https://github.com/ZacharyHinds/ttt2mg-randomat/blob/3aea4f29f00fae1f40dfbe3801bcb1467650548f/lua/minigames/minigames/sh_blind_minigame.lua#L77
In the client-server concept, it is assumed that the server is omniscient, while the server tells the client what it should know (possibly intentionally something wrong, e.g. the spy role).
That's why checks like this theoretically shouldn't happen on the client-side.
Instead, just the traitors should receive the network message. But then you run into the following problem: Which player was blinded? What if a Traitor became Infected at that time? And what if a player that isn't a Traitor but thinks so, won't become blinded (as this can be an option to prove a player).
Just some thoughts on this minigame, you can keep it as it is if this mechanic is intended, for sure.
https://github.com/ZacharyHinds/ttt2mg-randomat/blob/3aea4f29f00fae1f40dfbe3801bcb1467650548f/lua/minigames/minigames/sh_blind_minigame.lua#L77 In the client-server concept, it is assumed that the server is omniscient, while the server tells the client what it should know (possibly intentionally something wrong, e.g. the spy role). That's why checks like this theoretically shouldn't happen on the client-side. Instead, just the traitors should receive the network message. But then you run into the following problem: Which player was blinded? What if a Traitor became Infected at that time? And what if a player that isn't a Traitor but thinks so, won't become blinded (as this can be an option to prove a player). Just some thoughts on this minigame, you can keep it as it is if this mechanic is intended, for sure.
Anyways, if you need some inspiration (blinded-styled image, an indicator on the sidebar): https://github.com/TTT-2/ttt2h-pack-default/blob/master/lua/classes/classes/class_void.lua