Rusting Car Bumper

Indeed. Good points as well. And I agree. I am open to being convinced and I hope to see "morally relevant facts that I'd first overlooked."

So far I haven't seen much discussion on these points and some that allege to discuss them, warp morality into something its not and at worst they warp it into nonsense.
Another question is what is the best outcome? How can one help the best outcome be achieved?

The fact is that, aside from this board, Blue_Metal was caught and was going to be disciplined. The damage was already done. Passing on these messages was not going to undo anything. In light of that what actions might achieve the best outcome? What would count as the best outcome or an outcome better than some other outcome?

DC

ImGod

No, it wasn’t a justification, I used the word borrow to convey the concept that I didn't keep it, sell it for gain, or destroy it.

I also realize it was a wrong thing to do and would have had to take my lumps if I would have been caught. Most people justify their illegal, immoral, or unethical behavior as somehow acceptable for the situation when we are doing it, otherwise we wouldn't engage in the activity. I would never consider doing such a thing now, yet at the time it seemed appropriate. So the consequence of my experience was to help me grow by making me think about how past actions may have negatively impacted my life even without the actual repercussions occurring.

My point was this, had I made the first statement and not added the clarification someone here may have taken it upon himself or herself to report me for engaging in current illegal activities. However, their actions would have little practical purpose in righting the perceived wrong and would do nothing more than out me as a member here to people in my real life. I've told the story enough that I doubt it would cause me much embarrassment. So the results of their actions would be nothing close to what they intended.

Hence, my opinion that caution should be applied to cases where you are presented with one side of the story or glimpses of the total picture. The thought that someone would look at a single story in my life that I present here, develop a definition of my overall moral character, and take it upon himself to correct my flaw in real life is both funny and scary. For Blue_Metal this was done with two wrongs; lying (to us) and cheating (on the paper). I’m certain none of us here have fibbed so we all hold the moral high ground on her in that respects. None of us have ever cheated before either. I admit to both. I also admit to learning from those experiences. No justification, no excuses, it was wrong. Eventually, she may come to the same conclusions. However, I doubt if she learns that from her experiences here. More likely she and lurkers have learned the valuable lesson of guarding yourself and your information, shielding your intentions and posing “hypothetical” moral questions like the rest of us. It works in real or cyber life. A side lesson is that you don’t have to be a member of a religious group to be overly judgmental of others on issues where you have a personal passion or experience. It’s a part of human nature. I do it too. It’s more than likely the reason for this discussion.

My confession was meant to present an additional case for the discussion. Most all of us have done or are doing something that could be considered wrong by societal or individual standards. Jumping up and down on the one specific case mentioned in the OP is becoming counter productive to the issue at hand so I thought I would try to broaden it.

Do the members of this board feel it necessary to take it upon themselves to be the moral police for people they have not met in real life, or know little about? Is there a group morality that is developing or are we left on our own to determine what is right or wrong and take what we deem is appropriate action?

I do not see the majority of the possible issues we discuss here as black or white type of right or wrong. I see a large gray area in both legal and ethical situations where people could try to apply their own subjective morality to the real lives of others. I’m afraid that in an environment where people believe this a possibility the discussions will end up rather stale and/or one sided.

We may agree on "wrong" in these specific cases, but I'm certain we won't always agree on every issue. Therein, lies the dilemma.

Kachana

I don't see how the thread being on a public board, and the possibility that the Dean may, just possibly, stumble across it as he surfs the web, is very relevant, much less a justification.

If you have a conversation about a personally ethically sensitive topic with someone whilst walking down the street, it is possible that the Dean will be walking behind you listening to your conversation, which is in a public place. Does this mean that it's now fine to pass on the information, since the Dean could have heard as he walked along?

The point is that in both instances the person divulging the sensitive information/ asking for advice reasonably expects it not to be thrown back in his/her face, there is an implicit trust in conversations with friends and on support forums, a support forum with no trust is pretty much a contradiction in terms. I don't see how the fact that the relevant authorities could have found out meaningfully impinges one way or the other on the action.

livius drusus

Not to indulge in excessive mutual respect or anything, but your point is very well taken, Clutch. Blue_Metal does not in fact have a reasonable expectation that her comments will not be read by people who would be able to identify her from the information she volunteered. I also thoroughly agree with your err on the side of privacy default position.

Having said that, is there no ethical onus on Sakpo to at least make an effort to separate the plagiarizer from the infidel, regardless of whether Blue_Metal had the right to expect such consideration? I believe it should at least have been a factor in his decision, particularly considering the unique nature of SL&S where many a closet atheist has sought shelter. Even though Blue_Metal had no reason to expect that the dean wasn't lurking on those threads all along, does that therefore mean Sakpo does not bear sole responsibility for having in fact exposed Blue_Metal's irreligion to the dean of a xian college?

In this situation as it actually went down, Sakpo is the one who connected the plagiarist to the infidel. It would have been tedious work to copy the threads removing references to II and her handle, but we live in an age of find and replace, and I believe this would have been the ethically sound thing to do for him to do, resolving his moral impetus to disclose the breach of academic honesty and his responsibility as a moderator and former administrator to conceal the identity of potentially closeted infidels.

Gurdur

Many thanks, livius drusus; my poor little brain is on holiday right at the moment, so I didn't understand till now how come the question of Sakpo's moderator position ever came into all of this as part of the ethical conundrum over all, and it was quite a puzzle to me, until your post made it very clear.
I'll consider this all a bit more before delivering an opinion.
A bloody complex matter, no ?

Gurdur

Using this for shitting on Sakpo would in fact be wrong.

livius drusus connected the dotted lines for me when she pointed out how Sakpo's actions also are a group of ethical questions; but agreeing with you wholeheartedly, Bree, that none of this should simply be treated simplistically or for nefarious purposes.

JennaD

Do you feel that I am one of those people? If so I am sorry that you have that impression. My intention is only to make it clear to Sakpo and more importantly anybody else who might consider such action that I personally do not think it is appropriate.

Sakpo is free to make any decision he wishes and I am free to say I don't like it. I shat on no one.

Gurdur

Okeydokey, here's my summation of the matter with as many points as I can think of.
If anyone thinks it odd that I should first want to detail everything in excrutiatingly precise prose, well, FYI I am but a Bear Of Very Little Brain.

1. Blue Metal plagiarized without reasonable excuse or mitigation.
   
2. Blue Metal showed no remorse, only self-pity, self-satisfaction and evasion.
   
3. Plagiarism in academia is very wrong and destructive by academia's standards, and it is made very clear to all those entering academia.
   
4. Plagiarization is a real problem, not a peccadillo.
   
5. Therefore Blue Metal deserves no sympathy.
   
   So much for Blue Metal.
   
6. Snitching is a problematic area for many.
   
7. I myself have a massive prejudice against informers, yet I would in certain circumstances certainly inform.
   For me, it's a case of weighing the gravity of the situation and act against my distaste of informing -- and it seems to be that way for many others as well.
   
   So much for informing.
   
8. SecWeb is a public area; putting a disclaimer at the top that anything you say might be used against you in evidence is, frankly, stating the bloody obvious and is superfluous.
   
   So much for the issue of a disclaimer.
   
9. However, then there is the question of the feelings of many here regarding SecWeb as their home, and their wants to be able to say anything here, without fear that they will get reported.
   
   This cannot be used as a hard principle, because there are certain crimes which deserve reporting no matter what (or you might as well name SecWeb The Home Of Complete Nihilist Amorality) ---- but it does deserve consideration, since otherwise the ideal of SecWeb as a community would be destroyed, so therefore it's a matter of judging the proportionality of the act and the "natural justice" of informing on that act.
   
   So much for the issue of informing using information garnered from pages of SecWeb.
   
10. Quote:

    Originally posted by livius drusus: Sakpo is the one who connected the plagiarist to the infidel.

    The question of SecWeb's image to the public is also an important point, and fully deserves consideration.
    
    So much for the issue of a SecWeb's public image, but this issue has not yet been adequately explored.
    
11. Then there is the question of public reactions here.
    It is fully appropriate to have public discussion of the rightness or wrongness of what was a public display of wrongdoing, and a public display of informing.
    Trying to tell others that it's none of their business now simply won't work.
    
    So much for the issue of a public discussion of this controversy.
    
12. Jenna D., as she has said, has shat on no-one; she has merely posted her concerns.
    
13. I'm a bit amazed at Sakpo's defensiveness and hostility here; he must realise that his action was public, therefore it's appropriate to have public discussion.
    It also does not gel with other things Sakpo has said at other times; and self-pity sits badly with anyone, whether Blue Metal, Sakpo, or others expressing fear of disclosure.
    Sakpo does have some kind of obligation to at least answer discussion in whatever way he sees fit without denying the right to that public discussion.
    
14. Others wishing to say attack Sakpo for his action must first make a comprehensive case, and must also, when justifying their own actions, realise that others have different morals, and those must be taken into account, as well as all the consequences of all actions.
    
15. And lastly, there's no such thing as principles in a vacuum, so we can dispense with absolutist nonsense.

Bree

JennaD -

I am in no way, shape, or form inferring that you (or anyone else) is specifically picking on Sakpo or his actions. If you feel I am singling you out, I'm sorry - that was not my intention and even after re-reading what I wrote, I don't see a connection between your posts and mine.

The same goes for me, liv - thanks for helping me play connect the dots. This discussion is extremely interesting. I was just trying to insist that we not start a witch-hunt for narcs, nor condemn the people we think are narcs.

Sakpo

Excellent post. I don't agree with it about everything, but that just improves it's credibility.

I did express myself earlier in this thread in such a way as to make it seem to most reasonable readers that I was getting overly defensive and self pitying.
For the record I was not feeling self pity (though like I said, in retrospect my posts sure read like I was expressing self pity) and yes, in this thread that I chose to become involved in I have thus far failed to properly address legitimate concerns raised by others.

I will probably be addressing this thread again, not because I feel I inherently owed it a response, but because I did reply to it and I guess I ought to make my position clear. As I am outnumbered by those critical of my actions I will attempt to respond in one larger post generally addressing the concerns raised, and may or may not follow that post up afterward in response to responses. This post will probably not be made until at least tommorow night, pacific time (and I make no promise I will make it, if I decide not to I'll post that though). Naturally any attempt to sum up an issue to be dealt with may result in the loss of the nuances of someone's argument. I won't intentionally be creating strawmen though.

Checklist of significant issues I ought to address:

-My motivation in sending the links

-The usefulness in sending the links in regard to my motive

-Alternative methods of reporting the threads to minimize undesirable results

-The reason I came out and said I was the person who did it

-The personal results, and potential results, of my action for b_m

-The privacy or lack of privacy on online forums in general and in the SL&S forum specifically (not speaking in any official capacity, in fact nowhere in this thread have I been speaking for the iidb or internet infidels, and I'm not going to start, I have no such desire or authority)

-b_m's specific claim to privacy in the forum

-The potential "chilling effect" of my actions (other users worrying about their posts being used against them)

I am sure this list is not exhaustive. If you can think of anything else that would not fit into one of the above categories, or that would but which you suspect I won't think of, let me know.