[The Dutch Problem]

Yes and my point is, Nopleez, that just one person killing the other person while you are not aware of the full situation does not immedietly warrant the death of the survivor of the two, only because you suspect he is lieing.

Also I forgot to address the proven point you made. If one induvidual was proven on the map tester (AKA no direct proof that he was proven by the tester), staff will often ask around if the person claiming to be proven was this. If no-one can support the claim, the claim is dismissed as there is absolutely 0 way of knowing the person was or wasn't fully proven.

The point I made in that post about Proven A and Innocent A was, poorly made and that's my fault. So my apologies for that.

[Luke Warm HotDog Water]

Yes and my point is, Nopleez, that just one person killing the other person while you are not aware of the full situation does not immedietly warrant the death of the survivor of the two, only because you suspect he is lieing.

that literally doesnt make a point at all. thiis is a very specific situation that doesnt apply, similar to your barrel analoogy

[EpicGuy]

I'm going to address the original concern. Attempted RDM is defined as this: "...intentionally attempting to kill someone without reason. Whether something falls under this will be determined at staff discretion, typically 20+ dmg intentionally." Hey look, 20 damage. That's exactly the amount of damage that a crowbar does. The same crowbar Burrito hit Lycan with. The ninth statement under "Reasons to call a Kill-on-Sight(KOS)" says this, "ANY amount of damage with a gun is kosable. 5+ damage with a prop is kosable." Well, we're going to have to play the semantics game, because technically, a crowbar is neither a gun or a prop. But I think we can all agree that hitting someone with a crowbar is a KOSable offense. That means Lycan was well in his right to kill Burrito Bowl.

Now let's look at where Luke Warm HotDog Water comes into play. He sees Lycan kill an Innocent, and Lycan isn't the Detective. Luke Warm HotDog Water also has every right to kill Lycan. Why? Well, Lycan could be lying, and we all know that you can't spell "lying" without "Lycan". But wait, rule 9 under "Reasons to call a Kill-on-Sight(KOS)" says that damaging a player for a reason not stated above is KOSable. But wait again. If we look above we see that ANY amount of damage [with a gun] is KOSable. Lycan killed Burrito Bowl. Valid kill. You killing Lycan isn't a valid kill. You were slain because of it.

All you saw was Lycan kill someone. If Lycan had a mic, he could have told you that Burrito Bowl hit him with a crowbar. Then what? You don't have any hard proof that Lycan was hit with a crowbar. Wait a minute, you did! When your crosshair is on Lycan, it'll say that he's injured or whatever. I don't understand. You didn't have all the pieces to the puzzle, you killed someone because you thought you knew what happened, you screwed up, and got slain. You have the right to kill Lycan in this situation. You didn't trust him. As Nopleez said, this is a game of lies and deception. But when you very clearly screw up, take the slay. I think the round was over in like 3 minutes. You've spent more time arguing than you did serving your slay.

---

As to the point of claiming Innocence, I have yet to believe a claim of innocence that I myself have not witnissed or was confirmed by a Detective. So, you do not HAVE to believe a claim of innocence, but if you kill him later and he WAS actually proven, you'll be slain for killing a proven man. Epic made a nice version of this I havent used, what if you got tested on the map tester, were proven Innocent, later in Overtime, I shoot you out of suspicion. I then have RDM'd you as I have killed a proven man. And before the self-defense thing is brought up. If Innocent A gets attacked by Proven A and Innocent A wins, Innocent A has not RDM'd due to the self-defense rule overruling that.

I heavily disagree with this paragraph. 

• Player A tests himself and is proven inno (by a map tester), Player B does not witness this.
  
• Player A performs a kosable act.
  
• Player B kills player A for performing said act.
  
• Player B is slain for killing Player A because he was proven but Player B had absolutely no way of knowing he was proven.
  

How is this a fair situation?

I think this is very fair. If Player A tests and is proven, usually Player A and whoever else watches them tests says that they're proven. Even if that doesn't happen, there's a witness and a third party that can justify the fact that Player A is proven. If Player B doesn't believe or think that Player A is proven, that's their problem. You don't have to believe anything in this game. You do have to face the consequences of not believing though. I don't understand. This is the way things have been done for years. Not just on this server, but I would take a guess on just about every TTT server out there. The lack of empathy is also a little startling. If we put ourselves in the shoes of player A, and Player B kills us after being tested, I cannot see any person who wouldn't report Player B. Whether or not they're slain is up to Player A, not Player B.

[Mallakk]

Why am I doing more explaining then the bloody staff, god damn.

Well No, Nopleez, if you shoot me for that, then you're not playing the game as intended as you are not giving me a chance to use deception. As any attempt of doing so would immedietly lead to my head being ripped off. Not to mention the field day's RDM'ers will have, as you can check previous post as an example, but now add that neither of the Persons had seen the other do the act. RDM city, once more.

You are being punished for breaking the established rules, while you may disagree that they're there, this is the first time I see people actively complain about them and I have had a long run as staff... IDK what is the problem now. While again, you may believe they are bullshit, I find them rather appropriate and supportive of gameplay.

As to the point of claiming Innocence, I have yet to believe a claim of innocence that I myself have not witnissed or was confirmed by a Detective. So, you do not HAVE to believe a claim of innocence, but if you kill him later and he WAS actually proven, you'll be slain for killing a proven man. Epic made a nice version of this I havent used, what if you got tested on the map tester, were proven Innocent, later in Overtime, I shoot you out of suspicion. I then have RDM'd you as I have killed a proven man. And before the self-defense thing is brought up. If Innocent A gets attacked by Proven A and Innocent A wins, Innocent A has not RDM'd due to the self-defense rule overruling that.

If i go into a map tester can get proven and someone didnt see me by what means am i proven? The rules are so sloppily written that they can be enforced many ways, so i guess it isn't all your fault. Let me give you this scenario, me and my T buddy are on airship we go into the tester together and it says we are inno, by you logic the only way we can be be killed without it being rdm is self defense. 

I'm not sure why you are bringing up being proven, now that i think about it because its no where near the subject of this thread but now that we are on it, being slain or being seen in the wrong, for not believing someone when they say they are proven or someone did thing x, in a game about deception is so fucking stupid. In a game where fake testers and false testing exists, trying to enforce someone being proven is a horrid idea. There is no way someone can keep track of everyone is proven, short of marking every singe person who said "im proven" in chat, much less know who tested without being present. Factoring in variables someone cant know into whether something is rdm or not when the knowledge they had constituted a valid kos, leaves the player who was slain feeling like they have been cheated. based on the information that had they followed the rules so why are they being slain?

This continues to not truly by any staff members fault but the rules themselves queef as tried to address literally this issue presented in this thread before but most of the people replying didnt even understand the question https://www.dinklebergsgmod.com/site/Thr...t-the-rule .
 I lost the will to continue this post so, tldr; you were in the right, but also it wasn't a false slay, the rules and stupid and so are staff. 
I probably should proof read this or it wont make much sense but a great man once said just fuck it

[Luke Warm HotDog Water]

I'm going to address the original concern. Attempted RDM is defined as this: "...intentionally attempting to kill someone without reason. Whether something falls under this will be determined at staff discretion, typically 20+ dmg intentionally." Hey look, 20 damage. That's exactly the amount of damage that a crowbar does. The same crowbar Burrito hit Lycan with. The ninth statement under "Reasons to call a Kill-on-Sight(KOS)" says this, "ANY amount of damage with a gun is kosable. 5+ damage with a prop is kosable." Well, we're going to have to play the semantics game, because technically, a crowbar is neither a gun or a prop. But I think we can all agree that hitting someone with a crowbar is a KOSable offense. That means Lycan was well in his right to kill Burrito Bowl.

Now let's look at where Luke Warm HotDog Water comes into play. He sees Lycan kill an Innocent, and Lycan isn't the Detective. Luke Warm HotDog Water also has every right to kill Lycan. Why? Well, Lycan could be lying, and we all know that you can't spell "lying" without "Lycan". But wait, rule 9 under "Reasons to call a Kill-on-Sight(KOS)" says that damaging a player for a reason not stated above is KOSable. But wait again. If we look above we see that ANY amount of damage [with a gun] is KOSable. Lycan killed Burrito Bowl. Valid kill. You killing Lycan isn't a valid kill. You were slain because of it.

All you saw was Lycan kill someone. If Lycan had a mic, he could have told you that Burrito Bowl hit him with a crowbar. Then what? You don't have any hard proof that Lycan was hit with a crowbar. Wait a minute, you did! When your crosshair is on Lycan, it'll say that he's injured or whatever. I don't understand. You didn't have all the pieces to the puzzle, you killed someone because you thought you knew what happened, you screwed up, and got slain. You have the right to kill Lycan in this situation. You didn't trust him. As Nopleez said, this is a game of lies and deception. But when you very clearly screw up, take the slay. I think the round was over in like 3 minutes. You've spent more time arguing than you did serving your slay.

---

As to the point of claiming Innocence, I have yet to believe a claim of innocence that I myself have not witnissed or was confirmed by a Detective. So, you do not HAVE to believe a claim of innocence, but if you kill him later and he WAS actually proven, you'll be slain for killing a proven man. Epic made a nice version of this I havent used, what if you got tested on the map tester, were proven Innocent, later in Overtime, I shoot you out of suspicion. I then have RDM'd you as I have killed a proven man. And before the self-defense thing is brought up. If Innocent A gets attacked by Proven A and Innocent A wins, Innocent A has not RDM'd due to the self-defense rule overruling that.

I heavily disagree with this paragraph. 

• Player A tests himself and is proven inno (by a map tester), Player B does not witness this.
  
• Player A performs a kosable act.
  
• Player B kills player A for performing said act.
  
• Player B is slain for killing Player A because he was proven but Player B had absolutely no way of knowing he was proven.
  

How is this a fair situation?

I think this is very fair. If Player A tests and is proven, usually Player A and whoever else watches them tests says that they're proven. Even if that doesn't happen, there's a witness and a third party that can justify the fact that Player A is proven. If Player B doesn't believe or think that Player A is proven, that's their problem. You don't have to believe anything in this game. You do have to face the consequences of not believing though. I don't understand. This is the way things have been done for years. Not just on this server, but I would take a guess on just about every TTT server out there. The lack of empathy is also a little startling. If we put ourselves in the shoes of player A, and Player B kills us after being tested, I cannot see any person who wouldn't report Player B. Whether or not they're slain is up to Player A, not Player B.

youre right because the ONLY way someone can appeared injured is by being hit wit ha crowbar, not being in a gunfight, not falling, not transfering health wtih a detective tranfusion kit (which by the way deos 20 hp) not being hit by a manhack, 

youre implying the ONLY way is by being hit with a crowbar. there are so many other reasons he could be injured as stated above-- mnay of which are T related.

[DC.Zephyr]

I come in from a couple days off to see people debating over something such as this. I'm going to go ahead and quote something from the TTT Rules.

The below lists of reasons to KOS and sus are for reference, and cover the most common issues. However, these are not complete lists and do not necessarily cover all edge cases. If anything comes up that is not covered by what is shown below, it is to be handled at staff discretion. Killing someone who called a legitimate kos based on the below reasons may yield a slay.

Quit the drama, instead of complaining about a problem and causing drama central, ask for change and provide your reasons behind the change you want.
What you did in this thread is attempting to get someone or somegroup in trouble.
I do not have pity for you; should this be addressed? Yes. Are you going about it the correct way? No.

[Luke Warm HotDog Water]

heres a idea, Im a T, at the beginning of the round ii fall off a building and lose 19 hp i walk up to someone afk and shoot them in the face, whe someone comes up i say AW MAN HE CROWBARED MEEEEEEEE

guess im innocent and get to walk scott free

[EpicGuy]

youre right because the ONLY way someone can appeared injured is by being hit wit ha crowbar, not being in a gunfight, not falling, not transfering health wtih a detective tranfusion kit (which by the way deos 20 hp) not being hit by a manhack, 

youre implying the ONLY way is by being hit with a crowbar. there are so many other reasons he could be injured as stated above-- mnay of which are T related.

That's a fair criticism that I hadn't considered. My point still stands though. You killed Lycan and were deserving of that slay.

Bringing up a point Mallakk said: Yeah, the rules are very poorly written and I'm not opposed to a rewrite of the rules.

[DC.Zephyr]

heres a idea, Im a T, at the beginning of the round ii fall off a building and lose 19 hp i walk up to someone afk and shoot them in the face, whe someone comes up i say AW MAN HE CROWBARED MEEEEEEEE

guess im innocent and get to walk scott free

This right here is you trying to cause drama and provides NOTHING to your original point; grow up and approach things like an adult.

[EpicGuy]

heres a idea, Im a T, at the beginning of the round ii fall off a building and lose 19 hp i walk up to someone afk and shoot them in the face, whe someone comes up i say AW MAN HE CROWBARED MEEEEEEEE

guess im innocent and get to walk scott free

Assuming no one saw you murder the AFK player (you didn't mention that part), yes, you can walk away. No one has proof that you weren't hit with a crowbar. If you report whoever kills you, and the logs don't match what you're saying, don't expect the person who killed you to be slain because you lied.