Let me ask this question, because it seems it needs asking:
1) has anybody here ever been approached by other 'writers' who will do a write-up in exchange for goodies ?
2) has anybody here been approached by writers to post links under their HN username ?
The second has definitely happened to me, the first was so oblique that it might be my misunderstanding. But I'm fairly surprised, what's your call, should I out the publication ? The person doing the canvassing ?
I've been wondering about what to do with this.
As for the way this 'kid' (I'm putting that in quotes because if you are smart enough to ask for computers worth quite a bit of money you are smart enough to understand there are consequences if you get caught) has behaved, the other side to that story is those companies that did not get written about because they refused to play ball.
We're not talking about an accident or an oversight here, but at a deliberate attempt at fraud, and not a one-off but part of a pattern.
I don't see even being fired and having to return the goods to his employer who will presumably re-imburse the people that 'paid' for it is a punishment, that leaves him at '0'.
TC is handling this as good as they can after the fact, but before you give someone access to the editorial process don't you at least read them the riot act as to what the consequences will be if they do something like this?
Just like the 'real' newspapers companies like TC wield some power and it is important to make sure that everybody that is in on the process knows exactly where the line is.
If TC did make it clear in advance what is permissible I'm sympathetic to naming the guy, if not then probably not.
The key bit in Mikes post is this:
> on at least one other occasion
So, how often did that happen ? Once ? Twice ? More ??
If more then outing the guy looks reasonable, if it is once or twice then again, probably not.
I'm sympathetic with vaksels gut reaction, but slow down a bit and let's get some more data before making that call.
TC has their opinion, that's fine, we're all adults and reasonably smart cookies here, I'd like to be able to trust what I read is not coloured in any way and what Mike is doing is as much damage control on behalf of TC as it is an exercise in ethics after the fact.
Let's hear him out on how he has posted guidelines about how his writers should behave.
No policy -> TC bad, no matter how they spin it now, Yes policy -> kid gets outed, but only if this happened more than the 2 times that we're sure about.
*... has anybody here been approached by writers to post links under their HN username ? [This] has definitely happened to me..."
Really? That's awful. Ha - I've been making comments around saying that people shouldn't be outing the intern. But now I'm dying to ask you who it was. Maybe if the person's real identity can't be guessed from the username...? Jeez, I don't know. This sucks; I'm going to bed. Figure out the ethics yourself. ;)
I completely agree. There's probably many (more than two) sides to the story. I was just clarifying what I thought to be a misunderstanding of a comment. (I did say "I think his point was not X but Y"). I wasn't endorsing his position.
I personally have no interest in wasting time, neurons and keystrokes passing judgment on what level of "punishment" (including naming/outing) for this person would be appropriate, especially here on HN. (Nothing wrong in wanting to, just saying I don't want to).
Most penal codes I know (IANAL) do take age and frequency of crime into account before deciding what punishment is appropriate. I suspect, if taken to court, he would get away with a slap on the wrist.
Frankly I could care less. As I said, I am neutral on this with a very slight bias to "he's been punished enough".
The thing is that there is a more or less guaranteed discussion of your stuff on HN if it gets posted on TC, and vaksel has more than done his bit to promote TC on HN, so I can really understand he feels taken in a bad way. Another option is that vaksel was refused a write-up by that person, in which case I really understand why he's mad.
As for the frequency being a factor, yes but only after it turns out that TC has posted guidelines.
If not then you can basically discount whatever TC writes about anything from now on.
All I read is that Mike got contacted by someone that was approached, but that if that had not happened this could have been going on (and may have gone on) for a long time.
Let me ask this question, because it seems it needs asking:
1) has anybody here ever been approached by other 'writers' who will do a write-up in exchange for goodies ?
2) has anybody here been approached by writers to post links under their HN username ?
The second has definitely happened to me, the first was so oblique that it might be my misunderstanding. But I'm fairly surprised, what's your call, should I out the publication ? The person doing the canvassing ?
I've been wondering about what to do with this.
As for the way this 'kid' (I'm putting that in quotes because if you are smart enough to ask for computers worth quite a bit of money you are smart enough to understand there are consequences if you get caught) has behaved, the other side to that story is those companies that did not get written about because they refused to play ball.
We're not talking about an accident or an oversight here, but at a deliberate attempt at fraud, and not a one-off but part of a pattern.
I don't see even being fired and having to return the goods to his employer who will presumably re-imburse the people that 'paid' for it is a punishment, that leaves him at '0'.
TC is handling this as good as they can after the fact, but before you give someone access to the editorial process don't you at least read them the riot act as to what the consequences will be if they do something like this?
Just like the 'real' newspapers companies like TC wield some power and it is important to make sure that everybody that is in on the process knows exactly where the line is.
If TC did make it clear in advance what is permissible I'm sympathetic to naming the guy, if not then probably not.
The key bit in Mikes post is this:
> on at least one other occasion
So, how often did that happen ? Once ? Twice ? More ??
If more then outing the guy looks reasonable, if it is once or twice then again, probably not.
I'm sympathetic with vaksels gut reaction, but slow down a bit and let's get some more data before making that call.
TC has their opinion, that's fine, we're all adults and reasonably smart cookies here, I'd like to be able to trust what I read is not coloured in any way and what Mike is doing is as much damage control on behalf of TC as it is an exercise in ethics after the fact.
Let's hear him out on how he has posted guidelines about how his writers should behave.
No policy -> TC bad, no matter how they spin it now, Yes policy -> kid gets outed, but only if this happened more than the 2 times that we're sure about.
I think that's fairly reasonable.