Non-Disc Record - Cerastes

Summary:

Nov 2020 incident.

page 1 of 3123next »

Disciplinary - Cerastes

Dexanote 20 Nov 2020 03:59

Recently, user Cerastes posted an SCP-001 Proposal “May We Meet Again in Adytum”, revolving around an object known as “the Great Seal”. It has since been deleted.

Multiple users throughout the writing and drafting of said SCP, and then after it was published, made observations that multiple aspects of this article seemed to have been taken wholesale from parts of the Alchemy Department canon, as written by DrMagnus. DrMagnus has been writing The Great Seal and working towards its publication for the better part of the existence of The Alchemy Department canon, and has discussed the idea before.

When shopping the draft around for feedback, Cerastes was told by multiple users that the draft was extremely close to Magnus’ idea, to the point of authorial theft.

Here is an example of one such interaction, specifically the instance wherein DrMagnus was made aware of the draft in question. Other users have provided accounts wherein they have had similar interactions, with the point boiling down to them indicating that the idea was clearly Magnus’.

Cerastes sent one .tell during the course of this, seen below:

8:56 PM <Secretary_Helen> DrMagnus: cerastes said at 11/06/2020 15:47:04: hey, whenever you're available, could you send me a ping? writing something that involves the origin of the alchemical great seal, malyce recommended i get your input as you had some stuff in mind for its origin

… and as far as can be seen, did not alter the course of his narrative until confronted directly.

Eventually, Magnus was pinged in a Discord discussion by another user, and confronted Cerastes; only after then, the draft was altered somewhat. These are the discord images linked below.

https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/702313598365728842/778478516005371904/Cerastes.PNG?width=720&height=393

https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/702313598365728842/778478502634717195/Cerastes_2.PNG?width=720&height=411

https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/702313598365728842/778478512821895188/cerastes_3.PNG?width=720&height=213

In short, multiple staff (other than DrMagnus, whose opinion has been discounted due to being a subject of this interaction) believe in the possibility that Cerastes in some way derived the idea, writing, and execution of his 001 from Magnus’ intended 001 idea, and should have known better.

See here for a Google Doc of several edit differences between three versions of the article. Full HTML files of each version are all available upon request.

This thread is a discussion of how staff should respond to this situation, as it is something of a borderline case and not immediately explicit. As of currently, it has been proposed that Cerastes be demoted from staff for bad faith coopting of another user’s intended climactic material, combined with a pattern of behavior unbefitting an individual of staff position.

This discussion is open to OS and above.

EDIT:

0. This is a discussion on whether demotion is the correct course of action. We do have a demotions process, and it will be linked below by Soulless.

1. This is a disciplinary thread and Disciplinary team staff have the ability to moderate and keep it on rails. Stay on topic for what the thread is discussing.

2. I will request that Cerastes' staff responsibilities are held in abeyance until a conclusion is reached in this thread. His Team Captains may reply once they have come to a decision (together, if there are more than one team Cerastes is on).

EDIT 2: I have edited this first post to better reflect the evolution of the discussion, with a broader focus on Cerastes' pattern of unstafflike behavior and less of a focus on "plagiarism", which was a bad presentation choice of issues on my part.

Last edited on 20 Nov 2020 16:41 by Dexanote Show more

Re: Disciplinary - Cerastes

Dexanote 20 Nov 2020 15:15

A few things.

Nobody is currently gunning for a perma ban for plagiarism. This is a discussion spurred by the question of whether this event is worth examining Cerastes' fitness for staff. In trying to be professional and direct and not-casual my language obfuscated the intent of this thread.

This is not a discussion about demotion for plagiarism, but a discussion about whether Cerastes should be demoted due to a pattern of negligent behavior.

What appears to have happened was that Cerastes understood the existence of the Great Seal and included it's origin as an aspect of an earlier version of his 001. He would have made it a larger part of the greater article, apparently ignoring the commentary that it was the intended idea and direction of the Alchemy Dept canon, until Magnus himself was alerted and confronted directly.

The story element was the basis of Magnus' 001 idea, but beyond that was the climax and ultimate story beat of his multi-year canon project. The questionable behavior is that, by all evidence, Cerastes would know that this was Magnus' intended ultimate goal and core to his 001, as well as the finale of his canon - and proceeded to utilize it, effectively taking the niche and opportunity from Magnus to use the build-up.

in addition, Cerastes did not consult Magnus regarding this story element or it's position in the canon until effectively immediately before posting, sending a vague PM via Helenbot on IRC, and he only changed the magnitude of which the story element was used and prominent after he was confronted.

The conversation should be focused on whether this behavior indicates a level of negligence befitting removal from staff, but not necessarily from site.

Please forgive me for being unclear above. Please review your statements and focus on the intent of the thread if communication was confused.

Re: Disciplinary - Cerastes

DrBleep 20 Nov 2020 15:34

Please note that the basis for removing Cerastes from staff is based on whether or not this behavior combined with the previous incident's context is to the standards of OS and staff as a whole.

It is my opinion that the behavior above is not only negligent, but also a colossal dick move. I'm not disc, but I tend to align with Lily and Bluesoul's opinions on the matter. For me this isn't so much a staff issue as much as it is a defined user conflict that could have and should have easily been resolved by simple consultation with DrMagnus. Waiting for the right exact time to talk to Magnus is not an excuse. Cerastes had multiple platforms and avenues by which to approach Magnus and consult him, and address the issues/topics that were at play.

Instead they consulted him once, only after being confronted, with no followup, and proceeded to post the draft. Lets be clear, the context of the security breach is absolutely important in regards to this. Cerastes, on two separate and major occasions, has refused to follow proper channels and communication until directly confronted. One of those was in a staff capacity. The other, while not necessarily an inherently staff associated role, is subject to staff action when abused, see ALA the Chandra case where intentions and crosstalk for articles/works was poorly communicated between parties leading to the direct plagiarism of a writers entire canon.

Do I think this is ban worthy? No.

Do I think this and the previous incident benote behavior unbefitting of staff? Absolutely. In the best case scenario a censure should be implemented, but I fully advocate for Cerastes removal from staff. The lack of communication, unwillingness to broach the communication gap when directed to/it's customary, and having to be confronted for active change/the truth is a dangerously worrying trait.

Last edited on 20 Nov 2020 15:51 by DrBleep Show more

Re: Disciplinary - Cerastes

Cerastes 20 Nov 2020 16:15

The questionable behavior is that, by all evidence, Cerastes would know that this was Magnus' intended ultimate goal and core to his 001, as well as the finale of his canon - and proceeded to utilize it, effectively taking the niche and opportunity from Magnus to use the build-up.

I was not aware at any point before the conversation with stormbreath that Magnus was writing an 001 about the Great Seal, and I'm not sure where this impression was gained from.

EDIT: Additionally, I did not always intend to post on the 17th. Originally I was going to post on the 25th (as stated in conversations here and here, but after looking at the criticism I had received, which included the conversation with stormbreath/magnus where I became aware of magnus's 001 intentions with the Great Seal and then changed its presence in my 001, I thought I had garned sufficent criticism to instead post that day.

Last edited on 20 Nov 2020 17:06 by Cerastes Show more

Re: Disciplinary - Cerastes

Dexanote 01 Aug 2021 18:42

I moved this weeks ago to non-Disc. Clearly it didn't take. I apologize for this, Wikidot is not doing well.

Moved correctly to non-Disc.

Re: Disciplinary - Cerastes

SoullessSingularity 20 Nov 2020 04:23

I am not currently making a position at this time in lieu of a desire to formulate my thoughts as precisely as desirable. I would like to instead take the time to inform staff as a body that, due to the relative rarity in which this process in enacted, that this process is currently following the strict guidelines laid out in the site charter under the Demotions tab.

Most particularly, it mandates that the captain of disciplinary or a disciplinary admin posts the report subsequent to investigation, that said captain must decide on if responsibilities are held in abeyance, and that for the evidence to be judged upon as part of an open discussion amongst peers of the staff member to determine whether or not the actions merit any action on the status of the staff member.

Please note that three possible options are available: Censure, Removal, and No Action, and the determination of any of these actions will be made in reflection to the judgement of the peers of the staff member in question.

(Minor Edit: I also want to point out that the guideline explicitly allows for the staff member in question to participate in this thread in their own defense. I would suggest all participating staff members read the guide themselves but I did want to mention things I felt were important.)

---

Living the dream, or dreaming the life?

Last edited on 20 Nov 2020 04:28 by SoullessSingularity Show more

Re: Disciplinary - Cerastes

(account deleted) 20 Nov 2020 04:34

A couple of notable things to compare to the drafts above:

"…and so it has come to us, the Wise, to protect the world. The Foundation is our best chance to seal off the influence of the Entities for all time. As such, I propose that we take action once and for all. Create the Great Seal, and for all time prevent such incursions into our reality… -Excerpt, A Call To Action, R. Diaghilev"

from http://www.scpwiki.com/finding-balance

"Bozhe moi, Adebeyo, can you slow them down, I can’t let down my counter-flows!” Ruslav yelled, the aether flows around his feet drawing up sparks from the stones of the ground augmenting his movement. With each pad of his feet on the ground, the earth pushed back up with him against his distinctive purple shoes, propelling him forward. On this plane, the Great Seal had significantly less effect than on their home plane. Aether flowed around and through them like water."

from http://www.scpwiki.com/the-summer-of-bad-memories

Re: Disciplinary - Cerastes

(account deleted) 20 Nov 2020 05:03

Please see my most recent post.

Last edited on 22 Nov 2020 02:45 by (account deleted) Show more

Re: Disciplinary - Cerastes

DrBleep 20 Nov 2020 05:42

I am of the opinion that this calls for demotion. This was an incredibly massive dick move, and given an incident taylor has already mentioned, I'm very much not comfortable with Cerastes remaining staff.

Re: Disciplinary - Cerastes

ProcyonLotor 20 Nov 2020 06:28

Speaking as one of Cerastes's captains, their Licensing duties shall be held in abeyance until the resolution of this discussion.

If folks are going to be voting no on Chandra's appeal¹ there is no reality in which Cerastes can remain staff. I recognize there are factual differences in the two cases but I believe they are of a similar gravity.

Without giving too many details out, the breach that Taylor mentions is far less concerning as a breach as it is as an example of a willingness to lie (a lie by omission remains a lie) to other members of staff. That, to my mind, is much more alarming than what was, objectively, a minor breach.

I would additionally ask that Disciplinary consider this in a context beyond their status as staff, if they are not already doing so.

E: As this issue has evolved, especially in light of Ceraste's statements, it is clear that I must give this more thought.

Footnotes

1. To be very clear I support this outcome.

Last edited on 20 Nov 2020 18:29 by ProcyonLotor Show more

Re: Disciplinary - Cerastes

(account deleted) 20 Nov 2020 06:42

Noting that my sentiment of the security breach is exactly what Procy states above and I believe I did not make that clear in my post, so I am making it clear now.

Re: Disciplinary - Cerastes

Riemann 20 Nov 2020 06:56

Please note that the following is not my judgement or position I'm taking - I am asking for clarifications on a couple things that I am not familiar with at the moment so to best form my thoughts later on.

I am unfamiliar with the Alchemy Department Canon. To that end, I'm a bit confused by the Google Docs link here - it seems to be comparing various iterations of the Cerastes draft to itself, which makes determining what is and isn't plagiarism more difficult. Is there a specific work that is being plagiarised, or is it the themes of Magnus' work such as the Great Seal? It seems like there's a draft of this that exists in Magnus' sandbox - is this what the 001 in question is referring to and is that draft what is being plagiarised?

I'm terribly sorry if I'm missing anything obvious - my ignorance of the Alchemy Department and the Great Seal concept make this situation confusing to me in determining plagiarism, as I do not know what original source is potentially being plagiarised here.

Re: Disciplinary - Cerastes

Cerastes 20 Nov 2020 07:14

Alright, an attempt to explain my actions.

Firstly, the object noted as SCP-001-B (or scp-001 before I made the nadoxian heresies my SCP-001-A) within my draft is explicitly not the Great Seal of Alchemy, which blocks outer dimensional interference and lowers the strength of alchemy in a 2km radius around earth. SCP-001-B is an alchemical working created by klavigar nadox to safeguard against a creature within SCP-001. Even then, it stops being a central issue fairly quickly into the article.

In an earlier version of the draft as noted above, i originally intended for the alchemy division to get the idea of the Great Seal from SCP-001-B. I disagree with the phrasing mentioned above about being warned about it- what I was told was that Magnus had nonspecified ideas about the great seal, and that it would probably be a good idea to get his feedback on it. I was not told that it was getting close to theft, nor was I told that Magnus was planning on making it a central piece of an 001 article that he was working on. I only learned of that fact after he messaged me in the logs above. I then changed it and removed the mention of the Great Seal entirely.

I was also absolutely not told of any other aspect of my 6.5k article beyond the mention of the Great seal being similar to magnus's work whatsover (I'm not sure where this information is being obtained from), and I fail to see how it is. The full draft is in my sandbox, and I welcome anyone to find a plagarism-level similarity to magnus's work, or question my reviewers to ask if the subject was brought up.

The Alchemy canon mentions the great seal in multiple published works, and I thought it would be interesting to incorporate the canon's history into the article, as the history of the foundation is a common facet in proposals. Canons are open to everyone, and I'm not aware of any such ruling or common consensus that you must grab the canon creator's approval to begin writing in that canon. So the issue here seems to be that in my article, I wrote about a part of my article as the inspiration for a facet of a canon, a facet that the creator of the canon was also writing about.

And then upon the request of the creator of the canon who I planned on getting in contact with before I even thought about publishing, who also admitted that perhaps they "probably took it in the worst possible context" due to unrelated matters https://imgur.com/a/TSttOJS, I changed it to only talk about the division in general.

While I have no doubt that Magnus and everyone involved are nothing but honest and sincere, i fail to see how this is plagarism.

EDIT: I'd also like to point out that while stormbreath did say that my idea was akin to "stealing" magnus's 001, they also mentioned the Great Seal, the issue that seems to be the central spark to this debate, was almost entirely irrelevant to the plot, refuting the basis of my article being centered around the Great Seal.

EDIT 2: I'm also including this portion of a crit session I had with one of the few reviewers who brought up the alchemy department in relation to magnus in any such capacity. https://imgur.com/a/0tXfOgW

In it they state that I'm referencing scp-001-b as an origin point for the great seal, not that I'm writing about the great seal as my 001 itself, and that while i should consult magnus about it, they also state that they believed I'm free to write anything I want, implying that they also believed this was not plagarism and/or theft.

I briefly discussed alchemy and magnus with another (https://imgur.com/a/EYX3l2Y) but it did not amount to anything beyond me mentioning that it could change as I was still waiting for a good time to contact magnus.

Another reviewer mentioned alchemy, (https://imgur.com/a/2yo9Jrs), but only very briefly and magnus or his planned work was not brought up at all.

Another reviewer brought up magnus and alchemy, but only in the context as to whether asking if i was using an original character which I told them a creation of magnus (which is permissible by every standard of writing here): https://imgur.com/a/qLGh1ik

Two out of my total eight reviewers did not mention the alchemy department at all. The full crit sessions for these reviewers as well as everyone else I mentioned can be posted here if people want, though I completely understand if Disc would rather collect them on their own. The list of reviewers is on my draft page (except for Nagiros who was left out only because I posted the draft very shortly after getting their crit), which was made before I was aware of any such accusation of theft and thus would have no reason to fake a list of such critters.

Out of all my reviewers, only two mention Magnus and the need to talk to them. Of those two, one mention that they believed it was only a courtesy rather than a need to avoid plagarism and/or theft, and the other one said that the Great Seal/the basis for this Disciplinary record was almost completely irrelevant to the draft (which was changed anyways).

Last edited on 20 Nov 2020 09:04 by Cerastes Show more

Re: Disciplinary - Cerastes

Modern_Erasmus 20 Nov 2020 10:08

Speaking as one of Cerastes’ captains, their IO duties will be held in abeyance for the duration of the proceedings.

I am not personally taking a position at this time as evidence provided by Dex and Cerastes both seem convincing and I’m not currently sure what to believe honestly. I will note that I don’t think the staff chat security breach is worthy of discussion here since it was based on a technology error and caused no harm. Cerastes should have been quicker to come forward that they were the source but ultimately it was a trivial situation compared to the primary matter being discussed here.

Edit: After some consideration I think I jumped the gun on saying the breach was unworthy of discussion. While I feel that way personally, others may not or may see it as a behavior pattern and I have no authority to dictate to them on how they should view things.

Last edited on 20 Nov 2020 15:16 by Modern_Erasmus Show more

Re: Disciplinary - Cerastes

weizhong 20 Nov 2020 10:27

As a disclaimer, I am not on disciplinary staff.

In comparing numerous iterations of the proposal's draft from Cerastes's sandbox (found here), as well as reviewing the extant alchemy department works, I simply don't see how this is plagiarism. The relevant alchemical department sections of Cerastes's proposal (which, to be clear, is an exceedingly minor component of the overall story) contain only material that was already on the site, and do little more than reference them at that. We're talking about a few throwaway references in the context of a 7000 world article. The story itself hardly even utilizes the Great Seal as more than a referential plot point before immediately pivoting the focus to something else entirely. Honestly, the elements of the alchemy department used here read as little more than the barest of fanservice for those who are familiar with the alchemy department lore, not an attempt to plagiarize some other draft.

In the absence of a draft from Magnus where it's clear that plot points, heretofore unknown lore elements, or direct passages were stolen, I cannot see this as plagiarism. Even assuming that Cerastes was aware of the specific plot details of Magnus's 001 idea being the Great Seal beyond that which has been shown (which, to be clear, I have seen no evidence for), this proposal has almost nothing to do with the Great Seal. The story here is a Sarkic history lesson masquerading as an 001, which, given the plot of the current alchemy department works, seems to be nowhere near where Magnus seems to be going with his own finale. I think half of the problem here is the wording from one of the reviewers stating that this proposal is "stealing [Magnus's] 001," which seems far more alarming than the textual reality of what was presented in the article.

While I do think that Cerastes was acting in poor taste by not properly consulting Magnus prior to using those elements from Magnus's personal canon, we certainly don't discipline users or staff members who write about other canons without the permission of their creators. In this case, the "writing" in question is little more than a brief reference prior to a 7000 word digression. To the staffers who have not yet done so, I strongly recommend that you read the text of this proposal before making a decision. I believe that this significantly changes the reading of the situation from the snippets of evidence that have been presented here.

Once again, a disclaimer that I am not a member of disc: At best, this situation merits a censure, because staff members should be held to a higher standard when it comes to communication with other authors, and because there appears to have been some other breach that staff at large has not been informed about. Without the ability to consider that incident, I can't personally argue for any kind of discipline at all.

EDIT: Upon further consideration of the viewpoint that has now been brought up by Dexanote, I am still of the firm opinion that no disciplinary action be taken. If anything, given the frankly confusing direction that this thread has taken, as well as the inability of staff to even agree as to which points we should be discussing, I can't even support a motion to censure Cerastes without a more clear direction from the beginning. I think ARD's post most accurately captures my new thoughts on the matter-Cerastes's individual actions in this case are hardly worthy of discipline by even the harshest of metrics, and I fail to see how a broad conclusion about their character can be drawn from just two different events. The fact that the breach was not even widely known amongst staff is damning in and of itself; if the incident was not flagged as worthy of our attention as a whole, how can it be utilized as demotion-worthy evidence? Additionally, with the new timeline that has been established, how are we disciplining Cerastes for their writing of an article prior to them knowing that it was possibly an issue? I simply do not see enough evidence of a broad or consistent pattern of behavior that would be discipline-worthy.

Last edited on 21 Nov 2020 10:30 by weizhong Show more

Re: Disciplinary - Cerastes

cybersqyd 20 Nov 2020 10:51

I was mid drafting a long post that laid out similar feelings to weizhong's post here; but this more eloquently conveys how I feel about the situation.

Should Cerastes have communicated more with DrMagnus about what their idea entails? Yes, probably.

Does this failure of communication cause this to be an actual issue requiring staff intervention? Not in my opinion.

Edit: Upon even further thought, I'm honestly not sure staff intervention is necessary here. Cerastes could've communicated better in both instances sure; but I find myself hard pressed to say this lack of communication rises even to the level of problematic worthy of a censure.

---

I will add that the conflation of this case with the Chandra case feels highly inappropriate: DrChandra spent a significant amount of time learning the exact plans of PeppersGhost and then implementing them in various works; which feels entirely separate from two works featuring Great Seals utilised for different (at least, as different as seals can be) purposes and with differing narratives; particularly without any implication of close collaboration/sharing of world-building material between the relevant parties in this case.

Edited to make some phrasing clearer

Last edited on 21 Nov 2020 17:11 by cybersqyd Show more

Re: Disciplinary - Cerastes

weizhong 20 Nov 2020 10:58

Strongly concurring that invoking the Chandra case is dubious. Not only are the two cases factually different, their fundamental characteristics are at odds with each other; one case being a result of two users discussing plot details at length, and this one involving literally the opposite, as cybersqyd mentions.

Re: Disciplinary - Cerastes

Uncle Nicolini 20 Nov 2020 13:10

strongly agreed with both weizhong and sqyd. this is at worst a dick move and calling it plagiarism is just plain wrong in my opinion.

EDIT- with the focus of the thread now made clear i think Cerastes should be censured, not demoted.

EDIT 2- Gee encapsulates my feelings on the matter in page 3.

Last edited on 21 Nov 2020 23:31 by Uncle Nicolini Show more

Re: Disciplinary - Cerastes

Riemann 20 Nov 2020 23:15

I'm inclined to agree with weizhong about the, for lack of a better term, plagiarism. The parts in question only occupy a small part of the 001 proposal and what remained in the posted version appear to only reference the existence of a seal.

I cannot speak to any "patterns of behaviour". There is a security breach being referenced by several people, but at no point does the initial post, or the clarifying posts afterwards, reference this event. If we are supposed to be evaluating a consistent pattern of behaviour, the inconsistent nature in which these facts have been presented to us - I first learned of this breach reading Taylor's comment - make it difficult to ascertain an actual timeline of events, or even what behaviours I'm supposed to be evaluating.

Re: Disciplinary - Cerastes

stormbreath 20 Nov 2020 11:45

Disclaimer I am not Disciplinary Staff.

I think half of the problem here is the wording from one of the reviewers stating that this proposal is "stealing [Magnus's] 001," which seems far more alarming than the textual reality of what was presented in the article.

As the person who made this specific comment I want to clarify what I meant by it: Writing an 001, set in a specific canon, about a specific major topic of that canon effectively precludes another user from writing about that same topic. When I said that Cerastes was stealing Magnus’s 001, I primarily meant that he was stealing the opportunity to write that 001, and if the draft was published unchanged, it would prevent or at least make it significantly harder for Magnus to write his future 001. I did not mean to say I thought the idea was stolen, nor could I have - I have not seen the Magnus’s draft.

I would not have minced words in this situation. I have had multiple dealings with plagiarism during my time on staff. If I thought this was one I would have said so immediately. It merely seemed weird and sketchy, something Cerastes should talk to Magnus regarding.

---

can I get some nice "no signatures on my forum"
sigma-9 css machine broke
understandable have a nice day

Re: Disciplinary - Cerastes

Modulum 20 Nov 2020 13:55

Disclaimer: I am not on disc staff.

That said, I am pretty much seconding all of this. While the circumstances of Cerastes' lack of communication and the way it was spoken about made for a seemingly sketchy initial impression, the more I look at the individual parts of this case, the more it seems that they each have a proper explanation and the whole thing has been mischaracterized. Simply writing something similar to another author's idea is not plagiarism, and in my eyes that is the maximum extent of what happened here. The actual text of Cerastes's proposal do in fact tell a different story than whatever Magnus would write, and feature the Great Seal and other Alchemy Department material in a peripheral manner similar to how any author would draw worldbuilding details from a canon.

In other words, when we're invoking the idea of the intellectual property of authors: express implementation of outlines and plans is a form of theft - that is, plotting details, the actual execution and development of stories; but the broad strokes of concepts that are then taken in entirely different ways, those don't have ownership. It's like how simple melodic similarity isn't ground for copyright infringement, but more significant degrees of parity in songwriting and arrangement decisions are - there are only so many sequences of notes you can make in the world, and I simply can't see these two proposals (one of which does not exist yet) sharing similarities that would prevent the other from existing at all. I fundamentally disagree with the characterization that "Cerastes in some way derived the idea, writing, and execution of his 001 from Magnus’ intended 001 idea."

I am not in a position to discuss the staff chat security breach but I would think it would only be relevant for discussion here if it was directly involved with the rest of it.

Re: Disciplinary - Cerastes

Deadly Bread 20 Nov 2020 15:01

Disclaimer - I am not on Disc

Concurring with the opinions of both weiz and sqyd. While I will admit that I am wholly unfamiliar with the Alchemy Department, I've read the entirely of the 001 and, based on the information provided regarding Magnus' draft, I cannot see how this is being conflated with the Chandra case at all.

Do I believe that Cerastes could have waited a bit for an opportunity to properly speak with Magnus about any similarities or issues with the draft? Yes. Do I believe that this constitutes as plagiarism or the theft of an idea? Absolutely not.

Edit: Since the goal of this thread has been made clear, I still only believe at at most a censure is appropriate. What I'm still a bit hung up on is that based on the timeline of events laid out, Cerastes both created the idea without prior knowledge of Magnus' intents to make it an 001 article and did so completely independently, and that this reference never even made it into the final draft. From the other posts in this thread it seems like Cerastes took this idea of the Seal being a sizeable component and included it even following others informing him of Magnus' intentions with it.

Edit II: Included my full views on the current situation as well

Last edited on 20 Nov 2020 22:57 by Deadly Bread Show more

page 1 of 3123next »