Re: Shouldn't this be treated as an obvious plagiarism case?
I agree, only the question will remain unanswered.
For example, consider 3 cases:
1. The user publishes someone else's picture.
2. The user publishes someone else's picture but does not say "this is mine" (you can not say "that it is mine", but feed it so that everyone would think "that it is mine"
)
These cases are not considered plagiarism on the forum.
3. The user publishes someone else's picture and says "this is mine"
If this should be understood as a fraud, then the fraud on the forum is not moderated, then the flag should be set.
The difference between 1 and 2 is that 1 has omission of attribution whereas 2 would have the user to have the intent of misleading others.For example, consider 3 cases:
1. The user publishes someone else's picture.
2. The user publishes someone else's picture but does not say "this is mine" (you can not say "that it is mine", but feed it so that everyone would think "that it is mine"
)These cases are not considered plagiarism on the forum.
3. The user publishes someone else's picture and says "this is mine"
If this should be understood as a fraud, then the fraud on the forum is not moderated, then the flag should be set.
Without getting too pedantic into the epistemic technicalities of plagiarism via lying vs. misleading, I think you should be able to conflate 2 and 3.
Suppose in an example scenario that the user fulfills #2 by neither confirming nor denying ownership of the art: when one asks about the origin of the picture or if they applaud the user for their work and the user in question doesn't respond, it's in bad faith.