.:`=-~rANdOm~`-=:. Game Servers

Support (Read Only) => Help => Topic started by: Monorail Cat on September 30, 2015, 09:16:11 PM

Title: Clarification of rules regarding killing out of suspicion
Post by: Monorail Cat on September 30, 2015, 09:16:11 PM

There have been several incidents lately on TTT where certain players have killed other players, based ONLY on some suspicion of the other person being a traitor.  It is disputed whether or not this is RDM.  I believe it is, and here's why: 

Say we're playing on a large map, like Peach's Castle, with good sniping possibilities, and it's my round to be the traitor.  So, I grab a rifle, and go sit in a corner to wait for some picks.  While I'm waiting, there is a small firefight near me, where an innocent kills my T buddy.  I decide not to engage, and claim that I didn't know which one was the actual traitor (This is a perfectly valid excuse for an innocent to let other players know why he didn't engage the traitor).  Well, one player sees me sitting off to the side, and decides that because I didn't participate in the firefight against my T buddy, I must be the traitor because I'm sitting in a corner, all suspicious.  So, without any proof, he kills me before I've even made a move, and the round ends.

I used this scenario because this happened to me some days ago, and it is incredibly unfair.  I was killed because of a MERE SUSPICION that I was a traitor. 
This has been happening in different ways, and both innocents and traitors are killed because of a suspicion without any sort of concrete evidence or deductive reasoning. 

Now, some people may be wondering about where the line should be drawn, for example, what is enough to make someone decide you are a traitor?  In my opinion, I believe that it's suspicious enough when people:
1) fire a shot at another player, but miss, and play it off as a slipped finger,
2) walk away without IDing a corpse, either they noticed you and left, or didn't notice you and still left,
3) don't participate in shooting at a definite KOS,
4) carry away an un-ID'd body, either noticed or unnoticed.

However, I don't believe that it is suspicious enough when people:
1) are following someone else,
2) appear to be aiming at people's heads,
3) standing in a doorway to prevent access (though this is usually a dick move)
4) drop a weapon which was the same type as what killed another player (Player killed by M4, I drop my M4 and grab something else)
5) leave a firefight that is confusing and unsure (Player X says "I'm pretty sure it's Player y, so let's all shoot him!" Nope, wasn't him, so Player Y shoots Player X, who was also innocent, and chaos ensues, so people leave for fear of losing more karma or being killed by crossfire)

 

This is an issue for some players so, I would like the line to be drawn:  When do you need to have enough "proof" in suspicions in order to kill someone?

Title: Re: Clarification of rules regarding killing out of suspicion
Post by: Tezuni on September 30, 2015, 09:39:04 PM

I've experienced recurring negative encounters with a certain player on TTT since the re-launch of the server, whom has demonstrated a pattern of killing based solely off of suspicion, arguing by way of semantics that such killing is not 'random', and therefore not 'RDM'.  Following the dispute, they seemed to subsequently revel in attempting to egg me on through several maps after the fact, which I've of course met with silence.  Keep in mind this is one of our own regulars.  In light of that I would also be appreciative of a clear answer from the admins on the situation if possible, so that I may take the appropriate measures if it continues to happen.  Cheers.

Title: Re: Clarification of rules regarding killing out of suspicion
Post by: ٶȻhriʂ on September 30, 2015, 09:41:19 PM

We all know where the line is. You're VIP, if you feel like it's justified do something about it.


No matter who it is.

Title: Re: Clarification of rules regarding killing out of suspicion
Post by: Tezuni on September 30, 2015, 10:43:40 PM

You have a point Chris, and while I agree, the uncertainty among other present VIPs has lead me to give the benefit of the doubt and err on the side of caution in the unlikely chance there is any ground to the argument that subjective levels of suspicion is justifiable reasoning for killing.

Title: Re: Clarification of rules regarding killing out of suspicion
Post by: coolzeldad on September 30, 2015, 11:47:31 PM

Hmm, I think this is a question on how the game "should" be played?

Personally, based of Monorail's example, I wouldn't have been able to shoot him with confidence knowing just that, because it seems to me there's not enough reason.

But, I see how he could suspect you. In my case, I would watch you more closely from that point on, but not attack you unless further proof was available.

The question is, whether or not that should be a rule, and how to enforce it, especially with how subjective those situations could get...

I'm not sure, I say lets keep this discussion going to see if we can solidify some rule or guideline.

Title: Re: Clarification of rules regarding killing out of suspicion
Post by: Deathie on September 30, 2015, 11:52:48 PM

So full disclosure. I'm not an admin partially because I don't want to be involved in community affairs like this anymore. My opinion, and the entirety of this post, should NOT be treated as that from an authority.

With that said, I'll leave my opinion on this kind of thing, if it even matters.

Having a black and white rules list with an organic gamemode like TTT isn't healthy for the game.

With the exception of say, first blood RDM 5 seconds into the round, almost every case is going to be extremely situational, circumstantial, and with a HUGE margin for meta-gaming.
"Does player X favor this kind of weapon? Player X often does this when he's a traitor, and the murder matches his MO. Player X was one of the only two people unaccounted for during the murder, and the evidence leans more against his favor."

The goal of the traitor should be to eliminate all the players without getting caught.
The goal of an innocent should be to prove your innocence and to not incriminate yourself.
The goal of a detective should be to track down traitors based on evidence and witness testimonies.

My server only had three rules because I wanted to leave enough grey area so that people didn't need to play internet lawyer when they were being banned.

• You may not kill another player without a good reason.
• You may not exploit flaws in the design of a map or the game mechanics.
• You may not harass or otherwise target other players outside of normal gameplay.

This isn't my server, though. Our karma system was tweaked in a way so that as an innocent you wouldn't want to T-bait, and as a traitor, you would be walking on thin glass trying your best to not get caught. That doesn't change the fact that killing someone FOR A REASON is NOT RANDOM.

By imposing an arbitrary set of rules like "are following someone else", "appear to be aiming at people's heads", and "dropping a weapon which was the same type as what killed another player", you're restricting the skill ceiling of the game immensely.

Not to mention you're creating a very simple guideline for a T to follow to kill everyone, and if anyone tries to stop them for those reasons, it's bannable.

Title: Re: Clarification of rules regarding killing out of suspicion
Post by: Monorail Cat on October 01, 2015, 12:28:20 AM

Quote from: ホロ on September 30, 2015, 11:52:48 PM

• You may not kill another player without a good reason.

In your opinion, what is a "good reason"?  This is what I'm trying to point out.  Half the time the person in question has killed someone out of suspicion, it was definitely not a good enough reason to me and several other members.

Title: Re: Clarification of rules regarding killing out of suspicion
Post by: Deathie on October 01, 2015, 12:40:27 AM

Quote from: Monorail Cat on October 01, 2015, 12:28:20 AM

In your opinion, what is a "good reason"?  This is what I'm trying to point out.  Half the time the person in question has killed someone out of suspicion, it was definitely not a good enough reason to me and several other members.

"Good reason" was anything other than "I kind of felt like it" and "I just don't like the guy".

Don't get me wrong, someone using this excuse to do it constantly or to target a specific player is bad. That's why rules against excessive RDM and target RDM exist.

Like, take the Peaches Castle example. You gave yourself a reason to be suspected. It wasn't "I did something to be suspected", it was your lack of action that led to your demise.

And assume you were innocent. Isn't that the point of the karma system? To punish people who gamble poorly?

Title: Re: Clarification of rules regarding killing out of suspicion
Post by: Prox on October 01, 2015, 12:51:53 AM

If everything happened precisely as you've told us then the guy who killed you probably didn't have enough proof. I believe there is that option on the score board that lets tag people as innocent, suspicious, traitor etc.  Killing a traitor before he was able to do anything requires a good reason and by your description of that situation that happened to you I don't think it was enough for that guy to kill you.

Title: Re: Clarification of rules regarding killing out of suspicion
Post by: ursus on October 01, 2015, 01:29:58 AM

Lets find out what the rules say using the power of reading.

(http://puu.sh/kuowW/d6f76c1c97.png)

(http://puu.sh/kup2X/1a20dad87b.png)

(http://puu.sh/kuozq/dcd7f4760b.png)

(http://puu.sh/kuoC8/e42400e990.png)


There we go. That's the rules. If someone is following the rules but you think they deserve to be punished anyway, you either ask to change the rules or accept that your judgments are subjective and learn to cope with that. You learned about rule of law in high school.

---

To be fair, though, I'll talk about this one:

(http://puu.sh/kuq65/0d4a71d24f.png)

This is way too ambiguous. We know they have to "do something" before they can be suspected or killed, but it doesn't say whether or not you have to witness them do it with full certainty. If you hear a gun go off, you hear someone die, and you see someone walk out from that direction holding a shotgun less one round, is that enough to kill them? If they didn't do it but you think they did, is it RDM if you kill them? Where is the line drawn on how concrete your "evidence" has to be? It could be that the traitor is still in the room and about to come out to kill the person you just saw.

Longer rant:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

The reason TTT is a good gamemode is that there's literally infinite situations you can find yourself in, and those situations can be as complex as the players make them. You aren't supposed to be certain about anything. If you're a traitor and you get killed because you incriminate yourself, that just means you need to improve your skills. Like Deathie said, when you try to impose specific rules on what constitutes incriminating evidence to protect traitors you end up restricting the skill ceiling and making the game less fun. This gamemode is about asymmetrical psychological gameplay with opportunities for social engineering mixed in, and the only rules outside of those imposed by the gamemode itself should only be in place to decide how to punish people who manage to go beyond the game's inherent ability to enforce the rules.

If you let people kill on any suspicion, you give people an incentive to ghost and render the gamemode completely un-fun. If you can only kill someone when you're 100% certain they're a traitor and that rule is enforced with steep karma loss, you give innocents an incentive to bait their own teammates. A line has to be drawn somewhere in the middle. That's what the rules are for. But complaining that you're being killed on suspicion with insufficient evidence is the equivalent of a silver player in CS:GO calling hacks on everyone who lands a headshot on them, when in reality they just don't understand the game mechanics well enough. You're assuming that you're the most skilled player in the world, and that anyone who outperforms you is either cheating or just lucky.


More simply, if you get killed as a traitor, you can reduce the situation to two possibilities:

• Someone thought you were a traitor and was confident enough in their judgment to kill you.
• Someone didn't know whether you were a traitor, but killed you anyway because they didn't care about karma loss.

If you get killed as a traitor, either someone killed you for absolutely no reason or you drew suspicion somehow. It's also possible that someone suspected you based on wrong information and you were just unlucky, but there's nothing you can do about that. There's a reason that insurance forms have a checkbox for "Acts of God." Shit happens.

The reason that the rules only explicitly punish excessive RDM (4+), targeted RDM, round-start RDM, and RDM that circumvents karma is that the gamemode already punishes you for it otherwise. You lose the same amount of points for killing an innocent teammate as you gain for killing an enemy traitor. Your karma actually goes down more when you kill an innocent teammate than when you kill an enemy traitor.

The reason for this is so that if you were truly killing people at random, basic probability dictates that you would end up with a negative score and minimum karma because  only 1 out of every 4 players (rounding up, including detectives) is assigned the role of traitor. The higher someone's score is, the better they are at figuring out who is traitor while innocent and killing innocents while traitor. While the situations that exist from round to round are always different, the one thing that stays consistent is the numbers. The numbers tell you who is playing well and who is not.

It happens that score is tracked on TTT, so I'll use that as an example:


(http://puu.sh/kutBG/16b9c81adb.png)

These are the 10 players with the highest total score over the server's lifetime, which is about 2 weeks. Cable and I, along with Blah, Monorail, Sora, and Apie, have score/min values from 1.27 to 1.33 (Which is well within the ~15% standard deviation of this value, since gametracker often misses the 6th round's score). Since we also have some of the highest playtimes, it is almost mathematically impossible that any of us are killing players at random. This impossibility increases as playtime (sample size) increases, of which we also have the highest.

All of that being said, I think any reason that's logically sound is a good one. Your goal as an innocent is to figure out how to decide whether or not someone is a traitor, and you have absolutely no tools within the game to help you. You're supposed to rely on your own deductive reasoning.

Traitors get instant-kill knives, silenced pistols, body armor, disguisers, healing kits, high-caliber snipers, several kinds of bombs, flare guns to burn bodies, radar decoys, and anything else people feel like modding in. As an innocent, you get absolutely nothing. Even as a detective, your tools for finding traitors are foggy on purpose. Your DNA scanner only points you in the general direction of the person who killed someone unless they're literally standing in front of you, and even then you can only be sure if they're standing still when it refreshes. You can put down a portable tester that will tell you who is innocent with 100% certainty, but as a traitor you want to avoid it for obvious reasons. The game is specifically designed in a way that encourages you to train your instincts and trust them, and uses a simple reward/punishment system to do it.

I will say this: If you think people are RDMing too much, ask coolz to make the karma penalties steeper. It's his call. Otherwise, we can at least agree that the rules themselves are too vague.

Title: Re: Clarification of rules regarding killing out of suspicion
Post by: Tezuni on October 01, 2015, 01:33:10 AM

This is all IMO.

You should not kill someone unless:
1. You see them kill/attack someone and flee the scene without ID'ing.
2. They kill an innocent.
2. They are attacking a crowd.
3. You have DNA evidence.
4. Every other hard-evidence based scenario not listed here

---

Otherwise,
An arbitrary type of suspicion can be conjured up such as "oh, he was standing in a doorway and I suspected he killed someone inside" (happened to me today on TTT).   
When you kill without hard evidence, on a whim or suspicion, you not not just risking your own karma.  The victim may retaliate and kill you first, losing their karma in the process.

TTT isn't meant to be shoot first and hope you guessed right, you should have to find evidence before you kill, and use suspicion to guide who you pay special attention to.

Title: Re: Clarification of rules regarding killing out of suspicion
Post by: ursus on October 01, 2015, 01:47:53 AM

Quote from: Tezuni on October 01, 2015, 01:33:10 AM

When you kill without hard evidence, on a whim or suspicion, you not not just risking your own karma.  The victim may retaliate and kill you first, losing their karma in the process.

I know of a way to fix this, but I'm going to suggest it in a separate thread so I don't derail.

Title: Re: Clarification of rules regarding killing out of suspicion
Post by: Deathie on October 01, 2015, 01:56:09 AM

Quote from: Tezuni on October 01, 2015, 01:33:10 AM

You should not kill someone unless:
1. You see them kill/attack someone and flee the scene without ID'ing.
2. They kill an innocent.
2. They are attacking a crowd.
3. You have DNA evidence.
4. Every other hard-evidence based scenario not listed here

It's great to have a code of ethics, but if everyone followed your code, then it wouldn't even be a game anymore. It'd be just like playing CSGO with bots that stare back at you as you senselessly murder their comrades.

Posing "you can only kill with hard evidence" as a rule is incredibly restrictive, and removes any pressure or skill needed from traitors.

Like, I'm not even trying to defend being innocent and killing for a shitty reason. I love my T rounds because there's a thrill from knowing that you can be cornered at any moment, for any reason. You have to be meticulous in covering your tracks since any sliver of doubt can put you at risk.

The game isn't "wait for the police to arrive, thoroughly investigate the scene, and determine the culprit after a thorough DNA analysis, cross reference fingerprints, interviews, and six weeks of paperwork". It's "And Then There Were None" with a wacky tone. You're on a time limit to stop the culprit(s) before you're killed.

Title: Re: Clarification of rules regarding killing out of suspicion
Post by: Prox on October 01, 2015, 02:03:37 AM

If you're alone and you see someone coming at you in such manner that you feel like they're about to kill you then it's perfectly fine to begin shooting them although I believe that it goes without saying that you should inform that player that you don't want him to approach you.

The rule list for TTT was made some over four years ago with combined efforts of mine and community. Since then many people were able to make changes to it and right now looking at the rule #3 I do not entirely agree with that because in some cases (like the one I've mentioned above) you can be pretty sure who the traitor is without him "doing anything". However that shouldn't be confused with just merely being suspicious to a certain degree since this gamemode has tag function for that sort of reason.

Title: Re: Clarification of rules regarding killing out of suspicion
Post by: Tiger Guy on October 01, 2015, 08:28:05 AM

The problem is that everyone's "good reasons" to kill a suspected traitor is different. Someone who plays more textbook TTT may only kill someone if they see them shooting someone else without reason or if multiple people have called them a T and then died.

Some people, like me, play a style of TTT that is highly based on intuition. Sometimes I just know that someone's a traitor. That doesn't mean I KOS them immediately, but it means that I'm more willing to shoot them if they do traitorious things. It's a very high-risk/high-reward style of playing TTT and I enjoy playing like that, since it still puts me on the edge after 5 years of playing TTT.

As you may assume, I don't really have a problem with how ursus plays. It's a very on the edge playstyle, opposed to playing the good boy innocent. If ursus fucks up and kills an inno, their karma will go down and say "you should probably think more before you shoot someone on suspicion, ya dingus!". If ursus kills you on suspicion and it turns out you're a traitor, tough shit man. Even if YOU think you did nothing wrong, ursus's anecdotal evidence may prove that you have a 90% chance of being a traitor and kill you before you kill anyone else.

It may be bullshit that you get shot by someone for what you think is not enough evidence, but it adds more variety to TTT. If ursus's and my playstyle was deemed banable, it would remove a lot of fun out of TTT and make it the utimate Good Cop game.

Title: Re: Clarification of rules regarding killing out of suspicion
Post by: ursus on October 01, 2015, 10:21:02 AM

Quote from: Tiger Guy on October 01, 2015, 08:28:05 AM

The problem is that everyone's "good reasons" to kill a suspected traitor is different. Someone who plays more textbook TTT may only kill someone if they see them shooting someone else without reason or if multiple people have called them a T and then died.

Some people, like me, play a style of TTT that is highly based on intuition. Sometimes I just know that someone's a traitor. That doesn't mean I KOS them immediately, but it means that I'm more willing to shoot them if they do traitorious things. It's a very high-risk/high-reward style of playing TTT and I enjoy playing like that, since it still puts me on the edge after 5 years of playing TTT.

As you may assume, I don't really have a problem with how ursus plays. It's a very on the edge playstyle, opposed to playing the good boy innocent. If ursus fucks up and kills an inno, their karma will go down and say "you should probably think more before you shoot someone on suspicion, ya dingus!". If ursus kills you on suspicion and it turns out you're a traitor, tough shit man. Even if YOU think you did nothing wrong, ursus's anecdotal evidence may prove that you have a 90% chance of being a traitor and kill you before you kill anyone else.

It may be bullshit that you get shot by someone for what you think is not enough evidence, but it adds more variety to TTT. If ursus's and my playstyle was deemed banable, it would remove a lot of fun out of TTT and make it the utimate Good Cop game.

Even I dial down my instincts too, though. Sometimes I see how someone just looks around 5 seconds after the round starts and I'm almost 100% sure it's them because after 5 solid years I can get in their head, but I'm not trying to punish people for not having a total poker face when they play. Since the rules don't let you kill that soon, I just follow them and wait. If I kill someone it's going to generally be because I have a sound enough reason to believe they've actually done something that I'm allowed to kill them for, and that's fairly easy to achieve if you're even vaguely smart.

Title: Re: Clarification of rules regarding killing out of suspicion
Post by: Loke on October 01, 2015, 01:20:51 PM

For me, TTT has gotten to the point where I wait till someone shoots me then I blow their head off.

People can't aim worth shit so really its just wait till you get shot.

Title: Re: Clarification of rules regarding killing out of suspicion
Post by: Mr. Franklin on October 01, 2015, 02:01:27 PM

From my personal experience with TTT over the years, the biggest factor when it came to RDM was killing without any reason or cause. You can see that one is the definition of the other, and you can see in the rules state that one or two RDM's in a round is acceptable. The obviousness when it comes to RDM is mass RDM, in which the person is kicked for that action. Now i agree that killing out of suspicion in the rulebook is too vague, and we need to change it, to a more understanding and defined rule. The rule itself doesn't need to include what counts as suspicion, but it should include an example that we have all seen, to state the issue of the rule.

Title: Re: Clarification of rules regarding killing out of suspicion
Post by: Monorail Cat on October 01, 2015, 02:41:21 PM

Quote from: ursus on October 01, 2015, 10:21:02 AM

Sometimes I see how someone just looks around 5 seconds after the round starts and I'm almost 100% sure it's them-

This is what I'm talking about.  It's not nearly enough of a "good reason" to kill someone because they simply *act* suspicious by moving their mouse.  This is why people will say things like "Oh, you look like you're getting ready to shoot everyone!" but then not kill that person.  There just simply isn't enough of a "good reason". 

Quote from: ursus on October 01, 2015, 10:21:02 AM

-If I kill someone it's going to generally be because I have a sound enough reason to believe they've actually done something that I'm allowed to kill them for

It seems to me that the occasion on Peach's Castle I described didn't have a "sound enough reason" for me to be killed.

Quote from: Tiger Guy on October 01, 2015, 08:28:05 AM

If ursus kills you on suspicion and it turns out you're a traitor, tough shit man. Even if YOU think you did nothing wrong, ursus's anecdotal evidence may prove that you have a 90% chance of being a traitor and kill you before you kill anyone else.

This is the core of the problem.  Unless I made a traitorous act (avoiding fighting against a KOS, destroying hp station, running with un-ID'd body, etc), *I* didn't do anything wrong, and the only way to know I'm the traitor is by deduction, which obviously can't really happen when 15 people are still alive.  This entire problem is because of extremely subjective opinions on whether or not there is enough proof to kill someone, and this is why the line needs to be drawn somewhere.

Title: Re: Clarification of rules regarding killing out of suspicion
Post by: Deathie on October 01, 2015, 02:46:53 PM

Quote from: Monorail Cat on October 01, 2015, 02:41:21 PM

This entire problem is because of extremely subjective opinions on whether or not there is enough proof to kill someone, and this is why the line needs to be drawn somewhere.

Think about it this way.

Do these people kill you as frequently when you're actually innocent? Are you being targeted? Or is it only your traitor rounds that you lose from this level of play?

From your posts, it seems like you just hate losing T-rounds from the high skill ceiling and you want to bring it down.

It's kind of like when people complain about smurfs in CSGO, saying that they should be banned for not playing at their level.

Title: Re: Clarification of rules regarding killing out of suspicion
Post by: Tezuni on October 01, 2015, 04:57:29 PM

Remember when you could, as an innocent, alt+E stealth ID an unidentified body so the traitors don't know that you know that person is dead, giving you the edge in process of elimination?
Remember when you could elect to not take the traitor test?
Remember when you could stand in a damn doorway?

Well if we declare anyone's subjective suspicions as a valid license to kill, people like ursus will continue to be detrimental to overall gameplay and just murder you when they want to take a guess.
Suspicion should only serve to guide you towards potential evidence you find by following your hunches, i.e. you follow a player and catch them in the act.
If a staff finds that there was no tangible evidence, it should be a rule they are cleared to take appropriate action.

Title: Re: Clarification of rules regarding killing out of suspicion
Post by: Deathie on October 01, 2015, 05:05:40 PM

Quote from: Tezuni on October 01, 2015, 04:57:29 PM

Well if we declare anyone's subjective suspicions as a valid license to kill, people like ursus will continue to be detrimental to overall gameplay and just murder you when they want to take a guess.

How often are you innocent when someone just "takes a guess"?

Title: Re: Clarification of rules regarding killing out of suspicion
Post by: Monorail Cat on October 01, 2015, 06:21:32 PM

Since we seem to love the CS:GO analogy, think about it this way.  When doing overwatch in CS:GO, you MUST have sufficient evidence beyond reasonable doubt.  Sure, this person may have appeared to be following some guy through a wall, but that was once, so it was maybe a fluke.  If there was not sufficient evidence to convict him, you would say "Insufficient Evidence" and pass on. 

Applying this to TTT: Just because someone refuses to test for innocence, or stands in a doorway, doesn't make them a traitor.  Sure, it means you should watch them more closely, but you shouldn't take action because there is INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE to kill him.  I believe you need evidence beyond reasonable doubt when you decide to kill a traitor.


On another note, it seems that the idea of metagaming is present.  When playing with the common group of TTT gamers, I guess you'll eventually be able to catch on to the tiny behavioral differences of a person when they are Traitor.  This should have absolutely no effect on your judgement of the person.  In TTT, it's completely unfair to determine one's innocence based on the fact that you *think* you know how they normally act. 


I believe that because of the fickle nature of this problem, here is my proposal for a solution:  When someone kills a traitor under questionable circumstances, he should have to explain his reasoning, and the members present should decide whether or not it was a valid reason.  If it was a valid enough reason, the subject may continue as is.  However, if there was INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE, the subject gets a warning.  From then on during the session, if the subject breaks any rules or has another questionable kill reviewed as INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE, he gets kicked.  If the subject returns and continues his/her pattern, they get a temporary ban, and so on.

Title: Re: Clarification of rules regarding killing out of suspicion
Post by: Deathie on October 01, 2015, 06:43:57 PM

Quote from: Monorail Cat on October 01, 2015, 06:21:32 PM

When someone kills a traitor under questionable circumstances, he should have to explain his reasoning, and the members present should decide whether or not it was a valid reason. 

It really does seem like you're just upset because you're not a very good traitor. All the complaints have been over losing T rounds, while none of them have been over getting falsely killed as an innocent.

You keep saying "I shouldn't be caught as a traitor because I didn't do anything traitorous", but if that was actually the case you'd be dying as much as an innocent than you would as a traitor.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Also your overwatch analogy is terrible. Don't try comparing a crowd-sourced process for permanently banning people to a murder-mystery gamemode where rounds last less than ten minutes and the only penality for falsely killing someone is losing a round.

Title: Re: Clarification of rules regarding killing out of suspicion
Post by: Monorail Cat on October 01, 2015, 08:53:44 PM

Quote from: ホロ on October 01, 2015, 06:43:57 PM

It really does seem like you're just upset because you're not a very good traitor. All the complaints have been over losing T rounds, while none of them have been over getting falsely killed as an innocent.

You keep saying "I shouldn't be caught as a traitor because I didn't do anything traitorous", but if that was actually the case you'd be dying as much as an innocent than you would as a traitor.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Also your overwatch analogy is terrible. Don't try comparing a crowd-sourced process for permanently banning people to a murder-mystery gamemode where rounds last less than ten minutes and the only penality for falsely killing someone is losing a round.

I see I should have stuck with my former wording.  At first I was going to say "when someone kills another person", but decided that if it was inno-inno murder, we would follow the pattern I laid out anyways.  I will edit it so that the rest of the community doesn't get confused by my poor choice of words.


Also, stop trying to direct this ordeal at me.  I have not once, through this entire damn thread, given any names, to help show that this isn't a personal problem.  It has been happening to other players, and that's why it's a problem.  So stop trying to taunt me.  I'm not making a thread that's describing how I'm "upset because I'm not a very good traitor". 

Quote from: ホロ on October 01, 2015, 06:43:57 PM

Also your overwatch analogy is terrible. Don't try comparing a crowd-sourced process for permanently banning people to a murder-mystery gamemode where rounds last less than ten minutes and the only penality for falsely killing someone is losing a round.

So, you claim that my analogy is a poor one.  How?  Isn't that kind of the process we are supposed to go through when we kick people?  Actually, I think it's exactly the process we go through.  We look at some sort of argument/dispute/problem, and we review it, and then make a vote for all of the members to decide if the person should be kicked or not. 

Quote from: ホロ on October 01, 2015, 02:46:53 PM

It's kind of like when people complain about smurfs in CSGO, saying that they should be banned for not playing at their level.

Now, I ask you: How is this related?  I'm not complaining about people who think they're better than everyone else at the game completely dominating me, because from what I can tell, I'm doing pretty good.

(http://puu.sh/kvtWn/db28b86179.png)

This scoreboard has been brought up before, and I'd like to go back to it to help people understand that this isn't me, or anyone else, whining about skill.  Now, doing some fancy math stuff, I found that the average Score/Minute of the top 10 players is 1.272, and has a standard deviation of 0.204.  As you can see, I am above the average Score/Minute of the top 10.  So please, leave people's personal skill out of this discussion.  It is irrelevant, and will only cause unrelated arguments like this.

Title: Re: Clarification of rules regarding killing out of suspicion
Post by: ๖Ϝцzsioᴎ on October 01, 2015, 09:15:45 PM

I do this shit frequently, even on the old server and no one has said shit, seems to me that you're just a tiny little bit rustled at the circumstance. The way you worded it sounded like you straight up said "HE RDMED ME ADD RULE ABOUT THIS PLS" was just a tad silly. TTT is about taking risks, finding out who the traitor is, and who isn't.

Sorry that I bring this up, but on TTT_Airship someone stated that he saw you walk out of a room that he thought was where you killed someone. There was a shot, a scream, then a sound of body hitting the floor.

Things like that shouldn't seem to be an issue, but you made it become one and had the whole server listen to you two bickering
If you kill someone and they turn out to be an innocent, tough shit, that's what harsh karma is there for.

Title: Re: Clarification of rules regarding killing out of suspicion
Post by: ursus on October 01, 2015, 09:55:53 PM

I'm just going to reply to everything. Read all of this and watch the video before you reply to it.

Quote from: Monorail Cat on October 01, 2015, 06:21:32 PM

When doing overwatch in CS:GO, you MUST have sufficient evidence beyond reasonable doubt.  Sure, this person may have appeared to be following some guy through a wall, but that was once, so it was maybe a fluke.  If there was not sufficient evidence to convict him, you would say "Insufficient Evidence" and pass on.

In what way is Overwatch comparable at all to TTT? You need evidence beyond a reasonable doubt because Overwatch is a metagame element that permanently bans convicted players. If you make the wrong choice, that person could potentially never be able to play again. How is TTT at all like that? There isn't even permadeath. Not just that, but in TTT you know for sure that at least 1 out of every 4 players is a traitor. In Overwatch, the question is not "which 25% of these players is hacking?" The question is "Is this specific person hacking or not?" You're really grasping for straws here.

Quote from: Monorail Cat on October 01, 2015, 06:21:32 PM

Applying this to TTT: Just because someone refuses to test for innocence, or stands in a doorway, doesn't make them a traitor.  Sure, it means you should watch them more closely, but you shouldn't take action because there is INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE to kill him.  I believe you need evidence beyond reasonable doubt when you decide to kill a traitor.

When people refuse to test, about 80% of the time I kill them. There's literally no reason for an innocent to refuse a (portable) traitor test, unless they're trying to bait the detective into killing them. Even on map testers, with the custom weapons you can shoot a traitor through the door if SHTF. If 90% of everyone who refuses to test is a traitor, that's good enough for me. If you're a traitor and you keep getting killed because you refuse to test, you should be staying away from the testers in the first place. The portable tester exists so detectives can corner a traitor who's about to kill them and know for sure if they're actually traitor or just an innocent baiting them into losing karma. If you want a game where you have to collect concrete evidence before you can even make accusations, Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney is under $20 on Amazon.

Quote from: Monorail Cat on October 01, 2015, 06:21:32 PM

On another note, it seems that the idea of metagaming is present.  When playing with the common group of TTT gamers, I guess you'll eventually be able to catch on to the tiny behavioral differences of a person when they are Traitor.  This should have absolutely no effect on your judgement of the person.  In TTT, it's completely unfair to determine one's innocence based on the fact that you *think* you know how they normally act. 

It's absolutely fair. Have you heard of professional poker before? Literally every good game has a metagame. In any situation where human behavior is present, that behavior can be analyzed for extra information. Asking someone to just ignore any behavioral cues they may notice is basically saying "Even if you're reasonably sure this person is a traitor because of the way they're acting, you should give them a chance to do something first so everyone has equal fun." That's not how you make games fun, that's how you reward bad players. Again, it just sounds like you just want easier traitor rounds.

Quote from: Monorail Cat on October 01, 2015, 06:21:32 PM

When someone kills a traitor under questionable circumstances, he should have to explain his reasoning, and the members present should decide whether or not it was a valid reason.

Why do only innocents have to explain themselves? Again, it sounds like you just want to put more uncertainty on the innocent side so that the traitors have an easier time. You're asking innocents to prove that they didn't RDM, but you're going out of your way to make sure that traitors have every possible advantage and only catastrophic failure can get them killed.

Quote from: Monorail Cat on October 01, 2015, 06:21:32 PM

From then on during the session, if the subject breaks any rules or has another questionable kill reviewed as INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE, he gets kicked.  If the subject returns and continues his/her pattern, they get a temporary ban, and so on.

Is our server a courtroom? You are literally suggesting to ban everyone and anyone who chooses to play the game on a more complex level than you'd like. If you were saying this because you want to crack down on ghosting, sure, but all I read here is "I don't like it when people play the game better than me, and the only way I can solve this problem is by punishing them outside of the game." Just make a conscious effort to be a smarter traitor.

Quote from: Monorail Cat on October 01, 2015, 08:53:44 PM

Also, stop trying to direct this ordeal at me.  I have not once, through this entire damn thread, given any names, to help show that this isn't a personal problem.  It has been happening to other players, and that's why it's a problem.  So stop trying to taunt me.  I'm not making a thread that's describing how I'm "upset because I'm not a very good traitor". 

You don't need to give names to single someone out. Anyone who plays on the server knows you're very obviously talking about me. My point:

Quote from: ๖Ϝцzsioᴎ on October 01, 2015, 09:15:45 PM

I do this shit frequently, even on the old server and no one has said shit, seems to me that you're just a tiny little bit rustled at the circumstance. The way you worded it sounded like you straight up said "HE RDMED ME ADD RULE ABOUT THIS PLS" was just a tad silly. TTT is about taking risks, finding out who the traitor is, and who isn't.

Sorry that I bring this up, but on TTT_Airship someone stated that he saw you walk out of a room that he thought was where you killed someone. There was a shot, a scream, then a sound of body hitting the floor.

Things like that shouldn't seem to be an issue, but you made it become one and had the whole server listen to you two bickering
If you kill someone and they turn out to be an innocent, tough shit, that's what harsh karma is there for.

Quote from: Tiger Guy on October 01, 2015, 08:28:05 AM

As you may assume, I don't really have a problem with how ursus plays. It's a very on the edge playstyle, opposed to playing the good boy innocent. If ursus fucks up and kills an inno, their karma will go down and say "you should probably think more before you shoot someone on suspicion, ya dingus!". If ursus kills you on suspicion and it turns out you're a traitor, tough shit man. Even if YOU think you did nothing wrong, ursus's anecdotal evidence may prove that you have a 90% chance of being a traitor and kill you before you kill anyone else.

It may be bullshit that you get shot by someone for what you think is not enough evidence, but it adds more variety to TTT. If ursus's and my playstyle was deemed banable, it would remove a lot of fun out of TTT and make it the utimate Good Cop game.

It's a playstyle that's very obviously associated with me, and you're trying to get it outlawed because you'd rather change the rules of the game than adapt to it.

Quote from: Monorail Cat on October 01, 2015, 08:53:44 PM

So, you claim that my analogy is a poor one.  How?  Isn't that kind of the process we are supposed to go through when we kick people?  Actually, I think it's exactly the process we go through.  We look at some sort of argument/dispute/problem, and we review it, and then make a vote for all of the members to decide if the person should be kicked or not. 

Since you want to take the high ground here, I went through my demos to find this:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nG5zXkB0lf0# (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nG5zXkB0lf0#)

Do you see the discrepancy here? Nevermind that you changed your analogy from Overwatch to kicking people in TTT, which are two other completely different things, but in that round you threatened to kick me for making a vaguely rude joke at worst. You even go completely silent in the video when Deathie calls you out on it, which tells me you're aware that it's unjustified and you don't care. You even shot me because of a false KoS from the traitor without asking a single question or checking any bodies, which is also completely opposite to the way you've been saying we should all play in this thread. It's really obvious that you making this thread has almost nothing to do with actual fairness, and more to do with you wanting to vindicate yourself after pushing the issue to an embarrassing extent.

Title: Re: Clarification of rules regarding killing out of suspicion
Post by: Shawn on October 01, 2015, 10:12:31 PM

Quote from: Monorail Cat on October 01, 2015, 06:21:32 PM

  I believe you need evidence beyond reasonable doubt when you decide to kill a traitor.

ya i have to disagree I've played on servers that used a rule like that and you want to know how the game play happened? basically everyone circle jerking around the detective until he said you can kill this person... no thanks was no fun at all..

As for you getting killed it could be for any number of good reason that you may or may not be aware of.. for example i once knew a guy that only use a certain weapon when he was the T so anytime i saw him with it i knew he was a traitor no questions asked, you can argue thats not a good reason but since i played with him for so long i know his habits.. After you play with people for a awhile you pick up the way they play their rounds... Maybe the guy has played with you before and noticed you only grab a sniper when you're a traitor who knows...

Title: Re: Clarification of rules regarding killing out of suspicion
Post by: Seb on October 01, 2015, 11:53:09 PM

if you did anything to signify yourself as a traitor and somebody kills you for it, you should suck it up to be honest. the game is to kill everybody as a T, not to prove your death was just

Title: Re: Clarification of rules regarding killing out of suspicion
Post by: ursus on October 02, 2015, 12:02:41 AM

Quote from: Seb on October 01, 2015, 11:53:09 PM

if you did anything to signify yourself as a traitor and somebody kills you for it, you should suck it up to be honest. the game is to kill everybody as a T, not to prove your death was just

time to break this old bad boy out

(http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mc2pnlyT2N1ruqz7p.png)

Title: Re: Clarification of rules regarding killing out of suspicion
Post by: Tezuni on October 02, 2015, 01:32:31 AM

Quote from: ursus on October 01, 2015, 09:55:53 PM

Do you see the discrepancy here? Nevermind that you changed your analogy from Overwatch to kicking people in TTT, which are two other completely different things, but in that round you threatened to kick me for making a vaguely rude joke at worst. You even go completely silent in the video when Deathie calls you out on it, which tells me you're aware that it's unjustified and you don't care. You even shot me because of a false KoS from the traitor without asking a single question or checking any bodies, which is also completely opposite to the way you've been saying we should all play in this thread. It's really obvious that you making this thread has almost nothing to do with actual fairness, and more to do with you wanting to vindicate yourself after pushing the issue to an embarrassing extent.

Everyone knows how blatantly rude you are, calling people "autists" constantly saying x person has x IQ level, etc.  Quite frankly, you do deserve to be demoted from regular rank.  Mono would have been more than justified to kick you.  Nice short clip.

Title: Re: Clarification of rules regarding killing out of suspicion
Post by: TehHank on October 02, 2015, 03:02:59 AM

Quote from: Tezuni on October 02, 2015, 01:32:31 AM

Everyone knows how blatantly rude you are, calling people "autists" constantly saying x person has x IQ level, etc.  Quite frankly, you do deserve to be demoted from regular rank.  Mono would have been more than justified to kick you.  Nice short clip.

I don't understand this logic, apparently everyone here takes Ursus' insults literally? what are we still in Kindergarten?

Quote from: Monorail Cat on October 01, 2015, 06:21:32 PM

I believe that because of the fickle nature of this problem, here is my proposal for a solution:  When someone kills a traitor under questionable circumstances, he should have to explain his reasoning, and the members present should decide whether or not it was a valid reason.  If it was a valid enough reason, the subject may continue as is.  However, if there was INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE, the subject gets a warning.  From then on during the session, if the subject breaks any rules or has another questionable kill reviewed as INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE, he gets kicked.  If the subject returns and continues his/her pattern, they get a temporary ban, and so on.

Jesus this isn't the court of law, you just need a bit of common sense to determine if killing a traitor without concrete proof is not RDM depending on the circumstances.

We are at a point where most people who play have played TTT so much, a sense of Paranoia sets in which we question everything other players do and acting on your own instincts isn't RDM. Of course blatantly crying out you thought it was them when you just went on a killing spree isn't the case, but now that I've firsthand experienced how some other players play the game nowadays, i enjoy this extra depth of mistrust. I'm more inclined to believe that monorail is asserting the game situation as if the server is full of fairly new TTT goers in which their instinct isn't as defined as a server filled with experienced players knowing each other.

And when was it relevant in the rules that being a douche bag is against the rules. I'm more inclined you think that a majority of people dislike Ursus to point in which everyone will breath a sigh of relief if you do actually kick him for a reason that doesn't make any sense.

I know we need to have rules, but remember this is still a game where people make mistakes. Applying more rules will just make the game more Robotic and uniform to the point where the games isn't fun.

Title: Re: Clarification of rules regarding killing out of suspicion
Post by: Cable on October 02, 2015, 04:11:12 AM

Quote from: TehHank on October 02, 2015, 03:02:59 AM

And when was it relevant in the rules that being a douche bag is against the rules.

Title: Re: Clarification of rules regarding killing out of suspicion
Post by: Monorail Cat on October 02, 2015, 04:17:45 AM

Quote from: ๖Ϝцzsioᴎ on October 01, 2015, 09:15:45 PM

The way you worded it sounded like you straight up said "HE RDMED ME ADD RULE ABOUT THIS PLS" was just a tad silly. TTT is about taking risks, finding out who the traitor is, and who isn't.

Sorry for the confusion, but I brought up this issue because this has been happening very frequently to not just me.  I'm not discussing a single case about me being RDM'd.

Quote from: ursus on October 01, 2015, 09:55:53 PM

Why do only innocents have to explain themselves?

Usually, the killers of traitors are not other traitors. 

Quote from: ursus on October 01, 2015, 09:55:53 PM

Is our server a courtroom? You are literally suggesting to ban everyone and anyone who chooses to play the game on a more complex level than you'd like. If you were saying this because you want to crack down on ghosting, sure, but all I read here is "I don't like it when people play the game better than me, and the only way I can solve this problem is by punishing them outside of the game." Just make a conscious effort to be a smarter traitor.

I'm not saying that it should be a "courtroom", I'm just saying that when someone gets killed under circumstances that people believe is questionable, the members decide whether or not the claim is reasonable evidence.  This would prevent the server from having a clear-cut set of rules for these scenarios (which I agree, would make the game more "robotic" and stale), and it would leave it to the members present to determine the outcome.  I believe this could be a good solution.

It's also a ludicrous claim that I am "suggesting to ban everyone and anyone who chooses to play the game on a more complex level than I'd like".  There's nothing more I have to say about that.

I would also like to apologize for my wording in my previous post.  I do not mean to suggest that this "review" takes any longer than a few seconds of discussion.  The rest of that was pretty much the regular line of events if someone is breaking a rule. 

And please stop bringing "skill" into this.  I'm not irritated about people playing at what may be "a higher level" than mine, I'm irritated about being killed without good enough proof.  Check my previous post where I discussed that issue.

Quote from: ursus on October 01, 2015, 09:55:53 PM

It's a playstyle that's very obviously associated with me, and you're trying to get it outlawed because you'd rather change the rules of the game than adapt to it.

I have adapted to it, but that doesn't mean I agree with it.  I usually try to avoid you as much as possible in-game, because I know you have correctly guessed the traitor before they do something traitorous several times.

Quote from: ursus on October 01, 2015, 09:55:53 PM

Spoiler: video (click to show/hide)

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nG5zXkB0lf0#)

I was threatening to kick you because you had been taunting me and Tezuni for several rounds (not just that one in the video), antagonizing us, even saying at some points that you would RDM me, which I considered to be breaking the rule disrespecting other players. 

Title: Re: Clarification of rules regarding killing out of suspicion
Post by: Monorail Cat on October 02, 2015, 04:20:57 AM

Quote from: TehHank on October 02, 2015, 03:02:59 AM

I'm more inclined to believe that monorail is asserting the game situation as if the server is full of fairly new TTT goers in which their instinct isn't as defined as a server filled with experienced players knowing each other.

I know we need to have rules, but remember this is still a game where people make mistakes. Applying more rules will just make the game more Robotic and uniform to the point where the games isn't fun.

I admit that when caught up with this ordeal, I was worried about new players being repelled by harsh gameplay, but it's really pretty negligible.

I also agree with the fact that too many rules make the game more "robotic".  Refer to my previous post.

Title: Re: Clarification of rules regarding killing out of suspicion
Post by: TehHank on October 02, 2015, 04:22:06 AM

Quote from: Monorail Cat on October 02, 2015, 04:17:45 AM

I was threatening to kick you because you had been taunting me and Tezuni for several rounds (not just that one in the video), antagonizing us, even saying at some points that you would RDM me, which I considered to be breaking the rule disrespecting other players.

It would be breaking the rules if you actually muted him and he continued harassing you two through text chat. But then both of you have to realize he wouldn't do that and has no malicious intent.

Again not pointing fingers but a lot of decisions in this particular type of game mode is based around initiative.

Title: Re: Clarification of rules regarding killing out of suspicion
Post by: Deathie on October 02, 2015, 06:39:03 AM

Quote from: Monorail Cat on October 02, 2015, 04:17:45 AM

I was threatening to kick you because you had been taunting me and Tezuni for several rounds (not just that one in the video), antagonizing us, even saying at some points that you would RDM me, which I considered to be breaking the rule disrespecting other players. 

He has a full demo for that round, the previous maps, and the next maps.

I was there for a while and he wasn't really even doing anything. IIRC you had just joined a round before that one. I remember being super confused because I thought my false KOS was what got you upset.

"Antagonizing you" isn't even how I'd describe it. He was only egging you on to the point of "come on, shoot me!".

Quote from: Monorail Cat on October 02, 2015, 04:17:45 AM

It's also a ludicrous claim that I am "suggesting to ban everyone and anyone who chooses to play the game on a more complex level than I'd like".  There's nothing more I have to say about that.

And please stop bringing "skill" into this.  I'm not irritated about people playing at what may be "a higher level" than mine, I'm irritated about being killed without good enough proof.

When you understand the intricacies of the gamemode enough and you build that hard intuition, you're able to make really accurate judgements like that.

You trying to argue that it's not good enough proof is flat out not true. You might have some validity if the issue was innocents killing other innocents on "hunches", but that's not even the reason you made the thread in the first place. That'd be flat out RDM and you wouldn't even need to ask "is this against the rules". The only reason you're questioning it is because it's only happening to traitors.

Like, 1/4 players are traitors. If it was actually RDM, it wouldn't be traitors dying the majority of the time.

Title: Re: Clarification of rules regarding killing out of suspicion
Post by: ursus on October 02, 2015, 10:18:27 AM

Quote from: Monorail Cat on October 02, 2015, 04:17:45 AM

I was threatening to kick you because you had been taunting me and Tezuni for several rounds (not just that one in the video), antagonizing us, even saying at some points that you would RDM me, which I considered to be breaking the rule disrespecting other players. 

Are you literally in kindergarten? Any kind of joke must be an antagonistic insult to you if you think I was taunting you both to the point of harassment. Even if I were directly insulting you, it's completely indefensible to use your VIP powers for the in-game equivalent of "Y-YOU'RE MEAN YOU CANT PLAY WITH US ANYMORE" when I'm just poking fun at you for being unreasonable in the first place.

Also, if you had threatened to kick me for literally any reason you knew was valid, you would have said what it was without any hesitation when deathie asked you directly. Instead, you immediately shut up because the conflict was personal and you knew that. I "taunted" you in that demo because you shot me first with absolutely no evidence, something you apparently hate very very much except for when you're shooting someone you don't like. Not just that, but you had only joined the server about one round before that. You hadn't been on the server for at least 8 prior map changes, which is several hours.

Quote from: Monorail Cat on October 02, 2015, 04:17:45 AM

I'm not saying that it should be a "courtroom", I'm just saying that when someone gets killed under circumstances that people believe is questionable, the members decide whether or not the claim is reasonable evidence.  This would prevent the server from having a clear-cut set of rules for these scenarios (which I agree, would make the game more "robotic" and stale), and it would leave it to the members present to determine the outcome.  I believe this could be a good solution.

Nobody is suggesting to make the rules less clear except for you. This would be a horrible solution, because it would allow emotionally fragile VIPs like you and Tezuni to ban anyone who kills them for what you decide is an unjustified reason and avoid getting demoted for it. What if the "members" are just you and tez? If you're going to threaten to kick over things as small as jokes you think are insulting, how can anyone believe you won't kick someone who embarrasses you when you miss your first shot? How many 0-kill T rounds will you have before you kick the first person to make fun of you for "continued harassment" or another made-up reason like that and then ragequit? Nobody would even question it if you just put "douchebag" in the reason for sourcebans, and I think you'd love to be able to take advantage of that.

Quote from: ホロ on October 02, 2015, 06:39:03 AM

You trying to argue that it's not good enough proof is flat out not true. You might have some validity if the issue was innocents killing other innocents on "hunches", but that's not even the reason you made the thread in the first place. That'd be flat out RDM and you wouldn't even need to ask "is this against the rules". The only reason you're questioning it is because it's only happening to traitors.

Like, 1/4 players are traitors. If it was actually RDM, it wouldn't be traitors dying the majority of the time.

Title: Re: Clarification of rules regarding killing out of suspicion
Post by: Monorail Cat on October 02, 2015, 01:16:28 PM

Quote from: ursus on October 02, 2015, 10:18:27 AM

Are you literally in kindergarten? Any kind of joke must be an antagonistic insult to you if you think I was taunting you both to the point of harassment. Even if I were directly insulting you, it's completely indefensible to use your VIP powers for the in-game equivalent of "Y-YOU'RE MEAN YOU CANT PLAY WITH US ANYMORE" when I'm just poking fun at you for being unreasonable in the first place.

Also, if you had threatened to kick me for literally any reason you knew was valid, you would have said what it was without any hesitation when deathie asked you directly. Instead, you immediately shut up because the conflict was personal and you knew that. I "taunted" you in that demo because you shot me first with absolutely no evidence, something you apparently hate very very much except for when you're shooting someone you don't like. Not just that, but you had only joined the server about one round before that. You hadn't been on the server for at least 8 prior map changes, which is several hours.


Nobody is suggesting to make the rules less clear except for you. This would be a horrible solution, because it would allow emotionally fragile VIPs like you and Tezuni to ban anyone who kills them for what you decide is an unjustified reason and avoid getting demoted for it. What if the "members" are just you and tez? If you're going to threaten to kick over things as small as jokes you think are insulting, how can anyone believe you won't kick someone who embarrasses you when you miss your first shot? How many 0-kill T rounds will you have before you kick the first person to make fun of you for "continued harassment" or another made-up reason like that and then ragequit? Nobody would even question it if you just put "douchebag" in the reason for sourcebans, and I think you'd love to be able to take advantage of that.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Alright.  I really hate bringing drama into this, but because you want to know why I threatened to kick you, I will tell you.  The ordeal on Airship happened, and after that, the taunting and harassment occurred (in the form of "Oh, I didn't see you kill him, so when I shot at you, it must have been RDM", "Hey guys, I'm gonna shoot Monorail because I think he's the T", etc.), and I decided I didn't want to play with someone purposely trying to harass me, so I left to avoid further conflict, and went to my next college class.  When I got back, Tezuni told me that after I left, you continued to harass him and insult me behind my back.  This is when I came back on to let you know to stop being a dick to us.  You talk about "poking fun", but it's really pretty annoying, and not very "fun" to me.  Maybe you could have let me know you were messing with me.  When this had happened, I had just taken 2 extremely hard tests back-to-back, and I wasn't in the mood for "poking fun".  I was honestly too exhausted to know the difference.

I don't know how long it takes to help you understand this, but stop trying to make this a personal issue.  Painting me as whining, stupid, emotionally fragile, etc, that's unnecessary.  You're trying to bring a lot of drama into this situation, and I'm done with repeating this shit.

Back to the issue at hand, I was suggesting for there to be less "clear-cut" rules, because I thought that was the problem:

Quote from: TehHank on October 02, 2015, 03:02:59 AM

I know we need to have rules, but remember this is still a game where people make mistakes. Applying more rules will just make the game more Robotic and uniform to the point where the games isn't fun.

Quote from: Shawn on October 01, 2015, 10:12:31 PM

I've played on servers that used a rule like that and you want to know how the game play happened? basically everyone circle jerking around the detective until he said you can kill this person... no thanks was no fun at all..

Quote from: Mr. Franklin on October 01, 2015, 02:01:27 PM

Now i agree that killing out of suspicion in the rulebook is too vague, and we need to change it, to a more understanding and defined rule. The rule itself doesn't need to include what counts as suspicion, but it should include an example that we have all seen, to state the issue of the rule.

Quote from: ホロ on September 30, 2015, 11:52:48 PM

By imposing an arbitrary set of rules like "are following someone else", "appear to be aiming at people's heads", and "dropping a weapon which was the same type as what killed another player", you're restricting the skill ceiling of the game immensely.

From what I gathered, it seemed that the general consensus was that people don't want more rules, because there are so many scenarios that thing will happen in, and also because it would make the game less fun and more stale, or "robotic".  I was attempting a diplomatic solution so that we would know what to do in the various scenarios this can occur in.

Now for the theory that "Tezuni and I" will vote someone off:  This will probably never happen, because chances are, there would be many more members than just Tezuni and I on.  Everyone above the rank of Regular has a say in the votes, so if everyone agrees that there was enough of a reason to kill someone else, it's fine.  If people agree that it was fishy, it follows the general guidelines for someone breaking rules- they get warnings, then kicks, then bans and reports. 


I really do want this to be solved.  I don't want to keep bickering and talking about the ordeal, because that won't get us anywhere anymore; we've said all we have to say.  I think we should start working on a solution, which is why I proposed this. 

I would also like everyone to know that I'm not dead-set on any certain objective- I'm willing to change my mind (At first I wanted "the line to be drawn:  When do you need to have enough "proof" in suspicions in order to kill someone?"  I have realized that it's not a popular idea, so I adapted to what I think people want, and suggested my current solution.).  I made this thread because I myself am uncertain on the rule.  I am open to any solutions, and I'd like to discuss this with everyone in a civil manner.

Title: Re: Clarification of rules regarding killing out of suspicion
Post by: Ἆxule on October 02, 2015, 01:29:08 PM

When I played TTT, during rNd and on other servers, I played very much with the same style as ursus. I almost always acted on instinct from playing TTT for 3-4 years. You learn to pick up a lot of subtle things, especially when you play with the same players for months. I could go into detail as to what some of these "subtle" things are, but most have been mentioned somewhere throughout this thread, so I'll save the redundancy.

I played TTT for the thrill of the gamble. It's not fun at all to play with 100% certainty of anything, because most of the time it would be too late to act or someone else would have gotten the traitor before me. Personally, both scenarios were extremely frustrating for me, more so than being RDMd on my T round. I preferred the exhilaration and gamble of catching something before anyone else, and being right in that gamble. I knew the risks, and I was willing to lose it all for the gratification of being right. I cannot explain the high I would get off of that adrenaline rush.

Of course, because I played this way, I expected the same from everyone else. I rarely complained when I would get killed as a Traitor if their reasoning was the same I would use. For example, in the scenario that was brought up in the beginning of this thread by Monorail, as an Innocent I would have acted the same way. My thought process would be that you know who shot first, which was most likely the traitor. If you proceeded to just watch, and if the person who shot first was the Traitor, I would take that risk in thinking you were just playing dumb. If I were in your position, I would have no problem being killed for that reason.

Title: Re: Clarification of rules regarding killing out of suspicion
Post by: ursus on October 02, 2015, 09:02:10 PM

I left my computer for a day and realized that this is the most pointless argument I've ever started in my entire life

this thread is bad and I should feel bad

someone bother coolz until he clarifies the rules and locks this pls

Title: Re: Clarification of rules regarding killing out of suspicion
Post by: Monorail Cat on October 02, 2015, 09:39:04 PM

Quote from: ursus on October 02, 2015, 09:02:10 PM

I left my computer for a day and realized that this is the most pointless argument I've ever started in my entire life

this thread is bad and I should feel bad

someone bother coolz until he clarifies the rules and locks this pls

Agreed.  It was stupid, I was exhausted and tired.  Apologies.  Let's just get this decided.

Title: Re: Clarification of rules regarding killing out of suspicion
Post by: Cable on October 02, 2015, 10:41:50 PM

locked
-until further notice