> Proposed resolution : A quote which is fully accredited and formatted as a quote, is not plagiarism. > > This definition is in line with all the world's dictionaries and all the world's legal sources. <sub> source: the question </sub> It'd be good to cite all your sources here, or at least show a modicium of research. I've tended to consider the standards many universities use as best practices and I really liked the explanation given [here][1] I'll quote 2 relevant passages to ensure that should the source be lost, its still accessible here,and so a reader dosen't need to go off site to read them. Notice the bulk of this post is original material, and my 'own' work is a backbone, not a scaffold > Students are often told to use direct quotes when they feel the original author’s phrasing expresses the idea so well that no better expression can be found. This is good advice but be sure to do more than just string quotes together with a few transition sentences. Even if every quote is adequately cited, the overall paper will feel plagiarized since the student has not written anything new. <sub> source: https://libguides.csusm.edu/academic_honesty/direct_quotation </sub> Now consider this for answers. An answer *should* be more than stringing together a quote with some scaffolding. A great answer is a lot more than googling the question > Each field of study has specific guidelines about direct quotation. For instance, direct quotation is often discouraged in the sciences, which prefer paraphrasing. Students can check with their professor on the preferred style in their discipline. <sub> source: https://libguides.csusm.edu/academic_honesty/direct_quotation </sub> I'd consider technology a science more than an art, and in the age of chatbots and such, value adds to an answer - building on your own experiences, and tailoring an answer to a question as much as possible would be nice. As such, you've begun your post with an inaccuracy. *All* is a very very broad statement, one might even call it hyperbole. > Why was I suspended for so long for a rule that doesn't exist in a written form? <sub> source: the question </sub> This was linked in the *stock* moderator message you received https://meta.stackoverflow.com/a/321326/674571 - Its part of the standard moderator message template sent to any users. In the interests of full disclosure - its 30 days cause we followed the standard escalation, and this is your *second* suspension for this. It seems a complete misrepresentation to make it seem like there wasn't any prior interactions, and we just jumped to 30 days. I'd also point you at [the relevant help section][2] - these rules exist in written form. It might be useful to acquaint yourself with these. While you linked it I feel like you might have missed the critical portion of it. > Do not copy the complete text of sources; instead, use their words and ideas to support your own. In particular, answers comprised entirely of a quote (sourced or not) will often be deleted since they do not contain any original content. <sub> source: https://superuser.com/help/referencing </sub> To borrow a term from tabletop RPGs, it very much is Rules as Written, as well as intended. These answers *were* practically complete text Its probably worth noting that over time I've helped draft parts of the rules here, and spent as much time on meta as here, so I've no idea what you actually mean by unwritten rules. The rules are written and available We've also generally not gone looking for *specific* violations since that would be unfairly targeting a user, but that's explained later. > Since I had some time on my hands these last 30 days, I have studied the Stack Exchange API and have written a program that scans all answers on SU and checks whether they are quote-only. <sub> source: the question </sub> This would indicate you're aware of the standards expected - which is excellent It might also be a great opportunity to review and improve your own posts to meet the standards. I'd note we don't have any tooling that particularly helps with this and if its actually accurate, there's some mods who might find this sort of thing useful. > The moderator that suspended me has written enough quote-only answers to be suspended himself. <sub> source: the question </sub> You're not going to know which moderator suspended you. This is precisely why in general, a moderator message is signed by the team. It used to be signed off by the mod who sent it, but this is *precisely* why its not. People trying to intimidate mods and all that. It seems a very [loaded statement][3] and presumes, in addition to knowing which mod sent you the message, that there's an ongoing pattern of misbehaviour. An interesting side question might be what happens if your script is wrong and there's literally no other way to answer the question, or it wasn't plagiarism at all. > Another moderator has written many quote-only answers. I remark that his answers are to the point and were often accepted by the posters. I'm puzzled by him not coming forward to explain to the other moderator that quoting is not plagiarism. <sub> source: the question </sub> Quoting with appropriate sourcing isn't plagiarism - it is a necessary, but not completely sufficient. Hypothetically in such a conversation, one of the things I'd point out is that it sets a poor example for other users. > There are thousands of quote-only answers on SU and it's simply unfeasible to delete them, as many are upvoted or accepted by the posters. Deleting these answers will leave their questions in a chaotic state. <sub> source: the question </sub> We deal with these as they are flagged - and by their own merits. In some cases we might find something that was surfaced by smoke detector, take a look and find its not spam, and the link used might have tripped a blocklist. If you feel plagiarism is an problem that should be solved, maybe its worth going through there in your spare time, and updating these to better, self contained answers that are not purely quotes. That said, do you really want to be the guy who basically decided to ruin a bunch of people's day cause you were unhappy with a moderator decision? If you choose to flag based on using an automated script to find and flag things, it could potentially be a [code of conduct violation][4] as well. We're going to expect you to *read* each one, as we do, and make a determination, and generally if we find someone's wasting our time, we're unhappy. > And most important : SU is said to be a democracy. A democracy is ruled according to a set of written rules, and only by those rules. The rules apply to everyone and even for the persons in authority. How can we have in SU unwritten rules that are applied or not at the discretion of the moderator? <sub> source: the question </sub> I'd point you at the [theory of moderation][5]. As a moderator, I generally consider suspensions to be a last resort, when other things have failed. Community health as a whole is a priority, and *if* something isn't written down, but is hurting the community, we'll take the appropriate action. This isn't the case though. We've followed the rules as written. *Should* we overstep - an appeal to the community team would be a countercheck. While I'm unsure if I'd be overstepping if I said this was done, maybe it'd be good to reveal if this was and what the outcome of this appeal. > Your goal is to guide the community with gentle -- but firm -- intervention. Respect your fellow community members at all times; demonstrate fairness and impartiality in your actions. <sub> source: the question </sub> When we suspend someone, except in *exceptional* situations, there's generally a written rule. That said, democracies are not police states either. Our goal isn't an overarching order, but rather to balance the needs of the people with practical necessities. Would it be nice if everyone posted original content? Absolutely. Are we going to hunt down every situation where someone has posted these? Not really. We do not have a goal of compliance to very strict rules as written. We'd like people to understand and adhere to the *spirit* of the rules. We intervene when there's a problem. While we keep rules as written as guidance, there are *some* situations where we need the flexibility to act on the rules as *intended*, or deal with unexpected situations. This isn't one of those though. There's checks on us - via contacting the company as well. It is not, to quote a local political party for me "ownself check oneself". We also discuss such situations internally. With newer versions of moderator messages we also include examples/links to what was *specifically* done wrong. When we suspend someone once, we don't expect to need to suspend them again. > If the moderators choose instead to uphold this plagiarism rule, explicitly or by inaction, I intend to fully cooperate with them by publishing on Meta SU in bunches the links to all the quote-only answers on SU, and I will report periodically on the progress done by the moderators in cleaning SU of plagiarism. <sub> source: the question </sub> I was going to offer to fix any of my questions that weren't up to standard or delete. That said this sounds *suspiciously* like a threat. If anyone *else* finds one of my answers are not up to scratch in this regard, anywhere on the network, y'all know where to find me, and I'll have an open offer to delete or fix up any of my past mistakes that offend. [1]: https://libguides.csusm.edu/academic_honesty/direct_quotation [2]: https://superuser.com/help/referencing [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question [4]: https://stackoverflow.com/conduct/disruptive-use [5]: https://stackoverflow.blog/2009/05/18/a-theory-of-moderation/