Who can be RDMed, and who might already be ruining this game mode.

[Broseidon, of the Brocean]

As of yesterday, some of the people playing this gamemode (which I've been liking A LOT, due to its uniqueness and its emphasis on the darker sides of human communication) have been trying to impose this crazy concept that traitors can be RDMed. Instead of arguing with all of them ingame, I'm going to offer my 2 cents here.

Let me tell you guys something: Being an innocent and killing other innocents as if it's a deathmatch game is RDM. If you are a traitor, and an innocent kills you, it should NOT be considered an RDM. If you are not satisfied by the ease at which your plan failed, that doesn't make it an RDM. If it comes as a surprise when you get killed, that does not make it an RDM. If an innocent kills you, and you can't think of any way that he found you out, that doesn't make it an RDM.

Let's say you're running across a field and suddenly you get sniped in the head. Or you're running down a hall, you turn a corner and a guy shoots you in the face. You think "Oh wow, that totally came out of nowhere, how could he have known? What a lucky bastard. I feel really frustrated, and in my blind fit of rage and disbelief, I'm going to assume that he's just some idiot who's shooting at random people and just so happened to hit a traitor."

Maybe you're right. He might have just been doing that. Or maybe he was outside of the building in the dark when he saw you burn that body, and waited for you to get far away before he took the shot because he knew that your shotgun would beat his rifle up close. Maybe he looked in a window earlier and saw you holding a silenced pistol, but couldn't get you from where he was so he didn't kill you right then and there, but decided to do so next time he saw you. Maybe he was outside and heard the sound of a Mach10 firing, and didn't see the announcement of a corpse being identified. Then he saw you run out with a Mach10. And instead of shooting you right away, he snuck in to where you just were, saw that you were running away from an unidentified body, but he lost track of you because you were already gone. Then he saw you somewhere else 5 minutes later and took the shot. Either way, give him the benefit of the doubt! You can express frustration, and you can ask how he figured it out, but don't immediately go straight to throwing out accusations and overusing the term "RDM" to the point of meaninglessness!

What makes this gamemode exhilarating, interesting and truly unique is that it's a game of perception and deception. And the players who excel at it are the ones who have gotten good at both, and know how to use it all when they are traitors and innocents.

There are ways that traitors can give themselves away besides just being seen killing someone, or being seen with a traitor weapon. Keep in mind that other people can see you in a way that you don't see yourself, and for those of you using mics, your voice also sounds different to other people than it does inside your head. Maybe you were overzealously accusing other people of being traitors, and at a certain point, it got a bit too obvious. Or you started yelling that you were being shot at by someone who was standing right next to me in a room doing nothing. Maybe someone listened to your voice for a long time, and intuitively picked up on it through your patterns of speech. You might not be as good at lying as you think you are. Which brings up another point of what makes this gamemode amazing: it's the only game that forces EVERYONE who plays it to be evil. You aren't just playing as a stealth class in a game. You actually have to lie to other humans. You have to deceive them. You have to create illusions, you have to manipulate them, and you have to be GOOD at it! You have to make sure that your deception is better than someone else's perception. Also, keep in mind that innocent players can be deceptive too: Sometimes it pays to go attack a traitor without previously announcing your suspicion.

One time, I saw a guy come around the street corner and he was wounded. I hadn't seen any bodies yet. I asked him why he was wounded (it was early in the round and no traitors had been called out yet). He said something along the lines of "I just walked in the...there were these...they uh..." basically, he was tripping over his own words and having a really hard time making something up on the spot. I let him talk for a little while longer, then I shot him dead before he could do it to me, and examined his body and guess what? He was a traitor. THEN I found the unidentified bodies later. But I got screamed at for doing an "RDM" because I didn't first talk to him for 2 minutes and then bend over a corpse and give him a chance to "cleverly" shoot me in the back of the head. I knew at the time that there was a chance of me being wrong, that that adds even more to the excitement: the uncertainty, and the risk you take with every shot you fire. You might misjudge and shoot the wrong guy, or you might hesitate and get shot by the guy you were suspicious of.

There are people who think that they are the only ones allowed to have fun, who fail to accept defeat, and when they lose, they take it as a direct attack on their souls and sincerely believe that they have been wronged and that the winner should be punished. Of course, everyone wants to think that they have the perfect plan, that they are masters of deception, that there is no way that they could fairly lose, and if they do, someone is breaking a rule and deserves to be banned. Server owners, please be wary that some of them might try to ass-kiss their way into becoming admins (and that DOES sometimes happen).

This is game requires using parts of your brain that no other game does. But there are already people who are trying to take that away, who want to make rules that suppress those elements so everyone must dumb themselves down. I've seen people literally tell others that they should get banned if they kill a traitor without "evidence" or "proof." What proof? You mean I have to find your fingerprints and record a fraps video of you killing someone, then send that video to an admin before I'm allowed to hunt you down and kill you? Or you want me to explain exactly how I knew it was you, and convince you to your satisfaction that it conformed to your template of "reasonable suspicion" while you argue with me about it, and in the process we inevitably ruin the game for everyone because now everyone is required to spend more time arguing than playing and having fun. I urge all present and future admins of this game's servers to please not require any players to do this. Many great gamemodes have been ruined this exact way, and many of you know exactly which ones. Don't let it happen to this one. Not this time.

[eeny]

Sigh.

Yes, traitors can be RDM'ed. Taking a wild guess is a bad thing. Shooting someone because they are injured is a bad thing (although that guy should have had a betetr excuse). You should use common sense while realising that if you shot every single person who is the least bit suspicious you are ruining the game for others, just as you claim they are ruining it for you.

[Broseidon, of the Brocean]

I understand, my post was pretty long so you probably didn't read the whole thing.

Eeny, keep in mind that if someone is shooting everyone who is damaged and everyone who is the least bit suspicious, obviously they would be killing lots of innocents as well, and they should be getting kicked for that (if they continue to do so after being warned, of course). Notice that I never said we should be nicer to innocents who kill other innocents.

Where in my post did I glorify "taking a wild guess?" That certainly isn't what I meant. I talked a lot about perception and intuition, but I can't see any part where I said that it's also cool to just shoot random people hoping that one of them will be the traitor (like I said, that is already considered RDMing and should still be treated as such). And can you quote the part where I said I shot a guy just because he was injured? It doesn't look like I forgot to mention that I also gave him plenty of time to explain himself before I made a judgment.

I'm just saying that I think players shouldn't be forced to explain themselves for winning, no matter how lucky or unexpected it seems. Unless you're talking about something like multiple desert eagle headshots through a wall from across the map.

[eeny]

First off, I should apologize if this post seems poorly written, or the ideas seem to run together or are so completely disjointed as to make no sense it is fully my fault for posting this at the time that I am. However, I will still reply because I have to be up at five A.M and the only way for me to have done that with my sleep schedule as messed up as it is was to pull an all nighter. I will come back to this post at a later date if needed And make any necessary adjustments.

I understand, my post was pretty long so you probably didn't read the whole thing.

I did actually, normally I skim posts, but I took the time to fully read yours.

Eeny, keep in mind that if someone is shooting everyone who is damaged and everyone who is the least bit suspicious, obviously they would be killing lots of innocents as well, and they should be getting kicked for that (if they continue to do so after being warned, of course). Notice that I never said we should be nicer to innocents who kill other innocents.

Its eeny :) I really dislike it when people call me "Eeny" because it inspires people to mispronounce my name as "Eh knee" rather than "E knee".

Also, you are correct in saying that you never said 'I should be able to shoot everyone and never explain myself."
What you want is not to have to go through a whole process of "It is (name) because (Various actions)." It is fine to kill someone you have solid proof of and then explain why you killed them later. However as the game is currently set up to be highly admin influenced, be repaired to always explain why you killed somebody.

Where in my post did I glorify "taking a wild guess?" That certainly isn't what I meant. I talked a lot about perception and intuition, but I can't see any part where I said that it's also cool to just shoot random people hoping that one of them will be the traitor (like I said, that is already considered RDMing and should still be treated as such). And can you quote the part where I said I shot a guy just because he was injured? It doesn't look like I forgot to mention that I also gave him plenty of time to explain himself before I made a judgment.

I count anything other than the following to be taking a wild guess (and subsequently RDMing).

1. Server vote on the execution of a player.
2. Seeing a player kill another player (can be extended to placing c4 and use of any traitor equipment excluding the silenced pistol).
3. Killing someone without issuing a minimum of three separate warning followed by a single warning shot into the floor or wall nearest the player.
4. Obvious self defense.

Those are the old rules, albeit slightly modified for today's TTT, that were established early on in the game modes history. I use them when policing Soduka's server and very rarely do I hear a complaint about how I do things.

Yet in your post you mentioned many things that can leader to innocents dying. For instance if someone walks out of their barricade to see the end of a firefight, and begins to chase down the killer by passing by several unidentified bodies and you snipe them by mistake. Or somebody picks up a rifle nearby and you just identified a corpse that was caused by someone using a rifle so you kill them. Intuition can often be misleading, remember you yourself said it was the traitors job to spread lies and deceit.

Also you would not have shot that guy had he not been wounded.

I'm just saying that I think players shouldn't be forced to explain themselves for winning, no matter how lucky or unexpected it seems. Unless you're talking about something like multiple desert eagle head shots through a wall from across the map.

That would just promote rampant RDMing in order to win, and is counterproductive. This game is allot like the board game of clue, where you say "It was (person) in the (location) with (weapon)." When you choose to say it is completely up to the player, it can be before or after you act, however if you are wrong or if you lacked the sufficient evidence to warrant the ending of a players turn in the game, then be prepared to face penalties.


It may not seem fair to you that there can be penalties for winning a game. However this game can be ruined in many different and creative ways. Unfortunately how somebody wins needs to be monitored in order to keep the game fun, and usually there is not a conflict.  If there is a conflict, or you feel that every server is doing something wrong, then I highly encourage you to open your own server where you can set the policy yourself.

[me]

I didn't read all of it, but let me say that before I ever accuse of RDM I ask the guy how he knew it was me.

[FBC]

I fucking rage whenever I get RDM'd as a traitor.

Countless times, I call bullshit and ask them how they knew to kill me, and the response is always the same:

"I dunno, I just kinda wanted to kill someone, and you were the closest."

Although once I got the response of "I felt the tingle in my balls."

[TheCze]

There are a lot of ways how somebody can make himself suspicious without knowing it (I won't share my secrets on how I detect traitors :)) but it's still possible that traitors get RDMed. Of course RDM is not the right word for it because if you have the slightest suspicion it's not anymore real RDM though it's still bad for the gameplay, because even if you kill a traitor because of a small suspicion sometimes you'll also often kill innocents.

I'm basically not killing anyone until I have a proof if he's a traitor. Once you have your suspision either tell other people or try to follow him without him seeing you. The most time I catch is a traitor is when he does not know that I'm watching him and he starts attacking other people. Of course there is always a danger that he will turn around and thinks "oh an unsuspecting victim" which should be the moment to tell the other players about your suspicion. If you have a voicechat the traitor is basically forced to either not kill you or blow his cover.

Also if you do have a suspision it's legit to call a vote and then kill him.

[that guy]

That brings up a question if pretty much the whole server votes to kill a guy would that be considered rdm?

[AndyTheGeeky]

That brings up a question if pretty much the whole server votes to kill a guy would that be considered rdm?

See eeny's rule #1.

[Broseidon, of the Brocean]

It may not seem fair to you that there can be penalties for winning a game. However this game can be ruined in many different and creative ways. Unfortunately how somebody wins needs to be monitored in order to keep the game fun, and usually there is not a conflict.  If there is a conflict, or you feel that every server is doing something wrong, then I highly encourage you to open your own server where you can set the policy yourself.

Actually, so far it doesn't seem like any of the servers have been doing anything wrong. All of the admins I've encountered seem fine and only use their powers to deal with the most obvious mingiest DMers. I mean to warn about a very small but very loud vocal minority that only plays TTT because they need an FPS in which they get to shoot people without being shot first, and spend the whole game just waiting for their turn to be traitor. These people don't care for the mental and social aspect of the game and I can already tell they seem to have made quite a presence on the forums.

As far as "rules" and "fun" goes, think of this:

Scenario 1
There are eight innocents and two traitors. Right at the beginning, Traitor1 starts to follow Frank as he goes through buildings and down streets. Frank becomes wary of this, and decides to go into a dark alley to see if Traitor1 will follow. He does, and Frank kills him, then IDs the body and announces to the server that he just killed a traitor. Meanwhile, other people are still getting into groups and searching around, and sometimes accusing each other. Traitor 2 snipes someone, and the body is found. Frank is feeling like he's on a roll, so he shoots another guy who he thinks was Traitor 2. A small crowd goes to inspect the body and they find out that he was an innocent. Frank made a mistake based on paranoia mixed with overconfidence. A player named Joe starts saying that it must be Frank, and that he didn't really kill a traitor early on, and some other reasons. The rest of the crowd is also very paranoid, and they end up gunning down Frank. Then they realize he was innocent, and the blame is then switched to Joe; now everyone is saying that he is the traitor and that's why he "tricked" everyone into killing Frank. So a big shoot out occurs. A lot of people die, but it turns out they were right: Joe was the second traitor.

Scenario 2
There are eight innocents and two traitors. It was established early on (partially by the butthurt Traitor 1 from the previous scenario) that anyone who kills anyone is an RDMer, even if they kill a traitor, unless they have reasons that conform to the template of proof. Traitor1 is following Frank through corridors and up staircases and it starts to get really obvious, but Frank knows of the new rules so all he can do is ask Traitor1 why he's doing it and tell people that Traitor1 is following him. He then goes into a dark room to see if Traitor1 will follow him there, and he does, but Frank is still not allowed to shoot Traitor1, so instead Traitor1 gets the first shot off on Frank and gets an easy kill. Frank then gets to sit out for about 15 minutes while everyone else does nothing but talk to each other, yell at each other, and throw accusations at each other while awkwardly jumping/dancing around. But none of their manually induced paranoia is actually being acted upon, because that's against the rules. Aside from the traitors killing a few stragglers, nothing happens among that big group of innocents for a really long time, because everyone knows that they aren't allowed to shoot traitors unless they see them kill people, use traitor weapons, or do other obvious traitor things, and neither of the traitors are dumb enough to be seen doing that infront of innocents, so the round goes on forever. The traitors basically have it really easy and it's a total no-brainer, but at the same time, they don't get to experience the joy of tricking innocents into killing each other because those innocents know that they'll get banned if they allow deception and perception to be part of the game.

[eeny]

strong>Scenario 1
There are eight innocents and two traitors. Right at the beginning, Traitor1 starts to follow Frank as he goes through buildings and down streets. Frank becomes wary of this, and decides to go into a dark alley to see if Traitor1 will follow. He does, and Frank kills him, then IDs the body and announces to the server that he just killed a traitor. Meanwhile, other people are still getting into groups and searching around, and sometimes accusing each other. Traitor 2 snipes someone, and as a small crowd goes to inspect the body, they see Frank come around with a rifle. An innocent named Joe starts saying that it must be Frank, and that he didn't really kill a traitor early on, or whatever other ridiculous reason he can come up with on the fly. The rest of the crowd is also very paranoid, and they end up gunning down Frank. Then they realize he was innocent, and the blame is then switched to Joe; now everyone is saying that he is the traitor and that's why he "tricked" everyone into killing Frank. So a big shoot out occurs. A lot of people die, but it turns out they were right: Joe was the second traitor.

Everything there is fine except for Frank killing that traitor at the start.

strong>Scenario 2
There are eight innocents and two traitors. It was established early on (partially by the butthurt Traitor 1 from the previous scenario) that anyone who kills anyone is an RDMer, even if they kill a traitor, unless they have reasons that conform to the template of proof. Traitor1 is following Frank through corridors and up staircases and it starts to get really obvious, but Frank knows of the new rules so all he can do is ask Traitor1 why he's doing it and tell people that Traitor1 is following him. He then goes into a dark room to see if Traitor1 will follow him there, and he does, but Frank is still not allowed to shoot Traitor1, so instead Traitor1 gets the first shot off on Frank and gets an easy kill. Frank then gets to sit out for about 15 minutes while everyone else does nothing but talk to each other, yell at each other, and throw accusations at each other while awkwardly jumping/dancing around. But none of their manually induced paranoia is actually being acted upon, because that's against the rules. Aside from the traitors killing a few stragglers, nothing happens among that big group of innocents for a really long time, because everyone knows that they aren't allowed to shoot traitors unless they see them kill people, use traitor weapons, or do other obvious traitor things, and neither of the traitors are dumb enough to be seen doing that infront of innocents. The traitors basically have it really easy and it's a total no-brainer, but at the same time, they don't get to experience the joy of tricking innocents into killing each other because those innocents know that they'll get banned if they allow deception and perception to be part of the game.

Frank should have initiated rule number 3, allowing him to retaliate if his demands were not met. Also, those traitors in this example are obvious failures, they could have done any number of things to break up a mob or cause enough paranoia inside of it to get the reaction that they wanted.

[Marauder8]

What about this secenario then.

The round just starts and a person that had just joined the server gets picked as a traitor. They are walking down a road when someone discovers a body. It has been sniped by a rifle. The traitor has not been suspected yet. The traitor turns a corner and see's a person with a rifle. They say "carefull it could be Joe(lets call him Joe)". Joe has a rifle and that guy was killed by a rifle. "Joe is now on my suspect list"(They have to seem innocent). Right after typing this Joe shoots him in the head with his rifle screaming "ONLY TRAITORS SUSPECT INNOCENTS!" The Traitors body went unchecked for a minute or two and during that minute the innocents suspected Joe. At which point Joe began to shout "BUT HE SHOT ME HE SHOT ME" When the traitor did no such thing. Is THIS alright to do?

[ibor10]

Yes, traitors can be RDM'ed.

i disagree. i dont see any reason for this to be allowed

[eeny]

link=topic=9248.msg333280#msg333280 date=1256592600]
What about this secenario then.

The round just starts and a person that had just joined the server gets picked as a traitor. They are walking down a road when someone discovers a body. It has been sniped by a rifle. The traitor has not been suspected yet. The traitor turns a corner and see's a person with a rifle. They say "carefull it could be Joe(lets call him Joe)". Joe has a rifle and that guy was killed by a rifle. "Joe is now on my suspect list"(They have to seem innocent). Right after typing this Joe shoots him in the head with his rifle screaming "ONLY TRAITORS SUSPECT INNOCENTS!" The Traitors body went unchecked for a minute or two and during that minute the innocents suspected Joe. At which point Joe began to shout "BUT HE SHOT ME HE SHOT ME" When the traitor did no such thing. Is THIS alright to do?

Mr. Joe RDM'ed.

i disagree. i dont see any reason for this to be allowed

You are allowed to think as you want, personally I feel that you are wrong however others may agree with you. Mostly I stated how I moderate the server that Soduka runs and that those have been the rules since the game was founded.

[PenisColada]

Everything there is fine except for Frank killing that traitor at the start.

What? That's definitely reasonable suspicion. An innocent wouldn't follow another innocent into a dark room alone. The traitor could've shot him if Frank had waited another second to kill him.

[eeny]

What? That's definitely reasonable suspicion. An innocent wouldn't follow another innocent into a dark room alone. The traitor could've shot him if Frank had waited another second to kill him.

You don't kill for suspicion, you kill because you know without a doubt they are the traitors. "Frank" in this case should have not put himself in such a situation to begin with, and once he found himself in such he should have told everyone where he was and who he was with, then proceeded to warn the guy.

Not that hard to do.

EDIT: Oh and by the way, yes innocents do follow each other around.

[Milo]

Although once I got the response of "I felt the tingle in my balls."

During this incident, were you the traitor? Because if so, we must find this person.

[PenisColada]

You don't kill for suspicion, you kill because you know without a doubt they are the traitors. "Frank" in this case should have not put himself in such a situation to begin with, and once he found himself in such he should have told everyone where he was and who he was with, then proceeded to warn the guy.

Not that hard to do.

EDIT: Oh and by the way, yes innocents do follow each other around.

I think if you think someone is the traitor and you kill them and they are the traitor, that's not an RDM. Traitors should only be 'RDMed' if they were killed completely randomly and the person who killed them didn't actually think they were a traitor. Otherwise this gamemode just turns into some roleplay bullshit.

[eeny]

Yes, well, I feel that I have made my position sufficiently known, if you wish to know what my rebuttal to your post is go ahead and read my above posts.

[PenisColada]

Just now, I was very suspicious of a guy (Chesnut). He kept following me and like, lining up his deagle as if to headshot me. So I told him to stop following and he was being suspicious, and he was vehemently denying beng traitor and getting angry. I knew for sure he was a traitor by his behavior. Much later in the game, after I had killed a traitor (saw him kill a guy), me and a few other people were hanging out in the courtyard of Cluedo. Half of us were unarmed and dancing around like chickens. Suddenly Chesnut showed up and I said "Oh shit it's Chesnut he came out of nowhere with his gun out" and he started to get ready to shoot me so I killed him. He was the traitor. He started crying foul and claiming it was RDM because I had no proof, and other people on the server sided with him (Pieman).

What's the point of this mode if you need proof? Then it just turns into a contest of who can catch the traitor in the act of killing. There's no psychological element or any kind of detective work if you're not allowed to figure out someone's a traitor by their behavior. Honestly, if you start really enforcing the "need evidence" rule, it's going to stop being a deep, intelligent game and start being a repetitive, boring, predictable piece of crap. I don't like being punished for being able to detect subtle behavioral changes. If I think someone is a traitor, I kill them, and they're a traitor, it should be allowed. Period. If I think someone's a traitor and they're innocent and I kill them, then THAT could be considered an RDM (unless there's good evidence of them acting like a traitor).

Not to mention, almost EVERY time I had a 'hunch' about someone being a traitor, I was right. Usually holding off on killing them costs me my life and often the lives of many other people. There were so many times where I was sure a guy was a traitor but didn't shoot because I was afraid of getting kicked/yelled at. And then the person ended up being the traitor (usually killing me).

This game needs to reward intelligence and thoughtfulness, not combat skill.

One more point: Most spectators/dead people will agree that rounds drag on far too long. I think this is mostly because people are SO afraid of killing because it's so easy to break the rules that way. We need to not overcomplicate this gamemode with unnecessary rules and features and just let it run its course. It shouldn't be like another dumb roleplay server with nanny admins that ban people for doing things slightly wrong.