[lacer]

What the fuck is this?

I thought the whole point of slaying people was to teach them not to RDM, and the 2 slays for the aforementioned offenses were to give the player being slayed a chance to think about their actions. Dink, you're literally giving these people who are intentionally ruining the game for others a slap on the wrist as a punishment. Nobody benefits from this except the person who commits the offense in the first place.

^ That's my opinion btw, I want to hear the rest of the community's thoughts on this rule change. I personally think it is ridiculous and unnecessary.

[Dildo Shwaggins]

What the fuck is this?

I thought the whole point of slaying people was to teach them not to RDM, and the 2 slays for the aforementioned offenses were to give the player being slayed a chance to think about their actions. Dink, you're literally giving these people who are intentionally ruining the game for others a slap on the wrist as a punishment. Nobody benefits from this except the person who commits the offense in the first place.

^ That's my opinion btw, I want to hear the rest of the community's thoughts on this rule change. I personally think it is ridiculous and unnecessary.

As someone who is still a mod, I agree completely. Revenge RDM can be hard to prove unless they admit to it so I guess I don't really care about that one but I completely disagree with intentional T on T RDM being only 1 slay now. Also, I could be a smartass and say 1 report=1 slay means if I report twice for the same RDM does that mean 2 reports=2 slays but still. This should have stayed as is beforehand.

[matt_st3 (Strongrule)]

Revenge rdm should have had clear proof before a second slay was added
And TonT imo should stay as that’s a lot more obvious than the first but idk

[Gabe]

My 2 cents:

I personally agree, I have made it clear that  i still feel like people that revenge rdm or do intentional t on t rdm should get two based on malice and the intent to kill without justification, they obviously are doing it to get a reaction or just troll. It's also been enforced this way for the past 2 years or more, so I don't see a reason to change completely now. But it's Dink's server so it's his rules and I respect that and his decision.

Note: Revenge RDM can be hard to determine and needs clear proof it was revenge rdm. Revenge RDM can result from anger against a certain player and that clear distinction can be hard to determine from some petty RDM. A clean cut example could be a person gets slayed for a report so they kill the person that reported them the next round when they are unslain. I don't care as much about revenge rdm getting changed as compared to intentional T on T RDM.

I know why it was changed and what lead to the change but I don't want to twist Dink's words, he will be posting an announcement later regarding this change, so stay tuned.

[lacer]

-1's for my opinion from someone who has a personal vendetta against me :thonking:

If you're gonna dislike my post at least give your opinion lol

edit: grow up lmao

[DoYouLiftBro]

Ok, from what I've heard. Revenge rdm wasn't even 2 slays. It was a rule that did not exist.

The intentional T on T rdm was 2 slays, and are now 1 slay. I honestly dont think its made out to be such a big deal as others are making it out to be

Yeah sure, 2 slays serve a bigger purpose in teaching someone a lesson, but in the long run, people that continue to rdm/get slain will be banned and wont be a problem any longer.

PROPOSAL: I'm not sure if this is a good idea or not but how about we warn players who commit blatant T on T rdm and Revenge RDM whilst also adding a slay to that person(s). I think that could compensate for the removal of the 2 slays from T on T rdm, while also enforcing that revenge RDM is not allowed (more serious then just common RDM).

[lacer]

Ok, from what I've heard. Revenge rdm wasn't even 2 slays. It was a rule that did not exist.

Revenge RDM has been 2 slays for a while now. I can't say whether it was a written rule or not, but regardless, that's the guideline the staff followed for 2+ years. Why do an instant switch now and blindside the staff?

[DoYouLiftBro]

Ok, from what I've heard. Revenge rdm wasn't even 2 slays. It was a rule that did not exist.

Revenge RDM has been 2 slays for a while now. I can't say whether it was a written rule or not, but regardless, that's the guideline the staff followed for 2+ years. Why do an instant switch now and blindside the staff?

I mean it is a "guideline", no rule had been officially put in place to specify that "hey, revenge RDM is 2 slays". I do think that after all these years of having it as a guideline (It was enforced even back when I was a mod in 2015), there could be some clarity as to why all of a sudden that guideline is being unenforced, but I guess we will find that out when Dink posts his announcement on the change. 
 
This is my opinion though: The difference between 1 and 2 slays is minimal at best.  If someone were to intentionally T on T rdm, they get slain 2 rounds, and go right back to causing trouble.  If they get slain one time, they go back to causing trouble.  

I know that your argument is that dink does things to blindside staff (w/o warning, etc..).  I agree somethings he adds w/o our knowledge can be sketch, but this rule change isnt as big as it is made out to be, and we should not be enraged at something like this.

[queef commando]

Ok, from what I've heard. Revenge rdm wasn't even 2 slays. It was a rule that did not exist.

Revenge RDM has been 2 slays for a while now. I can't say whether it was a written rule or not, but regardless, that's the guideline the staff followed for 2+ years. Why do an instant switch now and blindside the staff?

The rule existed and was written in the motd since I was mod and made the first staff guideline in early 2016.

[lacer]

Ok, from what I've heard. Revenge rdm wasn't even 2 slays. It was a rule that did not exist.

Revenge RDM has been 2 slays for a while now. I can't say whether it was a written rule or not, but regardless, that's the guideline the staff followed for 2+ years. Why do an instant switch now and blindside the staff?

I know that your argument is that dink does things to blindside staff (w/o warning, etc..).  I agree somethings he adds w/o our knowledge can be sketch, but this rule change isnt as big as it is made out to be, and we should not be enraged at something like this.

My argument isn't that Dink does things to blindside the staff, my argument is that the new rule is unnecessary. I won't deny that Dink does blindside the staff with stuff sometimes (this being one of them) but that's not my main point in this thread.