Quote from: (a CH alt name that inadvertently praises Lauda in Latin) on Today at 02:53:35 AM

5. Was lauda removed from being a merit source for this and did anyone suggest he should be ?

Lauda was never a merit source. You see, CH, this is a large part of your problem: You often state factually untruthful misinformation. It is doubly a shame, because you sometimes have some good points—and you undermine them by being, shall we say, “careless with the facts”. Truthfulness is of the utmost importance to me; that is why I so admired Lauda, and always will.

Now, my post was about Ratimov. The point of the Lauda contrast that I made halfway through my post was about Ratimov. Ratimov has chosen to deal with this accusation by shooting the messenger, and denying that plagiarism is plagiarism. About Ratimov:

Quote from: (a CH alt name that inadvertently praises Lauda in Latin) on Today at 02:53:35 AM

In this case it is probably enough it had now been mentioned.

Why don’t you think that this is at least as bad as what many others have been punished for, if not much worse in substance?

A casual copy-and-paste is bad enough. OP’s highlighting make it easy to see, this is an instance of systematically assembling text piecewise from others’ words. And Ratimov has essentially admitted that he copied the text from someone else.

The post is very recent, earned 7 merits, and no doubt increased Ratimov’s reputation with some of the more intelligent users of the forum. I myself happened across that post recently, and intended to merit it and reply. (If I want to reply to something, I usually wait until I reply to send merit.) I am shocked to see that it actually is not his.

Quote from: airfinex on December 05, 2020, 08:10:35 PM

And this is the case not only with this article, but with everyone. How else can you get 3000 Merits?

No, you can get thousands of merits with much more knowledge and effort than Ratimov evidently has.

I am not familiar with Ratimov’s post history. “...not only with this article”? Have evidence?

I may perhaps be a little bit less adamant—just a little bit—

—if there were any ambiguity whatsoever in the apparent authorship of the body text of the post. I viewed the post itself, not only OP’s quote. I sincerely tried to guess how a reader could discern that the text of the post actually ~~quotes~~ is spun from others’ words. No way. It is impossible to view the “source” links at the bottom as a mark of authorship: Any reasonable person would see them purely as footnotes referring to sources of information, not as authorship credits. Indeed, although I did not fully check the whole post, he seems to mix informational references with “sources” as authors.
—if Ratimov did not deny in principle that it is plagiarism to post something written by someone else, fully in the manner as if he is the author.
—if Ratimov had not chosen to reply with an ad hominem attack against an accusation brought with evidence—

Quote from: Ratimov on December 05, 2020, 08:40:35 PM
It's okay, just another idiot-troll who, not understanding the situation, runs screaming in the meta, hoping to make some kind of sensation.

—and by ridiculing the bringing of evidence (!).

Quote from: Ratimov on December 05, 2020, 08:40:35 PM
What a pity that he spent so much time decorating the text, but did not find the time to read my topics more carefully.

These knee-jerk reactions must stop! Posts by anonymous parties, alt accounts, and “Newbies” (who may sometimes simply be longtime lurkers) should be judged by whether they are good are bad. Most are bad—but then, many posts by “Legendary” accounts are also bad.

I have always acted according to this principle. In my prior experience, I have been accused of scamming by an anonymous alt account who apologized to me after, instead of attacking him as an “alt sockpuppet troll”, I acknowledged that his evidence against someone associated with me was correct, and I coöperated fully in the investigation of that scammer. I am actually quite thankful to whoever was behind that account: The investigation that he started saved me from getting sucked deeper into a scam by someone who had fooled me. If I had started off by attacking him ad hominem on the basis of his using an obvious alt account, then my reputation would have been fried after theymos showed up with IP evidence that it was a known scammer—and I would have deserved it. It was only my own sincerity and avoidance of knee-jerk reactions that saved me from saying, “go away n00btroll!” to the investigator who blew the lid off one of the most infamous scams of the past few years on this forum.

Quote from: (a CH alt name that inadvertently praises Lauda in Latin) on Today at 02:53:35 AM

If they themselves have punished others for plagiarism that is different.
That would demonstrate double standards especially if they had used the trust system to do so.

[...]
Now stop this bullshit because this is exactly the kind of crap DT1 colluding goons are going to pull on you.

I am curious to see what lovesmayfamilis has to say about this. (Among other things in the Russian forum.)

Quote from: https://loyce.club/trust/2020-12-05_Sat_04.07h/1982152.html

lovesmayfamilis Trusts these users' judgement:

44. Ratimov (Trust: +9 / =0 / -0) (DT1! (11) 2983 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP)

As for me, don’t worry—nobody will “pick me apart”. ;-) I will reply to you in the other thread another time; I am trying to catch up on some other things now.