[HONG]

I don't want the thread to be cluttered with replies about ttt/rdm specific rules so I'll start a civil discussion here. Also use this thread to talk about either the topic or some other rules you want fixed/changed

Main Topic

The main topic that's being discussed is that should traitors be allowed to kill people then lie about the circumstances of killing people to be exempt from being killed. I think yes as long as it's non-malicious (as in: "Oh, if you kill me for that I'll report you" <-- This is metagaming to me and I think should be treated as such). I feel like putting a blanket "no" on this also allows people to not be slain for rdming innos that kill rdming innos. 

Imagine a scenario where an inno is mass rdming, nobody has called a kos on this inno or even said anything on mic, and you decide to take the karma hit to stop the inno from continuing to mass. Another player comes around and witnesses you kill the inno who was mass rdming but did not witness the mass rdm spree this inno went on and decides to kill you after you said on mic that you killed them because they were massing since "you killed an inno". Should the player who killed you be slain if you want to report them?

I think yes because I think eliminating the factor of communication being the deciding factor of a slay or not also removes communications in other parts of the game, you'd have to completely rework the rules to where people can't kos off of anything and the game just becomes rdm central.

Possible Solution

With this in mind, I think a proper solution would be to add a metagaming warn for when people start threatening reports to get out of certain gameplay scenarios. Saying "oh you're breaking the rules" is toddler behavior and doesn't fly in any game where communication is correct. This is why most people think airsoft is a bunch of loser military LARPers and this is why DarkRP is considered basically the same way lmao. 


If this is implemented call it the Damien Clause or something or else I'll spill your grape juice, thank you for coming to my ted talk.

as far as the situation in the other thread goes, a slay wouldn't be justified unless there was proof that the person was killed for rdm; this would have to amount to showing the DNA that was obtained or showing that they had killed someone else on the person rdming's body (under the list of people they've killed), both of which involve the person rdming to have actually gotten the kill rather than just attempt rdming. anything else is pretty much just having to take someone at their word about something you didn't see, and otherwise is pure conjecture