[queef commando]

Take this situation:

Two people are shooting each other with the same weapon, in a room where no one can see either of them. A kills B. C walks in to find B's identified innocent corpse. A claims B shot them first and it was self defense. C has no reason to believe A. But, under the current rules C basically has to take A's word for it. Should this change?

For now the rules basically leave the decision on this open so it can be handled case by case. However the default everyone has taken when enforcing the rule is that C cannot kill A. This presents a problem. C has no reason to believe A. He saw nothing of the fight. Neither A nor B called the other out first.  A and B had the same gun so you can't hear who shot first. All C sees is a dead innocent. As TTT is a game based on deception, having the rule prevent C from killing A ruins that. A doesn't need to convince C of anything because the rule protects him from C under threat of slay.

For this situation what do all of you think is the best resolution?

Additionally what function do all of you prefer the rules to take? Should the rules be specific to cover as many situations as possible and give a clear punishment to everything? Should the rules cover only major infractions that directly make the game less fun for players, but be open on letting the participants dictate the interaction in situations like above? Should the focus on something else?

[queef commando]

Personally I think the rules are too restrictive. The fun of TTT for me is talking your way out of situations and being creative in how you do things. But a lot of the time you just get slain if your thought process doesn't coincide with the rules if that makes sense. But again, that's just me.

[La Flama Blanca]

The rules are pretty restrictive, but remember, some people are rule-oriented folks. They will get upset when something is not clear in the rules and will demand a slay. Other folks will abuse the lax rules and do things they shouldn't and then complain when they are getting slayed.

Unfortunately, it's truly a no win situation.

Personally, I'd work this situation on a case by case basis. Is this person IDing the body? Do I think the person is going to blast me away? Was the person they killed a proven innocent? Do I know the murderer or the victim and trust/distrust them? If the victim is someone I know wouldn't RDM, yet the murderer claims RDM, then I will respond differently.

[EpicGuy]

I am under the impression that this is in regards to the situation with me, Conspiracy, and Mr. Mackey. That's fine.

Like I said over there, since you have no hard proof, it's RDM. I will admit, it is pretty bad. But if you have no proof before you shoot, you RDMed.

We don't need to list every possible scenario and say whether or not it's RDM. That list would not be complete because there are an infinite number of things that could or could not be RDM and the list would be too long. General umbrella statements should be used, and if needed more explicit rules can be added later.

[Christian]

Personally I am OK with self defense being a valid reason to prevent a KOS from being called. I tend to believe it is unfair that a person should be killed for killing an Inno in the act of self defense when the other player could of been an RDMer and left the server. If there are no witnesses to the situation, I think it's a fairly valid reason to call suspicion on the player. Not to mention Detectives can give players the option to test if they have a portable tester, or if the player is willing to do so on a map tester,etc.

As for how the rules should be written, I'm not sure what could be changed. For I can agree some of the rules can be pretty restrictive on how the game is played. I'm definitely willing to listen to how others feel about it, and am curious on what others have to say about them.

[queef commando]

Basically I'm questioning whether requiring proof in edge cases like is too restrictive and if people think it prevents interesting interactions and conversations that would happen ingame if people like C didn't need to have the burden of proof.

[Tronald]

In this case I feel that the current rules are the better choice at least imo. I would do what Nicky said and ask if the desceaced would normally rdm, if then were. A guest I would be more likely to believe would rdm but a regular I would expect to know the rules and at least call out the person they were killing.

[Starky]

I think you should cover major issues keeping it to the point. I also feel, that C should be able to kill A, if A can't convince them. This is still a harder situation though because if a inno attempts rdming a inno, and the rdmer is killed in self defense, there is no true way to prove that unless seen. Its a hard situation that I think will end up with some form of rdm/being slain no matter how this goes.

[Deadpoolz]

If C can't confirm who shot first, it should go to sus. A kos shouldn't be fully called. Because what if the inno started to get shot. He would have to kill in self-defense for his life. He did nothing wrong, but someone came in and just shot him. 
The rules sometimes have to be very restrictive. That situation is a 50/50, but it's always best to not jump the gun. People can get triggered too easy sometimes. That is when the fun of TTT is taken away. 
I do agree though some rules can be too restrictive. That's why there were ghosting and rdm + leave changes. 
I do have a few that seem too much punishment or restrictive:

• Meta gaming in the motd is a month ban for the first offense. Usually it's not handled that way. It be a warning first. It's not really common since most of the metagaming has to do with staff powers. The most common form of metagaming in general is when someone kos' someone for the top T position. I'd warn then if he actually kill him for being a T, it should be another slay or a low temp ban.(maybe a day or a few hours). Banning someone for a month for that is too much.
  
• We need to change damaging D equipment to destroying D equipment. I've heard it was wrong in there. If you shoot a health station on accident they shouldn't be able to kill you for that.
  

That is just my opinion on this. There is more thing taht we could change, but I can't think of them right now.

[An Ol' Spicy Keychain]

Im with deadpool here
Its not like person C now has to accept that there is nothing to be alarmed about and is forced to play the game as if nothing happened, C knows that person A is a suspicious little bastard and will avoid/stealthily pursue A until OT to enforce overtime sus killings.
Person C now knows to be very wary around A and will advise others to do the same.
It's not a broken system, why fix it?