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

[ball2hi]

What crap did we pull exactly? You mean making you annoy the entire server to death? Also, please detail how I've contradicted myself. I would LOVE to know.

Ok let me point out the actions you and your friends performed. The 3 of you were constantly harassing me, starting out with Flaming Ho(r), who after saw my picture, started harassing me about my weight, what i ate, and how my dog was unmanly. Brosi was being a plain asshole but nothing else then that. You were also being an asshole but kept trying to turn the people currently on against me, by telling them to kill me when i had done nothing wrong and even telling them to kill me JUST because im me. The rounds i got traitor i dreaded at the time because i was always the first suspect from you whether you saw any evidence or not. Alas i was votekicked off the server for not being annoying, but because i was hiding outside the map because i knew that I'd be killed by either of you 3 or be harassed and followed down none stop. After the kick though i figured I'd go to sleep because there is no point with arguing with the "High school Jock"

EDIT- Also let me point out how you can tell if a traitor is a traitor without him killing anyone:
(1. They are planting C4 and are caught in the process.
(2. They are caught with traitor equipment.
(3. They act differently compared to when they are not traitor.
(4. They seem to be following a single person into dark areas / corners / dead ends.
(5. They feel a false sense of security, so thus they most of the time dont mention "Im with" or walk around aware and ready to shoot, more like they are traveling. Some traitors also go to the point where they try too hard to act innocent saying "Im With" several different people none stop over and over.

The list goes on.

[PenisColada]

Ok let me point out the actions you and your friends performed. The 3 of you were constantly harassing me, starting out with Flaming Ho(r), who after saw my picture, started harassing me about my weight, what i ate, and how my dog was unmanly. Brosi was being a plain asshole but nothing else then that. You were also being an asshole but kept trying to turn the people currently on against me, by telling them to kill me when i had done nothing wrong and even telling them to kill me JUST because im me. The rounds i got traitor i dreaded at the time because i was always the first suspect from you whether you saw any evidence or not. Alas i was votekicked off the server for not being annoying, but because i was hiding outside the map because i knew that I'd be killed by either of you 3 or be harassed and followed down none stop. After the kick though i figured I'd go to sleep because there is no point with arguing with the "High school Jock"

Harsh accusations. Take it to another thread.

[eeny]

But it's a stupid unfair disadvantage if there are rules against killing traitors. They already have the extreme element of surprise, stealth, and better equipment.

Is it?

We played together today, and I was moderating the game with the rules that I always use to moderate.

Do you remember how many times the traitors actually won? On average it is a good deal less than the innocents winning.


Anyway, now it is my turn to ask are you guys actually reading everything that I have posted here? You continue on insisting that you are right, refusing to believe that your way has been tested and found lacking as compared to the current way it is handled.

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.

If you stand in the middle of an barricaded room with your gun pointed at the door, and someone opens it to find you just standing there, you can expect to die. This is still a shooter after all.

[Harry]

Anyway, now it is my turn to ask are you guys actually reading everything that I have posted here? You continue on insisting that you are right, refusing to believe that your way has been tested and found lacking as compared to the current way it is handled.

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.

If you stand in the middle of an barricaded room with your gun pointed at the door, and someone opens it to find you just standing there, you can expect to die. This is still a shooter after all.

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

[ball2hi]

If we killed people based on "A Hunch" rather then evidence or a stack of "Hunches" then nobody would have to play as a traitor. Innocents would do their jobs by just killing everyone who looks suspicious.

[Harry]

If we killed people based on "A Hunch" rather then evidence or a stack of "Hunches" then nobody would have to play as a traitor. Innocents would do their jobs by just killing everyone who looks suspicious.

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...

[ball2hi]

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...

I dont open fire on someone who's acting suspicious. Rather i inform the rest of my time of his actions and when i can follow him from behind and watch him. Lots of people act suspicious, and honestly, think of it as in real life (Even though i know this is a game).  Unless you absolutely know that person is going to kill you in the next 5 seconds or poses a life threatening consequence, would you take his/her life based on a "Hunch"?

[eeny]

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.

Err, no I understand fairly clearly what you are saying. To summarize, you don't think punishment should exist for killing traitors (Unless clearly random, IE: someone is just going around shooting everyone anyway) while at the same time advocating for a change in server policy. You also are trying to say that accidental innocent deaths are acceptable and that we should not warn people when they happen, let alone actually ban for them. You are upset about the long round times, and feel they could be over quicker if you were more trigger happy (See: Lax admins) and that everyone else is too.


Those are your major points so far, the rest has been scenarios skewed in such a way to try and further your agenda (After the one you presented about today's game I am going to take all of them with a grain of salt) and repeating the exact same thing over again.

More importantly however, if you didn't read his post then how would you know if I responded to any of his points?

[Harry]

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.

[pieman]

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?

Seeing as there are only three TTT servers, and I have spent some time on all of them I would wager quite a bit.

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.

As eeny as already said, we've tryed this before and it did not work out well. Obviously you haven't spent too much time playing this mode or else you would see some of the idiotic people who play this. It'd be great to be able to be to kill traitors based on your suspicions, this was very much how it was when it was just the ZM community playing this. However since this has gamemode has been established there are quite a few people who's idea of a suspicion good enough to kill someone is, "They were staring at me," which is why rules were set up to stop this.  All together there is real no point in discussing it because most pubsters who play this can't be trusted enough to not have these rules. Which is why I came to post the suggestion that he open his own server after that incredibly immature arguement he had with me and eeny in the server we were in.

[Harry]

Seeing as there are only three TTT servers, and I have spent some time on all of them I would wager quite a bit.

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

As eeny as already said, we've tryed this before and it did not work out well. Obviously you haven't spent too much time playing this mode or else you would see some of the idiotic people who play this. It'd be great to be able to be to kill traitors based on your suspicions, this was very much how it was when it was just the ZM community playing this. However since this has gamemode has been established there are quite a few people who's idea of a suspicion good enough to kill someone is, "They were staring at me," which is why rules were set up to stop this.  All together there is real no point in discussing it because most pubsters who play this can't be trusted enough to not have these rules. Which is why I came to post the suggestion that he open his own server after that incredibly immature arguement he had with me and eeny in the server we were in.

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.

[PenisColada]

I dont open fire on someone who's acting suspicious. Rather i inform the rest of my time of his actions and when i can follow him from behind and watch him. Lots of people act suspicious, and honestly, think of it as in real life (Even though i know this is a game).  Unless you absolutely know that person is going to kill you in the next 5 seconds or poses a life threatening consequence, would you take his/her life based on a "Hunch"?

I don't open fire on someone who's just acting suspicious either. In the case of Chesnut, there were multiple instances where I felt he was displaying very traitorlike behavior.

[eeny]

Harry, I suggest you stop skimming posts and read them fully. Most of what you have been saying isn't making any sense, and no I am not the only person who feels this way.

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.

Well, you can feel free to repost them again, this thread is already pretty cluttered and just goes around in circles so hey why not eh?

I don't open fire on someone who's just acting suspicious either. In the case of Chesnut, there were multiple instances where I felt he was displaying very traitorlike behavior.

How unfortunate then, that both of the admins on at the time happened to disagree.

[PenisColada]

How unfortunate then, that both of the admins on at the time happened to disagree.

Yeah, that is pretty unfortunate. I know it's a rather outlandish concept, but perhaps those two admins were wrong? I mean, of course admins are descendants of God Himself and everything they say is the absolute truth, but, you never know.

[eeny]

Yeah, that is pretty unfortunate. I know it's a rather outlandish concept, but perhaps those two admins were wrong? I mean, of course admins are descendants of God Himself and everything they say is the absolute truth, but, you never know.

Perhaps they were, but it is unlikely considering that the server god granted them the power to interpret and enforce the law as they wish. It is what makes them better than us puny mortals afterall.

[ball2hi]

Perhaps they were, but it is unlikely considering that the server god granted them the power to interpret and enforce the law as they wish. It is what makes them better than us puny mortals afterall.

Just because im not admin doesnt mean im a mortal! Mortal.
Dont make me roleplay you to death. I'll do it!

[Broseidon, of the Brocean]

Another important point to bring up is how you people are overusing and abusing the acronym "RDM" to the point of it losing its meaning. Say to yourself out loud what "RDM" stands for. Most importantly, keep in mind what the "R" stands for.

When an innocent kills a traitor based on intuition or sincere belief that the person is a traitor, it is NOT random. Even if the traitor expresses that he isn't satisfied that he made enough mistakes to deserve it, it's still anything but random. It's not an RDM, and the person who did that is not an RDMer. I understand that it can be frustrating to have your plan unexpectedly fail, but placing skilled (or even lucky) intuitive players into the same class as minges and griefers is really low, and just screams "sore loser."

And I must say, Harry's poker analogy really hits home. How fun would poker be if nobody was allowed to look at the other players' faces, and everything anyone said was relayed to the other players through a soulless text-to-speech program?

Edit: And how fun would poker be if whenever someone said "Call it" and won, the players immediately broke out into a huge argument about whether or not the winner had sufficient evidence to call it, accused him of being a "random better" and lectured him about how horrible and destructive poker would be if people were allowed to incorporate perception, intuition and other human elements into their playing?

[Harry]

Harry, I suggest you stop skimming posts and read them fully. Most of what you have been saying isn't making any sense, and no I am not the only person who feels this way.

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.

Well, you can feel free to repost them again, this thread is already pretty cluttered and just goes around in circles so hey why not eh?
How unfortunate then, that both of the admins on at the time happened to disagree.

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.

[Blitzy!]

A brief yet vital note.

Due to the high admin influence in the gamemode and because the concept of 'RDM' is rather open to interpretation, the rules will differ from server to server. Some servers may be quite lax and say "Well, yeah, if he's been following you for about 5 minutes, and you told him to go away but he's still following you, then fine, kill him". whereas others may say "YOU NEED REASONING!"

If you feel a server's rules are too strict or too lax, move to another one or talk to the server admins. There aren't really any hard-and-fast rules, since it's so open to interpretation, so if anyone's trying to force down rules which apply to the entire gamemode, they may be slightly biased.

[Qloos]

My take on the matter:  As RDMing becomes enforced more and more the variety of player personalities drops.  As a server is created they should have only one rule to prevent RDM: "You must have a reason to shoot them."  And tell people why when people ask why they were shot.

Players can then learn and plan for other peoples personalities and change tactics accordingly.  Thus, a proper psychological game.