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?

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?