These CFJs concern a message, sent by CuddleBeam, with the following text: ဤသတင်းစကားကိုတစ်ဦးမိမိဆန္ဒအလျောက်ကိုအီးမေးလ်အကြောင်းပြန်ပေးသူတွေကိုအတိအလင်းဒီမက်ဆေ့ခ် ျ၏ဖန်ဆင်းရှင်အလိုတော်မဆိုလမ်းအတွက်အာမခံဖို့သူတို့ကိုချည်နှောင်ဖို့ဒီသတင်းစကားများ၏ပေးပို့သူဘို့မိမိတို့ခွင့်ပ ြုချက်ပေးရန်သူတွေကိုဖွဲ့စည်းကြမည်။
I inserted line breaks randomly, as I don't know where the word breaks are, and don't want to spend the time to figure it out. Google translate claims that the message is in Burmese, and provides the following translation. This email message is a voluntary clearly the messages of those who replied to the will of the Creator in any way to tie them to ensure that those who have to give their permission for the sender of the message will be formed. Most players don't seem to understand the message, so under CFJ 1460 it is without effect. The more recent CFJs 3471 and 3472 specify that the automated translation must be understandable and unambiguous, which clearly it is not. The current CFJs could be judged FALSE on this basis alone. However, I will also consider what the message seems to be trying to do. The consensus appears to be that it is an attempt to cause every player who replies to the message to consent to some action. Such an attempt fails. This isn't ISTID (I say, therefore I do). This is "I say, therefore the universe automatically changes to conform to my statement". Nothing short of the rules can cause someone to do something they're not trying to do, which the text of their message doesn't indicate they're doing, and they don't do inherently by sending the message. Some actions are taken by announcement, including but not limited to things defined to do so by the rules specify to be done so (CFJ 2151). Other things, like publishing a report, can be done by, you know, publishing the report. If some phrase which would otherwise have no meaning is given a meaning in the minds of Agorans, then that meaning holds (e.g. TTttPF). The only previous CFJ I could find about this was CFJ 1455, glossed in the ruleset as "A contract cannot cause an otherwise-insignificant action by a non-party to constitute consent to be bound by the contract." I'm generalizing the point. A player CANNOT unilaterally cause an action that a player might reasonably otherwise do do to have game significance. The legal reasoning for this, if anyone's wondering is that game actions are by definition restricted/regulated (Rule 2125). Assuming the action is question is done "by announcement", it is done by "unambiguously and clearly specifying the action and announcing that e performs it." We've bent that to allow clear announcements defined by custom, but there's no way cases like this meet the bar. I judge CFJs 3545 and 3546 FALSE.
