# Rule 5



## chamyto

Hello, Once an again I come accross threads/posts that break this rule, and to my surprise many times those threads/posts are replied by senior members who have (apparently) a great experience in the forums due to the year they accessed for the first time, and to the number of posts they have included in the forums.

From my point of view, it's better to use the report-button if somebody is no sure if that thread/post follows the rule. 

Indeed, rule 12 tells "..._Please, do not react to rule violations: just report them__...." _.  This could be the moderator's work easier and more efficient.



Thank you.   

Chamyto, from Spain.


----------



## germanbz

I think that there are different scales, and first of all we can use commonsense. In case an provocative and clear violations of rules and before starting a quarrell it is evidence that one have to report. But when a "soft" violation is committed because the person have a lack of experience in the forum I think it is easier to warn him about the problem.
If not not ultimately, we can convert this forum into a series of stringent rules with no room for natural communication. Which does not mean that to be a "veteran"  must serve to overstepping warnings or tone, but I'd hope that dialogue directly replace the accuser button at least as a first option....


----------



## Suehil

The 'report a post' button is NOT an 'accuser' button.  All it does is alert the moderators that there might be a problem (however slight) with the post.  

Reporting posts enables moderators to step in early when a thread is going off track, and also helps them to identify which new members may need a little gentle guidance.

Please don't think of it as 'telling tales' in school - it just helps us to keep the forums running smoothly.


----------



## chamyto

Hi, continuing with this subject, this happens everyday (threads/posts that breaks the rules and that are replied by senior members with many activity in WR due to the fact of posts and times they connect to the forum) .

This is my question: I wonder if Mike could design a way to make us aware the rules we have to follow; for instance, we log in the main page and a new window opens and until we have not tick "ok" (to be sure that we have the rules once and again present) we cannot continue and participate in the forums as usual.

Best regards, chamyto , from Spain.


----------



## juicyluce

I've just had a post deleted under this rule yet I did not violate any of its criteria. It was about a three lined piece of text but I was not doing school work, I attempted my own translation, I stated that I just wanted any major grammatical error pointed out, the possible grammatical errors were stated in the subject line and the reason the text was long was because the grammar I wanted to be checked did not make sense on its own...I think this rule is a bit ambiguous. I've been visiting wordreference for a while now so I know the rules and regulations but even this rule confuses me


----------



## Loob

chamyto said:


> ... This is my question: I wonder if Mike could  design a way to make us aware the rules we have to follow; for instance,  we log in the main page and a new window opens and until we have not  tick "ok" (to be sure that we have the rules once and again present) we  cannot continue and participate in the forums as usual. ...


To be honest, chamyto, I'd find it really annoying if every time I logged on to WRF I had to click to say I'd read the rules _again_.

Isn't the best solution to use the red triangle to report posts which break any of the rules, Rule 5 included?


----------



## DearPrudence

juicyluce said:


> I've just had a post deleted under this rule yet I did not violate any of its criteria. It was about a three lined piece of text but I was not doing school work, I attempted my own translation, I stated that I just wanted any major grammatical error pointed out, the possible grammatical errors were stated in the subject line and the reason the text was long was because the grammar I wanted to be checked did not make sense on its own...I think this rule is a bit ambiguous. I've been visiting wordreference for a while now so I know the rules and regulations but even this rule confuses me


Hi, juicyluce,

Maybe the wording is ambiguous.
But actually, the rule 5 on proofreading/rewriting (your 'three lined piece of text' definitely falls into that category) is for all (homework or not):


> *5. Strict limits on translation and homework help. // No proofreading.*
> _These forums respond to specific questions about text. They do  not provide free translations. __They do not provide proofreading and  rewriting of texts__. Thus,__ discussion should center on the word or phrase  in the thread title__. Additional source text is accepted only as context; please do not submit it for translation or proofreading.
> Help with school-work will be given only if you post your own translation/interpretation first._


The main aim of the forums is to complement the dictionary database, as a result, every question is like an entry, hence the need to have a question that focusses on _a specific expression _(and not on three lines)
Proofreading/improving/finding and correcting mistakes in _several lines_ is not what we do.
Admittedly, this is tremendously helpful to the person who asks the question, but it has little if no interest to others who will stumble upon this thread in one/two months or every five years and if everyone just came here to have their texts improved, this would become a messy forum filled of requests like 'help, text about xxx, can you improve this, tell me my mistakes,...' that would not have much interest. Well, at least, this is not what _we _do here...


----------



## chamyto

Loob said:


> To be honest, chamyto, I'd find it really annoying if every time I logged on to WRF I had to click to say I'd read the rules _again_.
> 
> Isn't the best solution to use the red triangle to report posts which break any of the rules, Rule 5 included?



It might be...but this could be set every two months, for instance...not everyday.


----------



## stella_maris_74

chamyto said:


> It might be...but this could be set every two months, for instance...not everyday.



Even if this was in place, there is no way of making sure people will actually _read_ the "rules reminder" (let alone _comply_ with the rules, however often they pop up before their eyes). I'm afraid they'd just click "OK" to get rid of the reminder and go on with their business as usual.


----------

