The definition of a first blood rdm

[Prox]

   Okay, so what exactly is a first blood RDM? This whole time I thought that a first blood RDM is when an innocent randomly kills a traitor who didn't do anything within the first seconds/minutes of the round, however other VIPs have told me that a first blood RDM is when someone kills someone(a traitor, innocent, anything) within the first seconds/minutes of the round.
   So how exactly it is after all? Don't lock this thread too soon, it would be good to see as many opinions as possible.

   Now, my opinion on this is like I said, when an innocent kills a traitor when he had done nothing. I also think that the other definition of first blood RDM doesn't really serves any purpose since there is a RDM limit of 4 players(though it may vary in some cases).

[Dale Feles]

Normally, I kick/ban first blood rdm's on Traitors only, but if an innocent always keeps targetting random people at the start of the round, I'll still ban them.

[Deacon]

I see it as working for both. But its mostly nomenclature and i dont think its too important for most situations.

[Juan_Ambriz]

I've always counted first blood as anything.


Inno on Trator (Unless the traitor were to derp and show his(her) knife)
Inno on Inno (Especially if it's within 30 seconds of the round)

[○ Μαρία ○]

I always thought of a first RDM as someone just running up to someone and killing them as soon as the round started. I've been first RDMed before by a Detective. ;_;

[Sabb]

I always thought of a first RDM as someone just running up to someone and killing them as soon as the round started.

Basically just this. It's just when you kill a player extremely early in the round before anything has happened. Hence first blood. But it's still actual RDM. So yo killing someone who just pulled a knife out in front of you in the start of the round isn't first blood RDM because you clearly had a legitimate reason. I've seen many people (problem players only really) complain about this saying that traitors have to have the first move/kill for you to kill them which is clearly not true.
Also, if it's quite early in the round and someone's just RDM'd but maybe one or two people have died I'll still consider it a first blood RDM as long as it's actual legitimate RDM because the person you killed hasn't had a chance to do anything yet. So it's officially just RDM before any deaths I suppose but I think it's also slightly up to the ranked members' judgement.

[Prox]

   I really don't see how RDMing an innocent at the beginning of the round is any different then RDMing one after a few minutes, since in both cases he didn't do anything to anyone and the RDMer had the same reasoning for killing. Now the reason why I think RDMing a traitor is different is because chances of becoming one are lower. As you know once there's 8 players in the game 2 of them become traitors, which means that the chance of becoming a traitor is 4 times lower then becoming an innocent or detective, so in a way RDMing 1 traitor could be the same as RDMing 4 innocents, this may not be necessarily a right way to compare 4 people to 1 but what I'm trying to say is that RDMing a traitor isn't the same thing as RDMing an innocent.

[Sabb]

   I really don't see how RDMing an innocent at the beginning of the round is any different then RDMing one after a few minutes, since in both cases he didn't do anything to anyone and the RDMer had the same reasoning for killing. Now the reason why I think RDMing a traitor is different is because chances of becoming one are lower. As you know once there's 8 players in the game 2 of them become traitors, which means that the chance of becoming a traitor is 4 times lower then becoming an innocent or detective, so in a way RDMing 1 traitor could be the same as RDMing 4 innocents, this may not be necessarily a right way to compare 4 people to 1 but what I'm trying to say is that RDMing a traitor isn't the same thing as RDMing an innocent.

That logic is really bad...
But  no, RDM on a traitor is RDM, it's up to chance whether the person they RDM'd was traitor or not, and they shouldn't be punished based off of this chance. But any ways, it's a little more severe for first blood because then you 're more certain that the person is killing for no reason as nothing has been done, and they're ruining the game for someone further because they didn't even get a chance to play the round. Therefore it's a little more severe, but it still also depends on the ranked member's interpretation and opinion at the time.

[Prox]

That logic is really bad...
But  no, RDM on a traitor is RDM, it's up to chance whether the person they RDM'd was traitor or not, and they shouldn't be punished based off of this chance. But any ways, it's a little more severe for first blood because then you 're more certain that the person is killing for no reason as nothing has been done, and they're ruining the game for someone further because they didn't even get a chance to play the round. Therefore it's a little more severe, but it still also depends on the ranked member's interpretation and opinion at the time.

   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.

3. Traitors must do something(ie pull out a knife, plant c4, shoot or kill someone) before they can be suspected and killed. Killing a Traitor before he have done anything is NOT ALLOWED!

[Sabb]

   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.

I think it's kind of implied that it goes for innocents as well but I could be wrong. 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.

[Shockah]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

   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.

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]

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.

   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.

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.

This is something that every VIP knows or at least should know.

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.

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]

   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.

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]

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.

   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.