[bunniey]

I mean it's just unverifiable what all happened. To them it's a fight between two people, and an inno lost. That's why you report the inno, they caused this interaction, it meets the threshold for attempted, so someone gets punished. Otherwise it just gets put in the "shit happens" camp of things

[Damien]

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?

I think sus rules could apply to being shot as opposed to an inno rdming another inno and you killing that inno for that. I'd much prefer a sus than a flat out kos for killing someone who shot me, and would rather have sus rules take effect in most of these scenarios rather than being flat out killed for it.

[茶 Tea]

i think this game has strayed too far from its origins as a social deduction game. the inno should be allowed to decide whether or not they believe the guy who claims to have been rdmed. if it was an actual rdm take it out on the person who started it

---

that threatening reports thing is good though i like that

[tiefling lesbian]

I've made a detailed infographic to hopefully help illustrate my points.

Scenario A: An innocent attempts to RDM a traitor, who kills them in defense. The detective gets DNA from the inno's corpse, but the traitor claims they were RDMed by the inno. The detective has no way to verify this and does not believe the claim, so they kill the traitor. Sure, this doesn't seem fair, but let's change the scenario slightly.


Scenario B: A traitor kills an AFK innocent. The detective gets DNA from the inno's corpse, but the traitor claims they were RDMed by the inno. The detective has no way to verify this and does not believe the claim, so they kill the traitor. Would it be fair for the detective to be slain for this, even though the traitor lied and no RDM occurred?


The problem is that if you slay for scenario A, you logically must also slay for scenario B, as the detective took the exact same action using the exact same information. To better illustrate this, let's compare both scenarios, but only from the detective's perspective.



The detective has no way of knowing which scenario is which. If scenario A is a slay but scenario B is not, you are effectively telling players that they must gamble on whether they will get slain or not for killing off of DNA. If both scenarios are a slay, then there is nothing stopping traitors from claiming they were RDMed after every kill, making any DNA on them unKOSable and anyone who kills them for it validly reportable.

And I don't think there should be any rule against doing so. If we enforce that effectively no DNA is KOSable, then there is no logical reason for traitors to not be allowed to use this to their advantage like any other rule. We don't warn for metagaming for traitors who say you can't KOS off of skin when using a disguiser. Instead, the rule should simply be more reasonable to avoid the problem altogether: if there is reasonable evidence that the inno was RDMing, the DNA isn't KOSable; if there is no reasonable evidence that the inno was RDMing other than someone claiming it, the DNA is fair game.

---

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

Then report the inno that RDMed you first. I would possibly support adding an extra slay for RDMs that lead to RDM chains, but that'd likely need approval from dink.

---

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.

We talked about this in the discord already but mentioning it here as well. This doesn't apply to attempted rdm, and not everyone knows about the kill list or how it works.

[Jammin]

For scenario A, the attempted RDMer should be slain, not the detective. Traitor loses their round via detective but that's the innos fault, not the D.
Scenario B, no slay is appropriate for anyone.
Detective follows DNA so is immune from slay (unless extraordinary circumstances exist).

Thanks Tiefling for the drawings as I'm not reading all of that posted earlier.
I write books, not read em.

[happy]

if you don't know what a kill list is that's a skill issue. Jammin already said my feelings regarding the scenarios

[bunniey]

Yeah most of my thoughts were around the misunderstanding that I thought we were talking about a case with a fourth person, I agree with what Tief said except the extra slay for an rdm chain. At that point you're slaying one person for the actions of others which feels...off to me.

[Jammin]

Yeah most of my thoughts were around the misunderstanding that I thought we were talking about a case with a fourth person, I agree with what Tief said except the extra slay for an rdm chain. At that point you're slaying one person for the actions of others which feels...off to me.

RDM chains can only be resolved by a 3-step process:
1. Slay the original RDMer
2. RDM all online staff members
3. Ping @Icey in discord

[tiefling lesbian]

I've made an additional detailed infographic, hope this helps

[thaye]

I've made an additional detailed infographic, hope this helps

I know this one the answer is 9 because of pemdas