06-01-2021, 07:33 PM
(This post was last modified: 06-01-2021, 07:33 PM by conversion software version 7.0. Edited 1 time in total.)
That's the scenario with a birds eye, after-the-fact view of the round. Here's how the scenario looked like to me, a player in the round:
Player B claims that Player A crowbarred him. Player B calls a KOS on Player A. Player A is killed, and identified as innocent. Player B called a KOS on an innocent - a traitorous action by any definition. Player C kills Player B.
What's stopping me from being a T and killing people, then claiming that they did something to me to make it justified? Should other players in the round who KOS/kill me roll the dice on whether or not I am a T that should be killed, or an innocent that had justified reasons to kill people and therefore hold a potential slay over your head if I feel maligned enough to report them?
Player B claims that Player A crowbarred him. Player B calls a KOS on Player A. Player A is killed, and identified as innocent. Player B called a KOS on an innocent - a traitorous action by any definition. Player C kills Player B.
What's stopping me from being a T and killing people, then claiming that they did something to me to make it justified? Should other players in the round who KOS/kill me roll the dice on whether or not I am a T that should be killed, or an innocent that had justified reasons to kill people and therefore hold a potential slay over your head if I feel maligned enough to report them?
