[Mallakk]

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 is the point that should be focused on, if someone were to kill the T in this scenario whether or not it's rdm is not based of the information the killer had. If the person had crow barred him its rdm if he didn't its not the scenario is exactly the same from the inos point of view but one is rdm one isn't.

[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

This is the point that should be focused on, if someone were to kill the T in this scenario whether or not it's rdm is not based of the information the killer had. If the person had crow barred him its rdm if he didn't its not the scenario is exactly the same from the inos point of view but one is rdm one isn't.

That's not what he's saying in this situation though. He's asking if he were to fall, does someone have to believe that he was crowbarred. Yes. They do. Because there's no proof for or against that claim. It's that easy. Every single one of these hypothetical scenarios are based off of one word: proof. We're not arguing about whether or not Lycan RDMed Burrito Bowl. We're arguing whether or not Luke Warm HotDog Water had the proof to definitively kill Lycan. He didn't. He was slain for it. Are we done here? I think we are.

[nopleez]

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 is the point that should be focused on, if someone were to kill the T in this scenario whether or not it's rdm is not based of the information the killer had. If the person had crow barred him its rdm if he didn't its not the scenario is exactly the same from the inos point of view but one is rdm one isn't.

That's not what he's saying in this situation though. He's asking if he were to fall, does someone have to believe that he was crowbarred. Yes. They do. Because there's no proof for or against that claim. It's that easy. Every single one of these hypothetical scenarios are based off of one word: proof. We're not arguing about whether or not Lycan RDMed Burrito Bowl. We're arguing whether or not Luke Warm HotDog Water had the proof to definitively kill Lycan. He didn't. He was slain for it. Are we done here? I think we are.

I bolded a statement you made because it is flawed.

You do not have to believe someone because there is no proof, that makes no sense.
Luke did have proof to kill Lycan; Lycan killed an innocent.

I don't think we're done here because your argument is flawed.

[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

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

wow thanks for the input!

---

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

i can stand behind this agree to disagree

---

I say we just lock this thread. its obvious nothing will be solved and some of the more toxic players are getting involved with useless input. IE Zephyr. Just lock the thread. ii think Mallak makes a good point that there is a lot of gray area in this issue. It will be addressed differently by differnt mods and be taken advantage of likewise. I understand completely

Sorry for rocking the boat zephyr didnt mean to set off your triggers! im done here, cya guys around

[Mallakk]

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 is the point that should be focused on, if someone were to kill the T in this scenario whether or not it's rdm is not based of the information the killer had. If the person had crow barred him its rdm if he didn't its not the scenario is exactly the same from the inos point of view but one is rdm one isn't.

That's not what he's saying in this situation though. He's asking if he were to fall, does someone have to believe that he was crowbarred. Yes. They do. Because there's no proof for or against that claim. It's that easy. Every single one of these hypothetical scenarios are based off of one word: proof. We're not arguing about whether or not Lycan RDMed Burrito Bowl. We're arguing whether or not Luke Warm HotDog Water had the proof to definitively kill Lycan. He didn't. He was slain for it. Are we done here? I think we are.

again you miss the point so im going to say it one more time then give up on you. I'm turning hotdogs scenario from one into 2 different ones. the first the victim is acting in self defense the second he isnt, regardless of whether he is a T or not. In the first scenario in the way you are reading and enforcing the rules he will be slain but in the second he wont. This leaves a big issue not only are you giving the person who is lying full control of the situation rather than trying to be coconvincing with his lying the game does it for him. Seconded and probably more important whether or not this is rdm cant be know to the inno until after, in both situation the inno sees a valid reason to kos and whether its rdm is behind a lie that they can not get the answer to. The information present is the same in both situation for the inno so why would one be rdm and the other not? when the only information you are missing the the total and complete word of mouth of one person why should the be the deciding factor. you are saying the are based off proof and the only proof this person has is that the victim here did something kosable.

[Foxka]

But if lycan killed burrito In self defense then it would be RDM to kill lycan, no? In this situation it would be enough to call sus and kos lycan In overtime but not immediately, at least that's what I'm interpreting from the situation.

[Stingray]

I dont know why this is up in the air or a grey area this rule clearly states damaging an inno for any reason not stated and i have always followed this as you kill an inno your kos idk the reason you killed an inno... the game and its rules are desighned so that killing an inno as an inno is a pretty fair mistake. Damaging an inno above the limit is kos chooseing not to shoot the person is under the persons disgression. I remember a time when people abused the tbaiting rules because of a grey area but this has never been a grey area. Now that I think about it ive goten into a talk about this before late night and I refered them to this rule and they understood idk why staff are having a problem

[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

This is the point that should be focused on, if someone were to kill the T in this scenario whether or not it's rdm is not based of the information the killer had. If the person had crow barred him its rdm if he didn't its not the scenario is exactly the same from the inos point of view but one is rdm one isn't.

That's not what he's saying in this situation though. He's asking if he were to fall, does someone have to believe that he was crowbarred. Yes. They do. Because there's no proof for or against that claim. It's that easy. Every single one of these hypothetical scenarios are based off of one word: proof. We're not arguing about whether or not Lycan RDMed Burrito Bowl. We're arguing whether or not Luke Warm HotDog Water had the proof to definitively kill Lycan. He didn't. He was slain for it. Are we done here? I think we are.

again you miss the point so im going to say it one more time then give up on you. I'm turning hotdogs scenario from one into 2 different ones. the first the victim is acting in self defense the second he isnt, regardless of whether he is a T or not. In the first scenario in the way you are reading and enforcing the rules he will be slain but in the second he wont. This leaves a big issue not only are you giving the person who is lying full control of the situation rather than trying to be coconvincing with his lying the game does it for him. Seconded and probably more important whether or not this is rdm cant be know to the inno until after, in both situation the inno sees a valid reason to kos and whether its rdm is behind a lie that they can not get the answer to. The information present is the same in both situation for the inno so why would one be rdm and the other not? when the only information you are missing the the total and complete word of mouth of one person why should the be the deciding factor. you are saying the are based off proof and the only proof this person has is that the victim here did something kosable.

 I don't understand which two scenarios you're referring to, mostly because what you've said is word vomit, but you've given up on me so it's fine. If you're talking about the scenario HotDog brings up with him falling for 19hp, you have to take HotDog's word on it because no one saw him fall or get crowbarred. If the only thing evident is word of mouth, we don't have to believe it, but it's all we have UNTIL more evidence (whether it be damage logs or at the end of the round HotDog says "xd it was just a prank and I lied"). You might not be talking about that, but I can't tell what you're referring to.

[ReThink]

Going to have to agree with @King Tiger Ace Fasda22 , @Foxka, @"Burrito Bowl" , @EpicGuy ,etc.

The rules are pretty clear on this situation, it isn't "grey area". Just because every possible scenario isn't written out play by play doesn't mean it's not in the rules. Use common sense. You're trying to apply a blanket rule across all situations, and it doesn't fly because some other rules take precedence.  @Luke Warm HotDog Water .  @"Burrito Bowl" even slayed himself for consistency.

Please for the love of god never play any tabletop games or card games with more than 3 lines of text on them

EDIT:

Just reread the rules to find the exact text to end this retarded argument, and whaddya know,

Damaging Innocents for a reason not stated above 9
9. ANY amount of damage with a gun is kosable. 5+ damage with a prop is kosable. 20+ damage by any means is reportable.
Note:  You should not KOS someone acting in self defense (they got attacked first and returned fire)

Fucking lmao @Luke Warm HotDog Water

Nuke this thread and move on now pls.

[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

This is the point that should be focused on, if someone were to kill the T in this scenario whether or not it's rdm is not based of the information the killer had. If the person had crow barred him its rdm if he didn't its not the scenario is exactly the same from the inos point of view but one is rdm one isn't.

That's not what he's saying in this situation though. He's asking if he were to fall, does someone have to believe that he was crowbarred. Yes. They do. Because there's no proof for or against that claim. It's that easy. Every single one of these hypothetical scenarios are based off of one word: proof. We're not arguing about whether or not Lycan RDMed Burrito Bowl. We're arguing whether or not Luke Warm HotDog Water had the proof to definitively kill Lycan. He didn't. He was slain for it. Are we done here? I think we are.

I bolded a statement you made because it is flawed.

You do not have to believe someone because there is no proof, that makes no sense.
Luke did have proof to kill Lycan; Lycan killed an innocent.

I don't think we're done here because your argument is flawed.

Ok, good point. Let me rephrase what I said. You don't have to believe what someone said. You can act on whatever information is presented. In this case, HotDog acted on the fact that Lycan killed an Innocent. HotDog did have proof to kill Lycan. Lycan DID kill an Innocent. HotDog was slain because he killed an Innocent (Lycan) who killed an Innocent (Burrito Bowl) who RDMed an Innocent (Burrito Bowl RDMed Lycan). Valid slay.