This Rule Makes No Sense, Honestly

[obfuscator]

The rule isn't fully redundant.

 

Let's say you speak English and German. You want to post in german, since it's your native language you can think better in it. (we also have many german speakers on these forums). You write up your post in german, and then you can post, as long as you run to google translate quickly and grab the english version (which you've been quite keen on doing).

[Comical]

The rule isn't fully redundant.

 

Let's say you speak English and German. You want to post in german, since it's your native language you can think better in it. (we also have many german speakers on these forums). You write up your post in german, and then you can post, as long as you run to google translate quickly and grab the english version (which you've been quite keen on doing).

 

Then why couldn't they type up the post in the Google Translate box?

[obfuscator]

The rule isn't fully redundant.

 

Let's say you speak English and German. You want to post in german, since it's your native language you can think better in it. (we also have many german speakers on these forums). You write up your post in german, and then you can post, as long as you run to google translate quickly and grab the english version (which you've been quite keen on doing).

 

Then why couldn't they type up the post in the Google Translate box?

They could. But why should they have to? In many ways you're right, the rule is redundant to a point. However, the redundancy isn't leading to anything negative and does allow for cases (however infrequent) where a user could benefit from the policy.

 

Unless you can show some sort of negative other than slight redundancy, the policy probably won't change.

[essiw]

The rule isn't fully redundant.

 

Let's say you speak English and German. You want to post in german, since it's your native language you can think better in it. (we also have many german speakers on these forums). You write up your post in german, and then you can post, as long as you run to google translate quickly and grab the english version (which you've been quite keen on doing).

 

Then why couldn't they type up the post in the Google Translate box?

 

In the first case (the poster searches for a translating) there is only one person who needs to search for a translation.

In the second case (the viewers search for a translating) there are a lot of people who need to search for a translation.

I think it isn't nice of a person when he lets all those people search for a translation when he can also do it himself.

[Pirate_Felix]

Isnt quite redundant, you can still say things, translate them and have people still not knowing what it means

Example

The rule isn't fully redundant.

 

Let's say you speak English and German. You want to post in german, since it's your native language you can think better in it. (we also have many german speakers on these forums). You write up your post in german, and then you can post, as long as you run to google translate quickly and grab the english version (which you've been quite keen on doing).

 

Then why couldn't they type up the post in the Google Translate box?

 

In the first case (the poster searches for a translating) there is only one person who needs to search for a translation.

In the second case (the viewers search for a translating) there are a lot of people who need to search for a translation.

I think it isn't nice of a person when he lets all those people search for a translation when he can also do it himself.

Maak dat de kat wijs.

Which translates to:

Make that the cat wise

 

Any english person understood what i said? No. But im sure Wisse did.

[Comical]

Dutch is really similar the English. Your argument is invalid, I'm afraid.

 

@Wisse: Exactly. He can type it in the Google Translate box.

 

@Y_Guy: Why should they have to? You said it yourself! Redundancy itself should be the sole reason for the removal for the rule. Please, consider your argument before making asinine statements.

[Danqazmlp]

At this point I have to ask, what positives would come from changing the rule out of its current form? The positives of having the rule there are a good compromise between all and nothing.

[Comical]

At this point I have to ask, what positives would come from changing the rule out of its current form? The positives of having the rule there are a good compromise between all and nothing.

 

And the positives that will come from changing it will be getting rid of the redundancy.

[Danqazmlp]

At this point I have to ask, what positives would come from changing the rule out of its current form? The positives of having the rule there are a good compromise between all and nothing.

 

And the positives that will come from changing it will be getting rid of the redundancy.

 

 

But how does that help the users of the forum?

[Comical]

At this point I have to ask, what positives would come from changing the rule out of its current form? The positives of having the rule there are a good compromise between all and nothing.

 

And the positives that will come from changing it will be getting rid of the redundancy.

 

 

But how does that help the users of the forum?

 

If you ask me typing text into a translation box is also easier than providing a translation.

[Danqazmlp]

Allowing foreign text altogether with no translation is not an option as far as I know. Many languages change when translated artificially which makes moderating incredibly difficult for the staff as we cannot possibly understand all languages.

 

This leaves disallowing them altogether. That would as far as I see, not benefit other users one bit.

[Comical]

It would benefit them by not having to do the extra step of typing it in the native language and translating it, and instead just translating it.

[essiw]

It would benefit them by not having to do the extra step of typing it in the native language and translating it, and instead just translating it.

They can already do that. They don't have to type in their native language. It is optional.

[obfuscator]

 

@Y_Guy: Why should they have to? You said it yourself! Redundancy itself should be the sole reason for the removal for the rule. Please, consider your argument before making asinine statements.

 

Are you even reading my posts? I said harmless redundancy is a terrible reason for removal of the rule. If the current rule gives an ounce of flexibility to a few users very rarely, that's enough reason to keep it.

 

I don't even see why you're arguing this, as it doesn't hurt you in the slightest (or anyone for that matter).

[n_odie]

The creator of this thread posted saying he made this thread for trolling purposes.

 

If anyone stills sees the suggestion as viable feel free to make a new thread.

[ForsakenMage]

Wo men you na ge cheng yin wei bu mei ge ren hui jiang hen hao de ying wen, ye bu mei ge ren hui jiang hen duo de hua. Wo zhi zi hui jiang san ge hua, hui kan si ge, bu guo wo zhi zi zai na ge wan zhang jiang ying wen. Suo yi wo men jiao ni men you sh huo jiang bei de hua, qing ni men bang wo men fan yi. Google bu hui fan yi qian de dong xi.<_<