The example is in the same post and the question was actually referring to it. Take another look. Thanks.
I mean - I don't know how it looked like before you added the source. Did it have quote tags? I'm not familiar with the source but it might go under the Shakespeare exemption even without quoting or attribution. It did have the quote I think. I don't even know who the source is now, nor do I care much (other than it having a link to the website). |
|
|
|
Someone has admitted to plagiarizing.
I've served out multiple punishments already, therefore: I don't care, stop crying. I'll tag you and everyone related to you over and over again.
|
|
|
|
I don't care, stop crying. I'll tag you and everyone related to you over and over again. |
|
|
|
Me thinks lauda has plagiarized in the past.
Wrong. I think I plagiarized[1]. I never paid any attention to it, then again which spammer did? I believe that it is quite likely that I messed up at least several times even after I stopped spamming given my post count. I'm waiting along with many other DT members to see who is going to get banned. The only difference being that I've served not one, but two punishments for all my posts up until year XYZW (I don't remember). Quite funny this one is. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ *insert another off-topic conspiracy theory*
It isn't, he's just trying to spin this as mallicious; he doesn't even read any previous posts, he just shitposts nowdays[2]. Next campaign that hires him gets a negative rating. Hence we are back to this. Quickscammer, nobody asked you anything you filthy degenerate. What I wrote is objectively true, I generate more advertisement without posting anything than most people do by actively posting. Go back to your account-farming pajeet hole.
I think it's time I revised his trust rating description.
[1][2] I'll be damned if I haven't passed off someone else's statements as my own thinking they are my own while destroying the block-size bullshit.
|
|
|
|
Technicalities are not an issue. It's a bit more murky when it gets to intent (was the user blatantly copy-pasting, or paying homage?), which is where mod discretion comes in.
It's quite murky. It's easy on random shit-posting baboons in pay-per-post campaigns. Say I had forgotten to include that source today. Would you have banned me? Note: Even though I wear a signature, I am not required to do anything thus making 1 or 1000 posts makes no difference. Financial motivation is a no-go here, and I most certainly did not intend to pass that as "my own work". So? Hard to say without an example.. The example is in the same post and the question was actually referring to it. Take another look. Thanks. |
|
|
|
If, for example, Yahoo62278 (I just picked him randomly) was found to have copy/pasted something back in 2015, would I remove him from my trust list? Absolutely not. And why? Because there are multiple reasons for which I have him included on my list, and a single act of plagiarism from years ago would not negate them.
But, but.. I need something to feel good about myself so I'm going to shout that any and all plagiarism is unacceptable! The world is going to end if we handle it in any other way!!!  |
|
|
|
It's quite murky. It's easy on random shit-posting baboons in pay-per-post campaigns. Say I had forgotten to include that source today. Would you have banned me? Note: Even though I wear a signature, I am not required to do anything thus making 1 or 1000 posts makes no difference. Financial motivation is a no-go here, and I most certainly did not intend to pass that as "my own work". So? Nonsense. if you have a paid sig that doesn’t require any specific number of posts, if you don’t make sufficient numbers of posts the company will decide to stop paying you to advertise. This is true even if you don’t have a specific post count expectation. Nobody asked you anything you filthy degenerate. What I wrote is objectively true, I generate more advertisement without posting anything than most people do by actively posting. Go back to your account-farming pajeet hole. |
|
|
|
I think that Lauda is trying to say that everyone can, by mistake, say something already said by someone else with your own words. That somehow I may say something very close to what Satoshi said in his whitepaper, for example, and be banned for plagiarism for that .
This may be considered plagiarism in an University.... And I agree that it is plagiarism, But not here.
The point is that this is not plagiarism in this forum. Plagiarism is being checked by bots and is only banning, afaik, only word to word copies.
I agree with you, with a lot of common topics being posted as a new one then we will obviously have a lot of similar answers who have been posted in the past. But this kind of plagiarism doesn't exist in the forum or at least set an alarm to hunters as it still counts as their own created post. Mostly the copy pasters who have been banned directly have just copy and pasted the post or added some few words of their own or in some rare cases they just translate a foreign language to an english text to make it their own words, none of them actually create their own post with their own content. Posts that have been directly copy and pasted are obvious as they haven't even change the structure of the sentence . This was the plagiarism from today. Don't ask how it came to be, but it was a legitimate mistake (though mitigated within a minute). The Queen of Cats guides us. The Queen of Cats teaches us. The Queen of Cats protects us. In your light we thrive. In your mercy we are sheltered. In your wisdom we are humbled. We live only to serve. Our lives are yours.
Source. Technicalities are not an issue. It's a bit more murky when it gets to intent (was the user blatantly copy-pasting, or paying homage?), which is where mod discretion comes in.
It's quite murky. It's easy on random shit-posting baboons in pay-per-post campaigns. Say I had forgotten to include that source today. Would you have banned me? Note: Even though I wear a signature, I am not required to do anything thus making 1 or 1000 posts makes no difference. Financial motivation is a no-go here, and I most certainly did not intend to pass that as "my own work". So? |
|
|
|
How is plagiarism an acceptable mistake? Do you even know what plagiarism means? From the Oxford Dictionary: The practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own. Source: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/plagiarismIn what world is it ever acceptable to pass someone else's work off as your own? That's what we're talking about, right? In this world, right here. Read again: Absolute e-warior bullshit. Nobody in the real world strongly cares about that unless we're talking about published/for-profit work.
Acceptable or not, fact is that it can, has, and will happen as a mistake. Claiming otherwise is DISHONEST. This is not even up for debate as it's a factual statement. Hence, end of story. I see it as this
-snip-
You need to hover over the date-time.
Meh, removed insult as this is stupid to the point of not being worth it. |
|
|
|
So what safeguard from a person looking to hurt someone from doing this to an old post
That's a different problem, yes. There's this:  However, that is not nearly adequate. A moderator does not see what has changed. Also it could be used as a timed-attack. Insert it now and report in 2 years. That is another reason why this thread is bullshit. Imagine if we just banned you forever, philipma1957, because you plagiarised some random post 6 years ago? |
|
|
|
I really don't know how someone could make a mistake like that. I mean the chances of you accidentally writing the same content as someone else, word-for-word, are just so small.
This reads as something you'd find in /r/thathappened to be honest. Without any concrete example of what you wrote, it really hard to believe you on this[1].
I mean if you just think logically about it, who writes a post and then consciously thinks about checking whether it's been written before, using the exact same words and structure?
Yet it happened, yet I did it. We're talking about today. It has probably happened many times to me in the past. It has probably happened to many other people as well. You don't read a lot, do you? Most people don't plagiarize, because they're just decent persons, so I'd highly recommend not giving any free-passes to those who do plagiarize.
It's a soap-opera-like discussion forum, I'm not submitting a dissertation for crying out loud. How do I de-merit this thread to oblivion? Gee, thanks :-/ I was obviously talking about the conscious act of copying someone's work and passing it off as your own. Yes, if you do that, you're a shit person. I stand by what I said there. Absolute e-warior bullshit. Nobody in the real world strongly cares about that unless we're talking about published/for-profit work. Focusing on such nonsense is why people remain with narrow-minded. Miss me with your virtue signalling bullshit. It is a acceptable mistake especially when it is done once or even very very rarely. I agree with this.
Seriously shut up. The average narrow minded Joe doesn't have this problem, and I assume you are one. I'll be damned if I haven't passed off someone else's statements as my own thinking they are my own while destroying the block-size bullshit.
We are not talking about word-for-word plagiarism. We are talking about any kind of plagiarism. An unsourced paraphrase of someone's statement is plagiarism. If you don't believe this can happen by mistake, then you truly are a delusional, narrow-minded monkey. If I am resorting to such strong words, then you can be assured how stupid your thread is.
[1] Do you think anyone (in their right state-of-mind), who knows you and knows me, cares whether you believe me or not? The chance that I made this up, with zero beneficial incentive, is zero. |
|
|
|
I hope you can make a YouTube video on how and why we should collect this Collectibles. For people like me qho enjoys watching and not so into reading materials.
That's a too general question. Why does anyone collect anything? You will have to ask each individual.  |
|
|
|
Plagiarism is not a simple mistake in most cases, it's a conscious decision that people make in order to increase their post count and make money off of that.
Frankly, anyone who engages in copying other people's work without giving proper credit for it, should get banned immediately without any exceptions.
This is utter bullshit. I almost made this mistake today, and the only thing that reminded me to review my post was all this plagiarism paranoia that has been going on the past few days. I did not even know where the thing that I posted was from, i.e. had absolutely no idea it was plagiarism without a source until I looked it up. Most people don't plagiarize, because they're just decent persons, so I'd highly recommend not giving any free-passes to those who do plagiarize.
It's a soap-opera-like discussion forum, I'm not submitting a dissertation for crying out loud. How do I de-merit this thread to oblivion? |
|
|
|
Could I argue that this spam is scamming my brain and thus properly tag the people behind it?  That would be within the new guidelines. |
|
|
|
How dare they defy me! This will have unspeakable consequences in the form of nepotism and trust abuse. The Queen of Cats guides us. The Queen of Cats teaches us. The Queen of Cats protects us. In your light we thrive. In your mercy we are sheltered. In your wisdom we are humbled. We live only to serve. Our lives are yours.
Remember your prayer servants. |
|
|
|
Does that mean my avatar ends this week, or are you building Foxpup's Merit Cycling Army?
The second one. Halt, servant. Are you trying to threaten the Queen's grasp over these lands? |
|
|
|
I've created so many topics by now, I can't keep bumping all of them.
Your bump spam has truly become a nuisance. I skip most topics here because of it. Finally, it's a thing of the past (?). |
|
|
|
Highest bid is ALL @ 0.05 each?
Am I understanding this correctly?
It is a "set", so I'm assuming it's the current highest bid for the whole thing. Splitting this up would be a mistake. This is in no way "a set"... the coins are made by the same maker... that's it... they are not associated with each other in any other way. Edit the title then, that's the reason for the "set" and confusion. Do I get the box? |
|
|
|
I just want to say that the detection algorithm has spotted the following members as new merit sources:
1) Quickseller
How do I down merit this cancerous move?  |
|
|
|
Highest bid is ALL @ 0.05 each?
Am I understanding this correctly?
It is a "set", so I'm assuming it's the current highest bid for the whole thing. Splitting this up would be a mistake. Meh, apparently the title is false. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
