Index ← 3477 CFJ 3478 3479 → text
=============================  CFJ 3478  =============================

    蘭亭社's highest allowable budget for a single player is 50.

======================================================================

Caller:                      o

Judge:                       ais523
Barred:                      天火狐
Judgement:                   DISMISS

======================================================================

History:

Called by o:                 27 Apr 2017
Assigned to ais523:          28 Apr 2017
Judged DISMISS by ais523:    29 Apr 2017

======================================================================

Caller's Arguments:

I present no arguments, largely out of spite.

======================================================================

Caller's Evidence:

The following is my judgement on CFJ 3478. The sections inside {{{}}}
quoting are evidence, and the rest is arguments, but it's likely most
convenient to just copy the entirety of the rest of the post as is.

Also as a note: I based this reasoning off the version of the relevant
Charter in the most recent monthly Secretary's report. It's possible
that this version is outdated, in which case some of the conclusions
may be incorrect.

The main confounding/confusing factor here is that the Charter is in
Japanese, a language that was until recently not commonly used in
Agora. There are some past precedents on the subject; CFJ 1439 held
that taking game actions in non-English languages was possible, but CFJ
1460 held that doing so is sufficiently unclear to make the action fail
due to inclarity unless the audience of the action understands the
message.

So what test should we use here? The obvious test, to me, is to see if
the Charter can be understood by a non-Japanese-speaker with ordinary
effort. Knowing virtually no Japanese grammar or vocabulary myself, the
easiest way to determine this was for me to attempt to deduce its
meaning.

The first thing that can be noted in the Charter is a long list of
English phrases followed by Japanese phrases, which are clearly
definitions. A machine translation of the heading gives us
"1. In this charter, the terms on the same line below are equivalent.",
which supports this view (and in fact is very clear for a machine
translation; the sentence would have the desired effect even if it had
been written directly). Despite my lack of understanding Japanese
words, this makes it possible to copy-and-paste the definitions from
the Charter, giving the following text for the remainder of the
Charter:

{{{
2. 当Organizationの正式名称は「蘭亭Organization」で、「ランテイシャ」と読みます。
3. 当OrganizationのメンバーならないAgoraPlayerは自分Budget
Switchが1~50にFlipことによって弊Organizationのメンバーになり得ます。
4.
当OrganizationはAgoraPlayerの一員です。当Organizationが滅びずに登録を解除することがIMPOSSIBLEです
。
5. このCharterに記載されていない弊Organizationに影響を及ぼす行為は全部相応しくないです。
6.
Appropriate修正箇条とは他のメンバーが日本語に反対していないでメンバーが4~14日前AnnouncementしたCharterの修正
箇条です。
7. すべてメンバーは自分Budget Switchが低い値にFlipことがAppropriateです。
8. 当OrganizationはメンバーがAnnouncementで賛成することによってスタンスを発表し得ます。賛成者Budget
Switchより反対者Budget Switchのほうか多ければスタンスが撤廃します。
9. メンバーの間で紛争はリーチ麻雀の東南戦によって解決されるべきであります。
}}}

It's possible to guess what some of these lines are likely to mean even
without a machine translator; for example, line 2 and line 6 have a
very familiar form to people aware of Organization conventions. Here's
what a machine translation of the text in question looks like:
{{{
2. The official name of this Organization is "Orchido Organization" and
reads as "Rantaisha".
3. AgoraPlayer which is not a member of this Organization can be a
member of our organization by Fliping your Budget Switch to 1 to 50.
4. This Organization is a member of AgoraPlayer. It is IMPOSSIBLE that
we cancel registration without destroying our Organization.
5. All actions that affect our organization not listed in this Charter
are not suitable.
6. Appropriate correction clause is a correction clause of Charter who
members announced 4 to 14 days ago without opposing Japanese.
7. All members are Appropriate that their Budget Switch flips to a
lower value.
8. This Organization can announce the stance by members agreeing on
Announcement. If you are more opponent Budget Switch than the proponent
Budget Switch, the stance will be abolished.
9. Conflict among members should be resolved by Reach Mahjong's
Southeast Battle.
}}}

There are plenty of lines which are potentially ambiguous; for example,
paragraph 5 machine-translates as "suitable", and uses the characters
「相応し」 to represent the word (as opposed to 「相応しい」, which is defined to
mean "Appropriate"). However, some experimentation shows that when the
word is followed by 「くない」, the final 「い」 is dropped (both incorrect
combinations are flagged up as a typo by the autocorrect on the machine
translator I'm using, which is about as clear a message as a computer
can give on the subject). As such, it seems most reasonable to
interpret 「相応しくない」 as meaning "Inappropriate", even if this definition
cannot be determined via a simple matching of character sequences in an
editor. (It can also be observed that this ambiguity does not matter at
all; actions relating to Organizations are Inappropriate by default,
and thus it makes no difference whether paragraph 5 is interpreted as
meaningful or meaningless; the same result would be obtained either
way.)

However, some lines are very clear. Line 3, for example, is a very
clear statement of possibility for a Budget switch flip. Unfortunately,
it does not use the word "Appropriate" anywhere, neither in its
English form, nor anything resembling the specified Japanese
translations 
「ふさわしい」 or 「相応しい」. An Organization merely stating that something is
possible has no effect; it needs to specify that the action is
Appropriate. As such, I conclude that there's no actual way to join
this Organization.

Hopefully, this analysis resolves whatever the caller's question
actually was. The question itself, though, is woefully unclear (besides
the unclear meaning of "allowable", which is being determined in CFJ
3477 at the moment and for which "meaninglessly ambiguous" is a
plausible outcome, there's the issue that the maximum possible value to
which the relevant Budget switch could be flipped is higher for 天火狐
than it would be for anyone else, and unlike CFJ 3477, the question
wasn't asked in the context of any particular player). Given that the
underlying issue has (hopefully) been resolved, and that the question
does not clearly admit a true-or-false answer, I assign the judgement
DISMISS to CFJ 3477. (And let this be a reminder that CFJs are mostly
valuable for the reasoning that goes into the judgement, not for the
judgement itself.)

(On an unrelated note, I point out that 蘭亭社's charter has an annoying
mix of halfwidth and fullwidth spaces. I'm vaguely tempted to inquire
as to whether that's tricked the Secretary into Making My Eyes Bleed by
proxy.)

======================================================================