First, I have to thank liverpole for the excellent job he did uncovering the problem. Now, answering the original question, here are my 2 cents:
- We have to decide on the rules to follow from now on to avoid seeing this kind of behaviour in the future
- We have to decide what to do in cases when plagiarism was uncovered but that happened prior to the publication of the rules (this would be the case of madtoperl and jeshuashok)
Regarding to 1, I agree with several of the ideas mentioned in this thread, in particular:
I suggest we:
- Post a link within the thread to the original source (as suggested originally by bobf)
- Drop the node rep to 0 if it were positive (or leaving it as-is if it were negative) (as suggested originally by bobf)
- Assess a 10 XP penalty to the Ofender (as suggested originally by bobf)
- Deactivate the offender account for a minimum of 30 days (as suggested originally by jcoxen)
- Withdraw the offender's right to post for 90 days (as suggested originally by jcoxen)
Regarding to 2, we have to study each situation on a case by case basis. In any case, we have to be firm enough to show our disapproval of this type of behaviours but flexible enough to account for cultural differences that might have caused a misunderstanding of what vroom tells us Perl Monks is about:
- An attempt to make learning Perl as non-intimidating and easy to use as possible.
- A place for individuals to polish, improve, and showcase their Perl skills.
- A community which allows everyone to grow and learn from one another.
If you noticed, I cited other people's ideas whenever I used them. This brings me to the last comment I wanted to make: We need to write a set of guidelines on when and why we need to cite other people's work and how to properly do it.
Cheers!
lin0