 2 admins taking care of bb users then it is ok either way as long as they don't forget to assign right policy. But why worry about it? BB IT policy is quite different then windows policy. I mean it gives you no benefits when not modified but potentially can give you lots of headaches if not.

[DarthBBerry]

Originally Posted by fadmin

Stop fighting. Everybody said you are wrong ... Joking man, do as you think is right. With small BB environment where you have 1 or 2 admins taking care of bb users then it is ok either way as long as they don't forget to assign right policy. But why worry about it? BB IT policy is quite different then windows policy. I mean it gives you no benefits when not modified but potentially can give you lots of headaches if not.

Bah... This job would be great if it weren't for the @#$%ing users. LOL

[Jadey]

Originally Posted by DarthBBerry

Bah... This job would be great if it weren't for the @#$%ing users. LOL

Indeed. Unfortunately we aren't allowed to kill them.

[DarthBBerry]

Originally Posted by Jadey

Indeed. Unfortunately we aren't allowed to kill them.

I don't want to kill my users. Just bind their hands. And tape their mouths shut. And make them live in a cave. Under a rock. On Mars. And forced to listen to (and watch) You Spin Me Round for all time.

[Jadey]

Originally Posted by DarthBBerry

I don't want to kill my users. Just bind their hands. And tape their mouths shut. And make them live in a cave. Under a rock. On Mars. And forced to listen to (and watch) You Spin Me Round for all time.

Ah-ha! You are, indeed, evil sir. It would be far kinder to just do 'em in.

[DarthBBerry]

Originally Posted by Jadey

Ah-ha! You are, indeed, evil sir. It would be far kinder to just do 'em in.

Hello... SITH LORD?!

[Frank Castle]

You forget the user pain inflicter - Processes.

I just make new processes for them to abide by to get support .. when they have to bear a little pain it's amazing how fewer requests you get

[AlanM]

If you want to inflict pain and suffering on the user throw in a 15 minute lock regardless of activity. The users "love" that.