Closed Simon Says Rules Clarification

#1
>Go Warden [SG Jailbreak US]
>Start playing Simon Says after a little while
>"Simon says crouch walk to obby"
>"Don't start"
>Start shooting people not starting, as rules of Simon Says state that you can't obey a command given without Simon saying.
>Admin "insane player" starts reviving players I shot saying that "it's not how Simon Says works."

>My logic: Two possibilities exist that can be inferred through common sense. Someone who WASN'T Simon told them NOT to start. Therefore, in order for the reds to be complying with the order, they have to start.

>Admin says screw that logic, you're playing it wrong, you were supposed to specify what the possibilities are
>Basic logic says I don't have to specify what the possibilities are, since it's incredibly hard to word that in Simon Says, and that'd be giving away the fact that it's a false command anyway.
>Wat do

The order of events

[TELL REDS TO GO TO MEDIC]
[START PLAYING SIMON SAYS]
["SIMON SAYS CROUCH WALK TO OBBY"]
["DON'T START"]
[START KILLING PEOPLE WHO DIDN'T START SINCE SIMON DIDN'T SAY, "DON'T START"]
[INSANE PLAYER (THE ADMIN) STARTS REVIVING PLAYERS I KILLED]
[PEOPLE START THE DEBATES]

A clarification in the rules ought to work on what's fair, but this is a basic principle in the game that I've been using since Pre-K.
 

blnki

New Member
#2
simon never told them to start though
also, for this to actually work, you would need to count it as a command, which it isnt. when playing simon says, every command not given by simon isnt a valid command, so you shouldnt even consider it. saying dont start is the equivalent of saying dont be on red. the reds cant help it because they dont have anything else to do, they werent told to start obby, they werent told to do anything besides to go to the start of obby. stop trying to find loopholes in rules and defend yourself by said rules, its common sense that the reds couldnt have done anything else. you are in the wrong here.
 
Last edited:

Denied

jb map maker
TF2 Admin
#3
Ugh, this is a shitty situation you've created for yourself buddy. When playing simon says you have to specify what to do under the alias of "Simon". When you(not simon) specifies an order, the order is to be ignored. It's really that simple.

So when you say "Don't start", you're not telling them to start, your order is to be ignored rather than directly not followed. And before you ask, there's a stark contrast between not following a command and ignoring it. One means choosing not to follow something while the other means disregarding the existence of said command.

Pulling reverse psychology bullshit out your ass to be a smart ass is unfortunately the worst way to play warden. Nobody is gonna enjoy a round where you pull this shit. If there's a clear loophole in the rules that you start exploiting, don't expect any admin(or regular) to agree with you.

@Nazuki , this is why you need to take action on purposefully confusing commands.
 
Last edited:

Ivy

Well-Known Member
TF2 Admin
#4
>Go Warden [SG Jailbreak US]
>Start playing Simon Says after a little while
>"Simon says crouch walk to obby"
>"Don't start"
>Start shooting people not starting, as rules of Simon Says state that you can't obey a command given without Simon saying.
Hi, from what im reading here, You never once said "Simon says Start Obby" meaning at this point they can literally do anything but "Don't start". Along with that, it doesn't seem like you specified what to not start. You just said "Don't Start", not "Don't start Obby". Which means they dont know what to not start, which means the command can be ignored!
 
Last edited:

Zero1763

Well-Known Member
#5
>My logic: Two possibilities exist that can be inferred through common sense. Someone who WASN'T Simon told them NOT to start. Therefore, in order for the reds to be complying with the order, they have to start.
You're a retard if you infer this in a gamemode where doing something you're not told can make you KOS
 

Fresh n Fruity

Well-Known Member
#7
I have an idea for an epic prank you can pull! So get this, you're playing Simon Says and you are Simon, Simon Says for all the reds to go to obby and then you tell them to not press the disconnect button. They should infer that not pressing the disconnect button is KOS because Simon didn't tell them to not do it. epic epic epic
 
#8
I didn't feel like I put the idea I had into the correct words, so I'm gonna go through the counter-arguments (and another post) to better show my point-of-view.


simon never told them to start though
also, for this to actually work, you would need to count it as a command, which it isnt. when playing simon says, every command not given by simon isnt a valid command, so you shouldnt even consider it. saying dont start is the equivalent of saying dont be on red. the reds cant help it because they dont have anything else to do, they werent told to start obby, they werent told to do anything besides to go to the start of obby. stop trying to find loopholes in rules and defend yourself by said rules, its common sense that the reds couldnt have done anything else. you are in the wrong here.
"...For this to actually work, you would need to count this as a command, which it isn't. When playing Simon Says, every command not given by Simon isn't a valid command, so you shouldn't even consider it." Yeah, I think we all get that it wasn't a command, it was a false Simon Says command that was meant not to be followed. It gets the opposite of the command treatment, since you're not supposed to follow it.

Saying, "Don't start," is in fact not the equivalent of saying, "Don't be on RED." And like you said, "Every command not given by Simon isn't a valid command, so you shouldn't even consider it." By your logic, they shouldn't have considered not starting Obby. I'm not trying to find loopholes in the rules, I'm just trying to make the round interesting and logically challenging by using a trick frequently used in earlier situations of mine.

The reds also had a clear way of not following the order, which was to simply start Obby as the command was logically implying. Yes, the reds, had something else to do. It's common sense that the reds could have done something else by starting Obby.

I'm not trying to exploit the rules, I'm just saying, "Hey, these are the Simon Says rules! Let's play Simon Says!" Stop trying to make me out into someone who deliberately bends the rules to play unfairly. There was an obvious command given, and there was an obvious way not to follow that command.

And that brings me to what you'd probably call exploitation (which really isn't - it's just using the rules to play the game). The rules don't say to ignore it, they say not to follow it (as of 10/21/18, when I make this post). As it says, "If 'Simon Says' is not said before a command, then it is invalid and RED'S are not to follow it, if they do they are KoS." And guess what? As long as it's appropriate (E.G., "Don't start," when right next to a minigame), the Warden can make it whatever they want! As I've stated before, the command
A): Was appropriate for the situation
B): Had a clear, obvious way to follow it and a clear, obvious way not to follow it
and
C): Took basic logic to understand.

All of these are traits of any order given by the Warden. You'd imagine that this was a competent order given by a competent Warden, but we've still got a few more comments to go.

Ugh, this is a shitty situation you've created for yourself buddy. When playing simon says you have to specify what to do under the alias of "Simon". When you(not simon) specifies an order, the order is to be ignored. It's really that simple.

So when you say "Don't start", you're not telling them to start, your order is to be ignored rather than directly not followed. And before you ask, there's a stark contrast between not following a command and ignoring it. One means choosing not to follow something while the other means disregarding the existence of said command.
Dear Mr. Denied,

There's also a stark difference between ignoring an order and following it while ignoring it. I told them (without saying Simon Says) not to start, and they didn't start. They ignored the order, yes, but that doesn't mean they weren't following it. By not starting Obby, they've automatically put themselves in a position where they're following the order. The only way for them not to be KoS would logically be for them to start Obby.

Also, Do I really need to repeat myself on the rule book?

Hi, from what im reading here, You never once said "Simon says Start Obby" meaning at this point they can literally do anything but "Don't start". Along with that, it doesn't seem like you specified what to not start. You just said "Don't Start", not "Don't start Obby". Which means they dont know what to not start, which means the command can be ignored!
Congratulations! You're the only person to try and calmly resolve this without insulting my intelligence, saying I'm using loopholes, or saying I'm pulling bullsh** out of my a**. You do you.

Your argument also fall apart as soon as a bit of logic is put into the equation. If someone on hop (the map) tells the reds to go to Climb (without playing Simon Says) and then "Start," do the reds have to be told specifically which minigame they're to be playing? Should they automatically be killed if they don't start Death Fall? No, of course not, they can infer that they're supposed to start Climb. You're arguing semantics here (which, obviously, the rest of us are as well, just not as specific or nitty-gritty, since by your logic you have to state exactly what minigame has to be played without using broad, one-word terms).

Also, again, do I really need to repeat myself on the rule book?

You're a retard if you infer this in a gamemode where doing something you're not told can make you KOS
Oh, really? Well then, anybody who says, "Go to here and get in a stack," can instantly be ignored if you just go to the stack and then run out to do as you wish. You weren't told to get out of the stack, but it's implied that you're supposed to stay in the stack, and any blus that see you out of the stack have every right to shoot at you, since staying in the stack is implied. Unless we're living in your world, where the blus would be banned for freekilling because the Warden didn't specify to stay in the stack.

homie I think you're still in pre-k
10/10 - Made me laugh even when I was the butt of the joke.

I have an idea for an epic prank you can pull! So get this, you're playing Simon Says and you are Simon, Simon Says for all the reds to go to obby and then you tell them to not press the disconnect button. They should infer that not pressing the disconnect button is KOS because Simon didn't tell them to not do it. epic epic epic
Not only is this entirely different from what I'm saying, saying disconnect is (extremely safe to assume) an invalid command. You're an admin, for goodness' sake. You should know that invalid commands are always invalid, regardless of whether or not you're playing Simon Says. Even if you're a smart man, that doesn't mean you can't say foolish things. I take this comment mostly as a n1c3 m3m3, though.


All of these posts/comments/whatever (Except for 4k's post, he's cool) bring me to the full driving force behind this argument, which was mostly laid out in the first rebuttal. In this normal, everyday situation, there was a command given that the rules state should not be followed. Reds followed that command, and had a logical way of not following that command. Nothing is stated about ignoring the command in the rules, which was what I was trying to change by making that post in the first place to avoid all this confusion. Taking my direct words, "A clarification in the rules ought to work on what's fair..." By making all the fuss about this, we're missing the point of the original post. Change the rules so that people can understand them better and avoid a fiasco such as this in the near future. It's as if this is fun to you people (except 4k he's cool).
 

Zero1763

Well-Known Member
#9
Well then, anybody who says, "Go to here and get in a stack," can instantly be ignored if you just go to the stack and then run out to do as you wish. You weren't told to get out of the stack, but it's implied that you're supposed to stay in the stack
doing something you're not told can make you KOS
I do believe, correct me if i'm wrong, that leaving the stack after you were told to go to it is doing something you were not told to.
Yes
 

Zero1763

Well-Known Member
#10
Also I know i'm about to double post but the fact that you included "Oh, really?" has my brain on fire.
Someone who WASN'T Simon told them NOT to start. Therefore, in order for the reds to be complying with the order, they have to start.
IF playing Simon says, you are only to take orders from Simon. This means you do not do the inverse because someone who wasn't Simon told you to. Your logic here is the equivalent of someone giving a false order, so you go ahead and do the opposite of the false order even though their word is not above the warden in any case.
inferred through common sense
Believe it or not, it isn't common sense to do the inverse of an order that isn't valid to begin with.
[TELL REDS TO GO TO MEDIC]
[START PLAYING SIMON SAYS]
From this point forward, reds are only supposed to listen to Simon, making any commands not given by Simon null.
["SIMON SAYS CROUCH WALK TO OBBY"]
Simon said to crouch walk to obby, this is fine.
["DON'T START"]
Simon did not say don't start; however, Simon also never said to start, and the reds are supposed to listen to Simon, so they are going to continue crouch walking to obby until Simon tells them to start, because they are only supposed to listen to Simon and any orders not given by Simon are not to be listened to.
[START KILLING PEOPLE WHO DIDN'T START SINCE SIMON DIDN'T SAY, "DON'T START"]
These are freekills. Here's an example of why: If someone on blue who isn't warden says don't start <mingame>, the reds are not KOS for not starting because they are not taking orders from the guard who isn't warden, they are simply waiting to be told what to do by the warden.
[INSANE PLAYER (THE ADMIN) STARTS REVIVING PLAYERS I KILLED]
Reasonable action, because otherwise they'd be a shit admin.
[PEOPLE START THE DEBATES]
I don't think this is a debate so much as you are saying that they were kos because they "followed" an order not given by Simon, even though they are only supposed to follow orders given by Simon and are waiting for the next Simon command.

TL;DR-
They did not follow the false order given by "Not Simon", they were simply waiting for the next order from Simon because that is what they're supposed to do.


A clarification for this isn't needed, just stop playing fucking stupid insinuating that they were following a false order even though:
a) They were not, they were not starting because they were waiting for Simon to give a command like they're supposed to
b) Your logic is flawed because you are stating the equivalent of a blue giving a false order saying ""Don't start <minigame>" and then saying that the reds are KOS for following his order of not starting even though they were never told to start
c) Admins have told you that you are wrong, players have told you that you are wrong, previous admins have told you that you are wrong, and that your entire claim is based on a scenario that makes
ZERO
FUCKING
S E N S E
 

Fresh n Fruity

Well-Known Member
#11
Not only is this entirely different from what I'm saying, saying disconnect is (extremely safe to assume) an invalid command. You're an admin, for goodness' sake. You should know that invalid commands are always invalid, regardless of whether or not you're playing Simon Says. Even if you're a smart man, that doesn't mean you can't say foolish things. I take this comment mostly as a n1c3 m3m3, though.
I was taking your position to its logical extreme, be it an argument from absurdity. It should be clear that what I said to do as an "epic prank" was so unmistakably wrong that no one could see it as justifiable, and you could see the parallel to your argument to see what's wrong with it.
 

Ivy

Well-Known Member
TF2 Admin
#12
oh jesus ok, this is really a book to unravel here, might aswell start with your response to my question
Congratulations! You're the only person to try and calmly resolve this without insulting my intelligence, saying I'm using loopholes, or saying I'm pulling bullsh** out of my a**. You do you.
You're..um..welcome? Though the fact that you congratulate me on not being an ass to you, only for you to be as rude as you can possibly be to me shows me that you're not really worth talking to in the first place.

Your argument also falls apart as soon as a bit of logic is put into the equation. If someone on hop (the map) tells the reds to go to Climb (without playing Simon Says) and then "Start," do the reds have to be told specifically which minigame they're to be playing?
No. Because there's a difference between Simon Says & normal commands given to REDs. In this case, you said "Don't start" after SIMON told the REDs to go to obby, meaning they can completely ignore your "Don't Start" command.

-

"...For this to actually work, you would need to count this as a command, which it isn't. When playing Simon Says, every command not given by Simon isn't a valid command, so you shouldn't even consider it." Yeah, I think we all get that it wasn't a command, it was a false Simon Says command that was meant not to be followed. It gets the opposite of the command treatment, since you're not supposed to follow it.
You've literally contradicted yourself three times in the same paragraph:
Yeah, I think we all get that it wasn't a command, it was a false Simon Says command that was meant not to be followed
It gets the opposite of the command treatment, since you're not supposed to follow it.
If it's an invalid or false command, that means it does nothing. The REDs don't do anything unless Simon tells them to do something, therefor if you are to say "Don't start" while playing Simon Says, the REDs can completely ignore that command and continue doing what they were doing before, because Simon didn't tell them to do it.

I'm not trying to exploit the rules, I'm just saying, "Hey, these are the Simon Says rules! Let's play Simon Says!" Stop trying to make me out into someone who deliberately bends the rules to play unfairly. There was an obvious command given, and there was an obvious way not to follow that command.
I don't think you are, and I don't think they want to make you out as a rulebender. I personally believe that this was an easy mistake to make, and this thread is a misunderstanding as a whole.

Not only is this entirely different from what I'm saying, saying disconnect is (extremely safe to assume) an invalid command. You're an admin, for goodness' sake. You should know that invalid commands are always invalid, regardless of whether or not you're playing Simon Says. Even if you're a smart man, that doesn't mean you can't say foolish things. I take this comment mostly as a n1c3 m3m3, though.

I was taking your position to its logical extreme, be it an argument from absurdity. It should be clear that what I said to do as an "epic prank" was so unmistakably wrong that no one could see it as justifiable, and you could see the parallel to your argument to see what's wrong with it.


In this normal, everyday situation, there was a command given that the rules state should not be followed. Reds followed that command, and had a logical way of not following that command. Nothing is stated about ignoring the command in the rules, which was what I was trying to change by making that post in the first place to avoid all this confusion.
There's also nothing in the rules that states a command should be inverted. Though, because Simon Says is not a unique game to Team Fortress 2, I suggest you read through The Official Simon Says Wikipedia Page, or maybe This Wikihow Article?

I don't think that there needs to be clarification here, Simon Says is as simple as it gets. The fact that this is the first time something like this has ever come up makes me feel as if you're the only one to encounter this issue.
 

Attachments

Last edited:

Denied

jb map maker
TF2 Admin
#13
Dear Mr. Denied,

There's also a stark difference between ignoring an order and following it while ignoring it. I told them (without saying Simon Says) not to start, and they didn't start. They ignored the order, yes, but that doesn't mean they weren't following it. By not starting Obby, they've automatically put themselves in a position where they're following the order. The only way for them not to be KoS would logically be for them to start Obby.

Also, Do I really need to repeat myself on the rule book?
Ok so, couple of things about that.

First off, if I tell you to breath, and you breath, did you follow the command or did you just do something for your own benefit? Am I dictating you because you happened to do something I told you to do? This question can be solved relatively easy by asking another question. If you walk the same road as someone else, are you following them? What you do with this information is irrelevant to me, just wanted to correct you.

Also, to serve as a counter argument I would like to propose a scenario. Imagine a game of simon says, just like any other. But all of a sudden the warden says "The warden, and simon says: Jump!". How should the reds handle this situation? Before you answer that, note that this is entirely legal. There is nothing stopping the warden from saying this. Now since you seem to be such an expert on the rules, kindly explain to me what the reds are meant to do in this situation.

Now assuming you're logical enough to realize that there is no solution to this puzzle based on the logic you've been following so far, propose another idea. What if you're actually wrong?

What if your logic is completely wrong and doesn't make sense to anyone but yourself? And while realizing this, you also realize that maybe this puzzle can be solved by simply following the logic we've proposed. What if the actual solution to this puzzle is to jump, why do you think that is?

Congratulations! You're the only person to try and calmly resolve this without insulting my intelligence, saying I'm using loopholes, or saying I'm pulling bullsh** out of my a**.
Dude, you're clearly abusing the rules as an excuse to get away with freekilling, and then when you don't get your way you throw a hissy fit on the forums, do you seriously expect us to treat you with any respect? ”Muh good intentions” doesn’t work when you’re clearly exploiting something minor that most people wouldn’t catch, because it makes your intention all the clearer to me and anybody who’s dealt with people like you.
 
Last edited:
Top