[murl]

Recently on the server, a player was AFK for a few minutes and was killed by an innocent who saw them standing on top of a couple unidentified bodies. They were then autoslain for rdming because they "knew they were AFK".

Is this the position staff are currently taking? At the time this happened, I put my thought process in chat, but I guess it wasn't enough or was ignored because they were slain anyway. My logic is: if staff continues slaying for it, then a traitor can purposely stand completely still holstered on top of an unidentified body and then get someone autoslain because you can't really prove if the innocent knew they were afk or not.

This kind of bothered me because it just seemed like another case of a regular whining enough in staff chat to the point where staff felt like they had to take action rather than just telling the 'victim' to move on. You don't have to autoslay someone just because you're being pressured to. Don't enforce things that historically have never been enforced on any TTT server in the 15 years it has existed.

In short: you are responsible for your own death if you're afk standing on top of unidentified bodies. It's impossible for an innocent to know if someone is truly AFK or not.

It just makes zero sense to me to punish people for playing the game properly.

Thoughts?

[Sailboat495]

to clarify since some people may be confused, this is about when I was slain for killing two AFK's that were next to an UNID (in spawn, which was right under them and clearly visible).



clip

the rule itself says this: The body must be safely accessible and within reasonable distance, you must give ample time to identify it, the player must not be in an active fight or otherwise reasonably preoccupied, and they must be no farther from the body than you when you first see them near it.

I don't think any of the conditions above weren't met, unless you think being AFK counts as being "reasonably preoccupied", which would be a pretty bad interpretation given that there technically wouldn't be a way for anyone in the game to know that (even if it's 'obvious'). The slay was taken off then readded with this:

instant coffee enjoyer has been autoslain by Rox5tar01 one day ago with the reason: 'Staff consensus is that since you know they are AFK and thus can't ID the body, it's RDM'.

I don't think this is a good interpretation of what the rule should be (I also think "staff consensus" is a moronic phrase - if it's a consensus, then it should just be in the MOTD) - it shouldn't be my problem that someone is AFK nor should I be able to know or prove that they are (even if it's extremely obvious). I also don't think there's any point to protecting AFKs since I killed them in order to keep the flow of the game quick/smooth instead of having to wait longer.

I don't care about getting slain either way - but the thought process here just isn't very good and frankly I've thought the rules administration on this server has nosedived pretty hard since I've started playing and should be overall resolved.

[bunniey]

My thoughts have always been this: If you're in a common spawn area of a map (some maps have mass spawn areas, others are scattered, so it can be a little odd) and you're afk, unID'ds are not and have not been KOSable for you. This is an exception. If you're in a random spot in the map, or are tucked away in a corner that is clearly not a spawn area, and there's an unID'd in front of you, you're free game. If you do not see that someone has seen a body, for the most part, they're in the clear. Obvious cases being the body is right in the corner, they are a step in front facing the opposite way, and it's not somewhere they would have spawned, they likely have something to do with that and it would be very reasonable to kill them for it.

The problem with doing it any other way is then people would, after 30 seconds of no movement, just kill everyone in afk areas, when obviously we are mostly at this point adults with lives that get pretty busy, so being a minute or so late to a round and coming up dead because of something you had no control over sucks.

Maps with wild spawns are harder to tell, of course. And yes, a T can just swap to their crowbar or holster near bodies and seem fine. Of course, if you saw them moving at some point prior they'd be free game. I do think rounds are short enough that if you /start/ a round not afk, and then go afk, you're very much more liable for things that happen while you're afk at that point, for a couple of reasons.

I say this as someone who ends up afk very often due to work and then thinking I'm free and then suddenly not being free. It might not be fair, but even without that, I think it's more fair on average than it isn't

[Rox5tar01]

Hi! I gave this slay. Let's talk about it.
To preface, I'm gonna leave this scenario anonymous, however if the person who got slayed or the victim wants to chime in, then that would be fine.

Scenario:
Person A is AFK at spawn. This happens on a map with a central spawn, meaning all players are starting at the same area, give or take a bit. While Person A is AFK, Player B (also AFK) is killed. Player B's body is BEHIND Player A, meaning that even if they were present and just not moving, it was completely out of their vision. Player C comes along, and ID's the corpse acknowledging that the players are AFK. Player C leaves, and comes back a bit later and kills the still AFK Player A (before OT). Player A reports Player C.

My Response and The Aftermath:
Personally, since Player C acknowledged Player A being AFK (meaning it wasn't a question of whether they were AFK or not) and since that the UnID'd body was completely out of view of Player A. Quite a few people were upset by this slay, some vocal (such as you Murl, as well as others. Your concerns did not fall on deaf ears, I promise you that.) and others not. Before the slay was given, I had pulled the slay off until I could get some clarification on that rule from the other staff members (this took a bit since I was the only staff on at the time, so I had to contact the others elsewhere). I also notified Player C that their slay would be removed until I could get clarification. Shortly after, Player C left the server (not due to a rage quit, mind you). A bit after that, I received a consensus from the staff team (will be stated shortly) and that verdict was that the slay was good. I returned the slay to Player C, but didn't give them a RDM and Leave warn (nor do I believe one would be justified) just because I was waiting on external factors.

Consensus On The Rule:
Summing up the different viewpoints I've heard from differing staff of different ranks, the following is a mish-mash of all the opinions stated
"Killing an AFK who is near an UnID and who is believed to be AFK is RDM. A lot of grey area applies here, and a lot of individual staff discretion can be used. The big issue when dealing with this is figuring out whether the player shooting can reasonably determine if the one they are shooting should have seen the UnID body, and whether it can be reasonably determined that they were AFK. This is because it's reasonable to assume that a person who was AFK would not have had the opportunity to ID said body. One example where it wouldn't be RDM, is if they are AFK and outside the traditional spawn area(s). This does leave a lot of wiggle room where someone can pretend to be AFK, but again staff discretion does apply from scenario to scenario."

To clarify a few things:

...I put my thought process in chat, but I guess it wasn't enough or was ignored because they were slain anyway...

As stated before (I know I have a bad habit of long-winded rants, so I'll post it again here just in case it was overlooked) your concerns, as well of the ones of many others were not ignored. That was the primary reason that the slay got delayed for as long as it did, since I do acknowledge I can be wrong sometimes.

...This kind of bothered me because it just seemed like another case of a regular whining enough in staff chat to the point where staff felt like they had to take action rather than just telling the 'victim' to move on. You don't have to autoslay someone just because you're being pressured to...

Just a heads up, Player A was not "whining" in staff chat about it. I was not pressured by Player A in any way, and if anything I was "pressured" (if we call waiting a bit to hear other opinions being pressured) by the grand majority to withhold the slay. I was not pressured by other staff to give the slay either, it was simply a question of which I received multiple responses for. The slay, in the end, was my decision and mine alone.

I'll be happy to answer any questions about it that y'all may have. 
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I don't think this is a good interpretation of what the rule should be (I also think "staff consensus" is a moronic phrase - if it's a consensus, then it should just be in the MOTD)

I agree that some rule decisions are not in the MOTD when they should be (and for those, I have pushed strongly for them to be added behind the scenes), but the problem is that not every grey-area can be stated in the MOTD. The MOTD is moreso intended to act as a rule of guidelines that is to be enforced by the staff, and for the areas that the MOTD doesn't 100% cover staff discretion is to be used alongside the guidelines. The problem is, is that when you have 27 staff members with vastly different methods of handling things, there will always be discrepancies (I assure you, that there quite a few discussions that happen on a frequent basis between staff about how to handle rules/warns). However, we do our best since we can't always cover every single grey area within the MOTD. This often leads to calls that people don't always agree with, but that's why we have things like the forums and discord where the general player can voice their opinions, whether they agree or disagree.

[Jammin]

As a staff member, I never slayed for someone killing an AFK play around unID'd bodies. Being afk and not contributing to the gameplay does not afford to additional rights not given to a normal player. If you're afk, you take the risk of dying due to in-game situations, such as unidentified bodies falling around you. We have to track enough things in game, such as whoever is sus, who is kos, etc. I personally don't stick around at the beginning of each round to see who is AFK. I think that's a ridiculous thing to have to track.
There is a very easy solution to this, and that involves not being AFK and taking up a slot.

Here is a scenario that can illustrate this:
If I come running around the corner, I don't know the context of why someone is standing afk. Being in the traitor menu after having killed the room is a good explanation. If I see someone standing over and I need bodies and not actively iding them, I'm shooting them every time.

Another way of thinking about this is using the innocent until proven guilty method - if the player is not clearly rdming for an improper reason, such as killing the person solely because they are AFK, then a slay is not proper to be issued. I often did this, if I wasn't sure who was at fault in a shooting situation, I lean towards issuing no slay.

Based on other responses, it seems like the rules are not written properly in the situation and should be revised. I don't think this is an abuse of staff discretion because they're following the rules is written, but the policy itself is flawed.

[tiefling lesbian]

i could have sworn this was in the motd at one point but i can't find it in any version
the (apparently unwritten) rule has always been that obvious AFKs are exempt from unID body KOSes, but i agree this only applies within the confines of the spawn area and with people who have not been present since the start of the round

[Virunas]

i could have sworn this was in the motd at one point but i can't find it in any version
the (apparently unwritten) rule has always been that obvious AFKs are exempt from unID body KOSes, but i agree this only applies within the confines of the spawn area and with people who have not been present since the start of the round

Will it be added then? 

[Im A Bald Eagle]

Regarding the execution of the slay itself: 
This slay was fair and done according to the rules, I'm confident about that. 

Regarding the efficacy of the rule: 
Much to Rand's point, life prevents people from being at their keyboard 100% of the time. Active players will be afk at the start of rounds sometimes, it's just going to happen. Allowing people to indiscriminately kill AFK players for reasons like this will cause more grief than the alternative. Folks who attempt to "abuse" the rule in the way that murl described will not be successful very often, and even when they are, it'll be moreso impressive than anything. 

I think this one was blown a bit out of proportion and the way the rule is currently enforced is fine. Maybe some MOTD clarification is warranted, but otherwise I don't think any rule changes need to be made here.


Reporting someone for killing you while you're AFK is kinda lame tho, ngl 

[Ryan]

Honestly, if I had my way, AFKs at spawn would be as much of fair game as anyone else.

If a T kills 3 people at spawn, but leaves one alive, they are a T. If the T got killed before they could finish their massacre, it doesn’t make sense to kill them.

I, personally, don’t think that if a T leaves an unid body next to an afk, that the afk should be afforded 5 minutes of protection. I get that we are trying to preserve the experience of people that have to step away from their computers; but if they are stepping away, surely they are also expecting to not be alive halfway through the round.

That’s just my opinion as a player.

[murl]

My response and thoughts mirror Ryan's above, but also you shouldn't continue to overcomplicate MOTD/rules in a way that increases the amount of work staff have to do, they should be as hands-off as possible. I afk too, but I don't feel compelled to report if I die due to my traitor buddies killing everyone around me in spawn. The way some of you want to move forward with this, you're adding more variables to staffing (where spawns are, if someone was actually afk or not, etc.) when you could just dismiss a report because they were next to an unidentified body. Also, no, I don't think the MOTD needs further clarification, because most people don't read it in its entirety as it is and fluffing it up with unnecessary details only makes it worse to read and enforce.