Topic: Report plagiarism (copy/paste) here. Mods: please give temp or permban as needed - page 85. (Read 118776 times)
May 23, 2020, 01:50:02 PM
May 23, 2020, 08:20:57 AM
drama ended
lauda will not be banned
lauda will not be banned
May 23, 2020, 08:09:36 AM
Plagiarism Alts Wars : The nth Episode.
I was about to post a pic 'bout dis but it may break ma own rules of BTCTalk neutrality.
It seems that will be a popcorn shortage soon.
I was about to post a pic 'bout dis but it may break ma own rules of BTCTalk neutrality.
It seems that will be a popcorn shortage soon.
May 23, 2020, 07:47:02 AM
A obvious Lauda alt, makes a valiant first post defending Lauda
stfu, Lauda
May 23, 2020, 06:41:01 AM
A).
B).
B).
There's another possibility.
C) He might just be a stupid "baboon". Monkeys are good thieves. Cruel baboons act collectively against others. This is an insult that.
Correct answer is C.
Source: "baboon" I should mention the source of this word. Lauda often uses for others.
May 23, 2020, 06:20:33 AM
Some people tend to plagiarize because of some reasons, for example with this forum some people are going plagiarism because..
1. Having a lack of knowledge
2. They want to create quality posts by the words of others without knowing that they could be caught in doing it.
3. They want an easy output.
4. They are not aware that they are plagiarizing (some people here are just copying the whole text and then just putting the link, this is still part of plagiarism in order to avoid this, you should do paraphrasing).
Here are some tips to avoid plagiarism created by tbct_mt2: [TIPS] to avoid plagiarism.
If someone accused you of being plagiarized and if you know that you haven't do some mistakes, try to defend yourself. Some accusations are not true, you are the only one who knows if you plagiarize something.
Wake up man, do you think this situation is the right time to give the guide? Most people here discussing about @Lauda caught up plagiarized on his old post. Please don't off topic, do you think @Lauda post is low quality from 2017-2020? 1. Having a lack of knowledge
2. They want to create quality posts by the words of others without knowing that they could be caught in doing it.
3. They want an easy output.
4. They are not aware that they are plagiarizing (some people here are just copying the whole text and then just putting the link, this is still part of plagiarism in order to avoid this, you should do paraphrasing).
Here are some tips to avoid plagiarism created by tbct_mt2: [TIPS] to avoid plagiarism.
If someone accused you of being plagiarized and if you know that you haven't do some mistakes, try to defend yourself. Some accusations are not true, you are the only one who knows if you plagiarize something.
May 23, 2020, 06:11:26 AM
Some people tend to plagiarize because of some reasons, for example with this forum some people are going plagiarism because..
1. Having a lack of knowledge
2. They want to create quality posts by the words of others without knowing that they could be caught in doing it.
3. They want an easy output.
4. They are not aware that they are plagiarizing (some people here are just copying the whole text and then just putting the link, this is still part of plagiarism in order to avoid this, you should do paraphrasing).
Here are some tips to avoid plagiarism created by tbct_mt2: [TIPS] to avoid plagiarism.
If someone accused you of being plagiarized and if you know that you haven't do some mistakes, try to defend yourself. Some accusations are not true, you are the only one who knows if you plagiarize something.
1. Having a lack of knowledge
2. They want to create quality posts by the words of others without knowing that they could be caught in doing it.
3. They want an easy output.
4. They are not aware that they are plagiarizing (some people here are just copying the whole text and then just putting the link, this is still part of plagiarism in order to avoid this, you should do paraphrasing).
Here are some tips to avoid plagiarism created by tbct_mt2: [TIPS] to avoid plagiarism.
If someone accused you of being plagiarized and if you know that you haven't do some mistakes, try to defend yourself. Some accusations are not true, you are the only one who knows if you plagiarize something.
May 23, 2020, 05:49:35 AM
Something doesn't add up. I feel like there is a lot more to it than what we know.
They got what they wanted, sadly a lot of senior members are also playing into their games unknowingly. There are truths of which they are not aware of luckily. It would be a waste of time to discuss with them, trying something obviously malicious such as to equate forgetting events of 1 or 2 years ago and 5 to 6 years ago for example and more. Here's to another year of being the main topic of discussion. What year in a row is this?
I am sorry for those who collaterally suffer because of my past.
Lauda I know wouldn't do a rookie mistake like plagiarism as she hunts down who does these.
If I were an active scambuster who were handing out punishments, I would definitely start from myself. If I had mistakes in my history, I would correct them first. (delete them) There is no way she didn't know these posts existed and she still policed people. It makes sense you know, when you start busting people left and right and making new enemies everyday, you should have known that somebody would try the same thing on you.
The possibilities are:
A) She was banned once or maybe more (so she/he says) and she thought any offense she did back then were also pardoned. So she didn't care and didn't clean those.
B) This is a bought account.
That's what my logic says anyway. Not accusing her for anything, yet. Just discussing the possibilities. I always liked the way how she were busting scammers.
*Only the admin/mods can reveal the real truth now I guess.
They got what they wanted, sadly a lot of senior members are also playing into their games unknowingly. There are truths of which they are not aware of luckily. It would be a waste of time to discuss with them, trying something obviously malicious such as to equate forgetting events of 1 or 2 years ago and 5 to 6 years ago for example and more. Here's to another year of being the main topic of discussion. What year in a row is this?
I am sorry for those who collaterally suffer because of my past.Lauda I know wouldn't do a rookie mistake like plagiarism as she hunts down who does these.
If I were an active scambuster who were handing out punishments, I would definitely start from myself. If I had mistakes in my history, I would correct them first. (delete them) There is no way she didn't know these posts existed and she still policed people. It makes sense you know, when you start busting people left and right and making new enemies everyday, you should have known that somebody would try the same thing on you.
The possibilities are:
A) She was banned once or maybe more (so she/he says) and she thought any offense she did back then were also pardoned. So she didn't care and didn't clean those.
B) This is a bought account.
That's what my logic says anyway. Not accusing her for anything, yet. Just discussing the possibilities. I always liked the way how she were busting scammers.
*Only the admin/mods can reveal the real truth now I guess.
May 23, 2020, 02:06:46 AM
Something that I find interesting in this situation is that there's a noticeable difference in grammatical errors between the alleged plagiarized content and the added "word-spun" filler - equivalent to the difference between a well-read-but-not-native English speaker and a native English speaker. These inconsistencies are sometimes clear even in the same quote. It adds credence to Kalemder and Suchmoon's comments regarding "word-spinning".
Bold emphasis is mine, red remains from previous posts in order to indicate alleged plagiarized content.
Incorrect comma usage:
This is a noticeable change in comma proficiency mid-post. Non-native speakers often struggle with comma usage following introductory phrases: "Actually", used as an introductory phrase, is always followed by a comma.
The comma usage in "A lot of things use SHA, for example banks." reinforces this difference. A comma is (incorrectly) used to indicate an upcoming example, where a colon would be more appropriate. "A lot of things use SHA: for example, banks." would be grammatically correct but still clunky. "A lot of things use SHA: banks, for example." would be appropriate.
Compare this to AzN1337c0d3r's mirrored content, where we see much more consistent comma usage in the same situation:
I've included two more examples of comma usage from above to reinforce that this does not appear to be a one-off mistake. "Yes 128 bit security is 18446744073709551616 times faster" and "To break encryption these computers must have 500-2000qubits." are both examples where the following clause needs to be indicated with a comma. Interestingly, the second example there is written correctly in the alleged source material:
One thing taught to all students in a second language program is "Read your sentence out loud." This is a common error when inserting symbols: incorrectly applied, you make existing text redundant. In this case, Lauda's version out loud would sound like "Fear, uncertainty, and doubt - FUD - equals is generally a strategic attempt...", while the alleged source material would be grammatically correct. To me, this is the most damning evidence of text edited post facto by someone with a different reading/writing level.
Again - these are mistakes you would expect to see consistently made. A fluctuation in the grasp of English grammar should not be seen mid-post, and definitely should not be clearly separated between the black text unique to Lauda and the red text of the alleged source material. I invite others to criticize as needed.
To be clear, I have no vested interest in whether anyone is banned or not. I have some opinions about what I consider to be flaws in Lauda's judgment (I don't believe that a word like "pajeet" can be separated from its intentionally-racist 4chan origins), but I find them largely irrelevant to this topic or the decision at hand.
inb4 "nice first post", "hop on your main acct", etc. The rules of language don't change based on your activity level. I've been a lurker for years, and a cursory mod search would show I'm not on TOR, not using a VPN, and have sent PMs to board members regarding similar topics.
Bold emphasis is mine, red remains from previous posts in order to indicate alleged plagiarized content.
Incorrect comma usage:
Actually if SHA gets broken the problem will be on a much larger scale where Bitcoin will be irrelevant (unless globally adopted). A lot of things use SHA, for example banks.
What I'm trying to say is:
For SHA256, it effectively becomes SHA128 to a Quantum computer. Now the question remains, can a Quantum search for SHA128 faster than a classical computer search through SHA256?
With out current technology and for the near future, we still can't build a real Quantum computer that can even begin to tackle this problem, let alone solve it.
What I'm trying to say is:
For SHA256, it effectively becomes SHA128 to a Quantum computer. Now the question remains, can a Quantum search for SHA128 faster than a classical computer search through SHA256?
With out current technology and for the near future, we still can't build a real Quantum computer that can even begin to tackle this problem, let alone solve it.
This is a noticeable change in comma proficiency mid-post. Non-native speakers often struggle with comma usage following introductory phrases: "Actually", used as an introductory phrase, is always followed by a comma.
The comma usage in "A lot of things use SHA, for example banks." reinforces this difference. A comma is (incorrectly) used to indicate an upcoming example, where a colon would be more appropriate. "A lot of things use SHA: for example, banks." would be grammatically correct but still clunky. "A lot of things use SHA: banks, for example." would be appropriate.
Compare this to AzN1337c0d3r's mirrored content, where we see much more consistent comma usage in the same situation:
For SHA256, it effectively becomes SHA128 to a Quantum computer. Now the question remains, can a Quantum search for SHA128 faster than a classical computer search through SHA256?
With our current technology and for the foreseeable future, we still cannot build a Quantum computer that can yet begin to tackle this problem, let alone solve it in a time within our lifespan. Thus SHA256 is considered "secure enough" for now.
With our current technology and for the foreseeable future, we still cannot build a Quantum computer that can yet begin to tackle this problem, let alone solve it in a time within our lifespan. Thus SHA256 is considered "secure enough" for now.
I see no information about 128 bit keys being broken. Any information found on stackexchange has no guarantee to be correct. It confirms what I said. SHA can't be reversed; it has to be brute forced.
It clearly indicated that quantum computers are more powerful than the computers of today, which is logical. There is no information on there internet about this. You're talking out of a hat.
Yes 128 bit security is 18446744073709551616 times faster to bruteforce than 256 bit. This doesn't mean that it is vulnerable when used.
It's obvious that people are commenting without proper knowledge in quantum related technology. The computers are not nowhere near ready to do any complicated jobs.
The main challenge in a Qcomputer is to make sure that the qubits are entangled (if you're familiar with Schrödinger’s cat you will know what I'm talking about; look that up). The computer must stay in this state (for the cat - it can't be simultaneously dead or alive) long enough to perform calculations and get results. The ones that we have can keep the state for miliseconds or maybe a couple of seconds. That's not long enough to do something useful. To break encryption these computers must have 500-2000qubits. Existing quantum computers operate with 14 qubits at maximum.
I have not forgotten about D-wave though. The company D-Wave claims that it has produced a 512 qubit Qcomputer. That is not a real quantum computer because it uses quantum annealing effect and can't demonstrate full properties of one. It is basically set to do a few specific tasks and represents no danger to encryption.
To summarize: You're wrong. Existing implementations have not shown that they can beat 128bit encryption. They aren't even close. That's the current situation. I'm not saying that in 5 years we won't have better technology. We might operate with 1400 qubits or be stuck at 140. Nobody really knows.
It clearly indicated that quantum computers are more powerful than the computers of today, which is logical. There is no information on there internet about this. You're talking out of a hat.
Yes 128 bit security is 18446744073709551616 times faster to bruteforce than 256 bit. This doesn't mean that it is vulnerable when used.
It's obvious that people are commenting without proper knowledge in quantum related technology. The computers are not nowhere near ready to do any complicated jobs.
The main challenge in a Qcomputer is to make sure that the qubits are entangled (if you're familiar with Schrödinger’s cat you will know what I'm talking about; look that up). The computer must stay in this state (for the cat - it can't be simultaneously dead or alive) long enough to perform calculations and get results. The ones that we have can keep the state for miliseconds or maybe a couple of seconds. That's not long enough to do something useful. To break encryption these computers must have 500-2000qubits. Existing quantum computers operate with 14 qubits at maximum.
I have not forgotten about D-wave though. The company D-Wave claims that it has produced a 512 qubit Qcomputer. That is not a real quantum computer because it uses quantum annealing effect and can't demonstrate full properties of one. It is basically set to do a few specific tasks and represents no danger to encryption.
To summarize: You're wrong. Existing implementations have not shown that they can beat 128bit encryption. They aren't even close. That's the current situation. I'm not saying that in 5 years we won't have better technology. We might operate with 1400 qubits or be stuck at 140. Nobody really knows.
I've included two more examples of comma usage from above to reinforce that this does not appear to be a one-off mistake. "Yes 128 bit security is 18446744073709551616 times faster" and "To break encryption these computers must have 500-2000qubits." are both examples where the following clause needs to be indicated with a comma. Interestingly, the second example there is written correctly in the alleged source material:
Exactly how is spreading FUD related to retardation?
Fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD) = is generally a strategic attempt to influence perception by disseminating negative and dubious or false information.
Fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD) = is generally a strategic attempt to influence perception by disseminating negative and dubious or false information.
FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) is generally a strategic attempt to influence perception by disseminating negative and dubious or false information.
One thing taught to all students in a second language program is "Read your sentence out loud." This is a common error when inserting symbols: incorrectly applied, you make existing text redundant. In this case, Lauda's version out loud would sound like "Fear, uncertainty, and doubt - FUD - equals is generally a strategic attempt...", while the alleged source material would be grammatically correct. To me, this is the most damning evidence of text edited post facto by someone with a different reading/writing level.
Again - these are mistakes you would expect to see consistently made. A fluctuation in the grasp of English grammar should not be seen mid-post, and definitely should not be clearly separated between the black text unique to Lauda and the red text of the alleged source material. I invite others to criticize as needed.
To be clear, I have no vested interest in whether anyone is banned or not. I have some opinions about what I consider to be flaws in Lauda's judgment (I don't believe that a word like "pajeet" can be separated from its intentionally-racist 4chan origins), but I find them largely irrelevant to this topic or the decision at hand.
inb4 "nice first post", "hop on your main acct", etc. The rules of language don't change based on your activity level. I've been a lurker for years, and a cursory mod search would show I'm not on TOR, not using a VPN, and have sent PMs to board members regarding similar topics.
May 23, 2020, 01:17:48 AM
@Lauda
I think a 60 day ban and a 2 year sig ban would be fair.. Would you agree?
If you could agree to that I would find that respectable, I think it would appease the majority of the forum community, and would probably be agreeable to the mods for you to accept that temporary fate..
I'm not one to be super keen on banning for ancient mistakes, especially permabans for actually active members with >2 brain cells (loss of value to the forum)... But the hypocrisy in this case... Whew..
I think it would be the stand-up thing to do to welcome atleast some repercussion, short of a permaban...
What say you?
P.S. To show some humility, you should cease and desist posting outside of your ban appeal thread and/or this thread, immediately..
Acting/posting around as if nothing happened... Tisk tisk..
Delete your signature now and start your time served early as a sign of good faith..
I think a 60 day ban and a 2 year sig ban would be fair.. Would you agree?
If you could agree to that I would find that respectable, I think it would appease the majority of the forum community, and would probably be agreeable to the mods for you to accept that temporary fate..
I'm not one to be super keen on banning for ancient mistakes, especially permabans for actually active members with >2 brain cells (loss of value to the forum)... But the hypocrisy in this case... Whew..
I think it would be the stand-up thing to do to welcome atleast some repercussion, short of a permaban...
What say you?
P.S. To show some humility, you should cease and desist posting outside of your ban appeal thread and/or this thread, immediately..
Acting/posting around as if nothing happened... Tisk tisk..
Delete your signature now and start your time served early as a sign of good faith..
May 23, 2020, 12:44:51 AM
Thanks; that’s good to know. Per my prior post, I infer that hilarious was probably one of the mods bringing down the ban-hammer on plagiarists.
Was there any formal policy on this, or was it just an ad hoc decision by some mods that behaviour that can get you expelled from school really doesn’t belong on a quality forum?
Was there any formal policy on this, or was it just an ad hoc decision by some mods that behaviour that can get you expelled from school really doesn’t belong on a quality forum?
Any admin, or moderator with relevant banning privileges can and could ban a user for this kind of behaviour, it always seemed like an obvious thing... if anything temp-banning and sig-banning in lieu of permabanning is a relatively new approach to give users whose post quality wasn't too bad overall a 2nd chance.
A separate question: Is there any log of moderator actions that would reveal why BadBear banned Lauda? It is probably not information that should be tossed into a troll feeding frenzy; but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t look. Lauda has always specifically praised BadBear to me, when it wasn’t even remotely relevant to any current controversy; thus I infer that whatever it was, she must have learned her lesson about it.
Sorry, I don't even remember when that was. It could have happened while I was inactive.
May 23, 2020, 12:41:07 AM
A separate question: Is there any log of moderator actions that would reveal why BadBear banned Lauda? It is probably not information that should be tossed into a troll feeding frenzy; but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t look. Lauda has always specifically praised BadBear to me, when it wasn’t even remotely relevant to any current controversy; thus I infer that whatever it was, she must have learned her lesson about it.
Ok, double mouth. Your input is appreciated.
May 22, 2020, 11:54:53 PM
Other mods and I have banned many a plagiarist even earlier than that (definitely as early as 2013).
Thanks; that’s good to know. Per my prior post, I infer that hilarious was probably one of the mods bringing down the ban-hammer on plagiarists.
Was there any formal policy on this, or was it just an ad hoc decision by some mods that behaviour that can get you expelled from school really doesn’t belong on a quality forum?
A separate question: Is there any log of moderator actions that would reveal why BadBear banned Lauda? It is probably not information that should be tossed into a troll feeding frenzy; but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t look. Lauda has always specifically praised BadBear to me, when it wasn’t even remotely relevant to any current controversy; thus I infer that whatever it was, she must have learned her lesson about it.
May 22, 2020, 10:54:43 PM
Also back 2015 no one gave a shit about the issue.
Actually, we did. Other mods and I have banned many a plagiarist even earlier than that (definitely as early as 2013).
May 22, 2020, 08:17:49 PM
The only difference is, trolls are getting aggressive right now because of what they have found on the account of Lauda.
Indeed. I've found accounts that were recently active just because of the Lauda's plagiarism issue. List below are the possible alt accounts of someone whom is really trying hard to be heard:
A THREAD: WHY LAUDA'S PLAGIARISM CASE HAVE SO MUCH DRAMA?
by: Teleman
- Only have 4 posts in which is all about the Lauda's issue, made his own thread (link mentioned) just to open his opinion, yet simply quoted the whole bitcoinchan's evidence post.
SOME SUSPICIOUS USER: hackerplace
See posts here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/hackerplace-923976
- His recent posts are duplicate, and is against forum rules. If this is a real account, then he must be knowledgeable that duplicate posts are prohibited in the forum.12. No duplicate posting in multiple boards (except for re-posting it in the local language boards if it's translated).
SOME SUSPICIOUS USER: Bitcoin-babe
See posts here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/bitcoin-babe-2789386;sa=showPosts
- Only has 10 posts, in which 6 of them are just because of the Lauda's issue, had already been received negative feedback that is all were right.
I would add users soon whom have seems to be just an alt account.
Those user's I've mentioned was not on purpose nor to defend Lauda. It is indeed a good thing that they've been persuading the ban of Lauda, yet with those desperate actions, I don't think the issue is simply "only based on facts and rules". As what nullius said:
It neither shocks me nor surprises me to see this level of rank hypocrisy from the majority of those who are calling for Lauda to be burnt. So many of the persons who regularly defend plagiarism and other wrongdoing, and who falsely accuse Lauda of abusing the rules for personal vendettas, are crawling out of the woodwork to call for the strictest punishment—obviously, based on personal vendettas. As I said: I am not surprised.
And therefore, even a normal user would simply understand, that this issue also has a subjective reasons by the opposing side. I think the best way to end the drama is to lock the threads that regards with the issue, and simply let theymos and other Admin to handle the rest. Not to cover up the issue nor prolong it, but to somehow lessen the fire caused by users whom make alt account just for the issue, yet opinions is at their bottom-line and just the same. Cause sooner and later, the desperate would never be tired of their actions as long as they didn't get what they want.
May 22, 2020, 07:58:54 PM
It neither shocks me nor surprises me to see this level of rank hypocrisy from the majority of those who are calling for Lauda to be burnt. So many of the persons who regularly defend plagiarism and other wrongdoing, and who falsely accuse Lauda of abusing the rules for personal vendettas, are crawling out of the woodwork to call for the strictest punishment—obviously, based on personal vendettas. As I said: I am not surprised.
What shocked and surprised me was, of course, the evidence. I was about ready to dine on feline fillet; and I grilled Lauda about this in private.
Having thoroughly investigated the matter, I think that this is one of those rare corner cases of the lability of the human brain. I do not think that Lauda realized what she was doing, or intended to rip off other people’s texts. I also don’t think that Lauda could fool me.
I do take into consideration that I have substantially interacted with Lauda, and I have seen her repeat things by rote in the course of ordinary conversation. (Just not from text written by other people—insofar as I am aware—and not so much as here.) I am too amateurish in textual criticism to be sure; but from my reading of the posts side by side with the source texts, I don’t think it’s implausible that she interpolated her own words with memorized talking points, without even thinking about it.
Between that, the manner of her response, and the sincerity with which Lauda despises plagiarism (including what happened here), I do not think that any action is warranted in this matter.
I say that as someone who would sooner forgive murder than plagiarism.
Constructive Response
What would you suggest Lauda should have done differently? (I mean now—not in 2014–2015, the answer to which is obvious.)
Lauda’s edits called out her own offence in blood-red highlighting, with backlinks both to the accusation against her, and to her response.
The latter is important, because Lauda’s response provided better sources. bitcoinchan only got 2/6 (possibly 3/6) sources right. In one case, Post 5, he cited a thread on another forum that itself appears to be a plagiarism (!). In another, Post 4, he cited an article that contained the relevant text inside a properly cited quotation from an article on another site (!!). In the case of Post 3, he improperly cited some other site for text from a Wikipedia article—even though the other site had cited Wikipedia (albeit without proper quoting) within the portion that bitcoinchan quoted.
I note this after having spent hours examining the evidence and researching the sources myself. (How many people posting on this thread did that?)
Lauda’s response demonstrated a level of actual caring about credit to sources that I have never seen from anybody accused of plagiarism. And it was done in an understated manner, which I find appropriate: There is nothing to brag about in correcting one’s own wrong. She just went and corrected it. She didn’t make a big poor-me show of self-flagellation, or indulge in any other histrionics—she just quietly thanked the party who brought this to her attention, marked up her old posts in a way that makes it bloody obvious what words originated from others, and belatedly gave credit to the appropriate sources.
I agree with this:
...although, NotATether, I do not agree with some of your defence of Lauda later in the thread:
Plagiarism does not equal copying and pasting. It is possible to copy and paste without plagiarizing; and it is possible to plagiarize without copying and pasting.
For about the past three weeks, I have been intending to write a proper post explaining what plagiarism is and isn’t—with reference to discussions by organizations focused on academic integrity, not only with my own opinion on the subject. I intended that for the RegulusHR thread, since I do not think that Regulus committed plagiarism per se; he did a copy-paste and a shitpost, but not a plagiarism. (I don’t think it’s possible to plagiarize someone else’s worthless shitpost, because it has negligible or zero original substance; plagiarism is the intellectual theft of credit for original work, which wreathes lazy idiots in a glory that belongs to another.) It is also relevant to the “hacker” thread, because “hacker” did commit a clear-cut plagiarism.
Some (arguably not all) of the six posts cited by bitcoinchan facially meet the definition of plagiarism, regardless of some changes in wording. The only reasons why I am defending Lauda, rather than calling for her to be banned, are that (0) I really do not think it was intentional, and (1) her response was appropriate—I think it was the best that she could have done in the circumstance, absent a time machine.
A Technical Question
When was the forum rule about banning plagiarists made an administrative policy? My question is if any hypothetical punishment of Lauda would be an ex post facto application of a rule that did not exist when the posts were made.
Although I dislike advancing such a technical argument,* you just know the question would be raised if any other user were accused of plagiarism from so many years ago. I also know that I have had the term “ex post facto” tossed at me in the “hacker” case, where it did not even apply. Thus in fairness, I must raise this point in Lauda’s defence.
(* If it were my forum, I would ban plagiarists regardless of whether or not I had bothered explicitly to place users on notice with an anti-plagiarism rule. Plagiarism, actual plagiarism (see above), is just something that people should know is wrong; and frankly, I would not want any forum members who don’t already know that plagiarism is wrong before they sign up. But then, if this were my forum, things would look a bit different around here. :-)
All six posts identified by bitcoinchan far predate the addition of Rule 33 to mprep’s Unofficial List of Official Rules:
The absence of any anti-plagiarism rule from the list in the time period up to 10 May 2015 is confirmed by the earliest available archive.org snapshot, which, by coincidence, was made several hours after the latest post in question.
It is an unofficial list of rules, with a note at the top stating that it “is meant to serve as a reference/educational/informational thread, NOT a rock solid list of rules” (boldface and underscore in the original). If hilarious was already banning people for plagiarism before mprep listed this rule, I would have no criticism of that.
A forum search for posts by theymos made at least 1392 days before the time of this writing (2020-05-22) and matching any word from plagiarism plagiarized reveals only the following two posts:
Subject: Re: DGCmagazine Bitcoin Issue
Subject: Re: Bitcoin Wiki
Thus though it’s clear that theymos always despised plagiarism, a stance for which I give him credit,* I cannot find any evidence that the forum had an explicit policy on this issue before hilarious suggested the rule to mprep.
(* But alas, theymos conflates plagiarism with copyright issues. Copyright is completely irrelevant to plagiarism! You must not plagiarize the words of Shakespeare, or of Ovid, although all of their works are unquestionably in the public domain in every jurisdiction in the world. It is possible to violate copyright without plagiarizing, and possible to plagiarize without violating copyright; the two issues are completely separate, although, as I have observed before on this forum, the copyright lobby enjoys the popular conflation thereof.)
As a practical matter, if Lauda were hypothetically to be banned for posts made in 2014–2015, then the archives should be scrutinized; and every user who has ever committed a plagiarism here should be banned, going back to the time when this forum was hosted at forum.bitcoin.org, or even when it was a Sourceforge forum. Not that I would object to that, in and of itself.
What shocked and surprised me was, of course, the evidence. I was about ready to dine on feline fillet; and I grilled Lauda about this in private.
Having thoroughly investigated the matter, I think that this is one of those rare corner cases of the lability of the human brain. I do not think that Lauda realized what she was doing, or intended to rip off other people’s texts. I also don’t think that Lauda could fool me.
I do take into consideration that I have substantially interacted with Lauda, and I have seen her repeat things by rote in the course of ordinary conversation. (Just not from text written by other people—insofar as I am aware—and not so much as here.) I am too amateurish in textual criticism to be sure; but from my reading of the posts side by side with the source texts, I don’t think it’s implausible that she interpolated her own words with memorized talking points, without even thinking about it.
Between that, the manner of her response, and the sincerity with which Lauda despises plagiarism (including what happened here), I do not think that any action is warranted in this matter.
I say that as someone who would sooner forgive murder than plagiarism.
Constructive Response
I'm on the feeling of: the way those edits were made: were to achieve the objective of providing substance as to make a post; rather than reference people correctly to the information.... passing it on as themselves.
What would you suggest Lauda should have done differently? (I mean now—not in 2014–2015, the answer to which is obvious.)
Lauda’s edits called out her own offence in blood-red highlighting, with backlinks both to the accusation against her, and to her response.
The latter is important, because Lauda’s response provided better sources. bitcoinchan only got 2/6 (possibly 3/6) sources right. In one case, Post 5, he cited a thread on another forum that itself appears to be a plagiarism (!). In another, Post 4, he cited an article that contained the relevant text inside a properly cited quotation from an article on another site (!!). In the case of Post 3, he improperly cited some other site for text from a Wikipedia article—even though the other site had cited Wikipedia (albeit without proper quoting) within the portion that bitcoinchan quoted.
I note this after having spent hours examining the evidence and researching the sources myself. (How many people posting on this thread did that?)
Lauda’s response demonstrated a level of actual caring about credit to sources that I have never seen from anybody accused of plagiarism. And it was done in an understated manner, which I find appropriate: There is nothing to brag about in correcting one’s own wrong. She just went and corrected it. She didn’t make a big poor-me show of self-flagellation, or indulge in any other histrionics—she just quietly thanked the party who brought this to her attention, marked up her old posts in a way that makes it bloody obvious what words originated from others, and belatedly gave credit to the appropriate sources.
I agree with this:
Because she handled this incident in a constructive way? Unlike how some other people react when accused of the same.
...although, NotATether, I do not agree with some of your defence of Lauda later in the thread:
I'm going to fix some of the highlighting bitcoinchan made that does not show copy and paste. Because the definition of plagiarism is copying and pasting stuff (without attribution).
Plagiarism does not equal copying and pasting. It is possible to copy and paste without plagiarizing; and it is possible to plagiarize without copying and pasting.
For about the past three weeks, I have been intending to write a proper post explaining what plagiarism is and isn’t—with reference to discussions by organizations focused on academic integrity, not only with my own opinion on the subject. I intended that for the RegulusHR thread, since I do not think that Regulus committed plagiarism per se; he did a copy-paste and a shitpost, but not a plagiarism. (I don’t think it’s possible to plagiarize someone else’s worthless shitpost, because it has negligible or zero original substance; plagiarism is the intellectual theft of credit for original work, which wreathes lazy idiots in a glory that belongs to another.) It is also relevant to the “hacker” thread, because “hacker” did commit a clear-cut plagiarism.
Some (arguably not all) of the six posts cited by bitcoinchan facially meet the definition of plagiarism, regardless of some changes in wording. The only reasons why I am defending Lauda, rather than calling for her to be banned, are that (0) I really do not think it was intentional, and (1) her response was appropriate—I think it was the best that she could have done in the circumstance, absent a time machine.
A Technical Question
Plagiarism is one of very few things that theymos has zero tolerance for (except for account buyers).
If we find that you plagiarized, then you absolutely will be permanently banned, even if we find it years after you did it.
When was the forum rule about banning plagiarists made an administrative policy? My question is if any hypothetical punishment of Lauda would be an ex post facto application of a rule that did not exist when the posts were made.
Although I dislike advancing such a technical argument,* you just know the question would be raised if any other user were accused of plagiarism from so many years ago. I also know that I have had the term “ex post facto” tossed at me in the “hacker” case, where it did not even apply. Thus in fairness, I must raise this point in Lauda’s defence.
(* If it were my forum, I would ban plagiarists regardless of whether or not I had bothered explicitly to place users on notice with an anti-plagiarism rule. Plagiarism, actual plagiarism (see above), is just something that people should know is wrong; and frankly, I would not want any forum members who don’t already know that plagiarism is wrong before they sign up. But then, if this were my forum, things would look a bit different around here. :-)
All six posts identified by bitcoinchan far predate the addition of Rule 33 to mprep’s Unofficial List of Official Rules:
Added new rule with an explanation (as per hilariousandco's suggestion):
Quote
33. Posting plagiarized content is not allowed.[e]
<...>
33. This includes both copying parts or the entirety of other users' posts or threads and copying content from external sources (e.g. other websites) and passing it as your own.
<...>
33. This includes both copying parts or the entirety of other users' posts or threads and copying content from external sources (e.g. other websites) and passing it as your own.
The absence of any anti-plagiarism rule from the list in the time period up to 10 May 2015 is confirmed by the earliest available archive.org snapshot, which, by coincidence, was made several hours after the latest post in question.
It is an unofficial list of rules, with a note at the top stating that it “is meant to serve as a reference/educational/informational thread, NOT a rock solid list of rules” (boldface and underscore in the original). If hilarious was already banning people for plagiarism before mprep listed this rule, I would have no criticism of that.
A forum search for posts by theymos made at least 1392 days before the time of this writing (2020-05-22) and matching any word from plagiarism plagiarized reveals only the following two posts:
Subject: Re: DGCmagazine Bitcoin Issue
The article is full of plagiarism from Bitcoin Market and bitcoin.org.
Subject: Re: Bitcoin Wiki
I desire attribution for my contributions. WTFPL, at least, seems to suggest that I would be OK with people plagiarizing, which I am not. Copyright should be abolished, of course, but I don't want to encourage people to take my work without attribution.
There are probably legal problems with it. Compare it with the similar CC0 license:
http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/legalcode
One sentence is not going to cover all of the legal issues. Potentially someone could sue us for using our own stuff.
WTFPL is less restrictive than CC-A, so legally copying material from the Bitcoin wiki would require you to get permission from all page authors.
I prefer CC-A -- including a link back to the page is not a huge legal burden, and it clearly indicates that plagiarism is not acceptable. No one's going to sue anyone, anyway. I wouldn't mind CC0 or any of the more restrictive CC licenses.
There are probably legal problems with it. Compare it with the similar CC0 license:
http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/legalcode
One sentence is not going to cover all of the legal issues. Potentially someone could sue us for using our own stuff.
WTFPL is less restrictive than CC-A, so legally copying material from the Bitcoin wiki would require you to get permission from all page authors.
I prefer CC-A -- including a link back to the page is not a huge legal burden, and it clearly indicates that plagiarism is not acceptable. No one's going to sue anyone, anyway. I wouldn't mind CC0 or any of the more restrictive CC licenses.
Thus though it’s clear that theymos always despised plagiarism, a stance for which I give him credit,* I cannot find any evidence that the forum had an explicit policy on this issue before hilarious suggested the rule to mprep.
(* But alas, theymos conflates plagiarism with copyright issues. Copyright is completely irrelevant to plagiarism! You must not plagiarize the words of Shakespeare, or of Ovid, although all of their works are unquestionably in the public domain in every jurisdiction in the world. It is possible to violate copyright without plagiarizing, and possible to plagiarize without violating copyright; the two issues are completely separate, although, as I have observed before on this forum, the copyright lobby enjoys the popular conflation thereof.)
As a practical matter, if Lauda were hypothetically to be banned for posts made in 2014–2015, then the archives should be scrutinized; and every user who has ever committed a plagiarism here should be banned, going back to the time when this forum was hosted at forum.bitcoin.org, or even when it was a Sourceforge forum. Not that I would object to that, in and of itself.
May 22, 2020, 05:15:07 PM
@Lauda
Author ito : Dave Coverly 2003
Author ito : Dave Coverly 2003
May 22, 2020, 02:57:28 PM
Tensor Coin have plagiarized texts and whitepaper, for more info, I just posted all the information here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/tensor-coin-plagiarized-whitepaper-5250412
May 22, 2020, 10:40:42 AM
The longer you drag this out the more drama, trolling, and repetitive and redundant mudslinging we'll find in these threads.
We've been already in this kind of situation and I think since 2013/2015?...The only difference is, trolls are getting aggressive right now because of what they have found on the account of Lauda.
May 22, 2020, 10:27:12 AM
If you fail to act it will only spur theories of special treatment and inconsistent enforcement of the rules.
These are not theories, these are facts. We have a thread open for over a year already for a member that copy/pasted something in a stupid airdrop thread 3 years ago. We did everything trying to get his permaban removed, nobody even answered. There are cases of people getting unbanned instantly so I'd say there are no rules at all. Not only that there are no rules, there's not even basic courtesy to reply to a thread in which at least 5 Legendary members amongst others ask for some kind of explanation.
Regarding Lauda - the witch hunt will happen for sure. After all, Lauda was the hammer of the forum for a long time and her own rules/viewpoints will bite her in the ass. Lauda might be a bad example to get away with a slap on the wrist because she stepped on too many toes and if she was not punished somehow it would cause mayhem, but this might finally be a turning point in which we establish some groundrules for cases like these.
I'm not the one to say what punishment is just, nobody will care and I personally do not care as well. The thing is - this forum is too big to be run like a kindergarten, without any obligations from staff to explain their thoughts and/or decisions.
I'm really looking forward to Regulus at least getting an answer to his plea after almost a year and a half and I wish Lauda all the best in fighting this. Not because I like her, I don't really like her stance and snippy/rude way of discussing things, but because for me things like these (copypasting made 5 years ago) really shouldn't be considered as a major crime. Worse crime is ignoring a permaban appeal for 1.5 years while removing permabans of others, all the mods are guilty of it and still - nothing happens with that.
Jump to: