I was a little startled yesterday when in a comment to a short-lived grumblepost on SO Meta, another member reflected that I should consider being a little more grateful to someone who had duped my post, because they had "spent time" doing so.
Really?
I think it's important to understand that some people (I'm sure I'm not the only one) see duping as a specific kind of vandalism which renders a post un-answerable and un-commentable.
So here's a practical suggestion, made in good faith:
In a similar way to when Edits are made, the OP is asked to verify or rollback the Edits, make it so that before duping the post, the duper is obliged to ask the OP if their dupe is welcome or not.
Thanks.
The bottom line from all of this (which is afforded so little respect back here in SO Meta, although is more widely observed out there on SO proper) is that the post is the OP's post.
Other members are free (and welcome) to answer and comment, if they wish to, of course, But it's not anyone else's to set fire to, stamp on, destroy etc.
It feels pretty intolerable sometimes (to me, but again, I'm sure I'm not the only one) that someone else can simply come along and damage or break a post that a member has invested time and effort and research into and posted references and written working code examples for etc.
So, no, I don't think generally we should be grateful for that someone else putting time into their attempts to derail work and effort, freely volunteered by other members of SO.
If some members here want to spend their time administrating other members like little authoritarians, that's their business - but I'm pretty persuaded that none of that kind of activity should take precedence over that of dedicated members who believe in SO and who spend their time actually contributing questions and answers to build the collective knowledge on SO.