[zeedotme]

we have a strict policy in place to make sure this doesn't happen.

If it does, and it really shouldn't have beyond a year ago (when we really clamped down on it with our authors)... we fix it.

If it ever does happen, I assure you that all it takes is one email to [e-mail] and we'll have it resolved.

But I assure you that this "care free" image you might have of us when it comes to posting other peoples images just isn't reality.

[jacquesm]

You really don't get it do you?

> If it ever does happen, I assure you that all it takes is one email to [e-mail] and we'll have it resolved.

I'm sure it does. But the point is that you should ensure through process and not through policy that you do not end up with other people's stuff on your site without attribution or compensation.

The fact that you'll take it down to avoid further damage is not enough to put you in the clear, this is not 'user generated content', these are people with who you have a relationship where you have them create works on your behalf.

You're responsible.

One way in which you could do this - consult your local legal eagle - is to ask your authors to sign a release stating that they are the original creators of all the content they submit, and that they are within their rights to re-sell this content to you.

[jaylevitt]

No, he really doesn't get it.

From his public "apology"[1]:

"The debate on paraphrasing, rewriting and quoting we should save for another post."

Zee: THAT'S THE PLAGIARISM PART.

[1] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1M92qqFrK2zlqCoaQV_l_wuxI...

[zeedotme]

We do have processes AND policy in place to make sure this doesn't happen. But it can still happen unintentionally and when it does, we react activity and proactively.

[jacquesm]

> we react activity and proactively.

That does not parse but I think you're confusing aggressively with actively and proactively with defensively.

All at once. And you look pretty silly in the process.

Just apologize to the guy, make sure you'll never do it again.

As long as you keep spinning this will make you look worse and worse.

It's obvious that you don't have a process in place because then this would not happen.

This was not unintentional, there is 0 chance of that.

Nobody copies a chunk of text like that unintentional, nobody behaves like you did in this thread and elsewhere unintentional.

The cover-up is worse than the crime, if you had been a responsible adult about this in the first place it would have gone away long ago.

It was dumb. Only you can stop it.

[dkersten]

And spam the guys twitter saying he is overreacting and that its ridiculous that hes getting the slightest bit annoyed at the fact that you ripped his work off? Wow.. Just WOW.

[famousactress]

Don't be ridiculous, this wasn't "unintentional". Additionally, it's impossible to react proactively.

[josephcooney]

Excellent point re: reacting proactive-ly. At some point you've taken so many action items on-board, uplifted so much capability and re-purposed to much content that all the corporate buzz-words just start making perfect sense.

[mnicole]

By telling the original authors you'll be sure to 'steer clear' of them in the future for being upset that they weren't credited until it made you look like an ass? Yikes.

[drewblaisdell]

This was not unintentional, though. The writer clearly took a screenshot of someone else's work and made no effort to even credit work that should not have been used in the first place.

[white_devil]

You know, we were already convinced you're a sleazebag. Lying to our faces in an attempt at damage control was unnecessary.

[rhizome]

I don't suppose your policies and processes allow for the actual author to receive the ad income from your use of his story, do they?

[mwilcox]

Proactive and reactive are complete opposites. You cannot 'react' 'proactively'.

[icodeforlove]

talk about a great way to ruin a company image... just shows that a company can't do this anymore to the masses, the people are not as silenced. Its now actually in a companies best intrest to be legitimate ;)

[csomar]

It's clear that you react to it (reading through the CEO comments)

[artursapek]

You are a hoot.

[logjam]

Quit using manager-bullshit-speak. Here, let me write your entire "processes AND policy" manual for plagiarism:

1) Don't do it;

2) If it occurs, fire the guy who did it;

3) Apologize and try to make it right;

4) Shut up.

You seem to find each one of those steps challenging.

[junto]

Actually, the boss should carry the can: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Command_responsibility

[cs702]

Wow, no apology. Wow.

Zee, everyone can see the online record, which shows you plagiarized Joshua Gross, publicly threatened him on Twitter, and then publicly denied plagiarizing him.

And you're still not apologizing?

Wow...

[potch]

Have you considered not personally flaming the original authors in public?

[aurelianito]

I up-voted the parent comment because it is quite relevant to the history. OTOH, I find the opinion expressed in the parent comment quite disgusting.

I DO NOT think that down-voting relevant content we don't agree with is a good idea. Do you agree with me?

[redcircle]

What's up with the down voting? The score is now so low that you have to play with the screen contrast to read the comment. Does it enhance the quality of Hacker News when we can't read a side of the argument? This is judgmental crap, not mature debate.

[SourPatch]

I just highlight with the mouse.

[ChristianMarks]

A strict policy that includes insulting the original poster, accusing him of being "too extreme" and vowing on Twitter to avoid him in the future. At least this policy was written down, agreed to in advance and followed to the letter in practice. There's leadership for you. Or chutzpah.

[sparknlaunch12]

Strange that this has been greyed out? Not condoning the act of plagiarism but seems fairer to allow all parties to say their bits?

[lotharbot]

It's our way of voicing very clear disagreement.

Anyone who wants to read his words still can.

[eli]

You think otherwise he might not know people disagree? Voting really shouldn't be punitive to people with unpopular opinions.

[lotharbot]

I think otherwise he might not realize the breadth and depth at which this community disagrees with him. He is not merely expressing an unpopular opinion, he's demonstrated an inability to grasp certain basic concepts. Don't think of it as punitive; think of it as a wake-up call.

Also, according to pg, it is and always has been perfectly fine to downvote people for disagreement: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=117171 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=392347 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=658691

[beedogs]

Why shouldn't it? The only way to get rid of bad ideas is to shame them out of existence.

[devgutt]

What is bad idea to you could not be a bad idea to me

[lotharbot]

Nobody is stopping you from upvoting his posts.

[eli]

Really? That's the only way?

[dkokelley]

I do wish this wasn't downvoted to grey. This is content I think most of us will find interesting and relevant to the discussion.

I understand that HN allows downvotes of disagreement, even though in this case it buries the most relevant information.

[lobotryas]

I vehemently disagree with Zee in this case, but I upvoted his posts because I believe his position deserves to be heard. This goes double for when the other person is mis-handling the fallout. I recommend putting half-baked defenses to the top so everyone can see the person's poor character.

[rosstafarian]

I actually think the grey has the opposite effect, makes the post really stand out and i go out of my way to high-light and read it, if only to see why the person was downvoted so much.

To stay on topic I can't believe the guy still hasn't apologized. Judging by his attitude and replies he's probably too busy self-rationalizing about how he's right and if everyone else wasn't an idiot we would all agree with him.

[dkokelley]

Mentioned elsewhere: I'm not complaining about the specific text contrast. My concern is with downvotes being misused (albeit for my own definition of misused).

Downvoting also has the effect of lowering the comment's position relative to other replies. No matter the color, the comment will appear below someone who gets a higher score, even though I can't imagine a more relevant comment than from the guy this entire thread (and post) is really centered around.

[ktizo]

Highlight it then and read it. Or change your browser colours.

[dkokelley]

It's not the text contrast that bothers me. It's that we're effectively trying to censor someone directly related to the article, if only for the fact that we believe him to be wrong. I would prefer that his comments are perceived as most relevant to the discussion at hand, and upvoted (or at least left alone) so that the comment can stand on its own.

Zee's 'punishment' shouldn't come in the form of mass downvoting and censorship. His punishment should be publicity. Let the community see what he has to say and judge his actions, not his comments.

[ktizo]

How are his comments censored? I managed to read them perfectly fine. Censoring would be removal of a comment, not changing the font colour.

[dkokelley]

I think that's a rather narrow definition of censorship. Maybe you would prefer the term 'suppressed'. Either way, the intent is to signal to readers, "the community consensus is that this comment is not valuable, or does not add to the discussion. It is likely not worth your time to read".

[3143]

The whole point of voting is that higher-rated comments are brought to the top of the page, making them more visible. Most people don't read every comment.

[aerique]

It's because of people downvoting him.