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.
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.
[/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.
