Rule for Editor?

[Zero2001]

I'll be quick since it seems some people still have a negative view of me. You're free to ignore this if you want.

Spoiler! :

• I do not believe in excessive english-ification, I've seen that it ruins the original flavour and understanding of the story. 100% Translation combined with 100% accuracy is impossible so I believe in staying as honest to the original as possible while using ref notes to explain unknown/vague terms (in short I prefer accuracy over translation; in many cases, it's more funny and interesting that way, plus it's fun to learn more about the Japanese language that way). I feel that it's better to leave the excessive english-ification to the official translations.
• I believe that Major changes need to be discussed before implementation. Even if you end up getting hated for doing so.
• I believe that Edit wars are bad. Discussion is a better alternative. Even if you end up getting hated for doing so.
• I believe that All users (administrators, translators, editors, etc) should not use abusive language in their discussions, no matter what.

[Lery]

I'll be quick since it seems some people still have a negative view of me. You're free to ignore this if you want.

Well, actually as Kira said :

Zero got over-punished.

How long is your ban, by the way? You've proven your good will by now, I think... We could look to do something about that.

[Drowzycow]

How long is your ban, by the way? You've proven your good will by now, I think... We could look to do something about that.

You did a good work on the wiki when it came to maintenance. I honestly thank you for that ; But if the side effect is having others people going away from baka-tsuki -especially translators, which are pretty much the rarest thing out there-, then your overall balance become negative.

It's pretty abrupt, but I can't allow you to edit here anymore. I realise that you will most probably find that unjust ; it wasn't exactly easy for me to make this decision either, but it's final.

I'm really sorry.

Pretty much lifetime ban until a pardon is given.

As other people have mentioned, the current thing with Mosswind is very much going in the same direction at the moment. (Ban of editor from project due to differences between translator/editor > outcry for increased editors rights/decrease in translator rights > translator gets feds up and leaves > axe falling on editor in question).

I believe that Major changes need to be discussed before implementation. Even if you end up getting hated for doing so.
I believe that Edit wars are bad. Discussion is a better alternative. Even if you end up getting hated for doing so.
I believe that All users (administrators, translators, editors, etc) should not use abusive language in their discussions, no matter what.

The problems with those discussions, is that in the case where the outcome isn't favorable to all parties - who gets final say? As it is currently it's the translator (which is personally fine by me since they should be in the best place to judge), but seems to be riling some others up who think it's better to have a complete third party to make the judgement call which seems silly.

[Hiyono]

Having perhaps a bit more familiarity with the Zero situation in question than most here, let me say something on behalf of those who aren't here to explain themselves. This isn't a professional setting and there is zero obligation to play nice even if it's the "better" way. Stubbornly insisting that you are correct, even if you might actually be, is only going to result in one thing - frustration and the loss of all motivation to continue on the part of the translator.

If we can't be adults about it, obviously the translator's opinion should take precedence. What are the effects of one side or another storming off in anger? Is an unedited work still very much readable? Absolutely. An untranslated work? I don't think I need to answer that one. That was the reason for Zero's ban; he was the direct cause of two translators leaving.

Now, contrasting this with the current situation. Log Horizon's a bit different in that the translator is neither a contributor to this site nor does he care about what happens on this site, thus LittleDrago has a bit more leeway to work with. Krytyk, on the other hand, has already said he'd leave if he felt it necessary. In other words, we were approaching the same situation as before.

I know everyone here's a volunteer, but sorry to be the bearer of bad news editor snowflakes - not everyone's value is equal. A thousand of the very best editors do not carry the weight of one half-decent translator because an editor's job doesn't even exist without a translator, but not vice versa.

[Lery]

I know everyone here's a volunteer, but sorry to be the bearer of bad news editor snowflakes - not everyone's value is equal. A thousand of the very best editors do not carry the weight of one half-decent translator because an editor's job doesn't even exist without a translator, but not vice versa.

That's true. I have to say that this is the very core of the problem : where translators' job is needed in order for BT to survive, editors' job is just bonus.

That won't change until Japanese is taught in grade school all over the world

[Mystes]

Well, actually as Kira said :

Zero got over-punished.

Need to rephrase it better, but what I mean is because of the snowballing. If an important admin like TLG was there at the very beginning, it'd end before it became a huge problem. Instead, it ended up with 20% of the mods arguing and 80% of them either eating popcorn while watching the drama or MIA.

I should clarify what I meant to say:

The actual text of your edit shouldn't go on talk pages. You should make your edit, and then go to the translator's talk page and write:

Hey! I changed XXXX on Chapter 3. Can you check if it's alright?

And then perhaps link the diff of the revision or something.

Talk pages would grow... immense if actual text was being put up there.

I still think it's necessary to codify it as a rule that translators should be informed upon major changes. How the translator is informed, however, is completely flexible.

It'd still be a problem. I'd say the "changing the meaning" needs to be more specifically a case that implies there was a translation mistake.

[onizuka-gto]

I've read most of the situation here and it comes down to giving my thoughts:

Registered and mutually agreed lead Translator have the right to set the an individual translation and editorial guidelines for a working project.
In case of a dispute over guidelines or/and mutual agreements, the policies regarding such conducts will fall upon those protocols written already in the Guideline sub-forum.

In case of two such of guideline policies, the ones written on the forum, undersigned and approved by me is the prevalent version.

Judgment of the dispute will depend on content outlined and i will rule accordingly. Both parties have the right to defend and submit evidence and i will preside over final verdict.
Due to the natures of the guidelines, i have acknowledge that guidelines have not been updated and will give leniency based upon advice of selected Baka-Tsuki senior staff members.

[larethian]

This just shows that open editing is only feasible for minor things like typos, and basic grammar. With regards to major changes that involve Englishfying, editors must work as private dedicated editors with translators' approval. This means they must work behind the scenes a lot and discuss and makes consensus among themselves. This normally promotes respect between the two parties and also provide allowance for changes and allowance for literal retention as deemed necessary by a transaltor. Overall it will create a more Englishfied translation with more majors changes but yet without jeopardizing important meaning retention as intended in the original work. This is the approach I'm using now, which works way better, in my opinion.

[onizuka-gto]

This just shows that open editing is only feasible for minor things like typos, and basic grammar. With regards to major changes that involve Englishfying, editors must work as private dedicated editors with translators' approval. This means they must work behind the scenes a lot and discuss and makes consensus among themselves. This normally promotes respect between the two parties and also provide allowance for changes and allowance for literal retention as deemed necessary by a translator. Overall it will create a more Englishfied translation with more majors changes but yet without jeopardizing important meaning retention as intended in the original work. This is the approach I'm using now, which works way better, in my opinion.

I agree.
I personally prefer a more liberal native english translation, but only within the scope of mutual agreement. This is especially important when the Editor has not consulted the original japanese source or/and do not have an understanding of Japanese.

Anyway, since there are already "rules for Editor" that are applicable to this situation, the discussion of such policy is moot, therefore this topic shall be locked and archived.