[nopleez]

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.

I hope you understand that RDM is to kill without a valid reason. The scenarios presented in this thread all lead to killing with a valid reason. The reason being: I saw a player kill an innocent, so I killed them. 

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.

I heavily disagree with this paragraph. 

• Player A tests himself and is proven inno (by a map tester), Player B does not witness this.
  
• Player A performs a kosable act.
  
• Player B kills player A for performing said act.
  
• Player B is slain for killing Player A because he was proven but Player B had absolutely no way of knowing he was proven.
  

How is this a fair situation?