Flachmatuch said:You're completely misunderstanding me. I'm not saying plagiarism is not a bad thing, I'm saying this case is something that could easily be forgiven and doesn't warrant this kind of punishment; and I also don't like this voluntary policeman stuff, especially when it's aimed at the small guy. I also think that focusing on this kind of stuff is a bit hypocritical.
I'm not sure why it should be forgiven. If I'm a customer service officer at any company, if I am rude to a customer and he/she complains about it by writing to a major newspaper and it's published on the forums page, there will probably be an investigation. I could be fired, and no one should blame the person complaining. It's unacceptable, even if the company I work for is known to have bad service or has a bad rep for giving customers a raw deal.
Will the firing make the company better? Probably not. Does this mean we should endorse the poor environment at the company which does not generally care about poor service like this unless there's a complain? No. But does this mean I didn't deserve to get fired because looking at the big picture it's a shitty company anyway, and the customer should think about the consequences of me possibly losing my job before making that complain? FUCK NO. The idea that the "small guy" is somehow less culpable for an offense because of the poor state of the working environment is bullshit. Everyone who works is responsible for their own actions, we're not zombies or robots, we are intelligent beings with free will.
The reviewer knew what he was doing when he did it. It doesn't matter if gaming journalism on a whole is "shit" or it's "doomed" or whatever. If you choose to work in that field, you either have a choice of contributing to it positively because of pride in your own work, or contributing negatively to it because "it's so bad anyway". In the latter case, you don't deserve to work in the industry, regardless if your bosses are "just as bad" or not. The fact is being irresponsible has it's consequences on each individual.
There is also no voluntary policeman stuff going on. I would love for you to expand on this point, because it really strikes me as confusing. Any person reading a publication, be it a review or a news article, is an audience member and in hence the consumer/customer of that piece of work. If the consumer is not pleased with what is presented, criticism and comments should ALWAYS be welcome. If you don't want someone commenting on your work, you don't release it. It's as simple as that.
If I read two reviews which I notice similarities in, and I look again to notice entire sentences copied, why should I keep quiet? Where is my obligation to not voice something out simply because there might be a negative consequence for someone whom I feel has performed poor service to me in the first place? See the original scenario presented above.
It's not like someone went out of their way to get this guy fired, he simply pointed out an observation and shared it with the community here. If the natural cause of action is that someone gets removed for committing and offense as pointed out, it is only fair. While it might be "sad" that someone lost his job, this opens the opportunity for someone else of potentially better character to now fill that position. How the hell is that a bad thing?
Flachmatuch said:I don't really care hehe. I'd just like to get my point across tbh. I've seen too many peons blamed and punished for systemic problems and mismanagement to agree with this stuff too easily.
This matches perfectly with what I just posted. You basically think that the "peons" should not be responsible for any of their own actions, which I completely disagree with. Thinking like THAT is what actually causes more systemic problems because people feel no need to take responsiblity for their own actions and end up having zero ownership in their own work, and it results in poor work ethic and poor motivation.