Question concerning the new code of conduct

Question

I have read the new "be nice" code of conduct and would like to see whether it applies to the behavior I have encountered in this post.

This post has a bounty attached for 500 rep, which started a kind of a feeding frenzy.

In short, the poster had crashes after upgrade to Windows 10 and asked for analysis. One answer was a defective CPU and mine was for a RAM problem. The guy ran my recommended MemTest86 and informed us both that many errors were found and asked why the problem was not apparent in Windows 7.

What shocked me was the reaction of the other guy. He immediately launched a two-pronged attack. On the one hand he replaced his wrong analysis with my answer, and added a reason for the crash only happening in Windows 10 (which is wrong again). On the other hand he added a poisonous comment to my answer, which started a downvoting stampede which brought my answer to negative and frightened the poster away from it. Finally all comments were deleted by a moderator.

I have no criticism regarding the poster who is free to do as he sees fit and to consider the other's answer that is choke-full of links as more educative. After the inclusion of my answer, it certainly looks as being more complete.

I would like, however, to ask if the new code allows behavior that might even be called plagiarism and bluff in the hunt for a bounty.

I would certainly be heavily downvoted here, but would like some answers, perhaps from the moderators. I have been called bounty-hunter on this site, but all I do is answer posts. Is everything permitted for getting the bounty?

EDIT

It seems that the new Code does not change anything and moderators will still limit their intervention to insulting or useless comments and answers.

The matter I exposed may relate more to netiquette than to any Code, so I would like to sum up my own netiquette that I have developed here over the years :

• My answers will not intentionally overlap others, except in minor parts, in answers and comments.
• If a comment contains what I think is the right answer, I will encourage that person to put up his own answer rather than use it myself.
• I will avoid from negatively commenting on other answers, especially when a bounty is involved, except when an answer is actively harmful such as advising the replacement of a perfectly good CPU. (Asking for some proof for stated claims is not a negative comment.)
• I will not complement my answer with elements from other answers so that it becomes a summary of the subject. (I find that having the full picture scattered over individual answers of differing viewpoints makes the post richer.)

The above points don't seem to be covered in the new Code. Maybe we need some discussion about netiquette rules to complement the Code.

Answer 1

There are many many things we hope to see from high reputation users aside from... well, high reputation.

They're the folks who we hope step up to set an example for others even if they are not moderators. They're the ones who get the unwritten and written rules of the network and end up spending the time to guide and help new users and less new users. One of the many things we hope to see is good sportsmanship. We're all in this together.

The point of a bounty is to get attention to a pricky question and help to get folks looking at it. Who the bounty is handed to is entirely up to the person posting the bounty and if they felt another another answer was more helpful - it is entire their choice. Not yours, and the comments saying the other answer shouldn't have gotten it were not sporting.

I felt that the comments in question exhibited a tiny bit of poor sportsmanship and were in danger of veering further into an argument that would result in tears, horror and suspensions. It was the very definition of bickering and felt unproductive.

Is everything permitted for getting the bounty?

Is a great question. Its never about the bounty, nor should it be.

Sportsmanship is about winning. But its not just about you winning. A lower rep user posted a great answer with a different, useful perspective. If he learnt from you - it means you succeeded in teaching someone something new, and that's worth more than all of Jon Skeet's reputation. We've added to the collective knowledge, and that's a win too

In short? I deleted the comments cause the exhibited what I did not feel was the best we could be.

Answer 2

It seems that the new Code does not change anything and moderators will still limit their intervention to insulting or useless comments and answers.

What exactly did you expect a moderator to do in this case? Your answer wasn't plagiarised, and the knowledge you provided with regards to testing the memory modules, is common enough knowledge that most people would eventually suggest it on their own. A moderator cannot assign the bounty. So it's unclear what they would do, other than remove comments everyone agrees, was less then civil.

On the other hand, he added a poisonous comment to my answer, which started a downvoting stampede which brought my answer to negative and frightened the poster away from it. Finally, all comments were deleted by a moderator.

I read the entire exchange, I saw nearly every comment, neither you or the other party were behaving like they should. Comments that indicate somebody does not know what they are talking about, is not civil and is the reason those comments were removed.

I would like, however, to ask if the new code allows behavior that might even be called plagiarism and bluff in the hunt for a bounty.

To answer your question, the new code of conduct absolutely does not allow for the behavior you describe, the expectation of being civil to one another is absolute.

You might want to look up what is and isn't considered plagiarism, you submitted your suggestion about testing the memory, after the existing answer was modified to include that suggestion. After it was confirmed, the memory was indeed the problem, the answer was again modified to give you credit for your suggestion.

Plagiarism is considered academic dishonesty and a breach of journalistic ethics.

Source: Plagiarism

to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own : use (another's production) without crediting the source

Source: plagiarizing

The author of the other answer, provide credit to you, even though they were not required to since they also made the suggestion.

The most likely cause of this type of crash is defective memory. As suggested by harrymc, the first thing to try is generally to run a memory testing program, such as Windows Memory Diagnostic (included in Windows), the original MemTest86 (maintained by PassMark Software), or the open-source Memtest86+. (I've added this section for the benefit of other readers here who may be experiencing similar problems but not have tried memory testing.)

Source: The Answer in Question - Revision 8

As for the downvotes you received, it was issued a vote against a pretty poor quality answer, one that already exists to multiple existing questions. The question could easily be closed as a duplicate of an existing question that suggests using MemTestx86.

The downvote I issued was due to what I feel and still feel (since the sentence has not been removed), to be an incorrect factual statement. The response to my feedback was less than civil, you might have communicated poorly, but the response I read indicated you thought I didn't know what I was talking about. Which when it comes to understanding the differences between Windows 7 and Windows 10 is simply not the case.

Windows 10 might be using a defective part of the RAM that was not used before.

I would certainly be heavily downvoted here but would like some answers, perhaps from the moderators. I have been called bounty-hunter on this site, but all I do is answer posts. Is everything permitted for getting the bounty?

Voting on a meta StackExchange website is different, a vote to this question would indicate if somebody agrees or disagrees that the behavior was against the code of conduct. I personally feel everyone involved, acted poorly, which is the reason the question had to be locked.

I have no criticism regarding the poster who is free to do as he sees fit and to consider the other's answer that is choke-full of links as more educative. After the inclusion of my answer, it certainly looks like being more complete.

The "inclusion" of your answer was added hours before you submitted your initial answer. While a later edit, specifically called out your answer (which really should not be done anyways unless it quotes the relevant information from it), the existing answer already briefly talked about the possibility of a bad memory module hours before you submitted your answer.

The errors occur at one particular region of the memory, around 0x19BDD79F0, which would limit the problem to one module. The address suggests but does not confirm, that the problem is in one of the Patriot Memory modules.

Source: 5 of 8

Whether he credited me in an off-hand way is also beside the point, the question here is can one "adopt" another's answer to replace his own to get the bounty.

I feel I have answered your question since the author did not plagiarise your answer, the modification of their answer as more details about the problem was revealed, which is not only allowed but encouraged by the greater StackExchange community.