01-11-2018, 04:10 PM
Take this situation:
Two people are shooting each other with the same weapon, in a room where no one can see either of them. A kills B. C walks in to find B's identified innocent corpse. A claims B shot them first and it was self defense. C has no reason to believe A. But, under the current rules C basically has to take A's word for it. Should this change?
For now the rules basically leave the decision on this open so it can be handled case by case. However the default everyone has taken when enforcing the rule is that C cannot kill A. This presents a problem. C has no reason to believe A. He saw nothing of the fight. Neither A nor B called the other out first. A and B had the same gun so you can't hear who shot first. All C sees is a dead innocent. As TTT is a game based on deception, having the rule prevent C from killing A ruins that. A doesn't need to convince C of anything because the rule protects him from C under threat of slay.
For this situation what do all of you think is the best resolution?
Additionally what function do all of you prefer the rules to take? Should the rules be specific to cover as many situations as possible and give a clear punishment to everything? Should the rules cover only major infractions that directly make the game less fun for players, but be open on letting the participants dictate the interaction in situations like above? Should the focus on something else?
Two people are shooting each other with the same weapon, in a room where no one can see either of them. A kills B. C walks in to find B's identified innocent corpse. A claims B shot them first and it was self defense. C has no reason to believe A. But, under the current rules C basically has to take A's word for it. Should this change?
For now the rules basically leave the decision on this open so it can be handled case by case. However the default everyone has taken when enforcing the rule is that C cannot kill A. This presents a problem. C has no reason to believe A. He saw nothing of the fight. Neither A nor B called the other out first. A and B had the same gun so you can't hear who shot first. All C sees is a dead innocent. As TTT is a game based on deception, having the rule prevent C from killing A ruins that. A doesn't need to convince C of anything because the rule protects him from C under threat of slay.
For this situation what do all of you think is the best resolution?
Additionally what function do all of you prefer the rules to take? Should the rules be specific to cover as many situations as possible and give a clear punishment to everything? Should the rules cover only major infractions that directly make the game less fun for players, but be open on letting the participants dictate the interaction in situations like above? Should the focus on something else?
![[Image: iOq71ag.jpg]](http://i.imgur.com/iOq71ag.jpg)
