Support (Read Only) > Help

Clarification of rules regarding killing out of suspicion

(1/9) > >>

Monorail Cat:
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?

Tezuni:
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.

ٶȻhriʂ:
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.

Tezuni:
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.

coolzeldad:
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.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page