[tiefling lesbian]

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

I know this one the answer is 9 because of pemdas

Wrong, you do multiplication and division together then do addition and subtraction together

[Ryan]

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

My problem with the kill list is that it is fairly cumbersom to use in a high paced game like ttt. I make a point of IDing bodies without stopping so that I wont get domed by a T in wait. On top of that, it isnt even close to foolproof. By this logic most DNA scans after the first 2 minutes become questionable because you dont know the root cause for the altercation. Any dead body could be there from attempted RDM -> self defense.

In summary: The body list covers some scenarios, but we really should figure out how to cover everything.

---

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

Hey @Icey can you ban this ID for evading STEAM_0:0:547055111

Thanks

[3mb3ry]

I think there's another thing to factor in for an inno/det killing the person that killed the rdmer and that is voice chat can get quite chaotic and clear communication is not always possible. There are countless times where I'm sure many of us cannot understand what's being said for numerous reasons, whether its too much side convo, you were focusing on something else happening in game, someone speaking to you irl, or whatever. So you could have easily missed the explanation in vc when you get dna.
Also, innos call detectives to bodies all the time and i believe most detectives only really check to make sure it is not a t body (and even then sometimes they dont check and kill someone for killing a T because they didn't check) before heading off to make the kill. I don't see many take the time to check every connection in the kill list before doing so.

Anyways, I bring this up only to mention that generally there is a lot more to this scenario when it does happen than just simply "I don't believe you *bam*"

[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?

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.

Yeah that makes sense.  I think using sus could mitigate a lot of issues and prevent a lot of RDM in things like this.

[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

[Misstie6731]

Idk i never mind being killed when i put down an RDMer, even if I am a T. I will generally just do a better safe than sorry and kill someone who has killed an innocent, unless there are more people to back up their story.

Just take the L and move on to the next round

[Damien]

I think a ruling for the examples provided that would have the best of both world's would be making lawfully killing innos without 100% proof sus and kos in OT as opposed to being able to kill someone for this during haste mode. It makes the communication aspect of the game still intact without saying you "have" to listen since sus isn't 100% final anyways and you can take susses off any time, and it also removes the factor or need of slaying the second person since valid susses are not slayable. 


I still think that some sort of metagaming rule should apply to people that say "You can't kos me that's against the rules" or "I'll report you" maliciously to get out of getting killed or to report them after since that's again loser behavior that makes DarkRP so stupid to play. Banking on the threat of rules to win your ttt rounds is so dumb and 100% metagaming to me since it is literally talking about the potential break of rules of the game in the game.

[tiefling lesbian]

Banking on the threat of rules to win your ttt rounds is so dumb and 100% metagaming to me since it is literally talking about the potential break of rules of the game in the game.

But if you can't KOS off of dna or risk getting slain, then that is exactly what's happening whether someone explicitly says it or not. Same concept as the disguiser and not KOSing off of skins. If the rules are structured in such a way that benefits traitors, then traitors should not be punished for playing into those rules. If it's a problem, the rule should be changed to prevent the problem instead of slapping a bandaid over it.

I don't think killing for DNA with no proof that the dead person was rdming should be slain for or restricted to only sus. Just report the inno that rdmed you first, it's no different than if they were just better at rdming you and killed you themself.