TOPIC: [TTT] Requested Rules Edit

Part One
Rules 2.7 and 2.5 conflict.
Specifically the subsection of 2.7 where - A player kills an innocent and had a valid reason for doing so. being labelled as an invalid KOS reason and therefore warnable for RDM.

2.5 states that during a player on player fight you can not intervene if you do not have proof/knowledge that one of them are a traitor and once one has died you may then kill the surviving person once they have ID'd the body and it comes back as innocent. So, if the person who died in the fight is innocent you can shoot the surviving person according to Rule 2.5.

However according to Rule 2.7 you may not shoot the person who killed the innocent when they ID the body, because that's a false KOS when you don't ask for a reason first.

Assuming you killed the survivor what you're doing is both allowed and disallowed because unless you ask for their reason to ensure it is valid you've just broken a rule, by following the rules.

Below is the two sections highlighted if you need to see it in plain writing
https://imgur.com/LoLP0Vp

Part Two
This entirely concerns that same subsection of Rule 2.7.

So, example time:
You've just witnessed a traitor gun down an innocent right in front of you, you can't instantly shoot him because that's RDM according to this quote of 2.7 - A player kills an innocent and had a valid reason for doing so. You first have to ask the traitor why did they kill that innocent right in front of you? Provided they don't instantly shoot at you too.

There's a very blatant issue with that fact, because if you don't ask the traitor in text chat why they killed the innocent they can still report you for RDM.
If you ask in voice chat and it's an invalid reason seeing as unless there's a particularly attentive staff for voice chat, there is no proof for you to use of having asked to preventing an RDM warn.

Here's an extension of that example:
You've witnessed the traitor gun down the innocent right in front of you, he IDs the body showing them as innocent but you need to get an invalid reason in order to be allowed to kill him following Rule 2.7.

Using voice chat is dodgy. If you successfully kill him for an invalid reason he can report you and by the time the report is responded to you're rolling the dice on whether or not the staff handling it even heard you ask for a reason and therefore you're rolling the dice on getting warned for RDM via the invalid kos.

Asking in text chat leaves you vulnerable. You open the chat box and go to ask why he killed the innocent in the gun fight OR in general. The second you open that text chatbox the traitor immediately takes off your head in 1 shot as you are unmoving and continues about his day as if nothing happened.

Not to mention newer players are going to get absolutely cuckholded from the ruling seeing as to them they just saw someone shoot an innocent, their instinct is to instantly shoot once they know they killed an innocent.

Therefore from those two examples the innocent player who has just witnessed the other player (traitor or innocent either or can apply but assumedly traitor) the person who has witnessed it is immediately in a terrible position because attempting to confront it risks a dice roll with a permanent warning, or simply dying and not participating in the rest of the round.
By confronting them you're instantly putting yourself at risk of a serious punishment or dying and not playing BUT not confronting them is a traitorous thing that can get YOU kosed because you watched them kill an innocent and ignored/left it alone which if you also want to win as innocent is a terrible idea.
You're essentially forced to confront them and put yourself in a poor position to survive the situation.

To Conclude

Remove a specific section of Rule 2.7
As you've likely noticed throughout this post I quoted a key section of Rule 2.7 multiple times.
"- A player kills an innocent and had a valid reason for doing so."
Now by all means if they have a valid reason and state it you shouldn't KOS them. I do not believe it should however be an enforced rule seeing as they still killed an innocent which is inherently a traitorous act, you either choose to trust them and hear out a reason, or shoot them and possibly harm your own team you shouldn't be forced to hear out a reason or purposely hinder your chances of victory and deliberately put yourself on the back foot to hear aforementioned reason.

By removing that specific section of Rule 2.7 you will both remove the issue presented in Part one where it conflicts with Rule 2.5 and also remove the two issues in Part Two.

Thank you for reading I am aware it was ludicrously long,
Steffan

I totally agree with your points and this does confuse people slot. However the rule is implemented like this to stop a "rdm chain" ( 1 guy rdms and that leads to the following players getting killed etc ). I'd like it if the person that shot an innocent and had a valid reason would need to write that reason in the text chat, similar to how we handle it when an inno gets a T weapon. This would put the person shooting an innocent into a weak spot and not the guy witnessing an innocent murder into an even worse situation. What do you guys of this change? Unnecessary or any problems with it?

Tom. wrote:
I've thought about this quite a bit. If the rule was changed from you must ask for a reason before killing them (unless you have another reason to kill them)

"you must give them ample time to state a reason. If they run away without announcing the kill, or you do not believe their stated reason, you may kill them"

Something along the lines of this. I think it would be an improvement and it would mean I wouldn't have to stand still typing, giving them a great chance to just kill me too. The main issue I have, is people will just make binds that say "I killed this innocent because he shot at me!." and the second they kill someone then use it then run off as if nothing happened. Obviously if they were full HP, you could kill them as I have reason to believe they were lying, but you get my point.

You said "So, if the person who died in the fight is innocent you can shoot the surviving person according to Rule 2.5." but thats not what rule 2.5 says, if you witness a gunfight and the survivor IDs the body then you should ask for a valid reason.

If you ask someone in voice chat its perfectly fine, if you get reported then just say that you asked in voice chat. As staff we cannot prove that you didnt ask in voice chat unless there is a recording or some other proof that shows you didnt ask. Without this evidence then itll be your word against his which isnt sufficient evidence for us to punish.

First off, you missed the last part of rule 2.5 where it states "and they either; identify the body/the round ends/you question them." so it clearly says there that one of the actions are to question the survivor.

Secondly there is a way for staff to see if your story ads up. It's talking to you both about what happened. Then they can conclude wether or not your stories line up with the logs.

Thirdly, staff members should be attentive and listen to what people say in the voice chat. It's their job. If they don't do it, they're not good staff and their positions that they hold should be questioned. With you typing in text chat. There's no rule about having to ask them in voice chat and if they don't respond and just walk away you can kill them. One good thing could be to walk away from him before you ask him. Like it's pretty easy there. We also don't punnish new players for not understanding that part of the rule. We open a chat and tell them.

What could happen if the rule were to be changed would be worse than what's currently happening. As somebody who's been staff every now and then for almost 4 years and have been Head admin 2 times on this server I know that we've discussed this alot. First we didn't have that rule then we had it and then we removed it again and so on. My cocnlusion is that there's wayyy less RDM with this rule in place

Mattors wrote: People can still come up with the exact same reason tho even if you ask them so I don't think the point against it is that big of a problem

Tom. wrote: Kind of your job as an innocent to suspect people and see what happens next, if you witness someone getting killed (and they say that as an excuse) watch them from the shadows and you'll most certainly catch them slipping up.

Edit: I highly doubt that if the rule was changed in that particular way that you'd see any positive change, you will end up with the same scenario where you'll just have to wait till the traitor in question picks his next target and most likely course a lot of traitors to be killed for a non-valid reason just because they have to state why they killed each and every person or else they'll be killed for sure. Being an innocent who asks why they killed someone in chat is not disadvantage at all if you think about it as you can simply make a bind that states the name of the player you're looking at + "why did you kill that innocent player".

Nina wrote: Yes. My point was that it is the exact same if you ask them and they give a reason or they have to give a reason without being asked if they don't want to be shot.

Luki_Guki wrote: Totally agree with the past part. There is way less rdm when it's not just shooting an inno is always a valid Kos reason

Nina wrote: This is all that needs to be said, to be honest. It is as Nina said, it is an innocents job to figure out who is and who isn't a traitor. Before this rule was enforced, "RDM chains" would happen pretty much every round. Making people need to give a valid reason for their KOS really helps the server, and it is simple to explain to newer players.