If your only defence for a thing is “it’s not technically against the fire code”, then it’s a fire hazard. Like, if I say “I technically didn’t steal your watch”, then you would say “give me back my watch”.

You keep asking this question, we keep saying no, and then you ask it again with LESS money on offer. You don’t get how haggling works, and you definitely don’t get how asklemmy questions work.

OP has been in a lengthy struggle with the world over media. They swore off manga previously due to “christian morals” and the fact that Zombieland Saga contained zombies, then got back into it because of Jojo’s Bizarre Adventure, and now it seems they’ve hit another block within the last month.

And it’s not just manga. They’ve also had an issue with Wikipedia.

For me, it’s just math. The odds of things getting better if I try may be low, but the odds if I don’t are even lower. I’ll take the higher odds every time.

For you, have you considered spite? Live the best life you can to prove wrong everyone who tried to stop you, and do as much good in the world as you can so those trying to do evil have to try just that little bit harder. It only takes one good hit to ruin a superior opponent’s perfect game, and you can only get that hit if you keep playing.

I was afraid of that, but given some of your previous posts, I’m not all that surprised.

Since both those sites are just descriptions of things that exist, it sounds like you want an echo chamber where you don’t need to acknowledge that certain things exist. I think it’s better to try and figure out why you’re so offended by reality.

Are you the head of a major international corporation? If not, there’s nothing meaningful you can do.

I think they’re under the unfortunate delusion they’re being funny.

Is there an issue with these sites I’m not aware of?

They were being kind and assuming there was a miscommunication.

I wasn’t a good DM either. But then I learned. I threw encounters at the players I thought might be fun, and I missed the mark almost every single time. But my players had fun, so I don’t see the problem in getting those encounters wrong. And every failure taught me so much more than every success.

If you fail, but you keep it fun and learn for the future, what have you lost? Only your pride.

But some monsters are strong against certain builds and weak against others. Some monsters are stronger in certain environment and entirely nullified by others. Some monsters are stronger given certain allies and weaker when alone.

If you could devise a system to assign monster complexity based on every scenario you can imagine that monster being part of, then either that’s an astonishingly small number of scenarios or an absurdly complex calculation to force on anyone.

I think it’s mostly cowardice, personally. People don’t want to risk putting their own choices into a game based entirely on choices, just in case they aren’t as good. It’s better to use someone else’s decisions than risk your own pride.

Then you have ignorance. A lot of people don’t know how to fill the gaps, and WotC has never bothered teaching them how. Any rules they did get are rules of thumb and aren’t something to use without thought (like CR), so people complain for reason 1 again.

“You will reunite with a friend”
“The bad times will be over quickly”
“A sudden windfall will come your way”

That’s bollocks. Whoever claimed that people used to draw dicks to ward off evil was talking out of their ass to make a dick pic seem classier. They were just embarrassed that their submission in an archeological journal was so similar to what they carved into their desk in school, and I’m damn certain the school desk isn’t protected from evil either.

I find it funny that you directly quoted wikipedia to write that (exact wording from the paradox article, I checked), but ignored the sentence immediately before it (…or a statement that runs contrary to one’s expectation). Also, the linked articles at the bottom include the unexpected hanging page. Maybe read the entire wiki page before citing it?

Also, in case wikipedia suddenly isn’t enough, here’s an article on wolfram to back me up: https://mathworld.wolfram.com/UnexpectedHangingParadox.html

My dude. The paradox doesn’t change based on whether or not the judge knows the truth, or even if the man dies.

The truth is the man was made not to expect a thing by his own logic proving he would always expect a thing. The paradox is based on his own prediction being wrong because of his prediction. In this instance, his prediction was what his emotions would be.

A horse walks into a bar, and the barman says “why the long face?” I haven’t said how they remove the horse from the bar, so does that mean I didn’t tell a joke? Or does horse removal not actually matter to the joke?

You have understood nothing.

Neither statement can be true OR false. If statement A is true, statement B is true, which means statement A is false. To simplify, if statement A is true, statement A is false.

“This statement is false” can be neither true nor false. That is the most basic paradox there is.

I don’t think you’ve quite clocked it. It’s not that one of the statements has to be wrong, because that’s just a point in the cycle. If A is wrong, then B is right, which means A is right, which means B is wrong, which means A is wrong and the cycle begins anew.

They aren’t wrong, they’re contradictory. There is no logical way to parse the two statements together. That’s what a paradox is.

Cannot be properly defined? “Expecting it” means “regarding it likely to happen”, according to the dictionary. He regarded it as impossible to happen, so he was not expecting it. His own logic disproving the event (him being surprised) allowed the event to happen (he was surprised).

Why does the paradox suffer if he lies about the solution? The paradox has already played out, and anything after that is just set dressing.

Just off the top of my head, maybe the judge has a camera set to gauge his reaction to the knock on the door? Or maybe he goes into denial and tries to explain his logic, thus proving the paradox? Or maybe the judge doesn’t actually care as much as he said, but trusts the logic to hold out and make for a funny story?

The Unexpected Hanging Paradox: A man is sentenced to death, but the judge decides to have a little fun with it. The man will be killed at noon on a day of the judge’s choosing in the next week, from Monday to Friday. The only stipulation is that the man will not expect it when he’s called to be killed.

The man does some quick logic in his head. If Friday is the last day he could be killed, then if he makes it to Friday without dying, he knows he must die on that day. And since that wouldn’t be a surprise, he cannot be killed on Friday.

He then extends the logic. Since he can’t be killed on Friday, the last day he can be killed is on Thursday. Thus, all the prior logic regarding Friday applies, and he cannot be killed on Thursday either. This then extends to Wednesday, then Tuesday, and then Monday. At the end, he grins with the knowledge that, through logic, he knows he cannot be killed on any of the days, and will therefore not be killed.

Therefore, the man is astonished when he’s called to be killed on Wednesday.