These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Jita Park Speakers Corner

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Should "Make X Great Again"-candidates be disqualified for plagiarism?

Author
Alphea Abbra
Project Promethion
#1 - 2017-01-27 19:45:36 UTC
Here's a quick thought: If someone either views their CSM candidacy as a kind of commentary on real world elections, or if they can't come up with a better slogan on their own (Or at least be creative about their borrowing), they aren't deserving of our vote.

There's the possibility that some of these are serious candidates who want to grab our attention with a headline like that, but in that case, should we as voters demand they put more thought into their clickbait?

My own thread title is of course a meta-example of plagiarism and clickbait headline, since I don't actually favour CCP disqualifying candidates for plagiarism of one-liners, but since I'm not running, I can't be punished by the voters. If you do want to express your disapproval of my thread title, feel free to send me ISK in 0.01 increments or to put bounties on my head.
Lord Harrowmont
Nothing Is Beyond Our Reach
#2 - 2017-03-06 01:08:04 UTC
I don't see why..most of real life political material is rehashed. We all take views and ideas from others and mold our own playing field.
morion
Lighting Build
#3 - 2017-03-10 00:17:52 UTC
X ...
Alphea Abbra
Project Promethion
#4 - 2017-03-10 11:33:20 UTC
Lord Harrowmont wrote:
I don't see why..most of real life political material is rehashed. We all take views and ideas from others and mold our own playing field.
True, but voters demand that candidates put more thought into their rehashing of earlier political material than plain plagiarism (Which is why I offered the option of being creative about borrowing). The logic is fairly easy: If a (nominally serious) candidate can't put more thought into their slogan than reusing one from the last winning candidate in the US presidential election, are they likely to put enough thought into their office if elected?
For the CSM, ff they show how serious they are in the post itself, but put up a MXGA title up as clickbait, is that a sign of laziness or poor judgement?

It seems to me that the MXGA threads fall into two overarching categories: Joke/commentary candidates, and nominally serious candidates with a lazy streak and an affinity for plagiarism. Either way, voters should think twice before voting for candidates from either category.
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#5 - 2017-03-17 16:14:27 UTC
Alphea Abbra wrote:
Lord Harrowmont wrote:
I don't see why..most of real life political material is rehashed. We all take views and ideas from others and mold our own playing field.
True, but voters demand that candidates put more thought into their rehashing of earlier political material than plain plagiarism (Which is why I offered the option of being creative about borrowing). The logic is fairly easy: If a (nominally serious) candidate can't put more thought into their slogan than reusing one from the last winning candidate in the US presidential election, are they likely to put enough thought into their office if elected?
For the CSM, ff they show how serious they are in the post itself, but put up a MXGA title up as clickbait, is that a sign of laziness or poor judgement?

It seems to me that the MXGA threads fall into two overarching categories: Joke/commentary candidates, and nominally serious candidates with a lazy streak and an affinity for plagiarism. Either way, voters should think twice before voting for candidates from either category.


There is no need to ban them. The voters will decide if they care about the fact it's borderline plagiarism or if they don't care and think the candidate is worth the vote.
Alphea Abbra
Project Promethion
#6 - 2017-03-18 22:20:14 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Alphea Abbra wrote:
Lord Harrowmont wrote:
I don't see why..most of real life political material is rehashed. We all take views and ideas from others and mold our own playing field.
True, but voters demand that candidates put more thought into their rehashing of earlier political material than plain plagiarism (Which is why I offered the option of being creative about borrowing). The logic is fairly easy: If a (nominally serious) candidate can't put more thought into their slogan than reusing one from the last winning candidate in the US presidential election, are they likely to put enough thought into their office if elected?
For the CSM, ff they show how serious they are in the post itself, but put up a MXGA title up as clickbait, is that a sign of laziness or poor judgement?

It seems to me that the MXGA threads fall into two overarching categories: Joke/commentary candidates, and nominally serious candidates with a lazy streak and an affinity for plagiarism. Either way, voters should think twice before voting for candidates from either category.


There is no need to ban them. The voters will decide if they care about the fact it's borderline plagiarism or if they don't care and think the candidate is worth the vote.
I'm glad you agree with both my posts.