Originally Posted by NOBLE

You made 6 points in your OP and I'll weigh in on each one separately.

1) Yes, his use of oronyms as written verbatim on a website was plagiarism. I agreed it was plagiarism but disagreed that it was "biting" and explained what I see as a distinction between the two. Either way, both plagiarism and biting are against the site rules. Should he be demodded for it? When this came to light, he apologized to the staff and offered to step down. I'm not sure if he ever apologized publicly, but as far as I can tell, he's never actually denied what he did. Being that he showed remorse and considering that he's probably the most contributing active mod (LBT, LBA, Hall of Fame, LB Awards, etc..), I was against him stepping down, and I still feel the same way, especially since this doesn't represent a pattern. An auto-win was given to his opponent on that battle, and I think that is how staff chose to resolve it.

2) We've all made comments that we later edited or deleted. The fact that he even went back to edit it shows he actually has regard for the site rules and is being careful not to sway. He made the edit the same day the comment was made. I don't see how this is a big deal, or am I missing something?

3) Where did he release personal information?

4) I've only heard your side of this so far, and from what I gather, he removed you from the LBT card because you joked that you would no-show? I would prefer to hear Nick's account of events before making judgment. If it occurred the way you've described, I agree that the participants should've been informed first and that would've been a more considerate way to handle things. I don't know if it merits being demodded though.

5) If this is as you described, then yes, I agree and I think it is highly hypocritical. But once again, I'd have to hear Nick's side of the story. It's possible that he relieved Lock of the LBT/LBA for reasons other than that he was both running and participating in it.

6) Yes, he used a racial slur but seemed to be parodying his opponent rather than conveying it himself. This may still offend some people. Personally I don't see it as a big deal.

Responding to bolded points.

1.) As pointed out by Shodan, Nicholas explicitly denied that he had used these oronyms from the site. And may never have actually acknowledged any sort of plagiarism. Or did so after the initial denial.

2.) Even if he is the most active mod, why should activity outweigh a pattern of bad behavior? Additionally, why should the weight of all of those activities fall onto the role of a single mod? Aren't these highlighted contributions things that could be relegated to the other members of the staff respectively? And if they won't do it, why are they still modded? Activity is great. But, being active, while also showing a clearly established pattern of unethical behavior isn't so great. I think it's important to staff members that can balance both activity and a suitable record of modship. If there are 6 things, all of which are frowned upon by site standards that a mod has done over the course of a short period of time, it's certainly time to call into question whether their suited for a position. A person can't be given the benefit of the doubt in every single instance.

3.) Would he have edited the comment, had I not pointed out to him how it was unbecoming? I think it's concerning, that as a mod, who knew the battle was open(having voted on it.), the time was taken to comment in a swaying manner about said battle. As a moderator, it's important not to let personal bias affect your decision making. And this shows that he did just that.

4.) Again, I think a moderator should weigh how his decisions will affect the site. He's a representative of the site, and his actions can either draw in new members, or drive members away. Would those offended by this remark not be driven away by it? And if so, should it have been done, knowing that this could be a potential outcome? If Nicholas were a normal member, this WOULDN'T be an issue. But, he's not. He's a member of staff, and therefore what he does holds more weight in regard to site reputation. Something that using racial slurs openly could easily affect.

Originally Posted by NOBLE

You made 6 points in your OP and I'll weigh in on each one separately.

1) Yes, his use of oronyms as written verbatim on a website was plagiarism. I agreed it was plagiarism but disagreed that it was "biting" and explained what I see as a distinction between the two. Either way, both plagiarism and biting are against the site rules. Should he be demodded for it? When this came to light, he apologized to the staff and offered to step down. I'm not sure if he ever apologized publicly, but as far as I can tell, he's never actually denied what he did. Being that he showed remorse and considering that he's probably the most contributing active mod (LBT, LBA, Hall of Fame, LB Awards, etc..), I was against him stepping down, and I still feel the same way, especially since this doesn't represent a pattern. An auto-win was given to his opponent on that battle, and I think that is how staff chose to resolve it.

2) We've all made comments that we later edited or deleted. The fact that he even went back to edit it shows he actually has regard for the site rules and is being careful not to sway. He made the edit the same day the comment was made. I don't see how this is a big deal, or am I missing something?

3) Where did he release personal information?

4) I've only heard your side of this so far, and from what I gather, he removed you from the LBT card because you joked that you would no-show? I would prefer to hear Nick's account of events before making judgment. If it occurred the way you've described, I agree that the participants should've been informed first and that would've been a more considerate way to handle things. I don't know if it merits being demodded though.

5) If this is as you described, then yes, I agree and I think it is highly hypocritical. But once again, I'd have to hear Nick's side of the story. It's possible that he relieved Lock of the LBT/LBA for reasons other than that he was both running and participating in it.

6) Yes, he used a racial slur but seemed to be parodying his opponent rather than conveying it himself. This may still offend some people. Personally I don't see it as a big deal.

Responding to bolded points.

1.) As pointed out by Shodan, Nicholas explicitly denied that he had used these oronyms from the site. And may never have actually acknowledged any sort of plagiarism. Or did so after the initial denial.

2.) Even if he is the most active mod, why should activity outweigh a pattern of bad behavior? Additionally, why should the weight of all of those activities fall onto the role of a single mod? Aren't these highlighted contributions things that could be relegated to the other members of the staff respectively? And if they won't do it, why are they still modded? Activity is great. But, being active, while also showing a clearly established pattern of unethical behavior isn't so great. I think it's important to staff members that can balance both activity and a suitable record of modship. If there are 6 things, all of which are frowned upon by site standards that a mod has done over the course of a short period of time, it's certainly time to call into question whether their suited for a position. A person can't be given the benefit of the doubt in every single instance.

3.) Would he have edited the comment, had I not pointed out to him how it was unbecoming? I think it's concerning, that as a mod, who knew the battle was open(having voted on it.), the time was taken to comment in a swaying manner about said battle. As a moderator, it's important not to let personal bias affect your decision making. And this shows that he did just that.

4.) Again, I think a moderator should weigh how his decisions will affect the site. He's a representative of the site, and his actions can either draw in new members, or drive members away. Would those offended by this remark not be driven away by it? And if so, should it have been done, knowing that this could be a potential outcome? If Nicholas were a normal member, this WOULDN'T be an issue. But, he's not. He's a member of staff, and therefore what he does holds more weight in regard to site reputation. Something that using racial slurs openly could easily affect.