Quote from: nullius on Today at 07:28:00 PM

I request that Rule #27 be reviewed, and potentially clarified with a note; but I am ambivalent about asking for it to be changed in substance.

Quote from: nullius on Today at 06:06:15 PM

-quote snip-

I almost raised this exact rule in the Ratimov thread. However, #27 prohibits posting automated translations “in Local boards”—not in Global.

Given how badly some users (including several untrustworthy DTs) are hairsplitting and rules-lawyering, I decided not to bring it up.

The problem with broadening that rule to prohibit all posting of machine-translated content is that the forum’s main language is English, and its primary administrative language is English. Translated content from Local boards must oftentimes be posted in Global, for reasons ranging from scam investigations, to the Meta discussion of Local staff and Local merit sources, to—well, I can think of many valid reasons for this; and the reasons are not restricted to any particular board. And sometimes, it may even be reasonably necessary to post a translation of an entire article or post in Global. Overall, it would be unreasonable to expect that all such translations be done by a human.

Furthermore, as a practical matter, there are limited staff with the necessary language competency for moderating each Local board. If the posting of automated translations in Local were allowed, then it is foreseeable that the problems thus created would be uncontrollable. Whereas Global has much more manpower.

IIUC, the rule must stop Local users from sigspamming and/or inappropriately multiposting by such means, and/or stop inauthentic users, especially spammers, from using automated translation tools to attempt posting in boards where they actually know nothing about the local language. The potential problems with automated translation in Global are subtly but significantly different.

The question raised in the Ratimov case is already covered by the plagiarism rule. However, it may be wise to add a note to #27 clarifying that (a) it does not apply in Global, and (b) Rule #33 and its note prohibit using machine translation to plagiarize anywhere, whether in a Local board or not.

It may also be wise to somewhat broaden Rule #27 to restrict certain types of posts made in Global with automated translation. However, it would be difficult to do this in a way that is (a) concise (= shorter than a typical nullius post), (b) fully fair, without “gotchas”, to people who have a legitimate reason to use automated translation, and (c) resistant to hairsplitting and rules-lawyering by those who don’t. I invite discussion of how best the objectives of the forum rules could be achieved on this point.

In the spirit of the rules, so as for the letter thereof.

Thanks.
<...>

I can't exactly dictate what the forum rules actually are. To quote an older post of mine:

Quote from: mprep on September 17, 2020, 09:21:38 PM

If you want to propose changes to the rules or how certain rules are to be interpreted, message theymos about it since he's the only one with the authority to make substantial policy changes. I don't make the rules nor do I decide on how they should be enforced (at least not for all moderators or to such a large degree; there's a reason why rule 23 exists). I've merely documented them as well as some common ways in how they're interpreted. That lack of authority should be apparent if you take into consideration the topic's name:

Quote

Unofficial list of (official) Bitcointalk.org rules, guidelines, FAQ

This is echoed in both the top and bottom notices:

Quote

NOTE: This is meant to serve as a reference/educational/informational thread, NOT a rock solid list of rules.

Quote

Legal note: this forum post is a collection of personal observations on how Bitcointalk.org moderation functions at this point in time. It is not a codified set of rules or policies and may be partially or wholly inaccurate. I did not decide upon these policies and have no legal power to change or remove them. All legal queries, requests and demands regarding actual forum policy should be directed at the owner of Bitcointalk.org.

That being said, you do bring up a good point - the supposed loophole within the (unofficial list of) rules. While I could argue that this is covered by rules 1 and 23 (as well as the fact that this topic isn't supposed to be an official and definitive list of rules, but merely an easy to reference source during conversations about rules), it's stretching the definition of rule 1 a bit too much for my liking. However, as you've mentioned, removing the "local" clause doesn't exactly cover all situations where an automated translation might be justified. The amendments would also go against my policy of making the list first and foremost "simple" (in a relative sense; as compared to the long and complicated history that has lead to all the policies / soft-rules being enforced now) and only then focus on covering as much ground as possible afterwards.

Since (AFAIK) theymos is the be-all-end-all source of Bitcointalk's ~~rules~~ policy, I'll send him a message and see what he thinks.