The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
I might be misunderstanding what email retention means but I don’t understand the concept of not storing emails permanently if that’s what it means.
Yeah, the e-mail retention post was about the time period the e-mails are kept on the server before being deleted.
It's basically to try and avoid liability or other problems during a lawsuit discovery. My last company went to a 1-year period (you could manually select individual e-mails to be 7-year retention, but it was a pain if you wanted to do that for your entire inbox).
+1
SummaryJudgmentGrab the hottest iron you can find, stride in the Tower’s front doorRegistered Userregular
oh, I picked the wrong chat
0
HonkHonk is this poster.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
I might be misunderstanding what email retention means but I don’t understand the concept of not storing emails permanently if that’s what it means.
Yeah, the e-mail retention post was about the time period the e-mails are kept on the server before being deleted.
It's basically to try and avoid liability or other problems during a lawsuit discovery. My last company went to a 1-year period (you could manually select individual e-mails to be 7-year retention, but it was a pain if you wanted to do that for your entire inbox).
So the point is to intentionally throw away emails in case you get brought to court?
This must be one of those US things I can’t understand from the outside. It seems like a really sketchy policy to have as a company.
PSN: Honkalot
+3
thatassemblyguyJanitor of Technical Debt.Registered Userregular
I might be misunderstanding what email retention means but I don’t understand the concept of not storing emails permanently if that’s what it means.
Yeah, the e-mail retention post was about the time period the e-mails are kept on the server before being deleted.
It's basically to try and avoid liability or other problems during a lawsuit discovery. My last company went to a 1-year period (you could manually select individual e-mails to be 7-year retention, but it was a pain if you wanted to do that for your entire inbox).
So the point is to intentionally throw away emails in case you get brought to court?
This must be one of those US things I can’t understand from the outside. It seems like a really sketchy policy to have as a company.
Some organizations will try to put a fig leaf on it and trot out the 'saving disc space/cost' of the e-mail storage.
But, yes, the main motivator is to avoid exposure during court cases.
+1
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
HonkHonk is this poster.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
I think the law here says you have to keep documentation for at least ten years. Though that probably doesn’t translate to like keeping all internal correspondence for that duration. But it at least seems like in spirit like nuking emails would be frowny face from the courts.
PSN: Honkalot
+1
thatassemblyguyJanitor of Technical Debt.Registered Userregular
I think the law here says you have to keep documentation for at least ten years. Though that probably doesn’t translate to like keeping all internal correspondence for that duration. But it at least seems like in spirit like nuking emails would be frowny face from the courts.
The actual lawyers of [chat] would have to give the most correct answer, but the way I understand it here: as long as the company defines a set policy "we only retain e-mails for X period", it's allowed in the courts. But it can't be something done in hind-sight after a crime has been committed because then it's willful destruction of evidence (and whatever exact charge goes along with that).
Usually there is a point in time where a company is informed of pending litigation- they then need to put the people related to the investigation on Legal Hold. That means you stop deleting any of their emails or other documents that might be related to the case even if it would go past your companies policy of retaining for only X years.
There will then be a discovery period where all of the emails of all the people will be sifted through by attorneys looking for relevant information, using keyword searches and other automation.
A key thing is that a company wants to be able to say "okay, here is everything, have at it, we're done producing documents for you to review." If you have a policy stating 'we keep emails for 3 years' and then you produce thousands of emails that span that 3 year period you can hopefully get the judge / other side to agree, yeah that is everything. If on the other hand you don't have such a policy they might say - well just give me a full image of everyone's laptop, and a full copy of your email server, and the backups of the email servers as far as you have them. Oh, you have offsite disaster recovery that goes back 20 year's? Better spin those back up there might be something relevant! The costs of discovery can very quickly get very large.
+5
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
Usually there is a point in time where a company is informed of pending litigation- they then need to put the people related to the investigation on Legal Hold. That means you stop deleting any of their emails or other documents that might be related to the case even if it would go past your companies policy of retaining for only X years.
There will then be a discovery period where all of the emails of all the people will be sifted through by attorneys looking for relevant information, using keyword searches and other automation.
A key thing is that a company wants to be able to say "okay, here is everything, have at it, we're done producing documents for you to review." If you have a policy stating 'we keep emails for 3 years' and then you produce thousands of emails that span that 3 year period you can hopefully get the judge / other side to agree, yeah that is everything. If on the other hand you don't have such a policy they might say - well just give me a full image of everyone's laptop, and a full copy of your email server, and the backups of the email servers as far as you have them. Oh, you have offsite disaster recovery that goes back 20 year's? Better spin those back up there might be something relevant! The costs of discovery can very quickly get very large.
Eh, yeah. But it’s a lot easier to send that data dump than it is to sort through it.
+1
Powerpuppiesdrinking coffee in themountain cabinRegistered Userregular
Usually there is a point in time where a company is informed of pending litigation- they then need to put the people related to the investigation on Legal Hold. That means you stop deleting any of their emails or other documents that might be related to the case even if it would go past your companies policy of retaining for only X years.
There will then be a discovery period where all of the emails of all the people will be sifted through by attorneys looking for relevant information, using keyword searches and other automation.
A key thing is that a company wants to be able to say "okay, here is everything, have at it, we're done producing documents for you to review." If you have a policy stating 'we keep emails for 3 years' and then you produce thousands of emails that span that 3 year period you can hopefully get the judge / other side to agree, yeah that is everything. If on the other hand you don't have such a policy they might say - well just give me a full image of everyone's laptop, and a full copy of your email server, and the backups of the email servers as far as you have them. Oh, you have offsite disaster recovery that goes back 20 year's? Better spin those back up there might be something relevant! The costs of discovery can very quickly get very large.
Eh, yeah. But it’s a lot easier to send that data dump than it is to sort through it.
In my experience companies creating an email deletion policy to delete the evidence claim it's about not wanting to sort through the evidence to see if they did anything wrong before sending the evidence to the other side and the judge. They try to argue this is totally different from not wanting the judge and the other side to know they did something wrong. They're just trying to cut costs, you see. It's expensive to check you did nothing wrong when you did nothing wrong, you see.
Usually there is a point in time where a company is informed of pending litigation- they then need to put the people related to the investigation on Legal Hold. That means you stop deleting any of their emails or other documents that might be related to the case even if it would go past your companies policy of retaining for only X years.
There will then be a discovery period where all of the emails of all the people will be sifted through by attorneys looking for relevant information, using keyword searches and other automation.
A key thing is that a company wants to be able to say "okay, here is everything, have at it, we're done producing documents for you to review." If you have a policy stating 'we keep emails for 3 years' and then you produce thousands of emails that span that 3 year period you can hopefully get the judge / other side to agree, yeah that is everything. If on the other hand you don't have such a policy they might say - well just give me a full image of everyone's laptop, and a full copy of your email server, and the backups of the email servers as far as you have them. Oh, you have offsite disaster recovery that goes back 20 year's? Better spin those back up there might be something relevant! The costs of discovery can very quickly get very large.
Eh, yeah. But it’s a lot easier to send that data dump than it is to sort through it.
In my experience companies creating an email deletion policy to delete the evidence claim it's about not wanting to sort through the evidence to see if they did anything wrong before sending the evidence to the other side and the judge. They try to argue this is totally different from not wanting the judge and the other side to know they did something wrong. They're just trying to cut costs, you see. It's expensive to check you did nothing wrong when you did nothing wrong, you see.
Not something I have a lot of experience with. The most recent companies I worked for had insurance to cover lawsuits and had 7 year retention policies for email and records. But federal contractors have to be compliant with more rules. But yeah they all had insurance to cover lawsuits.
I was in on a call with the owner and the insurance company. And the insurance company was trying to get the company I worked for to cover the claim. Because the rates “might go up” or “we might get dropped.” But that was how we managed risk. It was much cheaper to have insurance than to retain lawyers in most cases. And it may be the field I’m in but most of the legal shit didn’t involve emails.
In Valheim I made it to the Mistlands and I gotta say...cool, pretty environment, but it's way too hostile what with the extremely limited sight range and high heights you need to navigate. I'm actually not enjoying this biome. It seemed less of a pain in a group (wider range due to more wisps I suppose), so I guess it's to force you to group up rather than work on your progression solo?
I think they just didn't realize how much the cliffs would suck the joy out of exploration, and didn't realize how unpleasant it would be to explore or traverse with a wisplight.
Also there are only 2 or 3 new enemies depending on how you count, compared to neck / grayling / boar for meadow, shaman / brute / gray dwarf / troll / skeleton / skeleton archer for black forest, wraith / blob / zombie / zombie archer / leech / abom for swamp. I think mountain has 4 and plains has 7.
In Valheim I made it to the Mistlands and I gotta say...cool, pretty environment, but it's way too hostile what with the extremely limited sight range and high heights you need to navigate. I'm actually not enjoying this biome. It seemed less of a pain in a group (wider range due to more wisps I suppose), so I guess it's to force you to group up rather than work on your progression solo?
You do eventually get to build a piece of equipment that makes navigation in there (and everywhere else too I suppose) a lot easier and once you have and upgraded armor set it becomes a lot less lethal. Still lethal but far less troubling. The boss is also a nightmare and tbh I'm not sure doable solo without just suicide running it to death.
Advice: First thing you do is build the new pickaxe. Then get the shield and get it upgraded asap. Then the rest of the armor. Also any weapons that do frost damage are nice for the slow effect it has.
Honestly I think this was their first real misstep. A huge portion of the appeal of the game is exploration and limiting what you can see to sometimes a dozen feet at best was... well, it was dumb. If you could upgrade the wisp a few times until the area is at least 3-4 times as large it would help but honestly I think the better idea would have been to have the mist be a wall around the border that you need The Thing to be able to even penetrate and then inside it's just a normal area.
HappylilElf on
+2
JacobkoshGamble a stamp.I can show you how to be a real man!Moderatormod
I haven't even physically looked at the Mistlands yet and it sounds like it's a mixed bag BUT I was out there stumping for Valheim to have more drastic height differences. It was weird to have a Viking game that didn't have dramatic fjords or forbidding cliffs.
Mines need some serious RNG tweaking for sure. I've encountered something similar (six room basement with a pair of 2 star soldiers, a 1 star soldier and 3 normal soldiers) but that's not the normal experience by any means. Most of the ones I've cleared out there's no more than a single 2 star or 1 star enemy, usually just seekers. Admittedly those still absolutely suck until you at least have the new shield though.
It's also a case where unlike every other biome you need your best food until you have some armor upgrades. Preferably at least a half stack of your best health and stamina potions too. Without that every encounter can spiral rapidly.
But I totally agree. The difficulty of the Mistlands is way out of whack with the rest of the progression in the game. It does get better quickly once you get a couple of things but until then it's pretty dire.
0
Powerpuppiesdrinking coffee in themountain cabinRegistered Userregular
I haven't even physically looked at the Mistlands yet and it sounds like it's a mixed bag BUT I was out there stumping for Valheim to have more drastic height differences. It was weird to have a Viking game that didn't have dramatic fjords or forbidding cliffs.
Idk that's persuasive maybe they just needed to also change some mechanics so height differences weren't ruinously un-fun
+1
SummaryJudgmentGrab the hottest iron you can find, stride in the Tower’s front doorRegistered Userregular
HonkHonk is this poster.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
I feel like height might be tough to do in Valheim given the intentionally very low draw distance, and lack of a way to interact with it apart from Skyriming diagonally up slopes.
PSN: Honkalot
+2
YoshisummonsYou have to let the dead vote, otherwise you'd just kill people you disagree with!Registered Userregular
I'm guessing the Black Forge is the prerequisite for building anything new? And how are you supposed to build it when it requires walking into a killzone? Ugh, the contrast with how well-designed and how smooth the on-ramp is with the rest of the game is stark. I don't like survival crafting games and Mistlands is reminding me of that fact, where the rest of the game was so good it overcame my natural dislike of the genre.
Using a Iron Sledgehammer downright feels like a requirement for those traprooms.
Levels on the jump skill just increase the height you can jump and does nothing for the stamina costs like nearly every other skill in the game.
Posts
i think it just gets a big honkin' modifier on the charged war cry R2
Had a silly 20 min row before I picked my kid up but 20 min is 20min
Yeah, the e-mail retention post was about the time period the e-mails are kept on the server before being deleted.
It's basically to try and avoid liability or other problems during a lawsuit discovery. My last company went to a 1-year period (you could manually select individual e-mails to be 7-year retention, but it was a pain if you wanted to do that for your entire inbox).
So the point is to intentionally throw away emails in case you get brought to court?
This must be one of those US things I can’t understand from the outside. It seems like a really sketchy policy to have as a company.
Some organizations will try to put a fig leaf on it and trot out the 'saving disc space/cost' of the e-mail storage.
But, yes, the main motivator is to avoid exposure during court cases.
The actual lawyers of [chat] would have to give the most correct answer, but the way I understand it here: as long as the company defines a set policy "we only retain e-mails for X period", it's allowed in the courts. But it can't be something done in hind-sight after a crime has been committed because then it's willful destruction of evidence (and whatever exact charge goes along with that).
There will then be a discovery period where all of the emails of all the people will be sifted through by attorneys looking for relevant information, using keyword searches and other automation.
A key thing is that a company wants to be able to say "okay, here is everything, have at it, we're done producing documents for you to review." If you have a policy stating 'we keep emails for 3 years' and then you produce thousands of emails that span that 3 year period you can hopefully get the judge / other side to agree, yeah that is everything. If on the other hand you don't have such a policy they might say - well just give me a full image of everyone's laptop, and a full copy of your email server, and the backups of the email servers as far as you have them. Oh, you have offsite disaster recovery that goes back 20 year's? Better spin those back up there might be something relevant! The costs of discovery can very quickly get very large.
In my experience companies creating an email deletion policy to delete the evidence claim it's about not wanting to sort through the evidence to see if they did anything wrong before sending the evidence to the other side and the judge. They try to argue this is totally different from not wanting the judge and the other side to know they did something wrong. They're just trying to cut costs, you see. It's expensive to check you did nothing wrong when you did nothing wrong, you see.
It's slower but the rules are basically 1 to 1 to the table top then and it's easier to sort through a billion spells.
Also respeced back to a knight of the paw so I am riding a wolf again. I just need a haste scroll for nenio, I lost my haste bot.
I was in on a call with the owner and the insurance company. And the insurance company was trying to get the company I worked for to cover the claim. Because the rates “might go up” or “we might get dropped.” But that was how we managed risk. It was much cheaper to have insurance than to retain lawyers in most cases. And it may be the field I’m in but most of the legal shit didn’t involve emails.
I think they just didn't realize how much the cliffs would suck the joy out of exploration, and didn't realize how unpleasant it would be to explore or traverse with a wisplight.
Also there are only 2 or 3 new enemies depending on how you count, compared to neck / grayling / boar for meadow, shaman / brute / gray dwarf / troll / skeleton / skeleton archer for black forest, wraith / blob / zombie / zombie archer / leech / abom for swamp. I think mountain has 4 and plains has 7.
You do eventually get to build a piece of equipment that makes navigation in there (and everywhere else too I suppose) a lot easier and once you have and upgraded armor set it becomes a lot less lethal. Still lethal but far less troubling. The boss is also a nightmare and tbh I'm not sure doable solo without just suicide running it to death.
Advice: First thing you do is build the new pickaxe. Then get the shield and get it upgraded asap. Then the rest of the armor. Also any weapons that do frost damage are nice for the slow effect it has.
Honestly I think this was their first real misstep. A huge portion of the appeal of the game is exploration and limiting what you can see to sometimes a dozen feet at best was... well, it was dumb. If you could upgrade the wisp a few times until the area is at least 3-4 times as large it would help but honestly I think the better idea would have been to have the mist be a wall around the border that you need The Thing to be able to even penetrate and then inside it's just a normal area.
The interior of the Mistlands is less forbidding cliffs and feels far more like Zhangjiajie National Forest Park in China.
It's also a case where unlike every other biome you need your best food until you have some armor upgrades. Preferably at least a half stack of your best health and stamina potions too. Without that every encounter can spiral rapidly.
But I totally agree. The difficulty of the Mistlands is way out of whack with the rest of the progression in the game. It does get better quickly once you get a couple of things but until then it's pretty dire.
Idk that's persuasive maybe they just needed to also change some mechanics so height differences weren't ruinously un-fun
Levels on the jump skill just increase the height you can jump and does nothing for the stamina costs like nearly every other skill in the game.