TOPIC: Rule 2.1

"Um yeah I just killed him these three people within two minutes but they all just shot at me for no reason!"
Actually a shame of a rule.
The amount of times I go into tester and slaughter 10 people under the pretense that "Someone shot at me and they all started fighting." is really disappointing.

I mean nobody had a problem with how we handled it throughout 2017.2018 and 2019. I didnt understand why this rule was needed back then and as same as today. Everyone just says its that the "Deception" part of the game is being kept alive (or at least that is what I heard back then), but literally making it so that you have to believe him if it is a semi fine reason just takes away the peoples possibility to even see if it was a lie or not just in the fear of being slain because they have given a fine rule.

+ I gotta say I hardly saw those chain killings other than from people that knew each other and just wanted to have fun with each other, but hey I guess having fun on zarp was always not well received.

++ I mean the persons that introduced these rule barely to never played anyways sooooo I guess thats the reason why this dumb rule exists (without it even being announced to the users when it got released might I add)

Talk about brainless is when an innocent can straight up murder anyone with the reason "oh you killed an innocent no matter why" and not consider anything. Funny seeing maddox talking smack here though, I remember you as the one moderator that loophole rdmed every time you got the chance. You could consider that "taking the rules too seriously" as well.

How shitty or good of a rule 2.1 is really depends on how you enforce it. I personally never punish anyone if they call out the traitors bullshit lies, it is ridiculous that you would be forced to believe anything if just given a valid reason, even if it were not true.

And now since we are talking about anecdotal experiences(for some reason) like nepgear here, I can say I witnessed these chain reactions often, some players would take advantage of the rule to perhaps kill a person they disliked. Back when I started playing on the server a couple of years ago and learned about this rule, I would too, take advantage of it. I would kill people for retaliating on rdming players.

As the rule currently stands you're supposed to believe any valid excuse a killer gives, unless you are 100% certain that the given situation did not happen, it really should be changed so you could take a risk and not believe a traitors words and not get punished for doing so.
I already enforce this rule in this way since I believe it improves the game mode and player experience, might not be what you're supposed to do but this is what I strongly believe.

P.S. Using the excuse "oh he killed an innocent" was just as strong as using "oh he tried to kill me" nowadays with the current 2.1

For the first thing you said I rather have it this way than literally being forced to believe a bullshit reason as "oh that guy shot at someone a while ago and I wasnt close enough to kill him", just because of a dumb rule that forces me to.

Second what you are literally describing there is how the rule was back then and not how it is right now. Cause right now you first of all have and then wait some time to respond to you and if they give you a semi-good answer, as kindly provided by darling for example, you are just not allowed to kill them as this counts as RDM according to this rule. I know it wasnt perfect with the way it was before, you always had the chance to just be killed randomly because you were just acting in self defense, but realistically speaking you cant have both. Its either one or the other. We dont live in a perfect world were everyone agrees to be nice to each other, thats just not how things work. There are always gonna be people that want to be dicks and there are always gonna be people that are gonna be nice, but taking all of that in consideration I rather take the old rule back were I was running in danger of being killed for doing self defense, than not being able to kill somebody that is telling me utter bullshit just because you didnt happen to randomly follow this guy the entire fucking round.

Third I dont know where the fuck you get the vibe from that I am talking about anecdotal experiences, cause most other people that were playing back then actually do agree with me (funny init?). I never said that random kill chains never happened, they did. Its just that the majority of the kill chains I have witnessed were just friends trolling each other. You cant prevent it with the old rule, yes, but it I still take that over this bs ngl.

Fourth, I already said something to this in one of the other things, you cant make this rule perfect. The way you are enforcing it is how the old rule used to be (at least to some sorts). You either have this rule how it is right now, where you have to believe what is being told to you no matter how bullshit it seems for you or you take those chain killings and being killed while just defending yourself. I wish you could just have a middle ground, but sadly some humans just rather want to be the dick and kill you for defending yourself and having this rule in place how it is right now will just never let you have your own will to just freely decide to not believe anyone and kill them without having to be 100% certain that what they told you is bullshit.

P.S. At least back then I was allowed to kill someone if I didnt believe this reason, unlike right now

You are very much correct in this whole post. Both versions have their ups and downs, but all this really comes down to preference. I'd rather have this version over the mass killings. What they really should do is add a bit where it is optional to believe the culprit or not and punish according to what happened. If the culprit was indeed lying and you deduced it, you won't get punished. If the culprit had a valid reason and gets killed it's RDM. The argument that the people who side with this rule change often give is "it's TTT, deception is a big part of it" but you really can't have deception without deduction, it's just bullshit without the other.
Here you are very clearly talking about anecdotal experiences.