6th Sep '16 11:02:28 PM

**PastryPerson** Is there an issue? Send a Message

**Deleted line(s) 424 (click to see context) :**

* WritersCannotDoMath: The math teacher offers the class a problem. There are four doors, and behind one of them is an A+. Behind the other three are goats. A student, Max, chooses the first door, which gives him a 25% of being right because he can only choose one out of four doors, and a 75% of being wrong (it also points out that if you could choose all of the other three instead one out of all four then you'd have a 75% chance of being correct, though this isn't an option). Then, the teacher opens two of the three doors Max didn't pick, revealing goats, and the game states that the correct decision is to switch to the only remaining door out of the other three, claiming that if you did you'd have a 75% chance of it being right, as opposed to a 25% chance if you stuck with Max's choice. This is wrong, because the only reason there was a 75% chance of being correct if you chose three of the other doors is because each one of the three doors had a 25% chance, which adds up to a 75% chance. After the doors opened, it's revealed that two of the three doors have goats behind them, subracting 50% from the 75% and bringing it down to 25%, which is the ''same as Max's choice''. It's 50/50 either way.

25th Aug '16 8:57:32 AM

**trixus** Is there an issue? Send a Message

**Changed line(s) 290 (click to see context) from:**

* YouShouldntKnowThisAlready: Glaringly averted in Episode 10 when the player's car is booby-trapped. There's no way that the player character should know this without unlocking the car and blowing themselves up, and yet they're given dialogue options where they just magically know about it. Somewhat lampshaded by Ted, who remarks that [[ProperlyParanoid they're being just as paranoid as he is.]]

**to:**

* YouShouldntKnowThisAlready: Glaringly averted in Episode 10 when the player's car is booby-trapped. There's no way that the player character should know this without unlocking the car and blowing themselves up, and yet they're given dialogue options where they just magically know about it. Somewhat lampshaded by Ted, who remarks that [[ProperlyParanoid they're being just as paranoid as he is.~~]]~~]] Although given Bridget warned you that you might be targeted and the fall guy is right in front of you is kind of a heads up.

25th Aug '16 8:53:34 AM

**trixus** Is there an issue? Send a Message

**Added DiffLines:**

* MinionWithAnFInEvil: Duke's antagonism come from the fact he is just an annoying brat (or at least that's the intention) and really he is better when he is helping you. [[spoiler: When he tries killing you he succeeds more by dumb luck than anything since you can overpower him with a few punches]].

24th Aug '16 12:12:22 PM

**PastryPerson** Is there an issue? Send a Message

**Changed line(s) 423 (click to see context) from:**

* WritersCannotDoMath: The math teacher offers the class a problem. There are four doors, and behind one of them is an A+. Behind the other three are goats. A student, Max, chooses the first door. Then, the teacher opens two of the other three doors, revealing goats. The teacher claims that the "correct" thing to do is to switch to the other door, because you'd have a 75% chance of being right. The game states at the beginning, when Max chose one door, he had a 25% chance of it being right, and a 75% chance of being wrong (which is correct), and that if you could choose the other three doors you'd have a 75% chance of being right. However, after two of the doors are open, the game claims that if you switch the the one Max hasn't picked yet, you'll have a 75% chance of being right, while you'll still have a 25% chance of being right if you stick with Max's choice. The problem here is that the only reason that choosing the other three doors at the beginning had a 75% chance of success is because the chance of the A+ being behind ''one'' of them adds up to 75%. However, by opening the two doors, it's revealed that the A+ isn't behind two of the three other doors. Now, there are only two doors left. You'd have a 50% chance of choosing the right one no matter which one you chose.

**to:**

* WritersCannotDoMath: The math teacher offers the class a problem. There are four doors, and behind one of them is an A+. Behind the other three are goats. A student, Max, chooses the first ~~door. Then, the teacher opens two ~~door, which gives him a 25% of being right because he can only choose one out of four doors, and a 75% of being wrong (it also points out that if you could choose all of the other three ~~doors, revealing goats. The teacher claims that the "correct" thing to do is to switch to the other door, because ~~instead one out of all four then you'd have a 75% chance of being ~~right. The ~~correct, though this isn't an option). Then, the teacher opens two of the three doors Max didn't pick, revealing goats, and the game states ~~at ~~that the ~~beginning, when Max chose one door, he had a 25% chance ~~correct decision is to switch to the only remaining door out of ~~it being right, and a 75% chance of being wrong (which is correct), and ~~the other three, claiming that if you ~~could choose the other three doors ~~did you'd have a 75% chance of ~~being right. However, after two of the doors are open, the game claims that if you switch the the one Max hasn't picked yet, you'll have a 75% chance of ~~it being right, ~~while you'll still have ~~as opposed to a 25% chance ~~of being right ~~if you ~~stick ~~stuck with Max's choice. ~~The problem here ~~This is ~~that ~~wrong, because the only reason ~~that choosing the other three doors at the beginning had ~~there was a 75% chance of ~~success ~~being correct if you chose three of the other doors is because ~~the chance ~~each one of the ~~A+ being behind ''one'' of them ~~three doors had a 25% chance, which adds up to ~~75%. However, by opening ~~a 75% chance. After the ~~two doors, ~~doors opened, it's revealed that ~~the A+ isn't behind ~~two of the three ~~other doors. Now, there are only two ~~doors ~~left. You'd ~~have ~~a ~~goats behind them, subracting 50% ~~chance of choosing ~~from the ~~right one no matter ~~75% and bringing it down to 25%, which ~~one you chose.~~is the ''same as Max's choice''. It's 50/50 either way.

23rd Aug '16 10:45:22 PM

**PastryPerson** Is there an issue? Send a Message

**Added DiffLines:**

* WritersCannotDoMath: The math teacher offers the class a problem. There are four doors, and behind one of them is an A+. Behind the other three are goats. A student, Max, chooses the first door. Then, the teacher opens two of the other three doors, revealing goats. The teacher claims that the "correct" thing to do is to switch to the other door, because you'd have a 75% chance of being right. The game states at the beginning, when Max chose one door, he had a 25% chance of it being right, and a 75% chance of being wrong (which is correct), and that if you could choose the other three doors you'd have a 75% chance of being right. However, after two of the doors are open, the game claims that if you switch the the one Max hasn't picked yet, you'll have a 75% chance of being right, while you'll still have a 25% chance of being right if you stick with Max's choice. The problem here is that the only reason that choosing the other three doors at the beginning had a 75% chance of success is because the chance of the A+ being behind ''one'' of them adds up to 75%. However, by opening the two doors, it's revealed that the A+ isn't behind two of the three other doors. Now, there are only two doors left. You'd have a 50% chance of choosing the right one no matter which one you chose.

20th Aug '16 3:08:07 AM

**Morgenthaler** Is there an issue? Send a Message

**Deleted line(s) 298 (click to see context) :**

* {{Canada}}: The first Zap Dramatic game that explicitly takes place there, as early in the game a sign with "Montreal" written on it can be seen.

10th May '16 11:37:23 AM

**TMK87** Is there an issue? Send a Message

**Added DiffLines:**

** Played InUniverse in ''The Swearing Archer and the association'' (playable for free [[http://www.zap.ca/webdefait/sportsmed.html here]]). The characters spend more time accusing each other of mangling up words than actual negotiation.

11th Apr '16 2:24:19 AM

**PurpleAlert** Is there an issue? Send a Message

**Added DiffLines:**

** The Track Meet gets a bonus in-universe. The coach suspends a few players on the team because their grades have slipped, and then follows it up by saying that this isn't meant to be a punishment, but an incentive for players to find a balance between athletics and academics. If you say so, coach, but if it were about ''balance'', there would be a minimum achievement on the track team to make you eligible to participate in classes. The students get suspended from the team because getting poor grades breaks the code of conduct, so yes, it ''is'' a punishment.

17th Mar '16 7:30:59 AM

**bassforte123** Is there an issue? Send a Message

**Added DiffLines:**

*** They try to explain off the the above example by saying that Ted was under the effects of a drug that made him unstable, however Ted never expresses any real remorse for the action (infact he tries to justify it). Later with his 'sane' state of mind, he makes you help him while holding you at gunpoint saying he has nothing to lose.

27th Jan '16 7:19:33 PM

**Kadorhal** Is there an issue? Send a Message

**Changed line(s) 393 (click to see context) from:**

* NeverMyFault: {{Inverted|Trope}} as, most likely due to bad programming, the majority of the issues you have to deal with on Tuesday and Wednesday are the other students blaming you for everything regardless of if you had anything to do with it. It's especially notable on Tuesday: there are about three different plot threads starting up at the beginning, you only have time to get involved with one of them before the bell rings, yet the game assumes that you both got involved with all of them ''and'' picked the meanest options available. Most notably, if you didn't get involved with the humiliating video plotline, or if you said you weren't sure whether the video should be posted or not, then everyone blames you for the whole thing, even specifically claiming you said you thought it'd be funny. The only way not to get blamed is to specifically order Tony to delete the video (in which case he posts it anyway just to spite everyone else).

**to:**

* NeverMyFault: ~~{{Inverted|Trope}} as, most ~~Most likely due to bad programming, the majority of the issues you have to deal with on Tuesday and Wednesday are the other students blaming you for ~~everything regardless ~~all of ~~if you had anything ~~their own decisions when those decisions start coming back to ~~do with it. ~~bite them. It's especially ~~notable ~~apparent on Tuesday: there are about three different plot threads starting up at the beginning, you only have time to get involved with one of them before the bell rings, yet ~~the game assumes that ~~everyone will act as though you ~~both got ~~not only involved ~~with ~~yourself in all ~~of them ''and'' ~~three, but also picked the meanest options available. Most notably, if you didn't get involved with the humiliating video plotline, or if you said you weren't sure whether the video should be posted or not, then everyone blames you for the whole thing, Tammy even specifically claiming ~~you said you thought it'd be funny. ~~''you'' told them to post it. The only way not to get blamed is to specifically order Tony to delete the video ~~(in which case he ~~- but even that's not really a victory, because Tony posts it anyway just to spite ~~everyone else).~~you, and ''you still get blamed'' right away for "over-reacting" and making him do it.

This list shows the last 10 events of 116. Show all.