[Ryan]

The reason why I dont like your suggestion, Damien, is for the situations outlined in Tiefling's post. It's more unfair to make someone gamble about whether a kill they are making is RDM or not. Outside, unverified, or unknown information should not be the deciding factor when calling a kill RDM. A kill should only be considered RDM based on the information known to whoever is making a kill. Just because you tell me that someone shot you, doesnt mean I should be forced to believe you under the implied threat of a slay (you dont have to say it for the threat to be there).

If someone RDMs you and you kill them and then get killed for that kill, are you asking for 2 slays? 1 for the original shooter and 1 for the person that kills you? Thats silly.

I said that I was going to go back and gather my argument, but tiefling has already done it better than I can. Back when this topic was originally debated, I posted this poll in staff chat:

Assuming that the person you are killing had a valid reason for their kill:
Killing someone for killing an innocent with no communication = no slay (6 votes)
Killing someone for killing an innocent with unverified communication = no slay (7 votes)
Killing someone for killing an innocent with no communication = slay (current rules) (0 votes)
Killing someone for killing an innocent with unverified communication = slay (your suggestion) (1 vote)

Unverified communication was decided to be any comms that couldnt be firsthand verified. Basically if you witnessed the reason for the original kill, you cannot take action.
(I got permission to post this from staff chat)

I would prefer a rule change that would reflect options 1 and 2, together. This, in my mind, keeps the deception aspect of TTT alive while also protecting people from getting slain due to events outside of their control. The rule as we have it now is the most disliked and confusing rule amongst new players. It should be changed