|
nullius (OP)
|
 |
November 04, 2020, 10:29:25 AM |
|
Local rules: In an exception to my usual rules, all users except for cryptohunter/CH-alts and Vispilio are allowed to post here (unless I kick someone out for real trolling). I will moderate the thread at my discretion, erring on the side of free discussion. Of course, the accused shall be accorded a fair and reasonable right of reply.In accord with forum rules, substantive discussion must be conducted in English here. I request that if any Russian is stated or quoted on this thread, translations or glosses be provided so that all readers can fully understand what is said.
⚠ Achtung! N.b., “negative trust feedback must be used only for trade risk” DTs: I have been awarded a red tag for speaking an insult worthy of a Russian TMAN!Summary: I told WhiteManWhite that a dog has fucked his mother. Because I am a literary artist, I did so using an “old-fashioned”, archaic form of common slang. I only did so after “instead of arguments”, he had ignored or insulted me over two cogent and substantive replies to him that I had made. Naturally, it also had not-nothing to do with the rude insults that he made to people who have Lauda in their trust lists. His response: Trust summary for nulliusUntrusted feedbackThese ratings are from people who are not in your trust network. They may be totally inaccurate. | WhiteManWhite | 2020-11-04 | Reference | Idiot and a dirty bastard. When instead of arguments, he spews insults from his mouth. |
Eh, пoшёл нa xyй [literally ‘go away onto dick’—idiomatic equivalent of, “fuck off”, but harsher]. Of course, not only is this unrelated to “trade risk”: It is unrelated to honesty and basic trustworthiness— and it is an abuse of the trust system to attack on my freedom of speech. The trust system is used for dirty words now!? Moreover, it is a clearly retaliatory tag made 2020-11-04 for the 2020-11-03 negative trust feedback that I had issued for defamation, trust system abuse, and generally dishonest behaviour (all of which I have used as bases for trust feedback before). On the excessively charitable presumption that democratic DT may not be a popularity contest for cheap hypocrites, I will now not hold my breath waiting for those ~ keys to hit their mark.
Prior history: My reaction the last time that somebody tried to dictate what words can be used on the forum.“Pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo, cinaede ’mdayonliner’”Sadly, this being the Internet, I believe I ought explain the subject line. It translates idiomatically, “I will arsefuck and facefuck you, faggot ‘mdayonliner’”. Paraphrased from Catullus 16... QFT:I would have gone for this: 
Case history table of contents:I used insults “instead of” arguments? No, I used insults after arguments. —All posts are fully quoted, with no modifications except for clearly marked glosses.
In the plagiarism reporting thread, an important resource which should not be cluttered with this nonsense:Bitcoin Forum > Other > Meta > Report plagiarism (copy/paste) here. Mods: please give temp or permban as needed
Plagiarism is bad—the concept mustn’t be diluted by confusion with nonplagiarism- This is not plagiarism at all. As explained below, there is a difference between plagiarism and improper attribution. No reasonable person would have read the posts as purporting in any way that icopress was the author of the images; thus, at worst, this was improper attribution (which I now see is remediated). —This is a subject that I have intended to address for awhile; I will do so below, more briefly than I had intended before.
- The allegation nonsensically throws in a statement about the “copyright holder”. Plagiarism has nothing whatsoever to do with copyright, as I have said repeatedly in many of my posts; e.g.:
“Open source” is only a copyright issue. Whereas the confusion of plagiarism and copyright violation is a pet peeve of mine, one which I believe is deliberately promulgated by the copyright lobby. Even the Cypherpunks Public License embodies this confusion, for which reason I have always disliked it.
For an extreme illustration of the difference in concepts: The complete works of William Shakespeare are in the public domain. You can legally copy them as much as you want, under any existing copyright law in the world. But if you claim Shakespeare’s work as your own, under the byline of your name, then you can and will be expelled from university, have your university degrees retroactively revoked, and/or be fired from any type of intellectual job. —And if you claim to be Shakespeare—not even the psychic reincarnation of Shakespeare, but William Shakespeare in the flesh!—then you should be committed to an asylum for the insane.
Lest anyone mistake that as merely my anticopyright opinion, here is the matching opinion of a well-known pro-copyright website, which properly distingushes between plagiarism and copyright issues:
Contrary to popular belief, the word plagiarism is not synonymous with copyright infringement. Not every incident of plagiarism is copyright infringement, especially when public domain works are involved. On the flip side, not every incident of copyright infringement is plagiarism, such as the alleged infringements of file sharers.
On a related note, not all reuse of copyrighted material is copyright infringement or plagiarism. Some uses are perfectly legal and ethical, thus getting them dubbed “fair use”.
However, on the Web, these terms are getting thrown around with reckless abandon. People, who often aren’t aware of the subtle nuances that separate the terms, use them in incorrect ways and cause confusion, often turning a legitimate complaint into a questionable matter.
[...you should read this...]
Thus, plagiarism is a very specific act and the term only means one thing. It is also, generally, considered to be a much more morally heinous act as it involves deception (lying to others about the origins of the work) and generally has a much greater impact on the copyright holder. - All three so-called “plagiarism” posts are image posts in the Wall Observer, with images that lacked attribution. If posting images without clear attribution to the Wall Observer were a bannable offence, then we must grant SwayStar123’s request to delete the Wall Observer thread (unedited OP), and ban the majority of users who have ever posted to WO.
- This false accusation of plagiarism is evidently intended for retaliation. It is a reprehensible abuse of the plagiarism report thread, which is an important resource for protecting the integrity of the forum community.
Yeah, obviously A-Bolt and WhiteManWhite are just victims .... I emphasized directly linked accounts
Plagiarism without author link and claim copyright holder33. Posting plagiarized content is not allowed.
User: icopress
The following is copied from the draft of a post that I had intended for the RegulusHR case, but never completed. I also intended to post this in the “hacker1001101001” case. (For the record, I think that RegulusHR was a shitposter, but not a plagiarist; “hacker” is a clear-cut plagiarist; and icopress is obviously neither.)On the Substance of PlagiarismTo avoid ad hominem counterarguments by people who dislike me personally, I think that I should borrow somebody else’s definition; and I will borrow it with proper attribution from “Defining and Avoiding Plagiarism: The WPA Statement on Best Practices”, Council of Writing Program Administrators (2003), pp. 1f., with my highlights added on wording that I deem relevant to the RegulusHR case: https://web.archive.org/web/20040102042235/http://www.wpacouncil.org/positions/WPAplagiarism.pdfWhat Is Plagiarism?
In instructional settings, plagiarism is a multifaceted and ethically complex problem. However, if any definition of plagiarism is to be helpful to administrators, faculty, and students, it needs to be as simple and direct as possible within the context for which it is intended.
Definition: In an instructional setting, plagiarism occurs when a writer deliberately uses someone else’s language, ideas, or other original (not common-knowledge) material without acknowledging its source.
This definition applies to texts published in print or on-line, to manuscripts, and to the work of other student writers.
Many current discussions of plagiarism fail to distinguish between:
1. submitting someone else’s text as one’s own or attempting to blur the line between one’s own ideas or words and those borrowed from another source, and
2. carelessly or inadequately citing ideas and words borrowed from another source.
Such discussions conflate plagiarism with the misuse of sources.
Ethical writers make every effort to acknowledge sources fully and appropriately in accordance with the contexts and genrres of their writing. A student who attempts (even if clumsily) to identify and credit his or her source, but who misuses a specific citation format or incorrectly uses quotation marks or other forms of identifying material taken from other sources, has not plagiarized. Instead, such a student should be considered to have failed to cite and document sources appropriately.
What are the Causes of Plagiarism and the Failure to Use and Document Sources Appropriately?
Students who are fully aware that their actions constitute plagiarism—for example, copying published information into a paper without source attribution for the purpose of claiming the information as their own, or turning in material written by another student—are guilty of academic misconduct. [...]
Students are not guilty of plagiarism when they try in good faith to acknowledge others’ work but fail to do so accurately or fully. These failures are largely the result of failures in prior teaching and learning: students lack the knowledge of and ability to use the conventions of authorial attribution.
I have hereby expended far more effort than necessary to address WhiteManWhite’s accusation, for, as aforesaid, I have been intending for awhile to clear up some common confusions on this forum: Plagiarism versus copyright violation, and plagiarism versus improper attribution. Neither is strictly relevant here; but WMW’s tortuously constructed accusation somehow tangentially invoked both, so I will take it as a felicitous opportunity to educate others. If necessary, I could draw on many other sources to support what I hereby say. The forum really needs to get its concepts straight. Plagiarism is bad—and the concept must not be diluted by confusion with things that are not plagiarism.
Trust summary for nulliusSent feedback| WhiteManWhite | 2020-11-03 | Reference | Made a false and blatantly nonsensical accusation of plagiarism to defame another user, with a demand that the user be banned, and issued false negative trust feedback on the same basis—all as a transparent retaliation for that user accusing him of multi-account trust system abuse (!). This is dishonest and hypocritical on so many levels, the audacity is astounding. Do not trust. |
⇧ Return to the Table of Contents
Guys, you are probably not paying attention to what I wrote earlier about the correspondence with the photos owner. - Please tell me, can I use them for republication on other resources? I will need to use the link to your resource as the original source and author?- yes, please link to the original source www.dietmareckell.com and claim copyright holder: © Dietmar EckellThis was not done! What else do I need to explain? You are probably not paying attention to anything that I said, or that LoyceV said—or to common sense. In summary: - Alleged copyright issues are altogether off-topic in this thread.
- Failure to use and cite sources appropriately is tangential to the topic of this thread. The issues are distinguished in the CWPA Statement of Best Practices that I quoted above; the CWPA is an American academic association, so I think that their standards should suffice for the forum. I myself think that icopress should provide better attribution, if and where feasible. I hereby advise him accordingly, without demanding that he be banned for making a WO pic-post that is no worse for attribution than numerous other such posts. (icopress, if the photographer is known and has a website, or if this information comes to be known, then please take a few moments to verify it, and add a name and link as a matter of custom and courtesy.)
- The Wall Observer, where icopress posted, has numerous images posted to it without attribution, or with inadequate attribution, by people who obviously don’t claim to have produced them. If you want to make sure that these images are all properly attributed, including every cat photo and animated GIF (inasmuch as sources can even be found—as oft they can be, with considerable effort*), please feel free to make a new Meta thread about this. (And if you ever want to harass me over my intentional habit of posting more or less famous public-domain artworks, without too-overt identification for the benefit of lazy rubes, then I will tell you to пoшёл нa xyй.)
- Your motive for bringing a false plagiarism accusation is transparent: 29 hours after icopress credibly accused you of being involved in multi-account abuse of the Default Trust system, you came here and declared:
Formatting is in the original:
For this serious violation, this user should be banned
A valid accusation should be evaluated on its merits, regardless of motivation. But given that your accusation is invalid and meritless on its face, it is obvious that you targeted icopress for revenge, carelessly cast about for something to throw at him, and then abused this thread for your grudge. You are lying when you say this:
I am sure that I do not look at any past merits, it is the user who should suffer the punishment they deserve. The rules are the same for everyone.
That is bad. I suggest that you should stop it.
* I once identified the original source for a photo that I like, after five hours of persistent searching—and sifting through the numerous blogs and photo sharing sites where it had been re-re-re-posted for years without attribution. Reverse image search engines brought the mountain of re-re-re-posts up to the top, and dropped the original source into an abyss of obscurity. Sometimes, I have given up. :-(
In icopress’ thread:Whoops. My apologies for continuing the off-topic discussion on the plagiarism report thread, an important resource which should not be cluttered with this. My initial reply thereby is too long to quote here reasonably. It is relevant. Now, since WhiteManWhite is copying his nonsense between threads... [...quoted in full above...]
Redirected from the other thread, where it is off-topic:~
I think the moderator will judge who is right and who is not. - Unlike you, the forum’s staff are not blithering idiots. They know the difference between plagiarism and alleged copyright issues, which you persist in conflating. They also know how the forum rules apply to images.
- Newbie protip: Your quote failed proper attribution guidelines. FTFY:
~
I think the moderator will judge who is right and who is not.
⇧ Return to the Table of Contents
With glosses hereby inserted in [bracketed red text]:Whoops
You don't follow the of information stream, = I am busy, and a common злoдéй [‘miscreant’] such as you is not worth following. Пёc ёб твoю́ мaть. [‘A dog has fucked your mother.’ Archaic form of a common expression that only means, “fuck your mother”.]
Just call me old-fashioned.
⇧ Return to the Table of Contents
Trust summary for nulliusUntrusted feedbackThese ratings are from people who are not in your trust network. They may be totally inaccurate. | WhiteManWhite | 2020-11-04 | Reference | Idiot and a dirty bastard. When instead of arguments, he spews insults from his mouth. |
⇧ Return to the Table of Contents
|
