Plagiarism should remain a zero-tolerance bannable offense

[bitmover]

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.

[1715030535]

1715030535

[suchmoon]

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?

From my experience - if the edit timestamp is later than the other post, the report will be marked as "bad" regardless of what actually was edited. Even if it's not, that would be a very easy appeal.

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.

[Theb]

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 .

[Quickseller]

I don’t think anyone is getting banned for accidental plagiarism such as forgetting to cite a source. Nor is anyone getting banned for responding to a quote that lacks any kind of source.

Bans are not being given because of broken BB code. They are being given out because someone clearly tried to pass off someone else’s words as their own. Often the copied words would appear to be nonsense if it were to be assumed to not be plagiarized. Almost always there is a financial motivation.

I am in favor of allowing someone to stay if the plagiarism was from a long time ago and they have subsequently shown themselves to otherwise be productive forum members. However there should be severe punishment.

[Lauda]

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?

[Quickseller]

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.

[Lauda]

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.

[suchmoon]

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 but probably not, if I can see any indication that you're not intentionally passing the text as your own words. I'm assuming you weren't just copy-pasting a paragraph of text and hitting "Post". Anything in quotes, quote tags, indented, bolded, following a colon, etc should be given the benefit of the doubt, even if the source is not explicitly stated. Then there is context and common sense. If you paste a Shakespeare piece it's not going to be plagiarism regardless of formatting or references. If you paste a paragraph from Coindesk though... better not do that.

[Lauda]

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.

[Quickseller]

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.

Me thinks lauda has plagiarized in the past.

If this is true, if the administration is not running the plagiarism bot themselves, the question becomes if the person running the bot is trustworthy enough to report lauda. It would probably be a good idea to have the bot go back and check the 3000+ posts lauda deleted on his alt account and any other alt accounts he has.

[AdolfinWolf]

Me thinks lauda has plagiarized in the past.

If this is true, if the administration is not running the plagiarism bot themselves, the question becomes if the person running the bot is trustworthy enough to report lauda. It would probably be a good idea to have the bot go back and check the 3000+ posts lauda deleted on his alt account and any other alt accounts he has.

*insert another off-topic conspiracy theory*

[Lauda]

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.

[Quickseller]

Me thinks lauda has plagiarized in the past.

If this is true, if the administration is not running the plagiarism bot themselves, the question becomes if the person running the bot is trustworthy enough to report lauda. It would probably be a good idea to have the bot go back and check the 3000+ posts lauda deleted on his alt account and any other alt accounts he has.

*insert another off-topic conspiracy theory*

It is not a conspiracy theory nor is it off topic. The way lauda is acting is consistent with him trying to setup an excuse for plagiarizing.

This sticks out like a sore thumb in part because he has advocated for tagging people for doing nearly every other action.

I think laudas punishment for plagiarism, if he is found to have plagiarized to be the same as everyone else, and his deleted posts and alts should also be checked.

[Lauda]

I don't care, stop crying. I'll tag you and everyone related to you over and over again.

[suchmoon]

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.

[Lauda]

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).

[suchmoon]

It did have the quote I think.

In that case no sane person would report it and certainly no mod would ban for it.

[shillfudder+temp]

If it was meant to be a quote then you would have sourced it and quoted it.

You did nothing to attribute that copy paste job to its original source.   It's not that you forgot. 

Copying and pasting is pretty cut and dry whereas scamming isn't always or will require a lot of time and effort from staff to investigate, hence why it's largely left up to the community police.

Cut and dry ban

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.

[Lauda]

You want me to tag you now, or now?

It did have the quote I think.

I that case no sane person would report it and certainly no mod would ban for it.

Fair deal. Thanks for answering.

[philipma1957]

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.

well some what true but not exactly.

When you have 30,000 posts like lauda or me  the signature gets 30,000 billboard spots.

I have multiple locked and pinned threads.  So if I were to sell my signature and not post for a week I am pretty sure people would see a lot of that signature.

For years I left simple mining in my signature at zero charge to him.

I am pretty sure my signature was viewed 1,000,000 plus times for him and for my quote that alt coins are good for cryptocurrency.

 I did it for zero fees. I don't know how many people used his service due to my signature. Pretty sure he does not know either. But the point is lauda has a

lot of posts. As do I.  I have 9 alt coin threads alone with edit  over 500,000 1,000,000 views  when added together

9 has 759 views
8 has  69,000 +
7 has  33,000 +
6 has  79,000 +
5 has  46,000 +
4 has 108,000 +
3 has  41,000 +
2 has  147,000 +
1 has    50,000 +

total over 573,000 views.