Restricted (Read Only) > VIPs
The definition of a first blood rdm
Shockah:
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
--- Quote from: Prox on February 03, 2013, 11:34:03 PM --- I disagree that RDMing a traitor is just as bad as RDMing an innocent, because it really isn't, I'm sure that majority of people, including me, become more upset if they get RDMed when they are traitors.
Now I'm not absolutely against your opinion on first blood RDM, it doesn't bother me, I'm just trying to get this thing clear so that people would have the same or at least similar understanding of what it is.
Another thing why I'm arguing about this is because I could've sworn that everyone, including you, used to think about this the same way I do and now that I decided to take a look at the list of server rules on the wiki, I found that that the only rule about this does not include innocents.
--- End quote ---
I concur with you saying that everyone used to think about it the way you did, in fact during my temp days I was told quite a few times that first blood RDM only pertained to inno on T RDM. I've always seen first blood RDM as "An inno RDM's ANYONE within a short period of time of the round beginning having no reason to do so,". Your statement of RDM'ing an inno later in the round being of equivalent notoriety as RDM'ing an innocent early in the round is something I strongly disagree with. Later in the round logic can be used to come to a decision on whether or not someone is a T, this logic can not be determined earlier in the round as you have no evidence to go off of. For example Sabb was with Marie the whole game, Sabb is dead and Marie is alive. Though you have not seen anything the determination can be made that Marie may have killed Sabb. Things of this nature can not be determined earlier and in general it is much less possible of someone having even the slightest bit of a reason if none or a few traitorous actions have taken place. If you take RDM literally for what it stands for than a fair portion of the people I've kicked/banned for RDM shouldn't have been banned/kick because quite frankly "he looked suspicious" is a reason, it's simply not a valid one and I treat it as RDM. Now later in the round if you were to say he was suspicious because he, walked out of a room with C4 and didn't say anything; was with Marie and now Marie is dead; he's been continuously aiming his diggle at the head of the detective for the past minute then it becomes valid.
tl;dr: First blood RDM is something I consider RDM in a literal sense, Random Death Match, there is absolutely no validity to any reason that can be given to suggest that person was a traitor. RDM is essentially a much broader definition, it generally encompasses more actions and lack of judgement. This is simply how I tend to look at it.
Prox:
--- Quote from: Shockah on February 04, 2013, 01:27:31 PM --- Your statement of RDM'ing an inno later in the round being of equivalent notoriety as RDM'ing an innocent early in the round is something I strongly disagree with. Later in the round logic can be used to come to a decision on whether or not someone is a T, this logic can not be determined earlier in the round as you have no evidence to go off of. For example Sabb was with Marie the whole game, Sabb is dead and Marie is alive. Though you have not seen anything the determination can be made that Marie may have killed Sabb. Things of this nature can not be determined earlier and in general it is much less possible of someone having even the slightest bit of a reason if none or a few traitorous actions have taken place.
--- End quote ---
You're misinterpreting my statement. It was meant to imply that there isn't much difference whether someone gets RDMed withing the first seconds or after a few minutes if in both cases the player did nothing and rdmer had no reason to suspect him on anything, and later in the round logic was telling absolutely nothing to him.
--- Quote from: Shockah on February 04, 2013, 01:27:31 PM --- If you take RDM literally for what it stands for than a fair portion of the people I've kicked/banned for RDM shouldn't have been banned/kick because quite frankly "he looked suspicious" is a reason, it's simply not a valid one and I treat it as RDM. Now later in the round if you were to say he was suspicious because he, walked out of a room with C4 and didn't say anything; was with Marie and now Marie is dead; he's been continuously aiming his diggle at the head of the detective for the past minute then it becomes valid.
--- End quote ---
This is something that every VIP knows or at least should know.
--- Quote from: Sabb on February 03, 2013, 11:49:26 PM ---Any ways, the action in question is the same in both circumstances whether the person happens to be a traitor or not, that's all that matters imo.
--- End quote ---
How is it the same? Can anyone give me at least one good argument on how RDMing a traitor and RDMing an innocent is a same thing?
Now back on the main topic: seeing as majority thinks that first blood RDM is when anyone gets RDMed at the start of the round, I'll modify the rule list on the wiki by tomorrow, so if anyone has anything important to say, the time is now.
Sabb:
--- Quote from: Prox on February 06, 2013, 12:29:59 AM --- You're misinterpreting my statement. It was meant to imply that there isn't much difference whether someone gets RDMed withing the first seconds or after a few minutes if in both cases the player did nothing and rdmer had no reason to suspect him on anything, and later in the round logic was telling absolutely nothing to him.
This is something that every VIP knows or at least should know.
How is it the same? Can anyone give me at least one good argument on how RDMing a traitor and RDMing an innocent is a same thing?
Now back on the main topic: seeing as majority thinks that first blood RDM is when anyone gets RDMed at the start of the round, I'll modify the rule list on the wiki by tomorrow, so if anyone has anything important to say, the time is now.
--- End quote ---
That is a legitimate argument lol...
The person's wrong-doing is the same in both cases, therefore I think the punishment should be the same. That logic might not always work but I don't see why it shouldn't in this situation especially since the entire point of TTT isn't JUST to play as a traitor.
Prox:
--- Quote from: Sabb on February 06, 2013, 09:14:47 AM ---That is a legitimate argument lol...
The person's wrong-doing is the same in both cases, therefore I think the punishment should be the same. That logic might not always work but I don't see why it shouldn't in this situation especially since the entire point of TTT isn't JUST to play as a traitor.
--- End quote ---
But only a few people out of everyone get to be a traitor each round and since majority of people find being a traitor much more fun they also find it far more annoying to get RDMed as one so it's logical to assume that RDMing a traitor is a bigger deal, in fact this was probably one of the main reasons why first blood RDM was considered only when a T got RDMed. I think that I should have mentioned that I view traitor and innocent RDM the same way when it's done after start of the round.
Tezuni:
First blood RDM implies a particular situation, being, when an innocent gets first blood against a traitor who did nothing.
As everyone knows, traitors are supposed to get first blood, or attempted anyways.
Innocent RDMing innocent is just regular RDM.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version