status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3471 (This document is informational only and contains no game actions).
============================= CFJ 3471 ============================= Josh T has voted AGAINST on the decision on Proposal 7836. ====================================================================== Caller: Murphy Judge: G. Judgement: FALSE ====================================================================== History: Called by Murphy: 17 Nov 2016 Assigned to G.: 05 Jan 2017 Judged FALSE by G.: 23 May 2017 ====================================================================== Caller's Evidence: Josh T wrote: > 以下の票を投ずる: > > > 7836+ ais523 1.0 Victory Elections > 反対 > > > 7837* ais523 1.0 Era Fix > 白票 [Google Translate output for the above Japanese texts] "I will cast the following votes" "Opposite" "A white paper" ====================================================================== Judge's Arguments: For a considerable time, CFJ 1460 has been the guiding principle for non- English communications. Essentially, it states that, for an action message to be effective, it cannot take unreasonable effort for a "typical Agoran" to interpret it. In the 14 years since that judgement, machine translation has become increasingly available and ubiquitous. Therefore, as a first part, I find that it does *not* take unreasonable effort to take a provided string directed (without translation) at a single officer (e.g. a reply to a vote message), and paste it into an online translator, any more than it is unreasonable effort to look up a synonym in a dictionary. (If the context is entirely contained in the foreign language; e.g. "I vote XXX on proposal YYY" is written as its own message and not in reply to a thread, it *is* in fact unreasonable effort, as it requires each officer to determine out of context whether the message is directed at them or not. That was the case in CFJ 1460, but not here). However, once placed in the translator, one must look at the exact text (in English, matching the language of the rules) and determine if it is clear and unambiguous. Here, the standard is not "effort" but our standards of whether a statement (in English) is clear enough to cause an action, a frequent subject of court cases. This is the approach taken here. For both CFJ 3471 and 3472, the message in question was prefaces with: 以下の票を投ずる Using google, this directly translates to "I will cast the following votes". While the "will cast" is a little off in grammar, I find this clear enough. CFJ 3471: 反対 yields "opposite". While this may be considered "against", it may also be read as "a different vote than someone else". I think this is sufficiently unclear to fail. I judge FALSE on 3471. CFJ 3472: 白票 yields "a white paper". This is clearly not a valid vote. I judge 3472 FALSE. Now, it's possible that the above terms have some colloquial meaning or secondary synonym not shown by the machine translator that would map to valid votes on these proposals. However, the standard must be that the officer (or other player) can interpret these unambiguously without said information, so supplying that context is outside the content of these messages. Addendum: this portion of the argument is also proof against certain types of scams, e.g. submitting a message in a foreign language that attempts to do something bad Without Objection, in the hope it prevents people from objecting. That would not clearly indicate the message contents beyond unreasonable effort (as it requires everyone interpret the message in order to understand the type of public message and response required). ======================================================================