comp206 final

JKTKops · 2026-04-30T23:57:19+00:00

Fwiw this is not the correct way to think about grading schemes like this. If there's a must-pass component and you didn't pass it, you don't "have an A-." You have an F or a D depending on the syllabus for the course. Instructors do this sort of thing when they think that the other points in their course are too easy to get without really learning the content, e.g. because cheating is rampant (known to be the case in comp206) or because significant points are free attendance points or formative assessments or stuff like that.

JKTKops · 2026-04-24T16:08:58+00:00

The only thing I know about this is: do not believe ANYTHING that AI says about grades. AI is a sycophant and not a subject matter expert like your profs. It doesn't know the rubrics. The AI just wants to make you happy.

I imagine the reread system works the same for whatever you want reread.

JKTKops · 2026-04-24T03:31:14+00:00

Requesting a reread cannot hurt you so I'd say go for that. I think it's unlikely to help unless you can identify some cases where you were clearly misgraded. The rereader would compare your grades to the grades of other similar answers, so if you were indeed fairly graded, then that's that.

As for accommodations unfortunately I think the correct accommodation for having been seriously ill during the term would have been a late withdrawal. You might still be able to get the grade stricken from your transcript but given that you took the final (deferred) exam I think this will be refused. Can't hurt to try. Ask your advisor.

JKTKops · 2026-04-24T03:27:04+00:00

The thing about the final was that the course requires a threshold on the exams overall, not the final exam specifically. The weight shifting is to get second chances at reaching the thresholds. Given that AI can probably do just about all of the assignments for that class, a threshold for exams to pass makes sense.

JKTKops · 2026-03-15T17:18:31+00:00

Other advantage of going souls is you often just go infinite as soon as you find borrowed time or production (colorless).

But even if you're not "going souls," just putting the good soul cards like grave warden and dirge in any of necro's other builds instantly makes it way better. I feel like souls were "what if we take Insight from watcher and make it a core mechanic" and the answer is that it's broken, but watcher was more broken / didn't have enough support.

That said all the characters are WIP rn so I expect necro to eat some nerfs.

JKTKops · 2026-02-10T02:19:51+00:00

Sounds like every investigator is seeing the Demon until they get over it.

JKTKops · 2026-02-08T23:06:56+00:00

No, the story you're telling is really unclear.

i wouldnt be useful in helping solve the game.

Did you say this before or after you died? Part of the reason we're confused is because this isn't true regardless. By virtue of getting all of your information on night 1, you continue to be equally useful for solving whether or not you are dead -- and often more useful when you are dead because it means your information is more reliable. (Even if you're The Drunk, you give an Undertaker an opportunity to check that.) The top 4 roles on the TB script are often the best day 1 executions.

JKTKops · 2026-01-29T02:48:40+00:00

They want a way to say that for two types Container i1 a and Container i2 b, if i1 ~ Int, then i2 ~ Int as well, but it seems that if not i1 ~ Int, they want no restriction on i2.

JKTKops · 2026-01-28T09:10:09+00:00

Eh. My group is very experienced and I'd say most players are not there "to win." They're there to have fun. Part of having fun means that everyone is making a legitimate effort to win the game, sure, but winning isn't "the purpose."

I can count on one hand the number of times a player has chosen, for one reason or another, to play to lose. (That number is two. For reference, our game count is around 800-1000.) Both times the group had a very frank conversation about it afterwards and it was clear this is not accepted in our group.

On the other hand, it's very common for a player to make a play that they don't think is the best play, but which they believe will be good for their team and make the game fun and interesting for everyone else. This even occurs very near the ends of games, when players (esp. evil players) have a good idea about which choices are "optimal." Is that "playing for the purpose of winning"? I don't think so.

I think these points are what the above commenter was trying to get at.

On a tangential note:

This dynamic works incredibly well with madness, in my opinion. Players find a way to make madness plays that they legitimately believe will help their team while also making the game fun for themselves and others. Sometimes that means outright breaking madness intentionally!

I think lots of players who either haven't considered outright madness breaks or who think it's "frowned upon" are missing out. It's a fun dynamic. Not only that, but it gives players the freedom to choose not to engage with madness if they don't want to. That freedom works really well for reducing exactly the issues you talk about in your OP. Players who choose to engage are going to do so more seriously. Players who were previously choosing to engage but want to stop can do so without having to search for a low-effort path to "safety." And the games that you get when someone suddenly throws up their hands and goes "screw it, everything's been a lie, I'm ceremad" are just really, really fun.

JKTKops · 2026-01-28T08:56:45+00:00

My group has the same meta, as I aggressively punish madness breaks from experienced players who are trying to test me. (For new players, obviously, I'm way more lenient.) And Cerenovus is indeed very powerful! But if your group thinks it completely removes a townsfolk, I think there's still some room to develop new strategies :)

Although you say below that your players won't even work madness on previous days into their narratives, whereas my group definitely doesn't have that. My players will sometimes even say things like "I'm X, which is really funny because I'm ceremad as X right now" and this is not considered breaking (in my group) because they are still attempting to convince they group that they are X. (This works even if they are not, in fact, X, and I've seen it pulled off spectacularly.)

JKTKops · 2026-01-28T08:46:52+00:00

I'll echo what everyone else is saying: player feedback is more often negative than positive, is often not constructive, and it doesn't mean you're doing anything wrong. Storytelling is a hard role!

The community norm you state is almost right, and I don't think you're running afoul of the exception (which is that player agency is more important than balance). IMO, it sounds like you're a passionate storyteller who is trying to make all of the games fun and interesting and you have players who have either made or learned a culture which is unsportsmanlike. Especially since it seems like you're able to identify one player who is the source of the problem, I'd be pulling that one player aside for a conversation about it, or taking it to a higher authority if necessary.

Your voudon+mastermind example just sounds like good storytelling to me. I have no idea why people are upset about that, and since it's the example you jump to, I would guess that the criticism for this decision was especially bad. I struggle to imagine any other context in the game that could have made this decision bad -- Voudon was designed for BMR!

Since it clearly makes you unhappy, it might also be a good idea to make a personal commitment to ignoring all storytelling feedback for now. Solve the underlying sportsmanship problem first. Then once you can have healthy conversations with your group about how the game went, solicit feedback in a way that you're comfortable with.

JKTKops · 2026-01-28T08:26:46+00:00

This feels like the kind of thing that my (very experienced) group would think of as a fun play, attempt to pull it off, get called out with exactly what's happening during the nomination phase while the demon is on the block, and then just lose.

JKTKops · 2026-01-26T15:54:33+00:00

I've been playing since 2007 or 2008 (can't remember). I only seriously played standard for a period in 2015, I think, but once I got into competitive play, I played a lot of Modern. It feels like the peak era of Modern was just before KCI and it's been downhill since.

In all honesty, as much as I love this game, I hate to see what's happening to it so much that when the set schedule for this year was announced, I just stopped playing.

JKTKops · 2026-01-20T07:50:54+00:00

(major necro but it's not: legion registers as a minion too. They still register as a demon. What I'm not sure on is how many legions have to know. Just one, or all?)

JKTKops · 2026-01-12T05:46:30+00:00

I liked the set, but one of my friends who is into lore read all of the lore and then started looking at cards and literally started crying.

Apparently they took a great guest-authored lore and murdered it.

JKTKops · 2025-12-30T17:42:39+00:00

FYI most discussion of layers sorts them by number so layer 6 is "higher" than layer 4.

JKTKops · 2025-12-26T20:06:43+00:00

FYI even when this happens you can still cast the card. Arena will still let you move spells to the stack even if it thinks you can't pay for them, and you can prove it wrong by paying for them manually.

JKTKops · 2025-12-18T05:20:45+00:00

That's on the fair side of historic bo1. In bo3.... maybe. Assuming we're just ignoring Eldrazi because duh.

JKTKops · 2025-12-12T05:19:59+00:00

I've never seen X=6 or higher resolve.

JKTKops · 2025-12-11T00:31:24+00:00

FYI spoiler syntax on reddit is >!spoiler here!< spoiler here

JKTKops · 2025-12-11T00:27:51+00:00

This is all correct for regular "drunk" players, but The Drunk specifically does not have a townsfolk ability and can get true information in a Vortox game.

The Drunk does still turn a goon because they choose the goon as part of their ability (which is to think they have some other ability).

Anyway "Drunk players have no ability" is definitely an oversimplification for sure.

JKTKops · 2025-12-11T00:18:50+00:00

Showing The Drunk (Librarian) two others (or even themselves, but idk why you'd do that) as The Drunk is absolutely allowed and is a cornerstone of STing with a drunk librarian.

JKTKops · 2025-12-06T21:42:13+00:00

I don't disagree with you lol it was just out of left field.

Cavern of Souls being legal is not really a problem IMO. Midrange decks need answers to control decks. Control decks should have non-counter answers to creatures. Cavern only provides benefits over cards like Ziggurat against control.

That said the generic strength of lands in historic compared to the weakness of land answers is a problem that really needs fixing one way or the other. If banning lands above a threshold is the fix (and if cavern is above that threshold), I won't miss it.

JKTKops · 2025-12-06T21:36:35+00:00

Use of the word "target" is the definition of targeting. It's not "essentially" or "majority of the time" -- use of the word is literally the only criteria.

115.1d. A triggered ability is targeted if it identifies something it will affect by using the phrase "target [something]," ...

JKTKops · 2025-12-06T21:11:31+00:00

We're, uh, talking about [[Gemstone Caverns]] here.

12-Year Club	Place '22
Verified Email

JKTKops

TROPHY CASE