This Rule Makes No Sense, Honestly

[Pirate_Felix]

"Moderators would not be able to moderate posts in a foreign language. There's no way for them to know if what is being said is appropriate or inappropriate. Yes they can use a translator, but translators are often very inaccurate, especially when it comes to inappropriate content (vulgar language, etc.). Many translators don't even translate things like swear words. And it would be very time-consuming and irksome for moderators to have to translate every post."

 

IMO this doesnt really apply because if something bad is said someone else will probably translate it.

[obfuscator]

I can tell you right away that's not the case.

 

We've had inappropriate things posted in other languages before and it's taken us forever to ascertain whether or not they're actually bad. It's not worth the headache.

[stonewall337]

I can tell you right away that's not the case.

 

We've had inappropriate things posted in other languages before and it's taken us forever to ascertain whether or not they're actually bad. It's not worth the headache.

But 1.) How many people would know and 2.) Why would it matter.

[Racheya]

I can tell you right away that's not the case.

 

We've had inappropriate things posted in other languages before and it's taken us forever to ascertain whether or not they're actually bad. It's not worth the headache.

But 1.) How many people would know and 2.) Why would it matter.

It doesn't matter how many people would know, the fact is that they WOULD know.

 

And it does matter because posting in another language doesn't mean you can suddenly start breaking rules on language or insults.

[stonewall337]

I can tell you right away that's not the case.

 

We've had inappropriate things posted in other languages before and it's taken us forever to ascertain whether or not they're actually bad. It's not worth the headache.

But 1.) How many people would know and 2.) Why would it matter.

It doesn't matter how many people would know, the fact is that they WOULD know.

 

And it does matter because posting in another language doesn't mean you can suddenly start breaking rules on language or insults.

 

Way to ignore my point again. If I alone know it doesn't matter whether or not I post it, since I would still be award of what I would have posted. In other words, your argument is moot.

 

And still, why would it matter? Your argument is based ONLY on the "Rules are rules, no matter what, cuz otherwise you are challenging my authority" stance. If no one in insulted, no one is hurt, and there is no harm-no foul. So I ask again, que el demonios does it matter?

 

I sure as heck wouldn't be insulted if I couldn't understand the insult. However, then comes the intent portion of interpreting. That is another matter, however we aren't talking about that either.

 

Also, you used another straw man.

And it does matter because posting in another language doesn't mean you can suddenly start breaking rules on language or insults.

 

That wasn't the OP's point. He was asking, rather, why a translation was unequivocal needed. You seem to have assumed that he was going to be only using different languages to swear...

 

As such, both your responses are illogical, and as such are moot.

[Racheya]

I can tell you right away that's not the case.

 

We've had inappropriate things posted in other languages before and it's taken us forever to ascertain whether or not they're actually bad. It's not worth the headache.

But 1.) How many people would know and 2.) Why would it matter.

It doesn't matter how many people would know, the fact is that they WOULD know.

 

And it does matter because posting in another language doesn't mean you can suddenly start breaking rules on language or insults.

 

Way to ignore my point again. If I alone know it doesn't matter whether or not I post it, since I would still be award of what I would have posted. In other words, your argument is moot.

 

And still, why would it matter? Your argument is based ONLY on the "Rules are rules, no matter what, cuz otherwise you are challenging my authority" stance. If no one in insulted, no one is hurt, and there is no harm-no foul. So I ask again, que el demonios does it matter?

 

I sure as heck wouldn't be insulted if I couldn't understand the insult. However, then comes the intent portion of interpreting. That is another matter, however we aren't talking about that either.

 

Also, you used another straw man.

And it does matter because posting in another language doesn't mean you can suddenly start breaking rules on language or insults.

 

That wasn't the OP's point. He was asking, rather, why a translation was unequivocal needed. You seem to have assumed that he was going to be only using different languages to swear...

 

As such, both your responses are illogical, and as such are moot.

Actually, my arguments are based in the rule that we don't allow flaming or harassment to our users - do a really need to justify this rule to you? A user posting in another language MAY be using that as a way of attacking users or bypassing the censor on words that we have here. There is a precedent for it, it's happened before with a user and it took a while to be figured out because nobody on the moderation team could read that language.

 

It wasn't very long ago that we went through a detailed look at our policy on foreign languages. We decided that rather than banning them completely, we should ask for a translation so that we know what's being said isn't against our rules. It's a reasonable policy, we don't disallow them outright - we just want to keep things accessible for moderators and users.

[stonewall337]

I'm not challenging the rule, rather I'm challenging your defense of the rule, as it is illogical. There is a big difference.

 

Not to mention you ignored the point, if no one was insulted, how does it effect anyone?

 

That is a purely theoretical question, based on the hypothetical situation of removing the rule. You can't argue for a change without doing so. That is why your line of reasoning is illogical.

 

Not to mention precedent is irrelevant in a case such as this, or if anything proves MY point. You state that it took a while to figure out. Exactly. So, how did it hurt anyone?

 

Again, hypothetically

[obfuscator]

Not to mention you ignored the point, if no one was insulted, how does it effect anyone?

 

Oh ok, so I'll post whatever I want on these boards and hope no one ever reads it. Good plan :thumbup:

 

 

Not to mention precedent is irrelevant in a case such as this, or if anything proves MY point. You state that it took a while to figure out. Exactly. So, how did it hurt anyone?

 

Again, hypothetically

 

Yes, it took a while to verify the multiple reports we received about it, from multiple people who understood it and were offended.

[stonewall337]

Not to mention you ignored the point, if no one was insulted, how does it effect anyone?

 

Oh ok, so I'll post whatever I want on these boards and hope no one ever reads it. Good plan :thumbup:

 

 

Not to mention precedent is irrelevant in a case such as this, or if anything proves MY point. You state that it took a while to figure out. Exactly. So, how did it hurt anyone?

 

Again, hypothetically

 

Yes, it took a while to verify the multiple reports we received about it, from multiple people who understood it and were offended.

 

 

 

to number 1.)

 

Didn't say that. If you couldn't understand it the first time, you won't if I explained it again. Not to mention you ignored this part

That is a purely theoretical question, based on the hypothetical situation of removing the rule

 

It was conditional, and theoretical.

 

to number 2.)

 

According to the info Racheya posted, it took a while to verify it. If there were so many reports, it should have been handled quickly. Either that or the mods just didn't get to it in time.

[obfuscator]

 

to number 1.)

 

Didn't say that. If you couldn't understand it the first time, you won't if I explained it again. Not to mention you ignored this part

That is a purely theoretical question, based on the hypothetical situation of removing the rule

 

It was conditional, and theoretical.

 

to number 2.)

 

According to the info Racheya posted, it took a while to verify it. If there were so many reports, it should have been handled quickly. Either that or the mods just didn't get to it in time.

 

I didn't bother replying to your "theoretical" questions because I don't care about theoretical possibilities. You seem determined to debate just for debate's sake and I don't intend to waste my time.

 

It took a long time to verify because we needed to be sure that what was posted was actually offensive. This took a long time as it wasn't in English.

[Danqazmlp]

Not to mention you ignored the point, if no one was insulted, how does it effect anyone?

 

Oh ok, so I'll post whatever I want on these boards and hope no one ever reads it. Good plan :thumbup:

 

 

Not to mention precedent is irrelevant in a case such as this, or if anything proves MY point. You state that it took a while to figure out. Exactly. So, how did it hurt anyone?

 

Again, hypothetically

 

Yes, it took a while to verify the multiple reports we received about it, from multiple people who understood it and were offended.

 

 

 

to number 1.)

 

Didn't say that. If you couldn't understand it the first time, you won't if I explained it again. Not to mention you ignored this part

That is a purely theoretical question, based on the hypothetical situation of removing the rule

 

It was conditional, and theoretical.

 

to number 2.)

 

According to the info Racheya posted, it took a while to verify it. If there were so many reports, it should have been handled quickly. Either that or the mods just didn't get to it in time.

 

Do you not expect us to imagine what would happen if we made changes to rules?

 

Honestly, I mean no offence but you do not know the systems which work behind the scenes and how the criteria the admins go through when changing a rule (Even I don't fully know) so you cannot make an informed argument on any of the points which you are trying to argue.

 

It has been explained numerous times on this thread why the rule is as it is, why it is the best of both worlds and that it took a fair amount of time for the staff to come up with the rule in its current form. You are now either arguing for the sake of an argument, or you have lost the point that you are arguing for.

[stonewall337]

Or the staff can't brook outside opinions. You act all surprised when someone doesn't know how every single thing with staff works, and yet there is NO transparency.

[Racheya]

Or the staff can't brook outside opinions. You act all surprised when someone doesn't know how every single thing with staff works, and yet there is NO transparency.

We listen to outside opinions, but an outside opinion isn't always right and your opinion seems to be... hmm, it seems I kind of got distracted by the pointless debating and don't know what your original point was anymore. Was it that we should allow foreign languages, making an already difficult job of moderation even moreso?

 

And we don't act surprised, if you think this is surprised then you have a poor grasp of emotions. And I'd like to think that the Moderator Spotlight and recent Administrator Spotlight gave plenty of transparency, as is appropriate, to what members need to know. The rule that we currently have is both reasonable and rather well suited to how we operate. It's balanced, fair and not a big deal - I think this is easy enough to see without 'transparency'.

[Comical]

I'm just curious, is there an event that caused you to want this rule change?

 

As Mr. Red mentioned, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. I don't really see where this has been an issue. :?:

 

That's got to be one of the largest anti-innovation quotes ever.

 

I can tell you right away that's not the case.

 

We've had inappropriate things posted in other languages before and it's taken us forever to ascertain whether or not they're actually bad. It's not worth the headache.

 

Like I said, online translation tools are extremely invaluable, even if garbage at times. Still, it gives you a good enough idea of the thing being said.

 

 

to number 1.)

 

Didn't say that. If you couldn't understand it the first time, you won't if I explained it again. Not to mention you ignored this part

That is a purely theoretical question, based on the hypothetical situation of removing the rule

 

It was conditional, and theoretical.

 

to number 2.)

 

According to the info Racheya posted, it took a while to verify it. If there were so many reports, it should have been handled quickly. Either that or the mods just didn't get to it in time.

 

I didn't bother replying to your "theoretical" questions because I don't care about theoretical possibilities. You seem determined to debate just for debate's sake and I don't intend to waste my time.

 

It took a long time to verify because we needed to be sure that what was posted was actually offensive. This took a long time as it wasn't in English.

 

Not care for theoretical situations? Is this how you run this place?

[stonewall337]

I'm just curious, is there an event that caused you to want this rule change?

 

As Mr. Red mentioned, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. I don't really see where this has been an issue. :?:

 

That's got to be one of the largest anti-innovation quotes ever.

 

I can tell you right away that's not the case.

 

We've had inappropriate things posted in other languages before and it's taken us forever to ascertain whether or not they're actually bad. It's not worth the headache.

 

Like I said, online translation tools are extremely invaluable, even if garbage at times. Still, it gives you a good enough idea of the thing being said.

 

 

to number 1.)

 

Didn't say that. If you couldn't understand it the first time, you won't if I explained it again. Not to mention you ignored this part

That is a purely theoretical question, based on the hypothetical situation of removing the rule

 

It was conditional, and theoretical.

 

to number 2.)

 

According to the info Racheya posted, it took a while to verify it. If there were so many reports, it should have been handled quickly. Either that or the mods just didn't get to it in time.

 

I didn't bother replying to your "theoretical" questions because I don't care about theoretical possibilities. You seem determined to debate just for debate's sake and I don't intend to waste my time.

 

It took a long time to verify because we needed to be sure that what was posted was actually offensive. This took a long time as it wasn't in English.

 

Not care for theoretical situations? Is this how you run this place?

 

 

That's my whole point. I'm not necessarily advocating the removal of the rule, rather, I'm arguing against the reasons given for not even considering removal, as they are asinine, and illogical.

[essiw]

Honestly, I don't see where this thread is going. There are so many posts and the only two things I can read are:

 

Q-Why is this rule here? It should be removed or be more strict

A-This rule is there for many reasons.

 

Also I don't get the large fuss about the rule. What does it matter that people can use their own language and give a translation? Are you bothered by people doing so?

[tripsis]

We want all of our forum users to be able to understand each other - what's so illogical about that?

[Comical]

We want all of our forum users to be able to understand each other - what's so illogical about that?

 

And what's so hard to understand about "so we ruled out letting people speak exclusively in foreign languages, why not forbid it all together?" You said it yourself (might not be you but some other mod/admin). If they're on here then they should be able to speak/understand English to a certain degree.

 

Or the staff can't brook outside opinions. You act all surprised when someone doesn't know how every single thing with staff works, and yet there is NO transparency.

We listen to outside opinions, but an outside opinion isn't always right and your opinion seems to be... hmm, it seems I kind of got distracted by the pointless debating and don't know what your original point was anymore. Was it that we should allow foreign languages, making an already difficult job of moderation even moreso?

 

And we don't act surprised, if you think this is surprised then you have a poor grasp of emotions. And I'd like to think that the Moderator Spotlight and recent Administrator Spotlight gave plenty of transparency, as is appropriate, to what members need to know. The rule that we currently have is both reasonable and rather well suited to how we operate. It's balanced, fair and not a big deal - I think this is easy enough to see without 'transparency'.

 

That's the same logic Jagex uses, and look at them.

[tripsis]

Why should we disallow it all together? We have no reason to. If a translation is provided, everyone can understand what is being said. So as long as we can offer people the option to include text in a foreign language - why not? Some people really enjoy this option and like to include such text in their signatures in particular. We shouldn't limit users anymore than we have to.

[Comical]

Why should we disallow it all together? We have no reason to. If a translation is provided, everyone can understand what is being said. So as long as we can offer people the option to include text in a foreign language - why not? Some people really enjoy this option and like to include such text in their signatures in particular. We shouldn't limit users anymore than we have to.

 

Redundancy again.

 

Translation defeats the purpose of saying it in the foreign language. If people want to put foreign languages in their signature then I personally would say go wild. This brings us back to the "all" option.

[tripsis]

It may defeat the purpose but we have no reason to ban it all together as long a som people enjoy and appreciate it.

[Comical]

It may defeat the purpose but we have no reason to ban it all together as long a som people enjoy and appreciate it.

 

Cite examples? A point like that is useless without examples.

[obfuscator]

 

That's my whole point. I'm not necessarily advocating the removal of the rule, rather, I'm arguing against the reasons given for not even considering removal, as they are asinine, and illogical.

 

Yes, and even though you've made several posts on this thread you've yet to provide one single good reason for the removal of this rule.

 

We don't object to change here - what the users want they should get. However, if you wish to see a change to current procedure, the onus is on you to prove the need, not on us to defend it.

[Tim]

Sehen Sie wie Lästig es wäre die Art in eine andere Sprache? Das Problem ist, wenn Sie nicht genau wissen, was die Sprache ist, wie können sie übersetzen sie zu beginnen? Nehmen Sie, was ich sage zum Beispiel. Ich könnte vereidigung auf sie in thisa Sprache und wenn Sie nicht genau wissen Sprache, sie könnten nicht übersetzen, sowie Es wäre Verletzung der Regeln.

 

There's my reason.

 

Also:

However, if you wish to see a change to current procedure, the onus is on you to prove the need, not on us to defend it.

 

This is the point here. Instead of attacking us about WHY it's there, show us WHY it actually isn't needed, rather then attacking the users/staff about something that doesn't even have a relevence about your posting style.

[Comical]

Sehen Sie wie Lästig es wäre die Art in eine andere Sprache? Das Problem ist, wenn Sie nicht genau wissen, was die Sprache ist, wie können sie übersetzen sie zu beginnen? Nehmen Sie, was ich sage zum Beispiel. Ich könnte vereidigung auf sie in thisa Sprache und wenn Sie nicht genau wissen Sprache, sie könnten nicht übersetzen, sowie Es wäre Verletzung der Regeln.

 

There's my reason.

 

Also:

However, if you wish to see a change to current procedure, the onus is on you to prove the need, not on us to defend it.

 

This is the point here. Instead of attacking us about WHY it's there, show us WHY it actually isn't needed, rather then attacking the users/staff about something that doesn't even have a relevence about your posting style.

 

Google Translate helped me out pretty easily right there. Also, I've said this countless times. The reason I want this removed is the redundancy of the rule.