+- Dinkleberg's GMod (https://www.dinklebergsgmod.com/site)
+-- Forum: Community (https://www.dinklebergsgmod.com/site/forumdisplay.php?fid=5)
+--- Forum: Donor/Staff Abuse Reports (https://www.dinklebergsgmod.com/site/forumdisplay.php?fid=32)
+---- Forum: Donor/Staff Abuse Report Archive (https://www.dinklebergsgmod.com/site/forumdisplay.php?fid=49)
+---- Thread: Lack of slay by KillerZoreo (/showthread.php?tid=11485)
RE: Lack of slay by KillerZoreo - matt_st3 (Strongrule) - 06-02-2020
Welcome to rdm chains where you have to look at each kill to see if that one was reasonable since the rules have gaps and overlaps. Truly we don’t define what a 1v1 is in the rules but there should be no doubt for it to be allowed. A text in chat would do the trick, which to be honest should probably be an actual part of the rule to get rid of this annoying grey area. Text specifically, Voice is not consistent or easily proven.
1. Do Not Random Deathmatch
RDM is killing a player without a legitimate reason. Some examples of RDM are prop killing, goomba stomping, pushing players off edges, killing provens or detectives, and killing AFKs before overtime. A full list of reasons to KOS can be found near the bottom of this page. Do not KOS people that clearly are consenting to fight each other.
As it’s written currently the rule fights itself. Prop killing is illegal except when it’s the most common way for people to fuck around and have a 1v1. And since that’s not clearly defined apparently it’s difficult to staff this due to a rule gap. Staff have to look at it through the eyes of the player, you can’t use 20/20 outside knowledge. As it is if burrito didn’t know this was a 1v1 and by the death scene I tried to watch I couldn’t tell due to how it was recorded. Note, you need to free cam from burritos perspective.
If this was not an “obvious” 1v1 to burrito (again add the text stipulation in writing) then it’s possible he didn’t know and correctly acted. Now Ceebeast sees this “knowing” it’s a 1v1 and goes to kill burrito. Does Ceebeast know at this point that burrito is proven? If he does he shouldn’t shoot, but if he doesn’t then it’s makes sense on his side. Not that proven is a get out of jail free card but it is a way of saying they’re not a traitor and you’re supposed to only kill traitors so. Rdm breaks the game who would have thought.
If the 1v1 was clearly stated then burrito had no reason to kill
If the 1v1 was not clear, burrito was justified to kill
Ceebeasts justification relies on him knowing if burrito was proven which maybe there’s a ss I missed that made that clear. I see where killer knows this but does Ceebeast know this before the kill and not after?
But at the end of the day the best solution was to not slay and get feedback which is here.
TLDR; fix the rule to close this gap, nothing was really done wrong here since it’s a weird area but if you want to figure the slay then sure.
RE: Lack of slay by KillerZoreo - Avocado Toast - 06-02-2020
At the end of the day, I would just like an apology for a lack of a slay. I know it's kind of a lot to be asking for a slay 12 hours after the fact. I didn't really want to bring it on the forums and thought that Killer would be able to clearly know the rules due to being a mod. However, I would enjoy a clarification on this rule so I know how to proceed in the future to not get killed while being a proven.
RE: Lack of slay by KillerZoreo - Nicol Bolas - 06-02-2020
At the end of the day, TTT is a confusing gamemode. With a gamemode built around confusion and lying, it's bound to happen. Now combine that with a public server with staff, people are bound to make mistakes. As Admin I have to be the impartial judge and honestly looking at both sides there is no clear define right answer.
Mistakes can happen and staff aren't perfect, so issues with slays are bound to happen. I'm not gonna force anyone to add a slay a day after it happened, but I will work on better defining 1v1s better in the rules to avoid potential further issues. I'm not seeing any abuse so I will go ahead and close this. Thank you for bringing it to my attention.