Black Madougushi Guild wo Tsuihousareta Watashi, Oukyuu Majutsushi to shite Hirowareru - Ch. 9

[dudeofalldudesbro]

No. I am assuming that higher number = worse rank. No clue how you got the opposite impression. And mc has a poor rank, because it is high.
So either they want to hire lower-ranked ppl for their higher competence (most likely), in which case mc doesn't apply and them seeking her is an exception. Or higher-ranked ppl for their lack of allegiances and to up the average of the entire organization (very unlikely, but still a possibility), in which case the dialog is meant to imply that they are going by the rules/tradition.

Like I said, this is an extremely common error ppl often do, where they call the top-rankers as "high-ranked" (and vice versa). The words "top", "better", etc, and "high" are all similar words, but there is a clear difference when it comes to the ordering of integers, where "high" means something distinctly different from the others. That, in addition to how ppl generally associate the rank to someone's social standing (which is correct to call "higher"), makes this error

No, it is correct to refer her social/hierarchical standing as low, but what they are saying is that her rank (8) is low instead.

You're too hung up on the mathematical value of the numbers in the names of the ranks. The value of the numbers do not matter, they are names of ranks, what they represent in the hierarchy is what matters. The TL is fine because it's conveying the fact that Rank 3 is the superior/higher rank to that of MC's Rank 8 in the hierarchy.

 

[alfirizkyr]

An error - tl seems to not know about how integers are ordered?:

Should either be

or

The ranks are ordinal, not integer. Your first assumption is mistaken.

The numbers do not mean intervals by any means, they are categorical ranks. Therefore, Rank 1 is assumed to also be equivalent to Rank A, or Rank Super High, or whatever have you, because it's just a category label, not a number that can be mathematically processed. It just so happens to be named with a number.

So the TL is correct. Rank 8 is a low rank, because Rank 8 is also the same as Two Ranks From the Bottom in this categorical system.

 

[feha]

The ranks are ordinal, not integer. Your first assumption is mistaken.

The numbers do not mean intervals by any means, they are categorical ranks. Therefore, Rank 1 is assumed to also be equivalent to Rank A, or Rank Super High, or whatever have you, because it's just a category label, not a number that can be mathematically processed. It just so happens to be named with a number.

So the TL is correct. Rank 8 is a low rank, because Rank 8 is also the same as Two Ranks From the Bottom in this categorical system.

Huh, I have never heard that (in ordinal numbers) the inequality operators (<, >, <=, >=) work in reverse as they do on integers. I would very much like to read up more on this, if you got any sources?

Even googling I find no such claims, and closest I get (Where closes means "mentions inequality operations, even if it directly contradicts you") is wikipedia about "successor ordinal", in that it mentions a "minimum element (zero)" and that "the successor of alpha is the smallest ordinal greater than alpha" with the example "1, 2, 3).
Both of which implies that the ordinal number 1 < 2 ("2 is successor of 1"), 2 < 3, and 0 being the smallest. In other words, that ordering the numbers works identically to when you order integers.

 

[alfirizkyr]

Huh, I have never heard that (in ordinal numbers) the inequality operators (<, >, <=, >=) work in reverse as they do on integers. I would very much like to read up more on this, if you got any sources?

Even googling I find no such claims, and closest I get (Where closes means "mentions inequality operations, even if it directly contradicts you") is wikipedia about "successor ordinal", in that it mentions a "minimum element (zero)" and that "the successor of alpha is the smallest ordinal greater than alpha" with the example "1, 2, 3).
Both of which implies that the ordinal number 1 < 2 ("2 is successor of 1"), 2 < 3, and 0 being the smallest. In other words, that ordering the numbers works identically to when you order integers.

A simple Wikipedia search should have told you that the one thing that makes ordinal data unique as a categorical data is that it has ranking.

So it uses no inequality operators, and inequality operators don't work on them. Neither did I ever say that they do. What it does have, however, are ordered hierarchy, i.e., higher and lower ranks.

If you just want to be pedantic, you may have to try harder.

 

[feha]

A simple Wikipedia search should have told you that the one thing that makes ordinal data unique as a categorical data is that it has ranking.

So it uses no inequality operators, and inequality operators don't work on them. Neither did I ever say that they do. What it does have, however, are ordered hierarchy, i.e., higher and lower ranks.

If you just want to be pedantic, you may have to try harder.

As is evident from my reference to wikipedia, I did look it up, and it literally said that 1 is lower than its successor, 2. Part of the definition of a successor, in fact.
If you want to turn my words inside out, you may have to try harder, too.

 

[alfirizkyr]

As is evident from my reference to wikipedia, I did look it up, and it literally said that 1 is lower than its successor, 2. Part of the definition of a successor, in fact.
If you want to turn my words inside out, you may have to try harder, too.

Nowhere in the Wiki page about ordinal data said literally anything you just said lmao

Ight I'm stopping here, no use debating with someone who couldn't even read

 

[feha]

Nowhere in the Wiki page about ordinal data said literally anything you just said lmao

Ight I'm stopping here, no use debating with someone who couldn't even read

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Successor_ordinal

is the smallest ordinal number greater than α [...] The ordinals 1, 2, and 3 are the first three successor ordinals

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordinal_number#Successor_and_limit_ordinals
lots of stuff using the ordering/inequality terms "minimum", "maximum", "largest", "<", "smallest", etc.

But I'll second your sentiment at that last line

 

[Lioslin]

No. I am assuming that higher number = worse rank. No clue how you got the opposite impression. And mc has a poor rank, because it is high.
So either they want to hire lower-ranked ppl for their higher competence (most likely), in which case mc doesn't apply and them seeking her is an exception. Or higher-ranked ppl for their lack of allegiances and to up the average of the entire organization (very unlikely, but still a possibility), in which case the dialog is meant to imply that they are going by the rules/tradition.

Like I said, this is an extremely common error ppl often do, where they call the top-rankers as "high-ranked" (and vice versa). The words "top", "better", etc, and "high" are all similar words, but there is a clear difference when it comes to the ordering of integers, where "high" means something distinctly different from the others. That, in addition to how ppl generally associate the rank to someone's social standing (which is correct to call "higher"), makes this error

No, it is correct to refer her social/hierarchical standing as low, but what they are saying is that her rank (8) is low instead.

My guy the manga literally shows a pyramid to explain the rank structure and 1st rank is at the top with 3rd rank two places below it and 8th rank two places from the bottom. How did you get confused by it being called a higher rank with a visual aid to explain it? Never seen someone so adamant about something they are so demonstrably wrong about

 

[feha]

My guy the manga literally shows a pyramid to explain the rank structure and 1st rank is at the top with 3rd rank two places below it and 8th rank two places from the bottom. How did you get confused by it being called a higher rank with a visual aid to explain it? Never seen someone so adamant about something they are so demonstrably wrong about

That pyramid is part of how you can know that they didn't mean what was said in the bubbles. I am unsure how you took what I wrote as "being confused", since like you say, I am rather adamant that I am being correct

 

[Lioslin]

That pyramid is part of how you can know that they didn't mean what was said in the bubbles. I am unsure how you took what I wrote as "being confused", since like you say, I am rather adamant that I am being correct

No seriously how do you not know how to refer to positions of ranks on a pyramid in relation to each other?
This is beyond embarrassing for you to be this ignorant about basic knowledge unless English is a second language for you and if that's the case why are you fighting with people who clearly have native level understanding repeatedly telling you that you are wrong and why you are wrong?
My dude it's fine to not know something but it's a whole other ball game to not understand something laid out in plain English for you to understand

 

[feha]

No seriously how do you not know how to refer to positions of ranks on a pyramid in relation to each other?

Except I do. I never claimed that the "top" of the pyramid isn't usually considered "first" rank. Either your reading comprehension was lacking, or you are trying to disparage me by making assertions I never claimed (aka: yes, I am very well aware of the type of language you are currently using throughout that comment, and yes, I am looking down on you for doing so).

This is beyond embarrassing for you to be this ignorant about basic knowledge

Those are quite the assertions. In order:

• No, if someone was extremely ignorant, it would not be embarrassing for them. That mindset causes students to not ask questions during lectures
• No, I am not ignorant about basic knowledge, and considering the subject is "nomenclature regarding the ordering of ordinal numbers", I would also argue it isn't "basic knowledge" even if I were incorrect all along.

unless English is a second language for you and if that's the case why are you fighting with people who clearly have native level understanding repeatedly telling you that you are wrong and why you are wrong?

It is. But nothing about something being a second language means you aren't fluent. This is doubly true when the context is regarding nomenclature for math-related subjects. As for "why?", that question can be meant a couple ways, so the answer will have to be either "because I love debating nomenclature like this <3 (mainly because the subject ultimately doesn't matter, unlike something like politics)", or "because I believe myself to be correct (as is evident by me citing sources)", respectively.

My dude it's fine to not know something but it's a whole other ball game to not understand something laid out in plain English for you to understand

So far I am the only one that has been giving references/sources to why even when considering ordinal numbers in a ranking system, a higher number is considered a worse rank. ie. "rank 8" is worse than "rank 1".
I would rather turn your sentence around, and additionally ask why you think that a higher number (ie "8") is considered a better rank than a lower one (ie. "1"; Which you obviously don't actually think. But if we are expected to put words into the others mouth then I assume it was desired that I reciprocate? Can we stop with that practice now?).

 

[Lioslin]

~snipped so my comment doesn't take up as much space~

The word is Hierarchy and here is a convenient link to the Wikipedia page for it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarchy

Ranks when put to a pyramid are considered a hierarchy of ranks with the highest being above all the ranks below it. A very famous example would be "Maslow's Hierarchy of Human Needs" in which Physiological needs are considered base or basic needs that must be dealt with first before going above to the needs higher than it. To equate this to the ranks you start with the base rank of 10 and work your up above that rank one by one to the highest rank which is 1. I hope this helps you understand why everyone is telling you the wording is right in this translation of the ranks

 

[feha]

~snipped so my comment doesn't take up as much space~

Maslows hierarchy has no ordinal numbers assigned to their ranks (I might be wrong about that, but at least I never seen it done for it). Instead it is purely hierarchical with things above/below other things. But that fun tangent aside, maslows pyramid actually puts the more important "needs" at the bottom, and "higher levels" are the less important "needs" (all that was mostly a useless tangent. But if you enjoyed it and are additionally curious why they chose this order, it's because "base needs" are placed as a base, and "higher needs" are symbolically dependent on their base to exist and built upon them ).

But just like nothing stops you from putting the more important tiers at bottom in a pyramid - ie. maslows - nothing stops one from assigning numbers from either direction, placing higher numbers at lower levels.
Mostly, my point is exactly that - how assigning numbers to the levels supersedes any (implied) gravitational direction and is often directly contrary to it, and that it's often treated just like the word "literally".

ps: I appreciate the link, it even had a section dedicated to nomenclature
Interestingly, "higher/lower" (when numbers has been assigned..) is not defined in that list (..or at all, for that matter), even though it is usually implied that in the absens of assigned numbers, "higher" is "up" and "lower" is "down". Had they defined them (the inequality operators "higher/lower") as relating to the level even when a number had been assigned, I would actually have been convinced about convention then and there

 

[looc64]

It isn't...
Then again, this manga makes a contrast ( if cartoonish ) between Black and White companies, and the things they expect of you.

The potion research team had a crunch ( because of a handy epidemic ), so got swamped and giving an excuse for our MC to shine. By dealing with all the "minor stuff" and allowing the experts to do their actual job.
It happens in every company.

In contrast, the 3rd is White to the point of being silly.
That's just as unsustainable as the Black Guild our MC came from in the long run.

If you treat this Manga as a cartoon manual on "What to look out for in a company, and what to dodge.", you wouldn't be wrong.
After all, it's terribly Impolite to directly criticise people/companies for their practices and Culture. Especially if that criticism is aimed at future employees..
Doubly so given that Quitting Your Job in Japan is akin to High Treason to the Company That Invested In Your Growth, etc.. With Getting Fired coming in a solid second. A thing that quite a few companies use as leverage to keep their employees in line.

But no-one can really complain about a silly fantasy story about a brave heroïne overcoming challenges and attaining Growth.
After all... it's just a fantasy story... With possibly a wholesome educational element..

I think the focus isn't on black and white companies; rather it's on being an escapist fantasy for women who work at awful companies for awful bosses, possibly doing a lot of miscellaneous office support tasks.

So part of that fantasy is the protagonist being so great at that stuff that they can walk into a chaotic situation and save everyone (also their old company starts falling apart the second they leave.)

It leads to some elements in this and other similar stories that don't quite make sense. For example Noel is should probably be getting in a lot of trouble for working overtime doing minor tasks since that probably costs way more than hiring someone else to do those things while she focuses on high level magic stuff.

 

[Sweetmeloday]

Thank you for the TL! Noel and Luke are so cute~ I love their dynamic so much ❤❤❤