[General] English Language: Interpretation of this sentence?

geass11 · May 25, 2015

"@Everybody: Please note, if you forget to send in BOTH an ability AND to vote, there WILL be consequences."

Which interpreation is correct, 1, 2 or 3?

1.

A) If you send in an ability and vote = No Consequence.

B) If you send in an ability but do not vote = Consequence.

C) If you forget to send in an ability but vote = Consequence.

D) If you forget to send in an ability and do not vote = Consequence.

OR

2.

A) If you send in an ability and vote = No Consequence.

B) If you send in an ability but do not vote = No Consequence.

C) If you forget to send in an ability but vote = No Consequence.

D) If you forget to send in an ability and do not vote = Consequence.

OR

3.

Other. Please specify.

Edit:
The context:
This question is a note, by the game master for a game (mafia/assassin game).
Each player can vote once per day. They also are given abilities, to send in to the game master, which they can also do every day.
You vote inside a voting thread. You send in abilities via personal messaging the game master.

Edit 2:
Can you please be specific and actually state 1, 2 or 3.
If 3, then explain why (basically, if you don't think 1 or 2 is the correct interpretation).
It isn't very helpful to me, if you're going to just ignore my question.

MikeNewYork · May 25, 2015

What is an "ability"?

Raymott · May 25, 2015

There is nothing about voting. It only says that you have to send in a "to vote" as well as "an ability". Neither of those things are meaningful in English. Grammatically, the meaning is that there will be consequences if you do not send in both an "ability" and a "to vote". You have to send both in for there not to be consequences.
Perhaps it would make sense as "If you forget BOTH to send in an 'ability' and to vote, there will be consequences."

geass11 · May 25, 2015

MikeNewYork said:
What is an "ability"?

It's for a game.

For instance, an ability to kill.
Example: I personal message the game master to use my kill ability on MikeNewYork.
You would die, when the phase ends.

Raymott said:
There is nothing about voting. It only says that you have to send in a "to vote" as well as "an ability". Neither of those things are meaningful in English. Grammatically, the meaning is that there will be consequences if you do not send in both an "ability" and a "to vote". You have to send both in for there not to be consequences.
Perhaps it would make sense as "If you forget BOTH to send in an 'ability' and to vote, there will be consequences."

1 or 2?

^ That was a response I got a while back in yahoo answers. However, somebody told me the question I asked didn't clearly explain what leads to a consequence and what doesn't. Hence this new question.

geass11 · May 25, 2015

MikeNewYork said:
What is an "ability"?

Context added to my original post.

Raymott said:
There is nothing about voting. It only says that you have to send in a "to vote" as well as "an ability". Neither of those things are meaningful in English. Grammatically, the meaning is that there will be consequences if you do not send in both an "ability" and a "to vote". You have to send both in for there not to be consequences.
Perhaps it would make sense as "If you forget BOTH to send in an 'ability' and to vote, there will be consequences."

1, 2 or 3?
Please answer the question...

Tdol · May 25, 2015

As Raymott says, both is in the wrong place. As you have to do both things to avoid consequences, then logically if you only do one or none, you will pay for it IMO.

Send in ability and vote :tick:
Send in ability :cross:
Vote :cross:
Do neither :cross:

However, what will gamers think? People tend to read instructions fast and carelessly if at all, so you could make things 100% clear by using 1) and 2).

geass11 · May 25, 2015

Tdol said:
However, what will gamers think? People tend to read instructions fast and carelessly if at all, so you could make things 100% clear by using 1) and 2).

When I asked a couple of people, the decisions were split. Most of them are foreigners though, whose first language isn't English.
Hence, I wanted to know what the more accurate interpretation was, from an 'Editors/English Teachers' point of view.

Tdol · May 25, 2015

Was your intended meaning the one I gave?

geass11 · May 25, 2015

Tdol said:
Was your intended meaning the one I gave?

Yes.
My stance was interpreation 1 (http://prntscr.com/79ao1u).

It's just the GameMaster and a couple of others, disagreed with me (interpretation 2).
That was like two years ago. I decided to re-ask the question, to those members again. To see if they changed their mind since then.
This was the reasoning given by one of the members who disagreed with me:
http://i.imgur.com/EnhNXna.png

Raymott · May 27, 2015

geass11 said:
Context added to my original post.

1, 2 or 3?
Please answer the question...

Obviously it's 3, other. I've explained why already. I answered the question.

geass11 · May 28, 2015

Raymott said:
Obviously it's 3, other. I've explained why already. I answered the question.

If it's obviously 3, why didn't you provide any response boxes?
What does or doesn't lead to consequence?
I.E: Do a response like Tdol.
Sometimes it's better to put examples, than just explain through words.

Raymott said:
There is nothing about voting. It only says that you have to send in a "to vote" as well as "an ability". Neither of those things are meaningful in English.

Saying that demonstrates to me, that you didn't think of a situation where 'voting' and 'sending a ability' occurs (E.G: Online forum, a text based game).

Raymott said:
Grammatically, the meaning is that there will be consequences if you do not send in both an "ability" and a "to vote". You have to send both in for there not to be consequences.

I fail to see how your opinion does not represent this outcome:

geass11 said:
1.

A) If you send in an ability and vote = No Consequence.

B) If you send in an ability but do not vote = Consequence.

C) If you forget to send in an ability but vote = Consequence.

D) If you forget to send in an ability and do not vote = Consequence.

Tdol said:
As Raymott says, both is in the wrong place. As you have to do both things to avoid consequences, then logically if you only do one or none, you will pay for it IMO.

That is the most crucial part, which you did not clarify.

geass11 said:
"@Everybody: Please note, if you forget to send in BOTH an ability AND to vote, there WILL be consequences."

B) If somebody does send in an ability but doesn't vote. Consequence or No Consequence?
C) If somebody doesn't send in an ability but does vote. Consequence or No Consequence?

^ The entire point of making this thread is to find out which interpretation is more accurate to determine the outcome.
Nobody disagrees (on another forum) about A & D.
It's B & C where the disagreement occurs.

Raymott · May 28, 2015

You're a native speaker. I've explained the problem. And I'm not here to be ordered around in the way I answer.
You have to do both to avoid consequences. That's the answer. I don't know whether that's what the author intended, but that's what it means.
If you have to do both to avoid consequences, there will be consequences if you only do one, or neither. You've already given the correct answer in your post #4.
As you say, many of the people on the forum don't know what they're talking about.
I thought you were asking an English question originally, but it turns out it's simple logic.
If you have to do both A and B to avoid consequences, you can't avoid consequences by only doing one of these. Is that what you're asking?

Of course, there is a problem if the gamemaster's English is as poor as that of the players. It's quite possible that they have written a sentence which they don't mean. Some of the players in your link have already pointed out that there are no consequences if you do either A or B, but that is not what the sentence means, even if the gamemaster thinks it does. We cannot explain what the gamemaster means - only the meaning of what he's written.

geass11 · May 28, 2015

Raymott said:
You're a native speaker. I've explained the problem. And I'm not here to be ordered around in the way I answer.
You have to do both to avoid consequences. That's the answer. I don't know whether that's what the author intended, but that's what it means.
If you have to do both to avoid consequences, there will be consequences if you only do one, or neither. You've already given the correct answer in your post #4.
As you say, many of the people on the forum don't know what they're talking about.
I thought you were asking an English question originally, but it turns out it's simple logic.
If you have to do both A and B to avoid consequences, you can't avoid consequences by only doing one of these. Is that what you're asking?

Of course, there is a problem if the gamemaster's English is as poor as that of the players. It's quite possible that they have written a sentence which they don't mean. Some of the players in your link have already pointed out that there are no consequences if you do either A or B, but that is not what the sentence means, even if the gamemaster thinks it does. We cannot explain what the gamemaster means - only the meaning of what he's written.

Thank you for the reply

I have no intention "ordering" you around. I just wanted a more specific response; you're in no way obliged to answer.
Asking you to be more specific is not for me, it's for them (the players from the other forum) to completely understand your viewpoint (as they're viewing this thread).

Judging from your reply, interpretation 1 that I pointed out, you do agree with that outcome. You just don't flat out say it ;-)
In this case, it's better to get a reply that's directly to the point to avoid ambiguity.

I understand why you stated 3 (other) now. It's because you also wanted the sentence rephrased. But that's not what I was looking for. I just wanted to know how best to interpret the outcome of the sentence (what leads to consequence and what doesn't).

Raymott said:
but that is not what the sentence means, even if the gamemaster thinks it does. We cannot explain what the gamemaster means - only the meaning of what he's written.

That was precisely my point to him. But he refused to believe his interpretation (2) was incorrect.
So thank you for the post :up:

The GameMasters is fluent in English. His grammar, punctuation and spelling is pristine. Which is why I was quite surprised how he misinterpreted the sentence. I guess it was just stubbornness that blinded him to the faults of his game.

Raymott · May 28, 2015

That's right. The sentence means 1. even if the author of the sentence thinks it means something else.

[General] English Language: Interpretation of this sentence?

geass11

Member

MikeNewYork

VIP Member

Raymott

VIP Member

geass11

Member

geass11

Member

Tdol

No Longer With Us (RIP)

geass11

Member

Tdol

No Longer With Us (RIP)

geass11

Member

Raymott

VIP Member

geass11

Member

Raymott

VIP Member

geass11

Member

Raymott

VIP Member

Similar threads