# Regla #16



## ryba

Hola, Moderadores:
_
Regla #16: _(...) _Se permite insertar citas y traducciones de hasta cuatro líneas. _(...)

1) Si pongo:



> Blablabla.
> 
> Blablabla.
> 
> Blablabla.
> 
> Blablablabla.


¿Cuántas líneas son?

¿Siete?

Yo pensaba que cuatro.

2) A ver:


> nrcnepwufniuenfriwbfiprbincqehfenrcnepwufniuenfriwbfiprbincqehfeiqwhfinqbaipudhfheehwqcnrneqwpnxcpcnrqewpncipnqewpcewqncniwencinweipqnfcinewqbvipewbqiceqcbbierbqicfvohnbibrcibircqercibieqbibcibreicbibeqibceiwqbieiqwbicbiewbibedcwbne iufcbequceciqwneiubfcibqiwecuycbwnexnewqjfniunwqeinifefrpuiqhcineqibcibiqwhfinqbaipudhfheehwqcnrneqwpnxcpcnrqewpncipnqewpcewqncniwencinweipqnfcinewqbvipewbqiceqcbbierbqicfvohnbibrcibircqercibieqbibcibreicbibeqibceiwqbieiqwbicbiewbibedcwbneiufcbequceciqwneiubfcibqiwecuycbwnexnewqjfniunwqeinifefrpuiqhcineqibcib


Son cuatro líneas, ¿sí?

3) 





> nrcnepwufniuenfriwbfiprbincqehfenrcnepwufniuenfriwbfiprbincqehfeiqwhfinqbaipudhfheehwqcnrneqwpnxcpcnrqewpncipnqewpcewqncniwencinweipqnfcinewqbvipewbqiceqcbbierbqicfvohnbibrcibircqercibieqbibcibreicbibeqibceiwqbieiqwbicbiewbibedcwbne iufcbequceciqwneiubfcibqiwecuycbwnexnewqjfniunwqeinifefrpuiqhcineqibcibiqwhfinqbaipudhfheehwqcnrneqwpnxcpcnrqewpncipnqewpcewqncniwencinweipqnfcinewqbvipewbqiceqcbbierbqicfvohnbibrcibircqercibieqbibcibreicbibeqibceiwqbieiqwbicbiewbibedcwbneiufcbequceciqwneiubfcibqiwecuycbwnexnewqjfniunwqeinifefrpuiqhcineqibcib


¿Cuántas líneas son?

4) 





> nrcnepwufniuenfriwbfiprbincqehfenrcnepwufniuenfriwbfiprbincqehfeiqwhfinqbaipudhfheehwqcnrneqwpnxcpcnrqewpncipnqewpcewqncniwencinweipqnfcinewqbvipewbqiceqcbbierbqicfvohnbibrcibircqercibieqbibcibreicbibeqibceiwqbieiqwbicbiewbibedcwbne iufcbequceciqwneiubfcibqiwecuycbwnexnewqjfniunwqeinifefrpuiqhcineqibcibiqwhfinqbaipudhfheehwqcnrneqwpnxcpcnrqewpncipnqewpcewqncniwencinweipqnfcinewqbvipewbqiceqcbbierbqicfvohnbibrcibircqercibieqbibcibreicbibeqibceiwqbieiqwbicbiewbibedcwbneiufcbequceciqwneiubfcibqiwecuycbwnexnewqjfniunwqeinifefrpuiqhcineqibcib


¿Y ahora?

5) Gracias de antemano.


----------



## JamesM

My understanding of the rule, as a moderator, is that it is a total of four sentences in a paragraph or four lines of verse. The size of the type does not affect my way of counting. I only moderate in the English Only forum and the understanding may be different in other forums/fora.

Since most of your examples are "greeking", it's difficult to say how I would count them. You have no recognizable sentences in any of your examples but the first. The first example is four lines, by my way of counting.

If I have misunderstood the method, I am happy to be corrected by a more senior moderator. I'm fairly new to this moderating business.


----------



## ryba

Hello, JamesM.

Don't you think the rule should be written in a way that would not allow such ambiguities?

I have never tried using little and narrow fonts in order to "mock" the rule but I did have problems (in Sólo Español, hence my language choice) with three little soap opera dialogues I transcribed following this pattern:

(Information on what kind of resource I used)

A: (Says something)

B: (Says something)

C: (Says something)

D: (Says something)

They were deleted/reduced to two lines and a "**** Regla 16" was put instead.

It seems to be a kind of paradox because, understanding the rule like that,

(What kind of resource I used)

A: (Says something)
B: (Says something)
C: (Says something)
D: (Says something)
 
would be O.K.

I don't have to tell you the second version looks worse and less reader-friendly.


----------



## panjandrum

I don't understand the difficulty.
Have you quoted more than four sentences?
If so, you have broken rule #16.
It doesn't matter how large or small the type, how widely spaced the quotes, you may quote four sentences, maximum.

I may be missing the point somewhere.


----------



## ryba

No, not sentences. The rule talks about lines.

The moderador who introduced changes in my post has just explained me it was not because of using the counting method I supposed was used. It was because the three quotations proceeded from the same soap opera...

I shouldn't have put them in the same post.

Sorry for the confusion.

Anyway, if the rule mentiones lines and not sentences, it is still possible to "cheat" changing the font and/or the font size.


----------



## Jana337

> No web pages or copyrighted or plagiarized content may be inserted into WordReference posts except as indicated below. Minor fair use excerpts from dictionaries such as a definition/translation or two are permitted. Quotes and translations of texts up to 4 sentences are permitted. Links to content elsewhere are acceptable and appropriate, provided such links meet the requirements stated elsewhere in these rules. Always acknowledge the source. All forms of inserted content that do not meet these conditions will be removed without exception.
> 
> Song lyrics may be quoted and translated up to a maximum of 4 lines. Threads and posts with song lyric quotations and translations beyond 4 lines will be removed.


As you see, we have rule 16 for texts where the concept of sentence makes sense. And we have rule 17 for lyrics and poems. That you won't get away with font tricks in the former case is clear. Lyrics are typically fuzzier but I'd say that


> Yesterday, all my troubles seemed so far away, now it looks as though they're here to stay, oh, I believe in yesterday.


is generally recognized as four lines so you wouldn't be allowed to create four huge "lines" like that.


----------



## ryba

O.K., thanks Jana.

Pero en cuanto a lo de _sentences_, el foro Sólo Español is not the case:

 16. RESPETE LOS DERECHOS DE AUTOR No introduzca contenido plagiado en los mensajes publicados en WRF. Se permite usar extractos de diccionarios, sin excederse de dos definiciones o traducciones. Se permite insertar citas y traducciones de hasta *cuatro líneas*. (...)

http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=72871


----------



## ampurdan

Hi ryba:

Yes, that is a mistake in the wording of the translation of the rules in SE. It must say "cuatro frases".


----------



## ryba

Uh. Pero en español cuatro frases son por ejemplo:

"_¡Sí, creo que sí! Aunque, por otro lado... Qué sé yo... A ver._"


* 1.     * f. Conjunto de palabras que basta para formar sentido, especialmente cuando no llega a constituir oración.

_Real Academia Española © Todos los derechos reservados

_¿O me equivoco?​


----------



## JamesM

If you are concerned about a particular abuse of the rule, press the Report-A-Post button to the right of the post number in the upper right-hand corner of the post. 

If you are concerned about a post you would like to make, feel free to send it by PM to a moderator responsible for the forum where you will be posting it and ask if it meets the rule.

If it's something else, I don't know what it could be.  What is it that you want, ryba?


----------



## ampurdan

ryba said:


> Uh. Pero en español cuatro frases son por ejemplo:
> 
> "_¡Sí, creo que sí! Aunque, por otro lado... Qué sé yo... A ver._"
> 
> 
> *1. *f. Conjunto de palabras que basta para formar sentido, especialmente cuando no llega a constituir oración.
> 
> _Real Academia Española © Todos los derechos reservados_​
> 
> ¿O me equivoco?​


​ 
En las reglas, "frase" significa simplemente "oración".


----------



## ryba

JamesM said:


> If it's something else, I don't know what it could be.  What is it that you want, ryba?


I'd like to know the rules so that I wouldn't have to ask a mod about any quote I make.

I would also like the rules to be redacted in a way that would not leave place for ambiguities and misinterpretations.

In law, simplicity (and accuracy) is bliss.

On Word Reference Forums, the rule on quoting is a part of our common "federal law".

Cheers.


----------



## ampurdan

Well, then, it is clear now.

You can quote up to four sentences, no more.

You can quote up to four lines of lyrics, no more.


----------



## ryba

Well, yeah, it is clear for you and for me but it might not be clear for someone reading the rules without having read this thread who may get to think _frase_ means _frase_ and not _oración_.

I am reviving this thread in order to make a question.



> 16. RESPETE LOS DERECHOS DE AUTOR
> No introduzca contenido plagiado en los mensajes publicados en WRF. Se permite usar extractos de diccionarios, sin excederse de dos definiciones o traducciones. Se permite insertar citas y traducciones de hasta cuatro *frases*. Los enlaces a otros sitios son aceptables, siempre y cuando tales cumplan con las reglas de estos foros. Reconozca siempre la fuente de su información. Todo el contenido que no cumpla con estos requisitos será retirado sin excepciones.
> Los mensajes publicados en WRF no deben contener enlaces a texto, música o video ilegalmente publicado. Por precaución, puede ser que los moderadores borren algunos enlaces que usted crea legítimos.


This rule applies to what kind of space?

If I don't want to get WRF (and myself) into trouble I cannot introduce more than four sentences (or four lines of lyrics) inside of one post, or one thread?


Thank you.


----------



## JamesM

ryba said:


> If I don't want to get WRF (and myself) into trouble I cannot introduce more than four sentences (or four lines of lyrics) inside of one post, or one thread?


 
The intent of the rule is to avoid violation of copyright. To post four lines in one post followed by four lines in the next post of the same thread, etc., is obviously just a work-around to circumvent the intent of the rule. Likewise, opening up eight threads of four lines each from the same lyric in order to quote all 32 lines is also simply a work-around.

The use of the lyric should only be for a specific question about a specific phrase or line. Four lines per thread should be sufficient to deal with a specific question. If there is another question about a different part of the lyric it can be posted in a separate thread.

----------------

If you are asking for rules to be stated in such a way that there is no possible way for someone to circumvent their _intent_ while staying true to the _letter_ of the rule and you know of a way to guarantee this, I would seriously be interested in learning from you how this can be done. Forget WRF - armed with that knowledge I could make a fortune in contract law. 

In my experience there is no way to design anything in this world that cannot be circumvented by another human being given sufficient determination and time.


----------



## Fernita

OK! 
It should say: ... 4 *frases u oraciones*...

In Spanish, a phrase does not have a verb, a sentence does.

frase: _la dulce vida de la princesa._
oración: _La vida de la princesa era dulce._

I guess I'm missing something. Hope I'm not.


----------



## ryba

James. I'm afraid we don't understand each other. If there IS a way to improve the law, why not do it?


My question was if I could post another four sentences OR lines of lyrics of the same author in the same thread but in another post without violating the rules.

For instance, there is a quotation I made five posts above and it was from a soap opera. Can I make another one when it is necessary or my four sentences limit is over?

In other words, does the "four sentences" rule concern posts, threads or pages???


I am not trying to find work-arounds, I just want to know what is legal and what is not.


----------



## JamesM

ryba said:


> In other words, does the "four sentences" rule concern posts, threads or pages???


I believe I answered this in my previous post. The maximum is four lines of a lyric or poem or four sentences of any other kind of writing per thread.


----------



## Thomas1

JamesM said:


> I believe I answered this in my previous post. The maximum is four lines of a lyric or poem or four sentences of any other kind of writing per thread.


The thing is that the limit is set per thread only in rule# 17, i.e. for song lyrics; please correct me if I have overlooked something but I cannot see anything like that in rule #16 dealing with "normal" text. It may not be obvious that the limit per thread applies to rule #16.
This is a precise quotation of the rules:


> No web pages or copyrighted or plagiarized content may be inserted into WordReference posts except as indicated below. Minor fair use excerpts from dictionaries such as a definition/translation or two are permitted. Quotes and translations of texts up to 4 sentences are permitted. Links to content elsewhere are acceptable and appropriate, provided such links meet the requirements stated elsewhere in these rules. Always acknowledge the source. All forms of inserted content that do not meet these conditions will be removed without exception.
> Song lyrics may be quoted and translated up to a maximum of 4 lines. Threads and posts with song lyric quotations and translations beyond 4 lines will be removed.
> Source


[The order of the rules has been automatically changed, but these are rules # 16 and 17 in the source.]
From these I infer rule #16 says only about a limit per post not per thread.


Tom


----------



## cuchuflete

Tom,
I do not see the words "per post" anywhere in rule 16.  Let's be clear: we are subject to copyright law, whether we like it or not.  The courts to which WR is subject have ruled that minor 'fair use' quotations are allowed.  That is interpreted here as stated- four sentences of textual prose, and four lines of lyrics.

If anyone should try, _in error_, to interpret that to mean that they can quote more extensively by spreading the quotes across multiple posts, they will be violating the spirit of the rules, and the contributions will be deleted.  

This is all really simple.  Efforts to complicate it or to find loopholes are not a good use of anyone's time and energy.


----------



## Thomas1

Well, this is what I understood having read rule #16 a few days before I bumped ino this thread.
No web pages or copyrighted or plagiarized content may be inserted *into WordReference posts except as indicated below.* Minor fair use excerpts from dictionaries such as a definition/translation or two are permitted. *Quotes and translations of texts up to 4 sentences are permitted.*
The reason I have brought that up is that until I reread the rule 16 I had thought exactly what you and James have written. However, having read it I thought of some threads I had come across on the forum that did have quotations spreaded across multiple posts (this is not to say that they are copious, but they occur once in a while). This all got me a bit confused.

Tom


----------



## cuchuflete

Thanks for explaining how you came to the inference, Tom.  Please discard the assumption about the rule referring to posts.  It should be read literally.  If you see excessive quotations spread across multiple posts, please use the red triangle to alert the moderators.  We will be happy to bring such situations into compliance with the rules.


----------



## ryba

cuchuflete said:


> Thanks for explaining how you came to the inference, Tom.  Please discard the assumption about the rule referring to posts.  It should be read literally.  If you see excessive quotations spread across multiple posts, please use the red triangle to alert the moderators.  We will be happy to bring such situations into compliance with the rules.


Cuchuflete. You're talking about it as if Tom were the only person who understood the rule the way it is written which is, apart from logical issues, quite arrogant (in my humble opinion).

We're not bitching. We're trying to understand the rules and to help. We feel a part of this community.

(I underlined the key words and ideas.)


The 16th rule talks about posts:



> No web pages or copyrighted or plagiarized content may be inserted into WordReference posts except as indicated below.


just like its equivalent in Sólo Español talks about _frases_ and not _oraciones_.




> Se permite insertar citas y traducciones de hasta cuatro frases.



How do you, moderators, want us, regular members, to know what the rules really apply to if they say one thing and you say something else?

Sincerely,
Grzegorz


----------



## Flaminius

Hello Tom and Grzegorz,

We appreciate your concerns that the Rules #16 and 17 are not perfectly clear and that there are inconsistencies between different language versions.

Please be reminded, however, that these two rules concern the WR copyright policy.  A large picture like this is indispensable in a plain-folk conversation.  I assume all WR participants would want to talk that way.  These fora provide dictionaries and help translate short sentences but we don't expect we should talk to each other in legalese and hire lawyers as our translators.  

Rules #16 and 17 set forth our copyright policy.  The Spanish translation in the Spanish Only forum specifically mentions respecting copyrights.  In the light of this, quoting 60 sentences from the same source is not allowed whether the quotation can be found in one post or it is spread out in 15 posts.  Neither displays the attitude of respecting copyrights as defined in the rules.

While we are at it with the Spanish translation, it is worth a while to observe that the Spanish term employed there for English _line_ is either "verso" or "línea":


> 17. CANCIONES Y POEMAS
> Está permitido citar y traducir hasta cuatro versos de letras de canciones y poemas. Los hilos y los mensajes con más de cuatro líneas de canciones o poemas serán eliminados sin excepción.



"Quotation in posts" may mean what you have told us you thought.  At the same time, it can be a result of such a mundane fact that one can only quote in a post.  I prefer common sense to surgical accuracy.


----------



## ryba

Thank you, Flaminius for your response.



Flaminius said:


> "Quotation in posts" may mean what you have told us you thought.  At the same time, it can be a result of such a mundane fact that one can only quote in a post.  I prefer common sense to surgical accuracy.


Common sense has lead hundreds of users to make quotes of the _Diccionario de la Real Academia Española_ and the _Diccionario Panhispánico de Dudas de la Real Academia Española_ in more than one post in the very same thread.

If we understand the rule the way it is not written, they have violated the rules.

Without loosing sight of common sense.


----------



## JamesM

Now that we've discussed the intent of the rule and the legal concerns involved, ryba, how would you suggest the rule be worded?


----------



## Trisia

Hey, Priss 

I searched for an old thread I remember reading a while ago, in which (I think) someone said that it's not a good idea to go around the rule by quoting four lines here, and four there, until you have a set of threads and the whole song  I couldn't find it 

In the mean time, I liked JamesM's post in this thread:


			
				JamesM said:
			
		

> The intent of the rule is to avoid violation of copyright. To post four lines in one post followed by four lines in the next post of the same thread, etc., is obviously just a work-around to circumvent the intent of the rule. Likewise, opening up eight threads of four lines each from the same lyric in order to quote all 32 lines is also simply a work-around.



I'm not saying you did that, of course.  Maybe a moderator was worried that there were too many threads and you risked to infringe copyright laws. Anyway, if you have concerns about _a specific_ moderator action, it's best to PM them.

Cheers!


----------



## ryba

Hello.



JamesM said:


> Now that we've discussed the intent of the rule and the legal concerns involved, ryba, how would you suggest the rule be worded?


Why me?

I am no English speaker, in fact, I scarcely speak it. I haven't learned English since I left hi-school.

I can make a try, you will tell me what you think:


> No web pages or copyrighted or plagiarized content may be inserted into WordReference posts *threads* except as indicated below. Minor fair use excerpts from dictionaries such as a definition/translation or two are permitted. Quotes and translations of texts up to 4 sentences are permitted. Links to content elsewhere are acceptable and appropriate, provided such links meet the requirements stated elsewhere in these rules. Always acknowledge the source. All forms of inserted content that do not meet these conditions will be removed without exception.
> Song lyrics may be quoted and translated up to a maximum of 4 lines. Threads and posts with song lyric quotations and translations beyond 4 lines will be removed.
> Source


(if the rule applies to threads)

and in Sólo Español:



> 16. RESPETE LOS DERECHOS DE AUTOR
> No introduzca contenido plagiado en los mensajes publicados en WRF. Se permite usar extractos de diccionarios, sin excederse de dos definiciones o traducciones* por hilo*. Se permite insertar citas y traducciones de hasta cuatro frases* oraciones por hilo*. Los enlaces a otros sitios son aceptables, siempre y cuando tales cumplan con las reglas de estos foros. Reconozca siempre la fuente de su información. Todo el contenido que no cumpla con estos requisitos será retirado sin excepciones.
> Los mensajes publicados en WRF no deben contener enlaces a texto, música o video ilegalmente publicado. Por precaución, puede ser que los moderadores borren algunos enlaces que usted crea legítimos.



But I don't know if in English "O.K." and "Oh no!" are sentences. If they are, then ampurdan's translation of "sentence" is O.K. and someone who writes "I don't know... What? Oh my God! Are you kidding? What a fool!" breaks the rule exceeding the limit.


I have another question.

What does "Minor fair use excerpts from dictionaries such as a definition/translation or two are permitted." mean? Can I put, let's say two four-line entries from the very same dictionary in the same thread?



cuchuflete said:


> This is all really simple. Efforts to complicate it or to find loopholes are not a good use of anyone's time and energy.



No, it's not simple.

I still don't know if if we have quoted a Beatles song correctly, without exceeding the 4 lines limit we still can quote four sentences off a Virginia Woolf book and 4 sentences off a MacGyver episode. The copywright owners are different in all cases. Can we?

Thank you.



Trisia said:


> In the mean time, I liked JamesM's post in this thread:


Well, I, personally, didn't like it at all since from the beginning of this discussion it had been made clear a lot of times that the thing is not to know how to violate a rule and get away with it, that the thing is to know the rules so as not to infinge them.


----------



## Trisia

Please don't feel targeted, I wasn't trying to say that you or anyone were trying to find loopholes.  I'm sure JamesM said that to help us understand the spirit of the rule, not to offend anyone.


OK, this is from a member who's active in two forums, the EO and Romanian, a smaller one. I don't claim to have approval from any mods to say this, I am not a lawyer, and may very well be wrong:

If you have a difficult sentence to translate, and in order for us to understand the context, it is absolutely vital that you add a fifth sentence that only says "OK," or "Right..." it's likely that nobody will jump at your throat. I'd call that common sense.

About multiple quotes...

If you, as a thread starter, quote more works, _it's likely that the thread is a multi-topic one_. Honestly, maybe there's a teeny tiny chance you actually do _need_ to quote extensively from two sources, but it's highly unlikely. Those cases I think should be solved individually, but shouldn't be such a big deal. On the other hand, if you need to give background, I'm afraid you'll have to link to a site where that text is hosted legally (or, better yet, make us a quick summary of what's happening in this part of the text).

If you quote four lines of a poem and ask for clarifications, and _someone else_ comes along and quotes another four lines, from _a different poem_, I think this would be allowed to stay, of course only _if it's relevant_. Going on threads and saying "oh, that's a metaphor! This reminds me of Shakespeare's "'Tis the east, and Juliet is the sun..." blah-blah-blah, is not helpful, it's hijacking.

I think you shouldn't worry that much. Rules are meant to protect us, not to be used by the big bad mods to whack us on the head. As long as you try to respect them, you'll be just fine. We all make mistakes, even mods (I have a gut feeling they're human too), but you can always challenge a mod decision via PM, if you think they were too harsh.

That said, I have no idea how the rule should sound.


----------



## JamesM

ryba said:


> Hello.
> 
> 
> Why me?
> 
> I am no English speaker, in fact, I scarcely speak it. I haven't learned English since I left hi-school.


 
Your English is very good.  It would never occur to me that you would have any more difficulty with writing a rule than any of us. 

I also asked because you have expressed a great deal of interest in _improving_ the rule (see your posts above.) From your earlier posts in this thread it appeared that you not only wanted clarification of the rule as written but a re-write or edit of the rule. I think your suggestions are good but we still have the problem of multiple distinct quotes in separate posts in the same thread from diffierent sources being acceptable, which would not be allowed by the re-write. (see below)



> But I don't know if in English "O.K." and "Oh no!" are sentences. If they are, then ampurdan's translation of "sentence" is O.K. and someone who writes "I don't know... What? Oh my God! Are you kidding? What a fool!" breaks the rule exceeding the limit.


 
Technically, it does break the rule. The point of all quotes should be to ask a question about a word or phrase. The likelihood of your example above being the source of a question that required all the ejaculations listed is slim. Would the question be about the use of "What?" or "Oh my God!" or ??? In any case, this is more than sufficient context to deal with any of the exclamations. Can you think of a reason that such a list of exclamations would be required to ask a question about one of them?



> I have another question.
> 
> What does "Minor fair use excerpts from dictionaries such as a definition/translation or two are permitted." mean? Can I put, let's say two four-line entries from the very same dictionary in the same thread
> 
> 
> No, it's not simple.


 
I agree that it is not a simple thing to express in anything less than book form.  There are dozens of court cases in the U.S. dealing with this issue. We won't solve it on this board.



> I still don't know if if we have quoted a Beatles song correctly, without exceeding the 4 lines limit we still can quote four sentences off a Virginia Woolf book and 4 sentences off a MacGyver episode. The copywright owners are different in all cases. Can we?


 
As Trisia said, if they are all examples of the use of the same word or phrase it would make sense to do so and, in my understanding of the rules, would not be a violation. 

As with many threads on the board, this thread has generated discussion among the moderators. I think some people might have the impression that we are some monolithic, single-minded body. The moderators here are as much a community as the members here and have a range of opinions and points of view. Mike Kellogg, administrator and owner of the board, has the final say on anything but much of what we do here is worked out through discussion.

If I were to place the rule into a short form that I think would cover all the bases it would be:

"No more than four sentences per original source per user per thread is allowed." (thanks to cuchuflete for "original source")

I'm not sure that that is any clearer. In other words, a user may post five two-sentence quotes from five different sources showing examples of the use of a word or phrase but not five sentences from a single source showing its use. The same user may not follow up in the same thread with a new post that quotes sentences from one of those original sources that would exceed the four-sentence limit for the entire thread _from that user from that source._

Is there still a potential problem here? Yes. If users wanted to team up and post four lines per user in a single thread from a single source, they could technically do it, but it would probably be difficult to defend the germaneness of the quotes to a specific question about a word or phrase.

In other words, it all still points back to intent. One rule about intent covers hundreds of lines of rules about specific actions. 



> Well, I, personally, didn't like it at all since from the beginning of this discussion it had been made clear a lot of times that the thing is not to know how to violate a rule and get away with it, that the thing is to know the rules so as not to infinge them.


 
I apologize for any implication that you were asking questions in order to figure ways around the rules.

My impression from your posts in this thread is that your intent was not just to know the rules so as not to infringe them, but also to express dissatisfaction that the rules are written in such a way that they can be misinterpreted and do not cover all possibilities with complete clarity, and to suggest that they be re-written to be much clearer on this point. Did I misunderstand your intention?

I think we are all in agreement that they do not spell out every contingency and deal with it in such a way that someone could be assured that no infraction of the intent of the rule could be committed by following the rule exactly as written. Unfortunately, there is a practical consideration of how long a rule can be before it becomes so cumbersome that no one reads it, which then (understandably) becomes the new reason why the rules aren't followed. 

I can't tell you the last time I read through the entire Terms and Conditions in the license agreement of any software I installed. I just hit the Accept button and hope I haven't promised my firstborn child to the software company. I think we're looking for a balance here between practical length and clarity. The result is a compromise of both.

What may actually be necessary is to simply let you express your dissatisfaction after we have acknowledged the fallibility of the rules and the moderators and the innate imperfection of any system of rules. The discussion may spark someone's creativity to come up with a way to succinctly express the rule in such a way that it is much clearer. Obviously I am not the one for expressing things succinctly.


----------



## ampurdan

I agree pretty much with what James and Trisia have said. The rule, as it is, it's rather ambiguous and flawed, it's true, but it generally works.

However, I wouldn't say it's limited to "one thread". And for this purpose, "sentence" is everything between two punctuation marks. We could set a word limit instead of a "sentence" limit. It would be more objective, but most people are acquainted with the four-sentences limit and it generally works, so perhaps it's better not to change it.

The idea is that we want to avoid any problem derived from a hypothetical violation of copyrights. So, extensive quoting from the same source is forbidden. What is exactly "extensive quoting" or "fair use", etc.? An American judged tried to define "hard-core pornography" and what is "obscene" under US law and ended by saying: ""I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced . . . [but] I know it when I see it". 

Judges don't manage to handle legal definitions, let alone us, poor mods! So, we tend to err on the side of caution too.


----------



## ryba

Thank you, Trisia for your opinion.

Thank you very much, JamesM, for such a helpful post that made me understand the issue a lot better.

Thank you, ampurdan, for your comment.

I just wanted to tell you, dear mods, how I appreciate what you're doing every day to make these forums a better place. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME AND DEDICATION.

I am going to limit myself to the necessary:



JamesM said:


> The likelihood of your example above being the source of a question that required all the ejaculations listed is slim. Would the question be about the use of "What?" or "Oh my God!" or ??? In any case, this is more than sufficient context to deal with any of the exclamations. Can you think of a reason that such a list of exclamations would be required to ask a question about one of them?



Hahaha, it was just an example. I was trying to show that someone trying to quote a dialogue may run out of sentences very quickly if "sentence" means both "frase" and "oración". Now I see it does and I think Trisia has a good point here.





Trisia said:


> If you have a difficult sentence to translate, and in order for us to understand the context, it is absolutely vital that you add a fifth sentence that only says "OK," or "Right..." it's likely that nobody will jump at your throat. I'd call that common sense.


 


JamesM said:


> My impression from your posts in this thread is that your intent was not just to know the rules so as not to infringe them, but also to express dissatisfaction that the rules are written in such a way that they can be misinterpreted and do not cover all possibilities with complete clarity, and to suggest that they be re-written to be much clearer on this point. Did I misunderstand your intention?


 No. In fact, I just wanted to learn what the rule really said and to do that I needed to talk about its content. This revealed some major loopholes / mistakes. Not the other way round, hehe. Starting out with the loopholes was a rhetoric proceeding.

I am really happy this humble thread has generated a discussion that may lead to improving something in this forum.



JamesM said:


> The discussion may spark someone's creativity to come up with a way to succinctly express the rule in such a way that it is much clearer. Obviously I am not the one for expressing things succinctly.


But you did find a way to word it in a clear and brief way:


JamesM said:


> If I were to place the rule into a short form that I think would cover all the bases it would be:
> 
> "No more than four sentences per original source per user per thread is allowed." (thanks to cuchuflete for "original source")


I think it is clear enough for everyone to understand and, with it, the potential problems that may still occur seem merely potential (as you said).

CHEERS.


----------



## ampurdan

Thank you, ryba.

Just to make it more clear:

1. Two or more users quoting from the same source in the same thread cannot quote more than four lines/sentences of it altoghether.

2. One user cannot quote more than four lines of lyrics from the same source, be it in the same thread or in another one. If one user quotes more than four sentences of prose from the same source in different threads, mods may take action.

3. If different users quote more than four lines/sentences from the same source in different threads, mods may take action.


----------



## ryba

Hi again.

Is it the final decision?

So one can quote one dictionary only once in their life?


----------



## JamesM

I cannot see how you can turn "one time per *thread"* into "once in your life".  In the case of a dictionary, the source would be a particular dictionary entry for a single word, not the entire dictionary.  If someone abuses this by posting a hundred four-line extracts from different dictionary entries in the same thread simply to test the rule (and the patience of the moderators), rest assured that action will be taken.

Honestly, if you still have a question and you are truly interested in getting clarification, I suggest you contact a moderator before posting more than four lines from any one source in any one thread.  Otherwise, you may find it easier to simply treat the odd deletion here and there as the mysterious action of inscrutable moderators who arbitrarily apply incomprehensible rules in an effort to avoid copyright violations.

It rarely seems to be a problem, in my experience.  I am flabberghasted that it is still confusing after all this discussion.


----------



## JeanDeSponde

I might be off-topic - now I can't help but note that a precise, indisputable wording of the Rule is asked for by people from countries where The Law is a rigid, written corpus of laws.
While most of those saying "interpreting the rule is obvious" come from anglo-saxon types of countries, where any law can be challenged, as what is important is the spirit of the law, is how the law is used (case laws, precedents).
In France or in Spain, laws are written - what is not written is not covered by the law.
In UK or US, laws are mainly constituted by legal precedents...


----------



## ryba

Good point, JeanDeSponde.



JamesM said:


> I cannot see how you can turn "one time per *thread"* into "once in your life".  In the case of a dictionary, the source would be a particular dictionary entry for a single word, not the entire dictionary.  If someone abuses this by posting a hundred four-line extracts from different dictionary entries in the same thread simply to test the rule (and the patience of the moderators), rest assured that action will be taken.
> 
> Honestly, if you still have a question and you are truly interested in getting clarification, I suggest you contact a moderator before posting more than four lines from any one source in any one thread.  Otherwise, you may find it easier to simply treat the odd deletion here and there as the mysterious action of inscrutable moderators who arbitrarily apply incomprehensible rules in an effort to avoid copyright violations.
> 
> It rarely seems to be a problem, in my experience.  I am flabberghasted that it is still confusing after all this discussion.



Hello, James, nice to see you.

Don't be flabberghasted, what you've said in this thread is as clear as it can be. It is just that points 2. and 3. in the last ampurdan's *post* clearly say something way different. I just wanted to know which version is the official one. My way of thinking is not anglo-saxon, I can't help it.


----------



## Loob

I have a lot of sympathy with ryba, despite being of the Anglo-Saxon suck-it-and-see persuasion.

This thread seems to me to have covered three distinct topics: the original (since rectified) difference between the _Sólo Español_ version of Rule 16 and other versions; the meaning of _frase_ in the revised version of the _Sólo Español_ rules; and (from post 14 on) whether the restrictions in Rules 16/17 apply to posts, threads, or something else. 

There is a distinct difference between JamesM's advice eg in post 15 and Ampurdan's in post 33.

But perhaps I could offer an 'Anglo-Saxon' compromise?

It seems to me that this is all about proportionality.

If all 10 pages of a short story are posted (whether by one individual in 30 threads or 30 individuals in one thread) this is disproportionate.

But if a total of 10 pages of a 1000-page Russian novel are posted (by one individual in 30 threads or 30 individuals in one thread), this may not be disproportionate.

The four-line/four sentence rule is a rule of thumb to help people avoid infringing copyright restrictions.

Ampurdan's rule 2 and 3 say the mods _may_ intervene, if, over a series of threads, a lot of quoting seems to be going on. 

It doesn't say they _have to_...


----------



## ampurdan

Loob said:


> But perhaps I could offer an 'Anglo-Saxon' compromise?
> 
> It seems to me that this is all about proportionality.
> 
> If all 10 pages of a short story are posted (whether by one individual in 30 threads or 30 individuals in one thread) this is disproportionate.
> 
> But if a total of 10 pages of a 1000-page Russian novel are posted (by one individual in 30 threads or 30 individuals in one thread), this may not be disproportionate.
> 
> The four-line/four sentence rule is a rule of thumb to help people avoid infringing copyright restrictions.
> 
> Ampurdan's rule 2 and 3 say the mods _may_ intervene, if, over a series of threads, a lot of quoting seems to be going on.
> 
> It doesn't say they _have to_...


 
Thanks, Loob. That's exactly what I meant.

One forero or several may quote several times from a novel, for instance, with a fair purpose of understanding it. Mods may take action, however, if they think that copyright may be infringed.

We are more strict with lyrics.


----------



## ryba

Thanks for the response, Loob and amp. 



ampurdan said:


> We are more strict with lyrics.



That explains a lot. 

I was talking about changing the way the rule is written so as I was sure the rule was respected always and by all.

I think Loop is right, it is just that I have had problems with mods being quite cheeky and not respecting crucial rules of the forum, hence my dislike for that not written pragmatism that allows for the possibility of abuse.


----------

