[Discussion]Plagiarism

[RedImperator]

Since plagiarism has become a de facto automatic permban (PunkMaister), shouldn't an announcement to that effect be posted in...well, announcements? Including perhaps a definition of what is or isn't plagiarism, just so everybody's clear.

[The Yosemite Bear]

I guess that quoting or refrencing ones sources shall be more important. besids it started with Roul Duke and continued with the guy who stole sig pics with out giving credit

[CmdrWilkens]

It might be best to make it an addendum to AR.3, that is re-write AR.3 to say:

3. Serious lies are not acceptable on this forum. If it is found that you have lied about your identity, your background, your accomplishments, or your status in life, you may face disciplinary action. If you are found to be consistently dishonest in forum discussions, that may also lead to disciplinary action. Plagarizing, use of uncredited quotation, use of uncredited links, and distortions by summaraization are considered a paticularly bad form of lieing. Users who engage in such activities are subject to disciplinary action.

Bolded the new portion. I think Plagarism works in best with the "no lies" rule in that it is designed to fake out research as your own. Obviously the language could be played with but adding a specific note about plagarism is probably worthwhile.

[Thanas]

The special rules for the History forum already state quite explicitly that if you plagiarize, you get banned. I think the same should happen to the ARs.

It should be a seperate rule though, since it has become such a big problem. With respect to Wilkens, plagiarism should have its own rule.

[CmdrWilkens]

I have no objection to adding a rule for plagarism alone, just figured I would at least throw out some language to jump start that side of the discussion. Whether Plagarims ends up as part of AR3 or as a new AR16 I don't care but I do concur that it needs to be stated explicitly.

[Thanas]

Here is my suggestion, adapted from the History Forum rules:

If you use the words of another person, make sure you ask the writer for permission and/or cite the original author. Plagiarism is a serious charge that will get you kicked out of most academic institutions. Do not make the mistake of assuming noone will find out about it because „this is the internet“. Academic institutions and board members regularly use search engines to make sure nobody is plagiarizing. You will be perm-banned as well as reported to the authorities if you commit intellectual theft.

Any suggestions? Comments?

[Edi]

Since plagiarism has become a de facto automatic permban (PunkMaister), shouldn't an announcement to that effect be posted in...well, announcements? Including perhaps a definition of what is or isn't plagiarism, just so everybody's clear.

It always has been. Wanderer was banned for plagiarism, wholesale stealing of Shep's work and passing it off as his own elsewhere. So was the moron who tried to falsely claim credit for the xenomorph essays.

PunkMaister also had enough previous shit on his record that all that was needed for banning him was half an excuse. He was essentially, like Trekdestroyer before his ban, a dead man walking. His habit of posting things originally conceived of by others in almost the same words and then mentioning them in passing but in a manner that did not make it clear he was using their work was more than enough reason. He might have merited a discussion thread here if not for his previous exploits.

It's also a rule in the Writers' Guild that plagiarism means instant expulsion from the Guild. As has been said, plagiarism can be considered a serious lie. But sure, it can be added to the policies, I'm all for it.

[Stark]

It is a form of dishonesty, so it'd fit under the general rule for that (perhaps as a separate sub-rule) but given how nobody fucking reads the damn things, making it's own rule would make it easier to see and emphasise the seriousness of it.

[The Yosemite Bear]

Remember always cite your sources, to steal from one is to plaugerize to barrow from many is research, or so the old addage goes. IF you are going to use someone's work make sure you make it clear whose work your using. technically premission is not needed, however theft of bandwidth can result in unplesentness as well. Since I do not believe in truely original content, as even when I would create my own stories, in my own universes, I would awknoledge those whose ideas had influenced that universe's creation. (even when I hate them like say (SM Spirling, John Norman, etc). Hell I have quoted people in order to mock them, and that sure as hell didn't require me to get their permission.

[CmdrWilkens]

Here is my suggestion, adapted from the History Forum rules:

If you use the words of another person, make sure you ask the writer for permission and/or cite the original author. Plagiarism is a serious charge that will get you kicked out of most academic institutions. Do not make the mistake of assuming noone will find out about it because „this is the internet“. Academic institutions and board members regularly use search engines to make sure nobody is plagiarizing. You will be perm-banned as well as reported to the authorities if you commit intellectual theft.

Any suggestions? Comments?

I'd take out the reference to perma-ban and contacting the authorities maybe just stick with disciplinary action will be taken not in the least of which is that some work which may be plagarised would not rise to the level where a criminal or civil complaint would be made (nor would it be our determination to make). Sticking with "disciplinary action" leaves us free to make a judgement call if neccessary.

[Thanas]

Just because the option is there, does not mean it would be used. I just want the strongest wording possible....and yes, if someone commits intellectual theft on some of my essays, you bet I'll get the authorities involved. If they want to use my work, cite me. Otherwise, don't complain if you get a few letters.

Of course, in the end I guess it would be up to the mods and the senate to make the judgement call, yet can you imagine one instance where someone is plagiarizing (and no, I do not mean the "I just forgot to get one source" crowd) and it would not result in a perma-ban?

[CmdrWilkens]

Just because the option is there, does not mean it would be used. I just want the strongest wording possible....and yes, if someone commits intellectual theft on some of my essays, you bet I'll get the authorities involved. If they want to use my work, cite me. Otherwise, don't complain if you get a few letters.

Of course, in the end I guess it would be up to the mods and the senate to make the judgement call, yet can you imagine one instance where someone is plagiarizing (and no, I do not mean the "I just forgot to get one source" crowd) and it would not result in a perma-ban?

I don't think we wouldn't perma-ban (yay for double negatives) but at the same time I'm writing the language to be inclusive of the "just forgot one source" crowd. In other words I don't want folks clamoring for expulsion when it is a minor violation. Out and out plagarism I expect wouldn't even make it to the Senate and the SuperMods/Admins would take care of banning on the spot. That said I think the language should be clear that some discretion exists. Not that it matters all that much, as the rules themselves say they don't create "right" or are otherwise some sort of legal framework which limits or requires certain things. they are guidelines for what the Admin/Mods/Senate will work with to determine appropriate conduct. So saying that either language would work and it doesn't paticularly mattter which I just prefer "disciplinary action" to "perma-ban."

[RedImperator]

Going back through the board history, I can find four cases where a poster was banned either entirely for plagiarism or for plagiarism and other offenses.

Lord Jax: Got a slap on the wrist for the first two offenses, finally banned for the third (in a public ban poll). It's unclear how many "ban" votes were for his attitude and his pig-headedness as opposed to the plagiarism itself.

Jedi Guardian: Banned for plagiarizing Wikipedia (interestingly, Dalton cited PR 3, so plagiarism has been included in the definition of "serious lies" before), and a host of smaller offenses. 24-1 Senate vote.

Wanderer: Clearest case. Banned in a 40-0-1 Senate vote exclusively for plagiarizing one of Shep's essays.

PunkMaister: Banned by the administration for plagiarizing from SpaceBattles and a host of other offenses. According to Edi, he was already a dead man walking.

So it seems to me, based on what we've done previously, that we should just amend PR 3 so plagiarism is explicitly defined as a serious lie.

[CmdrWilkens]

From an administrative side I think editing AR3 to include the note about plagarism would be the most effective since it is already policy (if admittedly an unwritten one). I don't paticularly think there is a need for a formal vote on this matter. Admittedly part of my reluctance is that a) its a pretty minor tweak since we've already established precedent and b) I'm using my work laptop for the first half of this week and couldn't do a mass PM until sometime around Wednesday night.

[Alyeska]

Editing AR3 with a mention of plagiarism sounds like the best choice for reasons already mentioned. It makes further enforcement on plagiarism without recourse.

[Imperial Overlord]

I'm not particularly concerned over whether or not plagiarism gets its own rule or is rolled up in AR3. Although it is implicitly covered by AR3, I agree specific wording covering it should be added in either AR3 or in a separate rule. The wording should include the fact that plagiarism is seen as a serious violation and that it will be severely punished.

[Surlethe]

I don't see a problem with adding fifteen word to AR3 noting explicitly that plagiarism is a serious lie and will be severely dealt with.