Event: Tyrion Lannister - Funny Line (Insults Delivered / Funny Lines)
Episode 3: The Queen's Justice at 38:53
38:53
(+3)
Tyrion Lannister:
to Daenerys: "Let him mine the Dragonglass. If he's wrong, it's worthless. You didn't even know it was here."
(Funny Line)
submitted by nyan (rejected: resolved secrets discussion. And I guess this wasn't funny.)
julian.aronowitz likes this
-
If its worthless why is it considered a secret to learn about it? There is no evidence of an organization or single person trying to guard this secret. Yet there is a myriad of evidence (including this event) showing that it was indifferent to the people who knew of its exitence. We already decided not everything found in the maesters only section is a secret. I think unless there is something show at somepoint in time someone tried to keep the drangglass cave under wraps, Sam shouldbt get points for secret discovery in episode 1. -hindsight44
-
To be fair, just because Tyrion said it is worthless, doesn't mean it is. First of all, he could be terribly wrong, but more importantly, I believe he is just saying that it's worthless to convince Daenerys to let him mine it. Tyrion badly wants this alliance to work, he's doing what he can to make it work, which includes convincing a stubborn Daenerys to let Jon have what he wants.
Also, people ignored saltpeter for centuries before gunpowder was invented. People ignored oil for centuries before engines that use it were invented. That doesn't mean that these resources are worthless. Part of their worth is based on the secret knowledge of the people who are after it. European explorers committed atrocities to get their hands on gold and spices before their peers because they knew of their value back in Europe, while Native Americans did not think as much of it because they didn't live in societies that valued those things to that degree. Would discovering a golden city like El Dorado not be a secret that one European explorer holds over his peers? -hkeseyan
-
What would make El Dorado a secret you hold over your peers is if you decide to hold it over your peers. If you just willingly told people carelessly about El Dorado it wouldnt be a secret(Like When Stannis already told Sam ablut the cave seasons ago.)
Where is there any evidence of someone trying to hold the existence of a dragonglass cave over their peers?
Im not trying to argue the value of dragonglass. Im arguing no one ever cared enough about this cave to try and keep it secret from someone else. -hindsight44
-
Perhaps we should revisit the secret definition, and maybe it needs to broaden to include "useful, rare information"? There's the concept that "one woman's trash is another man's treasure", but I also agree that "Dragonstone has dragonglass" straddles the line between information and secret, and we've been ruling out "information" so far. -nyan
-
I'm not sure why you still think Stannis knew about the abundance of dragonglass in the cave. I think it's perfectly reasonable to presume the amount of dragonglass in that cave was not common knowledge, and it was something Sam discovered while reading the book. Stannis believed the Night's Watch about the White Walkers. He was also a learned man and an experienced military commander. I don't think we can definitively assume that after being told the secret ingredient to defeating the white walkers, that this man would not act on it while knowing he sat on a mountain of that ingredient. His comment about having it on Dragonglass was likely referring to him seeing a modest quantity of the substance - even if it definitively wasn't, you still can't prove it definitively was, so the benefit of the doubt should go to us assuming the characters are not so dumb as to not act on or re-discover information as valuable as this that can save the world. -hkeseyan
-
I think Stannis knew about this cave because in S7E1 Sam said he already knew abouut the cave due to Stannis.
As far as benefit of the doubt goes I think it clearly favors my side. There are multiple instances in the show pointing out at different points in history no one cared about the cave. (Targs used it for decoration). Is there any evidence or proof showing that someone tried to hide this information? That the powers that be decided people should be restricted from this information?if not i would say i should get benefit of the doubt based on evidence.
I also dont think the secret rules should be changed. If we added the rare useful information into this that will create a slippery slope. -hindsight44
-
The white walkers had not been a problem for over 7000 years since the Targs even set foot on Dragonstone, and they didn't start becoming a problem again until after the Targs left. Their knowledge of dragonglass being relevant versus white walkers is null. -hkeseyan
-
To steer the discussion on this one back to the original submission, do we think it was a funny line? -nyan
-
I do have to agree with @hindsight44 here. I don't think it matters at all if the Dragonglass is useful for fighting whitewalkers, if that was all it took to be a secret then the wall itself would count as a secret. What does matter is that both Stannis and Tyrion who are the only two characters so far in the show that both are educated and have spoken about Dragonstone in the context of whitewalkers, have both known and willingly spoke about the dragonglass as if it were common knowledge. -ssantise
-
@ssantise You can't compare the wall to this. The wall's importance is clearly noted by many people in Westeros, not just for the White Walkers, but for the Wildlings. Lords regularly send their own sons to the wall to defend it. That does not compare to this mountain of dragonglass which few, if any, people knew about it before Sam.
Again, I challenge you to present evidence that Stannis explicitly knew about the mountain of dragonglass on Dragonstone. There is no hard evidence in either direction, so I claim the benefit of the doubt goes to assuming Stannis and Sam are not dumb enough to know about the mountain and not do anything about it. Tyrion also does not speak as if the mountain is common knowledge - he literally is just going off what Jon just told him that same day, and is primarily trying to convince Daenerys for the sake of forming an alliance between the two parties, not because he truly believes in the value of the dragonglass. -hkeseyan
-
@nyan I don't think this is a funny line. Did he get points for a convincing argument for this already? -hkeseyan
-
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1UVsflLxbro hard evidence -hindsight44
-
Sam already knew about it and admits it, if we are going to start scoring 'rare useful information' it should start next episode becasue other characters didnt have the opportunity to gain the same points
I dont think the 'rare useful information' rule should be created though. It would ruin the integrity of the rule, there are too many ways to interpret was information is 'rare and useful'. Last night alone you could make disinegnious arguements as to what it 'rare and useful' information. Mel telling Varys he would die in this country presumably from a prophecy would be considered rare and useful info. Cersei learning what poison was used to kill her daughter is 'rare and useful information.' Grey Worm learning Casterly Rock is abandoned is 'rare and useful' information. To be clear i dont think any of these are points worthy im trying to show how rare and useful information can be a very slippery slope.
And once again the value of dragonglass is not beingquestion here. It is whether or not people tried to keep it secret. @ hkesyan i have presented me evidence, do you have any? -hindsight44
-
@hindsight44 keep watching the rest of that first scene here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZheMeLkqCTs
Stannis: "We have to know how to fight them. Keep reading, Samwell Tarly."
Why would Stannis show uncertainty in how to fight the white walkers if Sam just told him about the dragonglass killing them, if he knew he was sitting on a mountain of it? Why would he keep telling Sam to read up on how to fight the white walkers instead of having it mined? Jon this season had a very, very clear plan to make weapons out of dragonglass, even before he knew about Dragonstone. He told his lords that they need to find it and mine it. Is Jon that much better of a commander than Stannis that he figured out that they need to find dragonglass and mine it and make weapons out of it, when Stannis couldn't figure that out, even while knowing he has a mountain of the stuff on his island? -hkeseyan
-
Ok so Stannis didnt know everything there was to know about dragonglass I never said he did know its value. Im not arguing its value. im arguing he had knowledge of it and never kept it secret. Do you have any specific evidence of someone trying to keep this under wraps? if not its a secret -hindsight44
-
*if not its not a secret -hindsight44
-
Mel's information is not confirmed in the slightest.
Cersei learning about which poison was used is not useful - what difference does it make which poison was used, just because it can give her poetic justice? That's hardly anything compared to something that was discovered that can save the world.
Grey Worm's "discovery" is not quite the same here - it is a discovery in battle that likely leads to his eventual demise. It's not a discovery that gives him any new information that he can act on.
I think you're going too literal on the definition of the word secret. I believe the category was created in order to award points for those characters that, through their actions (spying, reading, interrogating), are able to extract information that is not commonly or openly known (regardless of whether a human is protecting it, or if no humans have discovered it before) and has an impact that can affect a storyline. If someone discovers a cure for cancer, it would be referred to as discovering "the secret to curing cancer" -hkeseyan
nyan likes this -
I'm not arguing that he didn't know its value. I just presented the argument that he did know its value. Sam just told him, and Stannis seemed to be affected by that information, and kept the conversation going. I really don't think you can argue that Stannis did not know the value of dragonglass in the fight against the white walkers. I am presenting the case that since Stannis knew the value of dragonglass, it is not appropriate for us to assume that he knew he was sitting on a mountain of dragonglass.
I bring up my previous point about oil - if someone was from an unindustrialized civilization who had never discovered the engine, and they were sitting on a field of oil, they may not make anything of it, it's just an annoying slippery black substance. But if someone came to them and said, we can make your civilization rich beyond your wildest dreams, and provide your people with transportation and efficient production methods if we harness that previously useless substance - and that person bought into the benefits of it, would that person brush off that they have an entire field of that substance? -hkeseyan
-
I mean i did say i dont think any of those arguments are valid. You could make an argument though that not many people knew that infomation which make its rare and that now that it is known you could put it to use. (Not many ppl.knew which poison it was which makes it rare and Cersei literally made use of it by poisoning Tyene with it.) Im trying to show it wouldnt get the greatest precedent to set. -hindsight44
-
Im not saying the poison itself is rare im saying the information of Ellaria used this specific poison to kill Myrcella was known by very little people which makes its rare info. -hindsight44
-
Whether they brush it off or not is irrelevant, for this to be an proper analogy the question would be did they try to hide this information from other people? -hindsight44
-
Wait a minute what are we arguing here? Are we arguing that the large stash of dragonglass at dragonstone is a secret or are we arguing that the effectiveness of dragonglass at killing white walkers was a secret? Because @hkeseyan your cancer analogy only argues the latter. A better analogy is: "We just found out that the cure for cancer is raw coffee beans. Then Sam reads in a book that down in Columbia there are tons of coffee beans, so now Jon heads down there to get them." Just because Sam read it in a book doesn't mean that its any secret to anyone educated that Columbia has tons of coffee trees.
-ssantise
-
Fwiw I think we have gotten tripped up by Stannis' comments and bad writing. Sam (and Jon and Davis and everyone else) seems to have forgotten everything Stannis told them and that is part of why this seems like a brand new discovery. The Northern characters should have been chasing this since S5, but the writers needed to wait until Dany got there, and then they were worried that casual watchers wouldn't remember what Stannis said so they decided to reintroduce the idea as a new one. That is my opinion on the writing anyway, and I think it has caused our discussion to be much more complicated since we're trying to argue for all the characters from a rational and full information perspective and they haven't quite acted that way. -nyan
-
Also everyone is making very valid points here. Discussion-wise, I think we're beyond who is right or wrong about the current definition of secret, and looking for what would be a clarification/refinement on the "secret" rules that leaves everyone happy with who deserves the scoring. I am leaning towards some expansion into "useful, rare, and actionable information which affects character decision making" (oh god I sound like a corporate project manager), but definitely @hindsight44 you bring up some slippery slopes and I agree we don't want to slide into them.
I think the useful/actionable criteria could be used to limit things. As @hkeseyan mentions, the Cersei poison is information but not really useful - Cersei could just kill Tyene with any other poison and it doesn't change anyone's decisions or outcomes.
I think we could have actually counted a secret for Melisandre, if she had much more specifics to tell Varys, like "I've seen your death in the flames. The dragon queen will betray you, and you will be burned alive in a sea of dragonfire." Then Varys may reconsider his relation with Daenerys, flee, try to kill the dragons, etc. It would be very similar to the secret given to the Hound (they find out the WW will attack Eastwatch, so they can decide to head there and/or send a warning to the Night's Watch). But in this case, Melisandre just gave a very vague prophecy and there's nothing that can be done with that info.
For Grey Worm, I think it could fail the "rare" test - all of the other Unsullied become aware of it around the same time. It might also fail "actionable", since he finds out after the battle and he's screwed/stuck in Casterly Rock? But this one does trouble me, I can imagine variations of this scenario that feel very slippery. If Grey Worm goes on a scouting mission before the battle, and finds Casterly Rock abandoned, and can alter his battle plans, we'd definitely give him Secret points for that, right? -nyan
-
I used those examples as a way to avoid the unintended consequences of changing a rule to something more broad. I think we can all agree though that some tweaks could be made into what type of information is point worthy. My vote would be something along the lines of "Receiving information that is known to a small group of people which directly effects a named character."
If we are getting to the point of a rule change however i still think this should warrant Sam losing points for Secret Discovery on episode 1. What he found really wasnt within the spectrum of rules written at the time of his scoring.It wouldnt be fair if we gave Sam points for a new rule when other characters did not have the same opportunity to gain comparable points in the same episode. -hindsight44
-
Yeah, they are good examples - it's very useful to bring up the counterpoints so we can validate that any new criteria we think of applies to count or discount them the way we intended.
Ignoring the letter of the rules for the moment, if we are drafting all new "learning rare/useful information" rules, would you consider Sam learning about the dragonglass to apply? Clearly him discovering it, and deciding to share with Jon, has set in motion one of the major plot points this season, so to me it feels like it fits into the idea of a politics category. I do get what you're saying about not retroactively changing the rules, that is a question for me about the integrity of the game vs. having consistent scoring looking back in hindsight. -nyan
-
to get back on topic: I don't really think it was a funny line -Laxis
nyan and hindsight44 like this -
Yes i would consider Sam learning of Dragonglass cave to apply to the new rule. We are discussing changing the rule over his example so it should without doubt apply to the new rule. But as said before the precedent set by past events shows that rare information has been ruled out in the past.Going forward im all for it, but i think scoring should be consistent per episode. -hindsight44
-
Also i dint think he made it in jest and probably didnt cause any reaction out of the average viewer. Did he get plints for this being a convincing argument though? Also could argue brokered deal -hindsight44
-
Yeah.. to me this is definitely a schism. Last year we implemented by having a new version of the ruleset (like a fork, in programming terms) that leagues could choose to stay with the old rules or move to the new rules. The only problem was that almost none of the leagues opted to do this (I think we had 3 out of several hundred leagues).
From a pure scorekeeper standpoint I totally agree with you, we ought to exclude Sam's dragonglass points in the old rules and include them in the new ones. From a website admin standpoint, it's much more pragmatic to just change the rules wholesale, or else nobody gets the new rules until S8. I'll wrestle with that for a bit.
Am I correct in thinking that we have some good consensus though on what the new criteria should be? Essentially the information must be:
1. Rare - the info (or importance/application of the info) is known to only a small group
2. Usable - it affects the characters decision making, or spreading/keeping the secret will affect other characters' decision making on a major decision
3. Concrete & Factual - just making it explicit, mainly to exclude vague prophecy examples like Melisandre telling Varys that she thinks he'll die in Westeros. Would also exclude characters' opinions/analysis, if we get into that
4. Actionable - the character is in a position to use the information
We would also drop the "must not be willfully told" exception, replacing it with this.
#4 is there because I'm imagining some scenarios where say, the secret-keeper is taunting a prisoner with some information. Arguably it doesn't add to the character's political power, since they're locked up or about to die or something and can't do anything with the information. However it becomes complicated if say, there is a prison break and then they start spreading the info - does they suddenly gain all their secret points then? Perhaps it should be dropped just to simplify scoring, and some characters will get some consolation political points for learning secrets immediately before dying. -nyan
-
I didn't read the whole discussion here but I chuckled at the line. Thought it was funny not just because of the dialogue but also because of the delivery -julian.aronowitz
nyan and xdwxrd like this -
@nyan Overall I like the clarifications being made for the rule, I feel it eliminates much of the ambiguity surrounding the current rule.
I have a few suggestions for each clause.
1. First I think we should define an actual number for "small" because small can be relative which opens an unnecessary can of worms. I would say maybe 5 or 10 people, im open to any number as long as it's set in stone. Also I think it should be explicitly added to this clause that if the secret is revealed to more than x number of people (that we determined to be "small") at once then no one further gets points because its no longer secret. For example bran coming to winterfell, ed tollet gets points but no one after him.
2. I think Usable might be better stated as "Relevant". I think any character could be affected in some way by any secret, i think its more important that the secret is relevant to the character himself. Although this still seems to be something that could be argued.
3. I don't think its really important if the information is truly "Factual", for example if we saw a scene where Mel was viewing a prophecy in the fire we would assume this is factual but we wouldn't know for sure until the prophecy was fulfilled, (this also opens the problem of free will that now the prophecy can be changed since we know it). I think concrete is whats most important here. If we see it and there is no clear indication of it being a ruse by the end of the episode then it should count.
4. I love this clause but boy you must love to read our debates because this one is wide open for debate over what a character is/isn't capable of. I'm not sure how to remove the ambiguity surrounding this but I absolutely think its necessary. -ssantise
-
Sorry but im woefully ignorant on how to admin or change scores. Why would it be difficult to take away Sams score? I dont mean it in a patronizing way im truly curious. -hindsight44
-
@hindsight changing the scores is not a technical problem with the website. I think the proposal is that we create a new Ruleset 5.1 (all the leagues are currently on 5.0), and allow leagues to opt into it. The secrets scored with this new criteria only count for leagues on Ruleset 5.1+.
We did this twice last year (Rulesets 3.1, 3.1b, and 4.0), but the end result was that, despite most of the players/commenters liking the changes in 3.1b or 4.0), almost none of the leagues switched off from the default - there was just too much friction that it had to be done by League Admins, and get approval/OK from all the players in the league, etc. So pragmatically no one on the site got access to the newer/better scoring system.
So I am debating on just breaking the rule consistency, and making this criteria change happen in 5.0 rather than introduce a new opt-in ruleset. From a scorekeeper purity perspective it's wrong, however the experience from last year is that more players would prefer the new scoring but be stuck with a league on the old one, than prefer the old scoring but be forced into the new scoring. -nyan
-
@ssantise
1. I'm thinking we just make it super restrictive. The character(s) must be the first one outside of the secret holder to know, and the secret discoverers must be an exclusive group. So we counted Edd knowing the whereabouts of Bran last episode, because he was the only guy south of the Wall with this knowledge. However in this past episode, Sansa gets no points - Edd was the first to know, and beyond that she's not in any exclusive group that it's revealed to - Bran rides into Winterfell and everybody in the courtyard finds out.
Similarly, I think that when news about Bran gets to Cersei, it would not count, since the information is now known to a lot of people besides the secret holder (everybody in the North).
The case I do want to include is war information, such as spies reporting back on troop numbers/locations (the Lannister spy captured by Robb Stark in S1 comes to mind). I think that case qualifies under this - while everyone in the Lannister army knows about their troop movements, the Lannister army is collectively the "secret holder", and Robb is the first Northerner to know. And while the Lannister spy blurts this to Robb's war council, that war council is still an "exclusive group". If someone this is blurted to the common soldiers in the Northern army, and Robb finds out that way, I'm not sure that it counts.
2. Relevant could also work, I think it is sort of synonymous in the end. For example if it was Tyrion who discovers the dragonglass and sends a letter to Jon, I think it's still useful info for him - it's not relevant to the interests of Daenerys' side, but Tyrion is using the info to make decisions/actions, so it's relevant to what he'd do.
3. For the concrete thing, how would you apply that to Melisandre telling Varys that he'll die in Westeros? At this point it's just speculation whether Varys is going to change any of his behavior because of it. But for examples where we have specifics (like the Hound/Brotherhood finding out that the Night King will attack Eastwatch), it is usually much easier to infer that it affects the characters' actions.
4. Heh yeah the "actionable" is a big can of worms. I'm leaning towards dropping it (and just letting prisoners/deathbed characters get a few pity points). But what runaway scenarios are you imagining if we don't keep this criteria? -nyan
-
I really dont think youre breaking consistency if you implement this rule into 5.0 and only give people scoring of it from episode 4 and on. This is a pretty open and public forum for rule creation/change. People are free to express their opinions on here so i dont think its wrong if you propose a rule change to the members of this league midseason and see what they think. Its kind of like voting, if you didnt participate you cant complain. so my vote is you put this into 5.0 pending the voice of the people.
Also i ask that sam get his points taken down as it doesnt conform with the now standing 5.0 and due to fairness and consistency would not be fair to only give him points for when other characters did not get the same opportunity to receive them. Run on sentence FTW. -hindsight44
-
On the same principle can we take the points Archmaester Ebrose points in episodes 1 and 2? At that point the special didnt exist. -hindsight44
-
I think it creates some scoring consistency problems to have E1 scored differently from E4. People will look back and want to cite precedents, and we'll need to dig through or write into the rulebook that it is scored this way thru S7E3, then another way after S7E4. It makes it very complex compared to updating the set of rules entirely for the season.
If we implement this criteria, it seems Sam's discovery of dragonglass qualifies, but perhaps we should explore it further:
1. Sam is the only one who knows the combination of "Dragonglass kills White Walkers + Dragonstone has tons of it". Arguably the Maesters know that Dragonglass is on Dragonstone (since it's in their books), but none of them seem to know the first half of that statement. At the least, Samwell is the first non-Maester to put these pieces together.
2-4. The usable part I think is clear, since he sends out that letter to Jon and sets the current chain of events in motion. -nyan
-
Its a signifigant special and his value would have changed in the draft if peeople knew he had a special. I really think a precedent should be made that any changes to rules/specials can only effect future scoring, to go back and retroacticley change them effects consistency. -hindsight44
-
Hmm, with Ebrose I do get the downside. People will have thought that their E1 and E2 score results were set, and now they've changed. Couple points to this:
1. It is an effect on H2H leagues, but not so much on Roto, which is cumulative season scoring.
2. For Specials it was stated from the start of the season that we'd be more freely altering and adding them, so I don't think it ruins expectations too much to add them in retroactively. Especially for a brand new character, who usually takes a few episodes to figure out their personality. This argument doesn't apply to the proposed Secret changes, though.
3. Again from a consistency/clarity standpoint, it's confusing to have a bunch of scoring criteria with the caveat that "this one only applies from episode S7E# onwards." I guess from a game management standpoint, I'd rather live with breaking the players' expectations that already-scored episodes are set in stone, than suffer through the confusion of introducing a variable set of scoring rules from episode to episode.
Both definitely have downsides, to me the second is worse from a general game enjoyment perspective. I think the first one hurts mostly for scoring/fairness purists (which is you and me and most of the people dedicating this much time to the comment section). -nyan
-
Sams situation fits the criteria because we are basing this whole arguement off of Sams criteria and trying to make his situation point worthy. If the outcome of this doesnt fit Sams criteria whats the point?
People decide who is on their team and who to keep/trade based on the rules presented at that time. I dont think its right to change rules/specials after the episode has taken place. I think scoring episodes based on what scores/specials were there at the time of the episode is much less controversial than changing rules/specials for characters weeks later and going back so they can get points.
im all for changing rules and specials but only on a go forward basis. -hindsight44
-
Yeah, you're right about all the downsides and the inherent unfairness of retroactive scoring. Probably we are missing each others comments a bit since I don't have a good notifications system for replies, but I'm pointing out the tradeoffs between that and the confusing per-episode scoring that makes the game messier.
Essentially, for the average player, I think the reaction of "ahw damn, I got screwed over because the Game Admin added in this overpowered Ebrose Special" is not as bad of an experience as "why the heck is this politics score added for E3 but I never got the E1 points when my character did the exact same thing?" Of course they're both bad experiences, from a website/game perspective I think we're better off living with the first.
In any case, I think I've gotten the gist of your argument against retroactive scoring and it's valid... but at this point I think I'm really keen on avoiding episode-specific scoring rules at all costs and the retroactive scoring is an inevitable casualty of that. -nyan
-
Ebrose's value shouldn't have changed if people knew he had a special. Everyone should be aware that specials can be introduced, especially for new characters we haven't gotten to know well yet. Many characters that didn't have a special had a line that said they might have a special introduced after the character appears (I know Euron had it for sure), I didn't see it on Ebrose but do we have to place it on every character for us to realize that specials can be added for characters after we get to know them better? I for one drafted Ebrose over some characters that have received much screentime throughout the seasons, I took that risk with the hopes that a special would be added (it's an Archmaester at the Citadel after all - I didn't draft the guy expecting him to kill mass amounts of people or have a lot of sex). Either way, if a special was assigned to him before the draft, you would have absolutely no information either way that would make you certain that the special would give a lot of points, because you have no screentime to go off. -hkeseyan
-
That was partially my bad for Ebrose. In all the seasons before this I had a disclaimer that "Special to be added after character appearance" note appended to new characters (and you could see the leftover ones on chars like Euron). This year I stopped doing that and just decided to have the general approach that Specials would be fluid and could change for every character at any time, so I stopped adding the disclaimer for every character. -nyan
-
Alrighty, wrapping this conversation up. The Secret Discoveries will be changed officially, keeping points 1-3 from above:
1. The information must be rare - the character(s) must be in an exclusive group that is the first to find out about the information, aside from the secret holder(s) A decent measure for whether a group is "exclusive" - does the group have the political power to enforce that the secret does not leak outside of the group, if they wish?
2. The information must be useful - it affects the decision-making or actions of characters.
3. The information must be specific and concrete - it consists of hard facts, rather than vague prophecies or opinions.
The previous "can't be willfully told by person guarding the secret" condition is dropped.
For the can-of-worms that @ssanstise mentioned, we'll leave out criteria #4 (info is currently "actionable"). So in the prisoner or deathbed scenario, the characters will still get the points.
Full text (mainly with the added precedents we've discussed) have been added here: http://fantasora.com/rulebook
Sorry to @hindsight44 and I'm sure many others who will dislike, but this will be retroactive to all S7 scoring, going back to S7E1. FWIW I'm going through some other possible implementations to try and give satisfactory options for everyone, namely giving a two-ruleset choice on league creation (you can pick the strict no-changes Ruleset, or the arbitrary-changes-where-you-might-be-screwed-over-by-the-admin-but-thats-part-of-the-game Ruleset), and an additionally a super-customizable league-specific points option.
This would be a gateway to players running their own scoring systems (e.g. the speaking-lines category that @alicehanners wants to run), and you could use it to counteract rulings in the default scoring that you didn't like. -nyan
hindsight44 likes this
©
Warning: date(): It is not safe to rely on the system's timezone settings. You are *required* to use the date.timezone setting or the date_default_timezone_set() function. In case you used any of those methods and you are still getting this warning, you most likely misspelled the timezone identifier. We selected the timezone 'UTC' for now, but please set date.timezone to select your timezone. in /var/www/html/fantasora.com/public_html/templates/footer.php on line 2
2025 Nathan Yan
Warning: date(): It is not safe to rely on the system's timezone settings. You are *required* to use the date.timezone setting or the date_default_timezone_set() function. In case you used any of those methods and you are still getting this warning, you most likely misspelled the timezone identifier. We selected the timezone 'UTC' for now, but please set date.timezone to select your timezone. in /var/www/html/fantasora.com/public_html/templates/footer.php on line 2
2025 Nathan Yan