Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Killing someone for killing an inno
#31
(09-28-2018, 08:17 AM)King Tiger Ace Fasda22 Wrote: Killing an innocent is not a reason to KOS. Killing an innocent for NO REASON is a reason to KOS. I didnt think thats THAT difficult to conceive? Genuinly whats so bloody difficult about that.

Not to mention only thing I see from you is you walking in on a gunfight, with a man that says he was attacked BY the innocent dead guy. You SUSPECT he's lying and kill him. Most important word: SUSPECT. You're killing him out of suspicion, wich as we all know, is RDM. Not. That. Fucking. Difficult.

that wouldnt be suspecting anything that would be killing him for killing an inno because you have zero proven evidence that that inno had attempted to kill the guy. How are you supposed to assume the guy is telling the truth? If you dont see someone kill someone you can only put sus on them. So in any case that an rdm happens and no one can see you, you cant be kosed for it unless if the detective gets dna because otherwise nothing can be proven unless you get kosed by the rdmer. So realistically 80% of the time this rule will be enforced when a detective gets dna on an rdmer. Which detectives do all the time.
#32
With that logic, good job fucko, he was innocent too, eat this .50 cal

Then I will eat one, then the lad that killed me will eat one, and so forth because THEY'RE ALL KILLING INNOCENTS. Lets make the Traitors job NOT their job but the job of an RDM'er and the rest of the innocents, great fun
Resigned Staff since 03-26-2018.
#33
This is what sus is for.

Matt_St3 / Strongrule / Spartan001295
Forum Admin - Resigned TTT Admin
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[00:04] matt_st3 (Strongrule) [traitor] has damaged Taliban Tom [detective] for 4.9999999349555e+14 HP with an unknown weapon
#34
(09-28-2018, 09:49 AM)King Tiger Ace Fasda22 Wrote: With that logic, good job fucko, he was innocent too, eat this .50 cal

Then I will eat one, then the lad that killed me will eat one, and so forth because THEY'RE ALL KILLING INNOCENTS. Lets make the Traitors job NOT their job but the job of an RDM'er and the rest of the innocents, great fun

Your first sentance yes! Then that person reports the one that rdmed them thats how every other server works
As for stopping rdm trains this is the ONLY thing this rule does that doesnt break a fundamental of the game... just make continueing rdm trains slayable. When an rdm train happens its very obvious. rdm trains should end when inno rdms inno, then inno that killed inno is killed because then that last person to kill an inno had the right to kill them AND you can prove such by 2 inno bodies and one saying they killed the other
#35
[/quote] you can prove such by 2 inno bodies and one saying they killed the other
[/quote]

That’s broken logic on your end though. I walk in see two bodies, you say “B killed A so I killed B, well now how am I supposed to just believe they because there are two bodies? By your rule I’m able to kill you.

Matt_St3 / Strongrule / Spartan001295
Forum Admin - Resigned TTT Admin
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[00:04] matt_st3 (Strongrule) [traitor] has damaged Taliban Tom [detective] for 4.9999999349555e+14 HP with an unknown weapon
#36
Again, killing people on the suspicion that they killed an innocent for no reason holds the keyword. Suspicion. Explain to me in detail how bloody difficult that is. You suspect they're lieing when they tell you they defended themself, you suspect they're a lieing T.
Resigned Staff since 03-26-2018.
#37
you can prove such by 2 inno bodies and one saying they killed the other
[/quote]

That’s broken logic on your end though. I walk in see two bodies, you say “B killed A so I killed B, well now how am I supposed to just believe they because there are two bodies? By your rule I’m able to kill you.
[/quote]

No one body will literally have a kill log on it saying they killed the other person. Thats 100% hard proof of what happened and no one should be killed after that.

(09-28-2018, 10:53 AM)King Tiger Ace Fasda22 Wrote: Again, killing people on the suspicion that they killed an innocent for no reason holds the keyword. Suspicion. Explain to me in detail how bloody difficult that is. You suspect they're lieing when they tell you they defended themself, you suspect they're a lieing T.

How thick is your fucking skull what your saying is practically what i was saying to ace and thats part of the problem. What you are saying here is part of the problem WE ARE FORCED TO BELIEVE A LIE WITH THIS RULE IF ITS NOT BELIEVED ITS RDM BUT WE SHOULDNT BE FORCED TO BELIEVE WHAT CANNOT BE SUPPORTED BY PROOF OR FACT THIS RULE IS SUPPORTED ONLY BY HEARSAY. I literally made your point to ace when showing a flaw in this rule his response was that you are taking a chance and if your wrong its your fault. As if its somehow not rdm if your right and its a t

The biggest flaw of this rule besides the breaking of major mechanics like detectives getting dna off of innos. Is that we are forced to believe AND keep track of anytime someone cries rdm when there is no way to prove that you were rdmed to begin with.
#38
Oh you’re talking about that little kill log on the body. That would prove that part true. tho i doubt people will actually want to check with a sus T in the room.

Either way, eliminating self defense takes out a fundamental game mechanic in itself “try to survive”

The point isn’t that you have to prove you’re an innocent, the point is proving they are a T and killing them. There’s a distinction

Matt_St3 / Strongrule / Spartan001295
Forum Admin - Resigned TTT Admin
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[00:04] matt_st3 (Strongrule) [traitor] has damaged Taliban Tom [detective] for 4.9999999349555e+14 HP with an unknown weapon
#39
(09-28-2018, 11:02 AM)matt_st3 (Strongrule) Wrote: Oh you’re talking about that little kill log on the body. That would prove that part true. tho i doubt people will actually want to check with a sus T in the room.

Either way, eliminating self defense takes out a fundamental game mechanic in itself “try to survive”

The point isn’t that you have to prove you’re an innocent, the point is proving they are a T and killing them. There’s a distinction

1st one your right but its real proof
2nd Not really back when this rule was first implemented it was taken as i had said earlier that it isnt slayable so you are able to defend yourself in the rules but just saying you were defending yourself didnt make you non-kosable for it. Long running rule of ttt on any server is you kill an inno AND are caught doing so your kosable
3rd exactly thats why the rule killing an inno or detective is kosable is there this rule just makes you ignore this one. Really this rule isnt even a rule its a disclaimer added to this rule
#40
I still miss the point where defending yourself from and rdmr is Proof you are a T. Because you need Proof someone is a T to kill them, be it say a knife, they sniped someone not kosd. Again DNA is a thing of itself. But this “oh you might could possibly maybe be a T because you killed an Inno trying to kill you” is not proof to their identity or intent

If I try to kill jimbo but he kills me first, how does that prove he is a T

Matt_St3 / Strongrule / Spartan001295
Forum Admin - Resigned TTT Admin
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[00:04] matt_st3 (Strongrule) [traitor] has damaged Taliban Tom [detective] for 4.9999999349555e+14 HP with an unknown weapon


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

About Us
    This is Dinkleberg's GMod, a gaming community based in Garry's Mod. We have a Trouble in Terrorist Town, Prop Hunt, Murder, and Deathrun Server. Come check them out sometime.