[Discussion] Wanderer: Plagarist.

Post by **Surlethe** » 2008-07-29 08:09pm

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:Well, since wanderer hasn't replied, should we put this thing to a vote?

I have no objections. He's been in, apparently, but hasn't even read his PMs: it's still in my sentbox.

Post by **LadyTevar** » 2008-07-29 08:22pm

Surlethe wrote:
The Duchess of Zeon wrote:Well, since wanderer hasn't replied, should we put this thing to a vote?
I have no objections. He's been in, apparently, but hasn't even read his PMs: it's still in my sentbox.

I say give him more time to at least read the PM.

Eleas · Post by **Eleas** » 2008-07-29 08:34pm

Surlethe wrote:
The Duchess of Zeon wrote:Well, since wanderer hasn't replied, should we put this thing to a vote?
I have no objections. He's been in, apparently, but hasn't even read his PMs: it's still in my sentbox.

Was about to give it more time, but unsurprisingly, it's the same at my end.

CmdrWilkens · Post by **CmdrWilkens** » 2008-07-29 08:38pm

For those who are pushing for a vote can I recommend that someone actually make a motion?

For my own part I will put a motion on the floor tomorrow if he hasn't answered the PMs. In the interim there is a motion and a second we can procceed to a vote without delay.

Post by **Simplicius** » 2008-07-29 11:11pm

All right, then: I hereby move that we bring this issue to a vote, the member in question having declined to offer a word in his defense during the 36 hours since charges were leveled against him on this forum.

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2008-07-29 11:56pm

I've seen enough. Seconded.

Spyder · Post by **Spyder** » 2008-07-30 03:04am

Wait, remind me what we've got tying these guys together? Possibly same state, sig used on this board (but not the same person) and the name (which in itself is fairly generic)?

Doesn't anyone else find this a bit circumstantial? I don't think we should go to a ban poll unless we get matching IPs.

Eleas · Post by **Eleas** » 2008-07-30 10:38am

Spyder wrote:Wait, remind me what we've got tying these guys together? Possibly same state, sig used on this board (but not the same person) and the name (which in itself is fairly generic)?

Doesn't anyone else find this a bit circumstantial? I don't think we should go to a ban poll unless we get matching IPs.

Well, that, and the profession, and the fact that Wanderer seems to refuse to answer any PMs on the matter.

Post by **Coyote** » 2008-07-30 11:02am

It's pretty damning evidence, if you ask me. If this is the same guy-- and there's a whole hell of a lot of coincidence at work here-- then I'd say it's bantime. And we should let Veridium Dreams know we've dealt with it and they can do whatever their punishment is, too.

What's Wanderer's general record been like here, overall?

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2008-07-30 02:19pm

The problem is that if the other board refuses to cooperate, the guy walks. We have only circumstantial evidence, but it's enough to put it to trial, so to speak, and let the Senators as a whole decide if it's sufficient to ban him, or so I'd argue.

We know:

1. Both live in Michigan.
2. Both own farms.
3. Both farms have ranching components, with animals that need protection from Coyotes.
4. Use the exact same name.
5. Sig and post were filched from SD.net for the plagiarism.
6. Both have an interest in Harry Potter.

For me, that's bloody well enough.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2008-07-30 03:02pm

And the owner of the other board has called Wanderer out.

Post by **Surlethe** » 2008-07-30 06:38pm

A peon has been kind enough to comment on the lack of read PMs (by the way, as of this posting, he still hasn't even opened the one I sent him):

I've been following the Wanderer situation and I'd like to comment on the PM situation; there's many a time (okay, I'm lying, I get very few PMs) that when I get a PM, I can browse the board for even several days before even noticing that I've gotten one - the default board layout doesn't exactly shout it at you, and when I'm going about my usual routine I hardly even look at anything but the forums at all.

I'm leaning towards his guilt in this matter, but I would recommend that stemming from my own experience that it's entirely possibly to miss PMs that he be cut some slack on the PMs, at least.

Of course, it's entirely possible that he's just trying to avoid the issue, so this may be completely worthless advice.

I'm not sure I agree with him - after all, it's not just PMs but also a HoS thread and a Senate thread - but I felt that it was worth posting his opinion here, as it echoes LadyTevar's.

EDIT: Another peon's opinion:

Enigma wrote:In my amateurish opinion on this matter, Wanderer is avoiding the controversy over this. His last post here was last Friday, so he's aware of what is going on. Also he knows that it has reached Viridian Dreams forum because the last time he logged in was last Saturday. He knows full well what is going on and it is pretty damning that if he is innocent, that he has yet to defend himself. If he is innocent, then he's doing a bad job of it.

Post by **Simplicius** » 2008-07-30 06:51pm

In response, I'd like to point out that when I get PMs, there is a pop-up window that appears when the main forum page loads telling me I have a PM and linking me directly to my inbox. This window appears upon every main-page refresh until the PM has been read.

It is still possible to miss PMs by blocking pop-ups from SDN, lurking exclusively, or (presumably) not checking email, if the email notifications still exist. However, the increased level of absence necessary to achieve this makes it even less likely for us to get a response in a timely fashion, and I don't see why justice should only be served at the convenience of the accused.

I've also PMed our Whip about the motion and second, since convention seems to dictate that significant vote threads be started by him or by a Governor.

Post by **Edi** » 2008-08-03 07:04am

Viridian has been approved, so he can now take a look at the HoS thread at his leisure.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2008-08-03 11:41am

Damn who has my name on that board!

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2008-08-03 02:47pm

Regarding the vote: have we yet reached the requisite 60% majority so that sentence can be executed?

Post by **Edi** » 2008-08-03 06:05pm

38 out of 47 (45 or so active) in favor of ban at this point, with 0 support for the other options, it doesn't get much more solid than that.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2008-08-03 06:27pm

Edi wrote:38 out of 47 (45 or so active) in favor of ban at this point, with 0 support for the other options, it doesn't get much more solid than that.

May as well let the vote run until the poll expires. I'm curious to see if we might have our first unanimous ban poll on our hands.

CmdrWilkens · Post by **CmdrWilkens** » 2008-08-04 12:25am

There are currently 51 active voters so 50% for quorum would be 26 which we have more than, of the votes the current total is 38-0-0 with 13 potential votes outstanding. The poll closes in 2.5 more days.