I’m porting here (no Google translated implied though) something I wrote on my local board, regarding the issue of automated translations. To this regard, it’s a fact that there is an existing (non-official) rules that states that automated translations are not allowed on local boards. I do not know the full implications of breaking the rule are for the rule breaker, besides moderators possibly moving to delete posts of the kind.
This case has led me to question (as in a healthy mental debate, not a disregard for the rule) the spirit of the rule itself. Now the rule seems to have been originated in relation to this post:
9. Discussions in the main boards must be in english. All other language discussions should be posted in the appropriate Local board.
Please expand on this with a note to the effect that "Automated machine translation, such as using google translate, does not reach the standard required to post in English." or similar. The same can be added for posting in local language boards.
Added rule 27:
27. Using automated translation tools to post translated content in Local boards is not allowed.
Back in 2015, automated translations were nothing like they are now, and text translated by these tools alone, with no human intervention, often rendered a poor result, which may have been both unintelligible, and misleading with regards to the original content intent.
Fast forwarding to end of 2020, I personally find Google Translate to be pretty accurate (with obvious counter-examples we can all easily draw up), to the point that it is likely better than an average person who wants to translate a text, and possibly not up to the standards of a professional translator (although they may find aid in such tools as an initial baseline).
I’ve read a couple of @pedrillo0’s translations, and whilst being seemingly a result of an automated translation as per the examples in the OP (with an odd word here and there changed), they are readable and comprehensible from a reader’s point of view. I don’t really want to personalize on this specific case, but rather I was wondering, in general terms, if the rule was meant to be strict (i.e. no use of automated translation - period), or result context-based (i.e. if the result is comprehensible, then it may be debatable).
This is when moderator’s input will be interesting to read. I’m trying to imagine having to deal with this case, and it’s not that dead simple. The moderator will need to first interpret the rule (Boolean vs grey area), then assess whether the posts are indeed Google translated, then (possibly) determine if they are readable, and then decide what to do with the posts and the poster. Now if the result of the translation were to be pure "caca", it would be an easy task, but being the translations pretty good, this is where I fall back on trying to understand the spirit of the rule.
The debate on whether the translator cheapened the effort for the remunerated penny or not is lateral in the big picture (not from a reputation's standpoint though), since we are talking about the rule’s interpretation and appliance, which was not created to protect campaign managers in charge of delegating/hiring translations, but rather, I figure, creating comprehensible content.
