Support (Read Only) > Help
Clarification of rules regarding killing out of suspicion
TehHank:
--- 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.
--- End quote ---
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.
Deathie:
--- 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.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- End quote ---
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.
ursus:
--- 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.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- End quote ---
Monorail Cat:
--- 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.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- End quote ---
--- 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..
--- End quote ---
--- 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.
--- End quote ---
--- 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.
--- End quote ---
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.
Ἆxule:
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.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version