DudleyGarrett, you're a plag[i]arist and a coward

[twickster]

@DudleyGarrett

Um, no, because I disagree with it… and apparently twickster does as well as the warning was rescinded.

Rescinded. Reversed.

Do you get it now?

The warning for plagiarism was rescinded, because, as several people have pointed out, “plagiarism” isn’t exactly the right category for cutting and pasting a long piece of text that’s been floating from email to email for however long. (Please note, however, that “not against the rules” doesn’t mean “something we’re enthusiastic about that we’ll hope everyone will start doing right and left.”)

I announced that that warning was withdrawn when I withdrew it, because we make public announcements when we issue or withdraw warnings. In that same announcement, I also reported that he had received a second warning, for abusive language to a moderator in her role as moderator.

The system of warnings here is public, because this isn’t a police state. In order to keep that system operating publicly, we need to announce (1) the fact that a warning is issued, and (2) the reason for issuing that warning. In this instance, there was no way to take care of the second point without making the contents of the PM public, because he chose a PM to abuse me.

This has come up before, but it bears repeating: a PM is like an email or any other communication, in which the sender has no guarantee that the recipient won’t tell another person what was in that message. In general, it should be considered bad form to quote someone’s PM, but it’s not against the rules, and in this case it was necessary to explain the reason that DG got a warning.

For those keeping score at home: DudleyGarrett’s warnings yesterday ended up with a net gain of one, for abusive language towards a mod.

@magellan01

And even if there is no board “rule”, it seems that keeping them private is better behavior. And the mods should encourage better behavior not work against it. I don’t think its a big deal here, or even in the situation that I had, but it would cause me to use the helpful feature less if a PMs contents were apt to become public. I think it was a bad an unnecessary move, twickster.

See above. Yes, I agree that keeping PMs private is preferable, and this is the first time (out of hundreds that I’ve sent and received here) that I’ve made one public. In this case, however, it was necessary.

Would anyone actually have preferred it if I had said “DG received a warning for something he said to me in a PM, but I can’t tell you what he said”?

@tacoloco

Am I reading this right that the reason Oakminster couldn’t respond to Dudley’s PM was due to the email address change Dudley made?

That is my understanding, yes. He wasn’t actually registered during the period when he didn’t have a valid email address, so couldn’t avail himself of any of the functions of the board that you need to be signed in to use.