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.
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:
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'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..
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.
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.
