Doctor X

Interesting way of writing polls here. . . .

Anyways NOT to step on the tootsies of Moderators--PBUT--but there has been a "problem" of posters posting long-tracts of material from other sites. Indeed, I have seen one where the site specifically stated that people should not do that.

Again, not that the Moderators--PBUT--need my [Syncophantic--Ed.] help, but what should be done?

I am willing to cut slack--a person, sincerely upset . . . did not really read the rules . . . gets a bit over zealous.

However, when Moderators--May the Heavens Rain Radiant Jewels and Sweatmeats Upon Them [Plagarized from Blackadder--Ed.]--have to delete and warn a number of times and the poster continues posting in the same fashion, and when other posters raise the point, should not something be done?

I consider "once to thrice" a general "one to three warnings." Feel free to add other suggestions . . . including the "Leach Pit."

--J.D.

[Edited to add "?" to the questions.--Ed.]

Gawdawful

Plagiarism is potentially legally actionable by the copyright owner and certainly is unethical, one warning should be all you get, plagiarize twice and you're out. Plagiarism risks the whole board. Why give repeated warnings for this grevious an offense?

Warren in Oklahoma

Doctor X

Good point.

One of the reasons boards have to regulate material is that the board can suffer action for it. Now, perhaps the board can eventually win an action, but it will cost money.

Another thing that bothered me was that I thought it obvious that posters would cite their sources. Apparently not.

--J.D.

pescifish

Something is being done. Please remember that the moderator and administrator staff are volunteers and are most likely asleep during the middle of night hours in the U.S..

Comments or questions on the administration or operation of the IIDB should be posted in either BP&C or IIDB Conference Room.

I'm moving this thread from ~E~ to ICR, though I believe the question is moot. Violation of copyright law is a direct violation of the Forum Rules & Policies and repeated violations of IIDB rules have established consequences

Doctor X

Interesting . . . I had thought of this place, but I had thought it more for other topics.

pescifish, I am not at all implying that the Mods are "slow." I recognized a continued behavior despite rather quick behavior from more than one moderator. I had hoped that the realization that plagarism is not simply frowned upon by "the Powers that Be" but by everyone it might "sink in."

Of course, I am always an optimist.

Best,

--J.D.

HelenM

Doctor X, have you reported a post of the type where a long copyright article has been cut-and-pasted, and the moderators here have not done anything about it? In my experience, whenever that's happened, the moderators have deleted the article and replaced it with a link instead.

I've not seen anyone repeatedly post long articles here despite having them removed and replaced with links. As pescifish says, anyone who continues to do something against the rules here after the moderators/admins have asked them not to is banned from further posting.

Anyway, I thought plagiarism was more than cut-and-pasting copyright material. I thought it was claiming that an article is one's own, which in fact someone else wrote it.

There was a discussion about this on IIDB at the end of last year (or the year before?) when a student posted that she had accidentally put her own name on someone else's essay and handed it in. It was clear in that discusion thread that plagiarism is frowned upon by the people who post here. As I recall, not one person said it was ok that she did it and opinions were divided on whether she was telling the truth, when she said she didn't realize she'd handed in someone else's work.

I don't consider cut-and-pasting a copyright article to be plagiarism unless the poster claims they wrote it and they didn't. But it is copyright violation and it is against the rules here and in my experience such articles are removed by moderators and replaced by links when they see them.

Helen

Doctor X

Helen:

"May your best intentions be justly punished," as a friend of mine observed.

No . . . the Mods did act . . . I had hoped--and I posted this originally in the forum where, like, five threads were started with this "problem"--the poster in question might take the hint.

I have to stop trying to be clever.

Briefly, if you checketh ~~Elsewhere~~, you will see a few threads where a poster has not simply "cut and pasted" material, he has posted a long section without any attribution. He has done this more than once, and, in one case, from a site that specifically forbade the practice.

What you suggest--and most people here seem to do--is fine: post a relevant quote, provide a link or reference. Indeed, it strengthens the argument to show that Sir. Muriel Volestrangler, F.R.S. agrees with your opinion on the effects of plate tectonics on Britany Spears' implants.

In all seriousness, I would like not to see the poster get "canned." He is religious . . . yessssss . . . he is "spamming" a bit of his dogma--taken from others-- . . . yessss . . . but if he gets canned he will think it is because all of the Nasty Atheists could not hack his truth . . . er . . . someone else's truth. He can go back to whence he came and brag about how the Nasty Atheistic Infidels banned him.

I am probably wasting my time, of course. He probably will not stop, and if he did, he probably will not try to learn anything or contribute more than just spouting dogma.

To quote Yojimbo: "Can't help fools."

--J.D.

notMichaelJackson

Edit: Others have already wrote what I posted here.

HelenM

I've noticed that people who get banned often misattribute the cause of their banning. If he (?) does that he will be exhibiting typical behavior for a banned poster, joining the many others who refuse to see/admit that they were banned simply for refusing to comply with clearly stated rules of the discussion board.

In my opinion, catering to such people is a waste of time. I think the IIDB is better served by being civil to Christians who do keep the board rules than by stretching the rules for Christians who are refusing to keep them anyway.

Also, bragging about being banned from a board or trying to use it as proof of how mean, unfair or unreasonable the moderators/admins of that board are, is behavior I've seen from professed Christians and professed atheists. I don't generally expect banned people to present the most accurate picture of a discussion board. I'd suggest taking anything banned people say about the board that banned them with a grain of salt.

Helen

Doctor X

Helen:

Of course you are correct. I have moments of weakness where I feel sympathy.

I keep forgetting that the glass is half-dirty. . . .

Now confess . . . who voted for "1?"

--J.D.