I’d like to take a step back in this conversation, and revisit the spirit of rule 27: "Using automated translation tools to post translated content in Local boards is not allowed."

Here I lack the full history in order to know the exact reason why it was proposed as a rule, but it was seemingly conceived in this post:

Here I’m talking from a conceptual point of view, and not about specific cases. Now I figure that the rule had, in principle, the objective of facilitating a seamless conversation and/or understanding on what is posted on a local board. If that were the objective, then would automated translations that are clearly intelligible be permitted? What if they only strayed a few words here and there, but were still easily intelligible?

Something that has a terrible translation is obviously subpar, and certainly falls under the said rule, but on broarder terms, and just as an afterthought, we probably see a fair share of that on regular posts in the English sections, made by or assisted by tools used by non-native people.

What I’m trying to get at is whether these tools, and their output, are not allowed per se (as the rule reads), or if they are if the result is good enough (albeit not perfect).

The secondary layer of debate is on whether the translator used any automation tools in the process of translation, due to which they may or may not be skimming who hired them to some extent. This latter effect is not really a rule related phenomenon.

I barely visit the Altcoin board on the Spanish board, as it is not normally something I’d be interested in reading through, so I’m not really aware of how good or bad these translations are.

Note: Professional translators often do use tools in their work to make translations, but it then their degree of kno
wledge on the language and translating techniques that come into play to enhance or correct the output of such tools.