[nl]

Of course it's against policy.

It would also rightly be ignored.

A visitor charging their phone? Ignore it. A resident running an extension cord to the carpark to charge the car of a different visitor every day? Enforce it.

Don't ask bad-faith questions like this. There's nothing gained by arguing the extremes of a case.

[googlryas]

My entire point was asking whether there is an acceptable use/abuse policy, and providing an anecdote about how there was no policy in place for a similar kind of "hack" that I did.

You're just asserting that there is some kind of policy, without providing any details of it. Since you're arguing from a point of knowledge, it isn't bad faith to ask you about your knowledge of the policy of the unnamed dorm at the unnamed college attended by the unnamed friend.

I don't believe you actually know anything about the policies of the dorm - I think you're just assuming there is some policy, and it was reasonable in 2013.

[SideburnsOfDoom]

> My entire point was asking whether there is an acceptable use/abuse policy, and providing an anecdote about how there was no policy in place for a similar kind of "hack" that I did.

> You're just asserting that there is some kind of policy, without providing any details of it

Human interactions, customs, policies and laws are not code, and should not be thought of as merely a bunch of if statements to run.

When faced with something obviously ok, such as "a visitor plugging in their phone that they need to charge on one occasion" we don't apply any written policy, we ignore it. This is basic hospitality such as allowing a visitor in need to use the toilet facilities.

When faced with something obviously not ok, such as "a visitor extracting as much electricity as they can, for no benefit but their own private profit" we raise that this is blatantly an abuse of the resources. If there is a policy, we apply it to that end. If there is no policy, then we add to the policy, to that end. The policy is merely an instrument.