Could someone please explain to me in what way that is not the point of the game?

having only the dead vote could work imo. They're more likely to have seen what happened, and don't have anything immediate to gain from a biased vote. If there aren't enough victims to kick the vote off, then the RDMer can't be all that disruptive, right?

TGB - IT might also be worth considering leaving the vote up to the innocents. Surely a traitor who has been sniffed out when he thought he was being really clever would be a biased vote. The innocents have nothing to gain from kicking out good detectives, so it seems ideal to consider the game to be disrupted if they feel the accused RDMer was being disruptive?
I might also add, that I think it dumbs the game down in another way that hasn't really been mentioned. There's plenty of discussion for how to do treacherous things and not get caught, but what of a traitor and his need to use his keenest observation skills to avoid appearing to have done something wrong, even if he hasn't? If there's no penalty for a traitor (or an innocent, for that matter) hanging around unidentified bodies, or carrying around a confirmed murder weapon, or opening fire unprovoked, surely it removes skill, observation and intuition from the game and replaces it with methodical stimulus and response?
What I believe is ruining the game mode is individuals who claim something was an unfair "RDM." Since when was "fair" one of the cornerstones of the game? If you fail to avoid suspiscion, it's your balls on the chopping block. The cutt-throat mob execution shit is the very charm of the gamemode.

As has been said before, we need to think about what makes a kill RANDOM. If any deliberation was involved whatsoever, it was not random.

Traitors should avoid suspiscion altogether if they want to succeed, and I don't think there's any reason to make it too easy for them.

I still think it's in the spirit of the game to have any kicking or sit-outs be decided by vote. Everything else about the game is about appeasing the mob and pack mentality, why not the actual rules as well? Whether you act like an asshole in a game like this should be up to the individual, whether you get away with it should depend on your cunning... Just like the rest of the game

Well, first of all, I don't think it's a TERRIBLY big deal for someone to kill someone with minimal information. If the kill was truly random then the odds are that it will have been an innocent, and someone killing too many innocents can veritably be said to be random killing. Being followed, in the right circumstances, is definitely an indicator. Someone following a single other person around would have no reason to do so other than if they were a traitor. If they were innocent, then there's no telling that their companion isnt a traitor who will simply kill them the moment they're sufficiently separated from the pack. Travelling in threes or more allows reports to be made when the traitor starts his work.
But this also opens up the possible tactic of traitors working together and associating themselves with only one innocent, and actually working together to murder them, after giving them a sense of security in numbers. If you punish someone for killing someone who is clearly stalking an individual, there's no reason for the traitors to work together in this way - Just follow someone to a secluded area and dispatch them, without any fear of his companions opening fire on you. I know it sounds arrogant but I really feel like i can say the enforced "evidence rule" (i wont call it RDM rule because random deathmatching isn't what we're examining here) subtracts from the depth and possible strategies that can emerge from the game.


edit: It also near-destroys the possibility of people pretending to be a traitor, even when they aren't. While it sounds dumb and certainly wouldn't score points, I'm sure there'd be people who would like to give it a shot to break things up a bit. I think I would, as it'd be interesting to see how you could actually provoke people into suspecting and even killing you without actually killing anyone youreself. This wouldn't work if people were punished for killing on suspiscion.

Agreed



this guy totally gets it. The only thing i'd maybe disagree on is the wording of the rule you've proposed, but given we're just spitting here its not a big deal. The important part is, there seem to be plenty of us who agree that with an increase in enforced RDM rules comes a decrease in psychological strategies and variations of them.

Oh are you like, not the only one or something? I guess you have the masses on your side, though they are unusually quiet on the matter. I've still yet to see you actually address the specific points being raised and offering your rebuttal to them, you're taking the fact that I've not read the whole thread and really milking it as far as you possibly can as indisputable proof that i apparently have no fucking idea what i'm talking about.


I'd venture to suggest they will be reposted until they're actually discussed. "What we currently are doing works" doesn't seem to cut it... Espescially when the argument surrounding the topic, and as Broseidon mentioned, the constant misuse of the term RDM, are so rampant.
Again, what's your excuse for punishing people on grounds of "random deathmatching" when they have eliminated a traitor based on their deliberation? Should we go easier on them and play along with them until we actually see them kill someone? If that's the case, the gamemode has instantly become about 80% less interesting for me.
To scientifically determine if the killing is in fact random, the amount of innocent victims the accused has had should be weighed against the amount of traitors they have dispatched. If it is in fact completely random, and their traitor kills outweigh their innocent kills, what are you suggesting the explanation is? ESP? Hacking? It seems to be a totally foreign concept to most people here that suspiscious behaviour can in fact indicate a guilty individual. Let us also keep in mind that there are a lot more innocents than there are traitors, so a truly random killer has the odds stacked against him, and pure probability would have him weeded out quite quickly if we were more logical about how we decided whether someone was playing disruptively.

How much exactly? If it covers the cost of me actually hosting my own server, you're on.


This might be true, but why should it be a result of a one-on-one argument where there's a good chance the participants are localised have every reason to be biased? Why not leave that kind of thing to votekicking? The gamemode isnt, and probably never will be, immensely popular. Kicking people because one guy raged and accused them of RDMing will only hurt it further. If the decision was left to the whole server collectively, this argument wouldn't exist. If I wanted someone kicked from the game and the majority of other players in that server wanted him kept in, then so be it. I just don't think it should be left up to one individual's idea of how the game should be played, espescially because it's so judgement based.

It's good that you don't open fire on someone acting suspiscious. But, it's bad that you expect everyone else to play the exact same way. The best thing about the game is that everyone has their own strategy and you'll really see their personalities come out, so there's never a single approach to winning, it's all dependant on who is in the server and how they're playing the game. This is what sets it apart from other shooters.
The real-life comparisin holds about as much water as a sieve. The point of the game is treachery, trickery and detective work. You don't "just kill" anyone in real life, even if they ARE guilty of murder. What you're saying just doesn't work here.

And Eeny, i skimmed over the points, and generally understand what the position is through discussing it with people. You're kind of missing the point. While it's true that we denounce punishment for killing "on a hunch," you don't seem to understand at all our reasons for supporting this viewpoint.

edit: I think enforcing too many rules in the game dulls it down and takes away a whole layer of gameplay, that is, the psychological layer that isn't just based on pure fact. I don't by any means consider it disruptive for someone to be a little more trigger happy than the other players in the server. The mix of personalities adds to the variety and intricacy in the experience.

speak for yourself! I would absolutely certainly open fire on someone acting suspisciously enough, at the *very least* I would keep a keen eye on them, Yet i've never been accused of RDM'ing...

Your whole perception of what we're advocating is skewed, and has been since the very first post you made in the thread. I didn't even read through broseph's entire post and I can see you didn't address a single point he made, it's almost like you just wrote it off as another generalised "bitching about RDM" thread and gave it a stock response which you seem to have followed up to this very point.


Wait what, is that you saying it's reasonable to open fire on people who act threateningly, without actually killing anyone?

Is this talk of running around jumping to avoid fire even fucking remotely serious? Come on, the game's surely a little more sophisticated than that.

Let's conduct this civilly, hey?

Maybe he will? Thing is, this is a place to discuss such things and it has been going on for a while. What's your intention behind this statement? are you implying there's no point discussing it?


You guarantee, huh? How much are you prepared to wager on that statement, if it's so indisputably truthful as you imply?


That's ad hominem, for a start, and you still havent actually gone into any logic or supporting material for what you're saying. Here's an example.

I think the interesting thing about this game, that is, what sets it apart, is the amount of reliance on personal judgement. The game mechanics themselves are so minimalistic that the most interesting aspects of gameplay come out through how people use their freedom.
Random deathmatching is a guy running round shooting everyone hoping to find a traitor, not arresting, questioning or killing someone based on suspiscion. Explain to me in what way the very game itself isn't totally based on suspiscion, true or false as it may be?
Imagine how boring the game would be if everyone followed the same rigid procedure of waiting to see someone murder someone else, and react by killing them? Imagine how boring the game would be to play with everyone using the exact same strategy? The intricacy is in how different people react to different situations, this is what makes the game interesting.
One of the first observations I made about the game was its similarities to poker at a fundamental level. The guns, the killing, the "rules," are analagous to the cards in poker. But the appeal of poker isn't in the cards, a million other card games use the exact same cards. People spend their whole lives delving into the psychological aspect of it, trying to take the minimal amount of information and interpret it as effectively as possible. This is analagous to observing the behaviour of other players in TTT. I think to discourage judgement and observations of subtleties destroys the elegance of the game.
That's what I think.