|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Translation issues
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
Here's a host call by Doc Tor, which basically flags me up for not providing a translation for a Latin phrase. However, the host call misrepresents the situation, insofar as the quote somehow has stripped off the URL link provided in the original post.
Now, this URL link is to a Wikipedia page which does provide an English translation, the provenance of the maxim, and an explanation of its meaning.
I responded on thread here, because (as I say there) I have used the same method several times before on SoF with no concern ever being raised by a host. So I considered this to be an oversight. However, apparently not so, including an escalation to admin now. I'm unclear whether admin are being brought in to deal with the question, or to deal with my response on the thread. If the former, fine, if the latter, then I consider this a completely unwarranted overreaction.
Now, a slight complication here is that I did exchange two words to make a point:
"Quod licet bovi, non licet Iovi."
vs. original
"Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi."
which I considered to be simple enough to track from the Wikipedia translation of the original
"What is permissible for Jove is not permissible for an ox."
into the intended wordplay
"What is permissible for an ox is not permissible for Jove."
I asked on thread whether that was the problem, but from the response this seemed not to be the case, though this is not clear.
In summary, I think the method of providing a translation (and more) by linking the foreign language phrase to a website is legitimate and allows those who know the phrase to enjoy it directly, and those who do not to find out about it conveniently. I see no issue here, and hence no reason for the hostly intervention.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
I'm just off out to watch the Boy stab people. Very cathartic.
Two notes at this stage: you don't make the rules regarding translations, and I don't make the rules regarding translations. The only difference is that I have to enforce them, and you have to obey them.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
It turns out they were both left-handed. Who would have guessed?
This is really very straight-forward. You post something in a foreign language, you translate it below. No ifs, no buts. If you can't provide a translation that exactly covers the quote, you may put "roughly translated as". It matters not whether the quote is a link that I absolutely must click on and check because that's my function as a host to protect the other users of the board: if it's not in English*, it needs a translation.
Secondly, I admonished both you and mousethief, for the same infraction, using hostly tags minor. That should have been sufficient, and indeed it was for one of you. You know full well that if you want to question a hostly ruling, you do here, in Styx, or not at all. Hence the escalation to hostly tags major, and the admin referral.
I'm unconcerned regarding the content of your link, or your intention of word play. That's entirely a red herring, and I won't be discussing it.
So, in order, and for the benefit and education of others, you posted something not in English, you declined to translate it at the first opportunity, you argued about a host post on a board other than Styx. None of these are acceptable behaviour from any poster in Hell, and I imagine other board hosts will feel the same regarding their domains.
*English, being the whore of languages, may beg, borrow and steal from others and incorporate them, etcetera, in its own canon. Then we're cool with it.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
Here is a recent post where I used the same method (search for "in dubio pro reo"). I have done this a number of times in the past without complaint.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
It looks to me like the Purg host on duty had other, larger, fish to fry with you at the time.
Do you have any substantive complaint regarding my hosting, or are we already at the chop logic stage?
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Just a reminder about our in house Commandments quote:
6. Respect the Ship's crew
If you disagree with a member of the Ship's crew (in their official capacity), raise the issue in the Styx, our board for in-house stuff. Personal attacks on hosts, admins and editors for their official actions will be treated as an attempt to disrupt the Ship itself.
Here are two ways things could have been handled:
- A host tells you to provide a translation. You come right back with a "but I gave a link", and "that must be an oversight" (ie: you're not doing your job of reading the posts on your board and checking links properly), and then start a Styx thread after being explicitly told to do so, deciding to add in a claim of being misrepresented.
- A host tells you to provide a translation. You start a Styx thread to question whether providing a link is adequate or whether a translation in the post is needed, because there appears to be a difference in how different hosts apply the requirement of a translation.
Now, which approach is the one that gets an answer to the question and respects the hosts?
Alan
Ship of Fools Admin
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
And, to the specific question of whether a translation within the text of a post is required, I'm not sure we've ever had a discussion on that point. So, I'm not going to state what our policy is (because we haven't really formulated one) and wait to see what other here think.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Now, which approach is the one that gets an answer to the question and respects the hosts?
Or, how about this: on a clearly minor point of protocol, I try to resolve the issue locally by pointing out that a translation was in fact provided by me via a link, which may have been overlooked. But if it hadn't been overlooked, I say, I will take it to Styx (as per usual). I get shouted at for my trouble.
I then go to Styx and make some effort in linking up all relevant posts. I point out not that I was misrepresented, but that the original host call misrepresents the situation because somehow the URL providing the translation got stripped off in the quote of my post. This is both factually true and entirely relevant, given that the host call was about me supposedly not providing a translation. Which I did. Which one couldn't tell from just reading the host call. Hence I mentioned that, when I linked it for reading. I do not think that this is disrespecting anybody in any way.
And yes, Doc Tor, I have a problem with your hosting there. But I sincerely doubt that you care. Whereas it would be be a good outcome of this thread to have a clarification whether linking to a translation is sufficient, or whether a translation has to be typed out in the post itself. So let's stick to that question.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
I'm sorry, but you don't get to say you have a problem with the actions of a host but you don't want to discuss it. If you don't want to discuss it (which is your right) then don't raise it in the first place.
We clearly have differences in interpretation as to whether providing a translation requires that translation to be included within the post, or whether a link is sufficient. Those differences in interpretation exist mainly because we've never previously thought about it.
Doc Tor is clearly of the opinion that the translation should be included within the post. Therefore, I suggest, inclusion or not of the link you provided in his host post was irrelevant - he has not misrepresented you when the question he was addressing is was there a translation in the post.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
I'd have thought it was just a common courtesy to explain what foreign words mean. It is hardly a difficult suggestion, linking to another page is handy but rather disruptive if clicking is the only way to follow the argument.
In this case the link is not even to the given phrase, which could confuse. Surely just simpler to state what you mean.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Jack o' the Green
Shipmate
# 11091
|
Posted
I've never found that to be the case. I have a very bog standard smartphone, a very bog standard tablet and a very bog standard internet connection.
Posts: 3121 | From: Lancashire, England | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jack o' the Green
Shipmate
# 11091
|
Posted
If there's never been a decision made regarding whether a link to a translation is enough, or whether a translation has to be within the text, it does make it hard to argue that IngoB had broken a rule at the time he posted on the thread.
Posts: 3121 | From: Lancashire, England | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
For purposes of clarification:
Translating foreign language phrases within (either in-line or as a footnote) the post that contains them was part of the host training when I joined the Hell team.
Ingo's link (deliberately stripped of its URL tags by me, not out of malice but convenience to users) did not point to a translation of the phrase he posted, but to the original that he had subsequently changed.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lily pad
Shipmate
# 11456
|
Posted
FWIW, I was under the impression that the translation always had to be in the text.
A link to an explanation is great for those who want to know more but that should be in addition to the translation. I am working on an older laptop with a limited amount of bandwidth. It is inconvenient to have to open another window to find out what something means and it is a bit annoying to be expected to do that when there is a guideline already.
When I had a cell phone, I couldn't open links without quite an effort. Having the translation in the text is far more practical.
--------------------
Sloppiness is not caring. Fussiness is caring about the wrong things. With thanks to Adeodatus!
Posts: 2468 | From: Truly Canadian | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I'm sorry, but you don't get to say you have a problem with the actions of a host but you don't want to discuss it. If you don't want to discuss it (which is your right) then don't raise it in the first place.
I didn't raise it. My OP here explicitly states that I want to discuss the question whether it is licit to provide a translation by linking to it. See "In summary..." for, well, the summary. Doc Tor later on this thread asked me whether I had problems with his hosting, and I answered that I do but that I consider it futile to discuss this.
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Doc Tor is clearly of the opinion that the translation should be included within the post. Therefore, I suggest, inclusion or not of the link you provided in his host post was irrelevant - he has not misrepresented you when the question he was addressing is was there a translation in the post.
First, there was no reason to strip off that link. It is not "more convenient" for anybody, nobody needs to click a link. And it modifies the quote to not being an accurate reflection of what I posted. Second, it takes away something that speaks for me in the situation. Third, if he falsely thought that this way of providing a translation was not allowed, then he could have said so. But he didn't. He claimed that I had not provided a translation. Combined with stripping off the link this simply does not represent what I actually did.
If he says that this misrepresentation was not done with malice, then fine. I did not in fact attribute malice to this misrepresentation in my reaction. But this does not change that it happened.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
Re links vs inline translation - I think it makes a difference when the translation itself requires explanation. I am not sure that 'what is licit for Jove is not licit for the ox' is much more intelligible than 'quod licet Iovi non licet bovi' - so even without the wordplay you still need the Wikipedia link.
By contrast if I say something like 'de minimis non curat lex (the law doesn't care about trifling matters)', then the translation is clear enough, although it does raise the question of why I needed the Latin in the first place.
[ 10. September 2015, 09:39: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
linking to another page is handy but rather disruptive if clicking is the only way to follow the argument.
Speaking personally, I'd prefer the translation to be in the text of the post, for the reasons you give. Not everyone wants to break off reading a post to open a new link.
However the translation-by-link technique does fulfil the role of showing what the foreign language phrase means (possibly more accurately than a self-given translation) and as very few people seem to use the technique, it isn't sufficiently disruptive that I can say that I care very much about it. I'd rather not be required to call someone for a rules violation for doing it, while having the discretion, in a thread where foreign phrases are being bounced back and forth and hostly warnings have been needed, to ask posters to provide their translations in the post itself, where that seems likely to improve the flow discussion. I don't think that the request, once made, is an onerous one to comply with, and on a particular thread it might be helpful. As there isn't a current official policy, I don't care enough to ask for it as a general rule.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
If he says that this misrepresentation was not done with malice, then fine. I did not in fact attribute malice to this misrepresentation in my reaction. But this does not change that it happened.
Why are you so cross about this? I don't understand the problem with stating in the text what the phrase means.
You didn't. We all know you provided a link, but the issue is not about the link but the lack of translation.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
By contrast if I say something like 'de minimis non curat lex (the law doesn't care about trifling matters)', then the translation is clear enough, although it does raise the question of why I needed the Latin in the first place.
There was a law student called Rex
Had a very small organ of sex.
When charged with exposure
He replied with composure
De minimis non curat lex*.
You need the Latin to get the rhyme.
*"The law does not care about trifles."
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
I think tangentially this is also a point: in some fields Latin (and other) phrases are used for situations that are common - for example in the law. So instead of using a complex English sentence, you use the accepted Latin phrase as shorthand.
But when you are on a website where it is clear that the vast majority of readers are not aware of that Latin phrase, then using it is excessive - even if you know what it means, you are in a group which uses it regularly etc.
I can only think of one reason why you'd even think of doing that, and it has nothing to do with the post's comprehension.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
You are partly right, although there's a lot less Latin in the law than 100 years ago. Where you can run into shady areas is in the use of individual words. I think most people would understand in general terms what a subpoena was; very, very few would have any idea what was meant by a writ of mandamus or certiorari. If I were posting and the use became relevant, I'd use an approximation in everyday English as even an exact translation is unlikely to cast much light in the discussion.
Going back to the phrase "de minimis non curat lex"* that is rarely used in full here these days - much more common to use the abbreviation "de minimis" with the balance unsaid but understood.
**"The law does not care about trifles."
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I'm sorry, but you don't get to say you have a problem with the actions of a host but you don't want to discuss it. If you don't want to discuss it (which is your right) then don't raise it in the first place.
I didn't raise it. My OP here explicitly states that I want to discuss the question whether it is licit to provide a translation by linking to it. See "In summary..." for, well, the summary. Doc Tor later on this thread asked me whether I had problems with his hosting, and I answered that I do but that I consider it futile to discuss this.
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Doc Tor is clearly of the opinion that the translation should be included within the post. Therefore, I suggest, inclusion or not of the link you provided in his host post was irrelevant - he has not misrepresented you when the question he was addressing is was there a translation in the post.
First, there was no reason to strip off that link. It is not "more convenient" for anybody, nobody needs to click a link. And it modifies the quote to not being an accurate reflection of what I posted. Second, it takes away something that speaks for me in the situation. Third, if he falsely thought that this way of providing a translation was not allowed, then he could have said so. But he didn't. He claimed that I had not provided a translation. Combined with stripping off the link this simply does not represent what I actually did.
If he says that this misrepresentation was not done with malice, then fine. I did not in fact attribute malice to this misrepresentation in my reaction. But this does not change that it happened.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I'm sorry, but you don't get to say you have a problem with the actions of a host but you don't want to discuss it. If you don't want to discuss it (which is your right) then don't raise it in the first place.
I didn't raise it. My OP here explicitly states that I want to discuss the question whether it is licit to provide a translation by linking to it. See "In summary..." for, well, the summary. Doc Tor later on this thread asked me whether I had problems with his hosting, and I answered that I do but that I consider it futile to discuss this.
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Doc Tor is clearly of the opinion that the translation should be included within the post. Therefore, I suggest, inclusion or not of the link you provided in his host post was irrelevant - he has not misrepresented you when the question he was addressing is was there a translation in the post.
First, there was no reason to strip off that link. It is not "more convenient" for anybody, nobody needs to click a link. And it modifies the quote to not being an accurate reflection of what I posted. Second, it takes away something that speaks for me in the situation. Third, if he falsely thought that this way of providing a translation was not allowed, then he could have said so. But he didn't. He claimed that I had not provided a translation. Combined with stripping off the link this simply does not represent what I actually did.
If he says that this misrepresentation was not done with malice, then fine. I did not in fact attribute malice to this misrepresentation in my reaction. But this does not change that it happened.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
Seriously, if you're going to get prissy:
The link you gave redirected to "Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi". The link you wrote was "Quod licet bovi, non licet Iovi".
Are they the same phrase? No. They are not. So even if I decided that I should give your redirected via bit.ly so that I can't tell what's at the other end of the link without clicking it link a pass, it sends me to a page which does not have the translation of your phrase.
If you want to make an argument, make it on the page on which you are making it, using links as examples but not as replacements for your argument. Which means, AFAIAC, translating Latin phrases which you just made up on the very same page that you post them.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
IngoB
Now and again I find myself in that region of affairs I can neither decide nor influence. That is right where you are now. You are way more intelligent than me but I do at least have some idea when it is better to walk away. One such circumstance is when one is not up against opposing players but up against the referee.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jack o' the Green
Shipmate
# 11091
|
Posted
I just had to look up 'AFAIAC' to see what it meant!
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posts: 3121 | From: Lancashire, England | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Seriously, if you're going to get prissy: The link you gave redirected to "Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi". The link you wrote was "Quod licet bovi, non licet Iovi".
A point immediately mentioned by me in my first reaction on thread, and explicitly in the OP above. I've tried finding out if this specific issue - rather than simply the method of translating foreign language by link - was the problem, precisely because I thought it could be. Up to now I did not have the impression that this specific point was the issue for you, but rather that it was the general issue of translating foreign phrases by link.
FWIW: I did not translate the word switch on purpose. The intended meaning here was in the word play itself, i.e., precisely in turning the maxim on its head by exchanging who is allowed to do things and who is not. A simple translation would not have brought this out. A full explanation would have required a mini-paragraph for what was supposed to be snappy. My hope was exactly that people who know the Latin original would zero in on the word switch; and that people who didn't would go to Wikipedia, read the original and the longer explanation there of how this maxim is usually used, and then zero in on the word switch.
I think this is OK, because I think a person who does not understand the Latin has basically the same chance of catching the word play after reading the Wikipedia entry as a person who does know the Latin. And if they do not catch the word play, then well, they don't. That's an inherent risk in attempting wit, it's not a matter of the language spoken.
I note that orfeo apparently did go to the Wikipedia page and did spot the word switch, exactly as intended - even though he did not agree with the point I was making with that word play.
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Are they the same phrase? No. They are not. So even if I decided that I should give your redirected via bit.ly so that I can't tell what's at the other end of the link without clicking it link a pass, it sends me to a page which does not have the translation of your phrase.
I was not aware that bit.ly re-direction is a problem?! I somewhat habitually use it for Wikipedia links, because with fair regularity Wikipedia URLs will not link properly with this BB software, because Wikipedia includes non-alphanumeric characters in its links.
I just checked, apparently this page works with a direct link, so commas and underscores are OK. Others Wikipedia pages do not work. I could have checked before using redirecting...
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
No it is not okay. No amount of verbage by you will render it other. Just say that you will follow the directions okay?
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
In the interest of being as helpful as possible:
The vagaries of non-English inclusions are, despite being endlessly fascinating, ultimately boiled down to any particular Host's call on any given thread. I recommend using threads such as this to hash out any difficulties with the Hosts directions, and perhaps it might lead into perhaps being somehow generally agreed upon and codified. Though I doubt it - we like our edge cases intentionally fuzzy.
Meanwhile, responding in a manner that can be interpreted as a violating Commandment 6 is regarded as a serious problem. I would advise one and all to avoid such.
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I have used the same method several times before on SoF with no concern ever being raised by a host.
quote:
I note that orfeo apparently did go to the Wikipedia page and did spot the word switch, exactly as intended
I'm bringing these two remarks together to respond to because I think they seek to make the same basic point, and I think the response is the same.
If one policeman pulls you over for speeding, it is no answer that another policeman failed to pull you over for the same offence. What we're talking about here is the power to enforce a rule, not the obligation to do so. We do in fact as Hosts make some kind of commitment to upholding and enforcing the Ship's rules, but we're all human beings and not computers and will sometimes be making judgement calls.
The fact that Doc Tor is more alert to the issue than I was, or apparently than other Hosts have been, doesn't mean that Doc Tor is somehow wrong to have pulled you up. First off, I'll point out my lack of alertness by confessing that I completely failed to register mousethief's infraction of the same rule until Doc Tor pointed it out. So score minus 1 for me as a conscientious Host.
In your particular case, I did notice your use of Latin, and I did think about saying that you really ought to translate it here on the Ship. I didn't, though, and that was partly because I was interacting with you on that thread far more as a Shipmate than as a Host.
It's not actually that appropriate for me to try to switch into invoking Hostly authority in the middle of arguing with you intensely about your views and hurling insults in your direction about how stupid and wrong I think you are. Not only could that appear to be an unfair method of arguing, but in my own self-interest I think that trying to go into Host mode would dilute the power of my argument.
As for spotting the word switch, I didn't immediately. I was not familiar with the maxim and had to read the Wikipedia page in order to understand it, then grasp that you'd switched it, before then composing my post criticising you for the switch. The fact that I eventually arrived at that point is not evidence that you fulfilled the fundamental intention of the translation rule, which is to not unnecessarily place comprehension barriers in front of other Shipmates.
You could have in fact fulfilled your wordplay goal by using the English version of the maxim, with two words switched, and then providing a link to what the maxim means.
[ 11. September 2015, 08:30: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
There isn't a telephone directory sized "Guide to Hosting" with precise instructions on how to respond to every situation. We expect, indeed encourage, hosts to use their own discretion to act as appropriate to maintain the quality of discussion on their board - and, that includes the option not to act if acting is more disruptive than a minor infringement of the rules.
In the case of an untranslated non-English word or phrase that discretion includes a judgement as to whether a translation is needed. If it's a word or phrase in common usage* then it probably doesn't need translating. On the otherhand, if someone is throwing around non-English words in a way that doesn't contribute to the discussion (eg: as an apparent exercise in showing off, or to snub the hosts - yes, it has happened) then they may ask for translations of even very common words or phrases.
The discretion they have over whether to ask for translations also extends to what form they like to see translations.
* Defintion of "common usage" being whether the host recognises it and considers it to be commonly used.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
No it is not okay. No amount of verbage by you will render it other. Just say that you will follow the directions okay?
Hear, Hear!
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Uncle Pete
Loyaute me lie
# 10422
|
Posted
IngoB has started a "Farewell Cruel Ship" thread in All Saints and has in the same thread has flounced.
Perhaps we could now cease to flog a dead horse?
--------------------
Even more so than I was before
Posts: 20466 | From: No longer where I was | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
jacobsen
seeker
# 14998
|
Posted
Has he really? This calls for a post on the Praise and thanksgiving thread. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
But God, holding a candle, looks for all who wander, all who search. - Shifra Alon
Beauty fades, dumb is forever-Judge Judy
The man who made time, made plenty.
Posts: 8040 | From: Æbleskiver country | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spike
Mostly Harmless
# 36
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by jacobsen:
Has he really? This calls for a post on the Praise and thanksgiving thread.
That sort of post is inappropriate for The Styx, so stop it now.
Spike
Styx host
--------------------
"May you get to heaven before the devil knows you're dead" - Irish blessing
Posts: 12860 | From: The Valley of Crocuses | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
... Doc Tor later on this thread asked me whether I had problems with his hosting, and I answered that I do but that I consider it futile to discuss this....
When an authority figure says, "You gotta problem with this?", they're not usually asking for an opinion, they're expecting compliance.
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
jacobsen
seeker
# 14998
|
Posted
Sorry, Spike. That was inappropriate for this board.I will try not to offend again.
--------------------
But God, holding a candle, looks for all who wander, all who search. - Shifra Alon
Beauty fades, dumb is forever-Judge Judy
The man who made time, made plenty.
Posts: 8040 | From: Æbleskiver country | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Uncle Pete:
IngoB has started a "Farewell Cruel Ship" thread in All Saints and has in the same thread has flounced.
Waitaminute waitaminute. He what?? What??? I don't believe it. I don't believe he doesn't want to come back respond to my lengthy parable. I hope he does. Along the way, I would love to see him have the balls to come here, to this thread, and tell me that all of his actions were appropriate.
Let's say that Doc Tor let a little bit of a lecturing tone creep into his voice when he asked for his translation of six words, having just made a similar request in the middle of a heated thread where posters were calling each other perverts. Let's say he didn't sufficiently examine whether he should ask for a translation, consult precedent, and set aside all feelings of exasperation. The appropriate response to such a lapse, is of course to nail the exasperated host on precedent. "A link with the translated words has sufficed in the past in the past, and it will suffice now, thank you very much or meet me in front of the appropriate authorities and prepare to defend your actions." That's the way to do it.
Really? That's what you should do under the circumstances? It's not bad enough that you are heating a Hellish discussion beyond the boiling point, you have to find fault with an exasperated host and pick a fight over six fucking words?
And when the decision comes down, and it's not exactly the Rule of Law you were expecting, namely that the decision is not "Hear ye, hear ye, precedent having indeed been set as argued by plaintiff that under any circumstance a link with translated words suffices for an in-thread translation, decision for the plaintiff, host remanded to apologize to offended poster who is in fact not culpably offensive himself" but more like, "look buddy, when circumstances prompt a volunteer host to make you do something simple like write out six words, for the sake of peace and quiet, write the damn words already, and try not to pout about it" then of course the only appropriate response is to depart from them; they never knew you.
Perhaps on a thread where IngoB was an admin, the majority of posters were Protestants, and the debate was whether or not all Roman Catholic intellectuals are as blind and spiritually perverted as the Pharisees, IngoB would never stumble and let his feelings be reflected in his moderation of the discussion. If so, he has my grudging respect for his head, but none for his heart.
In my opinion there are times when one ought to think with the heart until they can feel with the head.
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
JimT, Good to see you back! Hopefully your periodic visit will be a long one! ![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
Tubbs
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
IngoB didn't flounce over a Hellhost ruling. You can read the real reason he left here: IngoB's goodbye thread.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
IngoB didn't flounce over a Hellhost ruling. You can read the real reason he left here: IngoB's goodbye thread.
Thank you Ruth. I didn't know to look in Oblivion for closed threads...I've been away too long.
It was a classy exit; it appears that he just got worn out, which I can understand.
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
Well there's a disappointment, however understandable.
Bye Ingo. Thanks.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
Didn't he do this once before?
Anyway, thanks, Ruth, for the link.
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
