Rule11 wrote:And that difference amounts to cheating in what way? Can you explain the reasoning here? I certainly would not expect the line between permissible/cheating to be the degree to which the help-seeker offered insights to others beforehand. For what it's worth, a more sensible line seems to me to be any discussion vs. no discussion, but that would make your assertion even more puzzling, as offering one's own insights (in addition to soliciting others' insights) would then become a greater violation than the solicitation alone.
So, as you can see, I'm struggling with your argument. Could you help me out here?
In my opinion, the fact that OP never offered up his own analysis but asked for others treads the line of cheating. Sure, he says he's using it to bounce ideas around, but you never know.
If someone wants assistance on an internet forum like this, they should be willing to extend their own opinions first. If you read this entire thread, you'll notice no one here actually contributed to OP's question.
How does anyone know that OP actually has some analysis worked out? Maybe he really IS looking for some answers. How would you know?
And yes, OP probably has a lot more credited resources he can look into for this. Including his own classmates.
I don't really think this is responsive. You claimed OP's behavior was cheating, and you said that the salient difference between permissible conduct and the OP's conduct was the OP's failure to offer up his/her own insights first. Best I can figure, you're saying that this difference is important because OP's conduct suggests that he or she wanted "answers" rather than "ideas." If that's not your argument, let me know.
If that's your argument, I remain confused. First, the OP's request was for help finding "issues" he or she might have missed. So, I'm not sure why we should credit your strained inference over the clear meaning of the request. But that aside, so what if the OP had asked for a detailed exegesis of the case and the surrounding caselaw, and a detailed analysis of all of the legal issues presented? Sure, that would be a gauche request, and one that few would jump to fulfill, but what I'm interested in is your claim that it's "cheating." We don't know what the professor prohibited--let's assume, in line with what we know, that the professor was silent on whether discussion of the case was prohibited, and the honor code is the same. If so, the only potential cheating I could see coming from the OP's request would be if he or she plagiarized verbatim a post made in response to the request. But that would only be cheating when it happened on the test--reading such a helpful post wouldn't strike me as "cheating" any more than reading the westlaw casenotes, or asking a friend for her analysis.
But what you've said is even more strange! You've suggested that it wasn't necessarily cheating, but became cheating because the OP failed to bring anything to the table. Merely asking wasn't the problem, it was asking without first giving. But, your latest post suggests that not providing his or her own analysis was problematic mostly because it was a breach of internet etiquette, not because it constituted cheating.
So, I ask again: why did you think it was cheating? Do you still think that? I'm not asking: why do you think OP's conduct is stupid, or bad, or rude. I'm asking why you think we should consider it--and by it, I mean the OP's question alone, asked as it was--academic dishonesty. Can you explain that, beyond mere assertion?