TOPIC: Redefine "You have to ask why they killed someone"

Hello everyone,

This rule is enforced pretty much only on ZARP, and while I agree with its intentions (Rookies RDMING), I believe it causes way more trouble then good due to its fuzzy exceptions.

First of all, the actual problem it is designed to solve (defending yourself from rdm) is very rarely achieved; in fact the vast majority of attempted rdms are succesful, making the rule obsolete. It is used entirely by traitors killing inno's that are standing still in broad daylight, taking the mystery part away from the murder mystery game. Most rounds feel bland, where you 100% know who the traitors are based on solid evidence, but this rule forces you to pretend like you're a mentally handicapped monkey trying to solve a maze.

Second of all, its fuzzy exceptions are usually hard to judge conclusively, because "being absolutely certain" is common sense, something which this rule is against. You can kill someone without question if they kill a D. However, if the D was rdming them, and you didn't see it, you are the rdmer. There are so many scenarios where this rule has caused unnecessary confusion.

Perhaps it needs to be removed completely (go back to Vanilla-TTT rules), or the exceptions to it need to get defined(or removed).

I don't support either one of those options, but I'd prefer either when compared to the current rule. What do you guys think?

I personally give them like 4-5 seconds if they don't seem willing to respond just gun them down, also if the reason they gave is bullshit and/or you know without any reasonable doubt that they are lying you can still kill them.

Nick0GR wrote:
If they don't respond you kill them, but if they do, then "without any reasonable doubt" is entirely subjective, and the server seems to ignore any proof other than self admission. Heck, even saying "I found a t wep" in the beginning of a round is not enough proof that the player is a T.

Questions just delay the game. And make it more of an acting game (acting like you have the brain of a 3 year old and can't figure out who is the T) than a find-the-killer game.

I don't like the rule either, but this will take a long time to redefine

Here we go again

FireLord Ozai wrote:
True. This post wasn't made to offer a quick to-go solution. It was made in order to discuss different options/opinions on the topic.

Feel free to make a suggestion for a rule change including an example of what you feel should be changed if you have an idea for changes to the rules: zarpgaming.com/index.php/forum/server-issues