Posted by ike1024 on 8/27/2013 5:14:00 PM (view original):
Posted by gillispie1 on 8/27/2013 3:38:00 PM (view original):
i agree, it is implicit collusion. if professor said, "ok, ill avoid him then", now its two way collusion. it takes two to collude - seems like if your statement can be responded to in a perfectly normal manner, resulting in two way collusion, then you should get dinged for "collusive effort" or "attempted collusion" as i prefer to call it - even if that wasn't the intent.
So is it collusion if the guys says "stay away," I look at my open scholarships versus his, decide he will win the battle, and then I decide to stay away? I just don't see how that's possibly collusion. The first statement isn't even directed at anyone in particular, but now I have "colluded" with him?
if you post that you will stay away, yes. if you don't, know. what im saying is, it seems to me, if guy A makes statement A, and guy B makes reasonable response B, and its collusion - then absent response B, by definition, guy A made collusive effort/attempted collusion. its not clear from CS what "collusive effort" is but they clearly put that in after conversations about, collusion is a 2 way street, so your definition sucks, because guy A can say "ill go for this guy and you go for that" in sitemail, and unless there is a response, its not collusion. so they broadened the fair play violations to include "one way collusion" if you will... anyway it seems to me that if you make a statement that others can reasonably interpret and respond to and its collusion, then without the response, its still "one way collusion". what other standard can you use? case by case basis, judging intent? that just seems crazy, im really falling back on this definition because it seems intuitive and easy to assess, not because i think its such a great standard when you go through the details. im just talking hypothetically here, how you would do this if you did it from scratch, i really dont care all that much what seble would say about this.
anyway if you buy into my definition of collusive effort/whatever, then when someone tells you to stay away, its collusive effort - because you could easily think OK i will, and if you say that, its full blown collusion. so then hed be guilty for opening the door to collusion, which, if you arent going to take on the massive cluster f... that is trying to understanding intent, is intent to collude.