Thread: Contract Cheating

Originally Posted by whiteflags

Ouch! I would prefer if you left speaking for all of us in the hands of webmaster or kermi.

I'm not speaking for any of you, or this site. I'm speaking for ME. I am representing my interests and have nowhere implied that I speak for or on behalf of cprogramming.com. My references to cprogramming.com are the implied association between its users and Contract Cheating, as one of its users that association is extended to my person.

Originally Posted by BuzzBuzz

I'm not speaking for any of you, or this site.

Does that mean you aren't going to help me get a boat?

Originally Posted by MK27

Does that mean you aren't going to help me get a boat?

Ofcourse I'll help you get a boat. Let me know what you want and I'll email one over to you right away

But seriously the issue with Birmingham Universities list is that legislation is created on the back of "research" like that. It doesn't take a major leap of the imagination to see this "research" being used as "evidence" in some sort of legislation to limit access to certain things on the internet.

If you don't speak out then you can't complain when bad things happen.

Do nothing, or do something - it's an individual choice.

Originally Posted by BuzzBuzz

But seriously the issue with Birmingham Universities list is that legislation is created on the back of "research" like that. It doesn't take a major leap of the imagination to see this "research" being used as "evidence" in some sort of legislation to limit access to certain things on the internet.

If you don't speak out then you can't complain when bad things happen.

Do nothing, or do something - it's an individual choice.

Couldn't agree more. I wouldn't be too worried about it tho, as I still believe most academics, whatever their field, would sooner sell their souls to the devil.

But it wouldn't be too far to go for them to find a means of using this to scare kids away by defining any demonstrated association as guilt -- eg "there will be no use of forums period, and you will be punished if caught". Which is why a pro-active stance is a good one, because that helps to provide other (potentially opposed) professors with something coherent to clue into "before it is too late". Like, I won't stand for this hogwash.

I didn't do my degree in CS, but I guarantee if this issue involved English or Comparative Literature, I could quickly find some heads of institutes who would remember me, take me seriously, and quite probably weigh in publicly.

Originally Posted by whiteflags

I assume that any libel case brought to court will involve the webmaster whether he wants that or not. He owns it, and is liable.

Only if BuzzBuzz intends to sue cboard. My chance of getting a boat out of that one may not be so great.

Hey I just want to repeat myself in case anyone is paying attention:

Originally Posted by MK27

I didn't do my degree in CS, but I guarantee if this issue involved English or Comparative Literature, I could quickly find some heads of institutes who would remember me, take me seriously, and quite probably weigh in publicly.

Just a suggestion.

Originally Posted by whiteflags

I assume that any libel case brought to court will involve the webmaster whether he wants that or not. He owns it, and is liable.

No, UK laws are specific. The webmaster would only be liable in such a case as he/they allowed libellous statements to be made and took no action in the event that someone notified them of the libellous statements. The libellous statement has been made against this site, and others, and their users by the association.

Originally Posted by whiteflags

If the email BuzzBuzz wrote is the full text, then he has made no attempt to separate himself from someone who really could, actually sue for libel.

That's because by implied association of this site with Contract Cheating I am being libelled, as is every other user of this site and all the other sites mentioned in their list.

Originally Posted by Whiteflags

Quote:
Originally Posted by Internet tough guy
I shall give you opportunity to reply to this communication before
deciding whether to take this matter further.

I am simply unsure whether taking the matter further is really a threat that BuzzBuzz is fit to make for anyone else. I just don't want anyone to go to jail over it. We might not have a board anymore, if that happens. Crazier things have happened.

Before you start throwing around playground insults you better make sure that you actually understand what is going on. If you don't, as the case appears, understand how libel works, or how UK laws work then I suggest you ask for clarification instead of wading chin deep into your own cesspit.

For your information, suing people left right and centre is an American thing. In the UK, litigation is a last resort. I have pointed out to the author that I feel libelled by their inference of complicity in Contract Cheating of this site. There are many other avenues open to "taking things further" than litigation.

Also - no one goes to jail for libel as it is a civil tort. I'm not making any threats (in fact, I'm not making any threats at all!) or decisions for anyone else other than myself. I've also made it abundantly clear that I am speaking for myself, not for the site or its admins:

"a site that I frequent"
"The site I refer to"
"As a user of the site"
"you are accusing me"
"against my character"
"Your list is libellous to the sites listed and users of those sites"

And what I posted is the full text, barring my name and contact details. However, this issue is not only about this site, it is about EVERY legitimate site listed on there.

But let's take a step back and look at what I'm getting at (and we're all supposed to use logic, so let's apply some):

The list is named "CheatSiteURLs" - that implies that ALL sites named in that list are for cheating. Agree/Disagree?

The header title is "Sites associated with Contract Cheating" - that implies that ALL sites named are associated, or complicit by definition, with Contract Cheating. Agree/Disagree?

The implication is that users of each of the sites are Contract Cheaters by association - the forums do not populate themselves and as I have "helped" users in my own unique way the inference is there that I am complicit in Contract Cheating along with each and every one of you. This isn't "Internet Tough Guy" talk as Surrender Flags would say, this is cold logic.

Now, I hope that the stick has now been firmly grasped by the correct end and there is no more confusion and that I do not have a one man mission to destroy this site using heat rays from Alpha Centauri or anywhere else.