[Damien]

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.

[chapman]

Sure, I could get behind this. I think it's an interesting concept that I never really gave much thought to.

[bunniey]

Most of these times these cases can be solved by just looking at the kill list on the body, then looking at the players that the person killed and seeing if they're inno or not. That's where the specific case this stems from should have ended, the detective should have seen "oh, this player killed an inno, and then right after that someone killed them for it, they as an inno would have had a reasonable KOS on this player"

Same thing happens in the scenario of massing you mentioned. You don't know it's massing yet, so you kill the person. If you look at their kill list, and it's just a bunch of innos, reasonably you shouldn't be killed for that. This goes hand in hand with (somewhat unspoken) rules we have on RDM chains. The first person in the chain gets a slay, the rest tends to be just a "shit happens, fuck that guy" thing, since they only actually killed one person, but it caused several deaths. The metagaming bit I don't have much of an opinion on. I think if someone's about to rdm you and it's a really stupid rdm they're trying to justify before they've even killed you and you say something like that, it's whatever, so making a rule on it would be a bit much.

[Damien]

The metagaming bit I don't have much of an opinion on. I think if someone's about to rdm you and it's a really stupid rdm they're trying to justify before they've even killed you and you say something like that, it's whatever, so making a rule on it would be a bit much.

It's more of a solution towards allowing other communications to be allowed about the game rather than a blanket "no, not allowed to say the reason you killed this person, you will be shot for not-rdming an inno". I think saying stuff like that is loser behavior anyways and in a lot of scenarios it ruins the game because you have to worry about the rules being broken because of someone being an ass.

[Ryan]

So is the solution that people cannot lie about why they killed someone else? Or is it just telling people they cant threaten someone with a report? If it's the second one, that accomplishes next to nothing to solve the root problem. If it's the first one, that takes out a massive core of the game by not letting traitors lie.

Im firmly with tiefling's position on this that in a game about deception not just communication, nobody should ever be forced to take someone for their word.

Edit: this was debated at length a while back. When I get home I'm going to revisit that to gather my argument

[bunniey]

I think a metagame rule would still just be odd. I've had moments where I'll say "erm i'm going 2 report u!" to someone whiffing shots at me when I'm clearly a T. There's a lot more things that are loser behavior that also shouldn't be added as rules, I don't think this issue comes up enough or has a detriment enough to really make a rule on it. Limiting speech in ways that aren't harassment just isn't it, y'know?

[Noire ♜]

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.

my only problem is how are players that only use text going to type fast enough to make their case?

also idk if its serious enough for a warn point but who knows, if its not abused it'll be ight

[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

[Damien]

I don't like getting rdmed for killing innos that rdm innos, I don't think anyone does and that's why I think you should be able to report the person that killed you for killing an inno.

Imagine you get shot for 33 hp and you kill the inno who did it, now another person didn't see the shot on you and isn't listening to what you're saying and they decide to shoot you because "you killed an inno". You're already taking the karma and score hit for doing that and then you get rdmed for it without a way to have the person that killed you be punished for it. Kinda stupid if you ask me

[Avi]

I can understand the points being made here, but I do have a question. Where would sus rules come in on this kind of thing, or where would you want sus rules to work?