[d33r]

-1 to you
kinda went out of your way to kill the person who killed you instead of the person who defibbed you. comparing your situation to others doesn't make yours any less bad.

-1 to eam
initiated the teaming by defibbing you + initiated the teaming with puppys, however in puppys case she was not intentionally teaming therefore she shouldn't even be in this post. if anything, you just posted another reason why he shouldn't be unbanned lol

I want the main takeaway of me mentioning other situations that this specific one was only reported because of my staff app. It really feels like Caribou, Lil Pleepo, HONG even, and Frost are really going out of their way to try and catch me out on something or going out of their way to say something rude and hateful to me. Which is also why I mentioned caribou saying "rip staff app too" because I don't feel that it was reported for anything other than to put me down. I know for a fact you've been on several times when I've revived an innocent for fun but I wasn't ever warned for that by you or anyone. I know many people have seen something like this happen yet of all the ones I know that got reported this one got reported with a low pop of 7 people. 

Plus when Lil Pleepo joined our vc later on after Eamtomlinson he went to argue with us about how the logic of the situation was telling me that I have to kill the defiber first. I hadn't heard that before and from the rules that are currently being explained to me it doesn't matter who you kill if you kill anyone its teaming. So anytime Love4Puppies has been revived and killed the defiber where are her warns for it? I doubt anyone reported her or the person reviving her or would report them. This just feels extremely targeted at me specifically, especially when Lil Pleepo was asking Eamtomlinson if the accuser decided not to give the warn would he stay and not give his items away. With again the many times I've seen people revive their friends and it ends up killing their T-Buddies or just them I've never seen a single report on it. Now maybe those reports end up in private but I'd love to see them. Including as I was talking to some other people and it really sounds like theres a vendetta against certain people via this group of people. Especially when I was freshly unbanned I would always revive uriel and I was never told not to do that I was only told to stop giving him T-weapons.

It's just like when I thought bold booze wasn't kosable because I had never seen someone kos for it until someone randomly shot me that one time because as monkey see monkey do. I had only ever seen people say its "sus" so overtime I always assumed it was only sussable. like also how bggames gaslit me into thinking that cooking a grenade is kosable and when he was completely wrong he didn't even apologize for when it got me slain. I feel thrown under the bus when stuff like this happens because I'm made to think something that isn't true in the rules and then when I try to appeal its always just "you're wrong". It doesn't feel like its my fault when this happens, I just get used as an example while facing all of the consequences of the actions caused by other people. 

Also to clarify I'm not arguing the rules as they are written, I'm arguing that of the possibly hundreds of times this has happend where the inno kills the Ts on revive. I was singled out even seperate from Eamtomlinson. While I may logically think that I should kill both the traitors if given a second chance, I can infact see what the staff guidelines and TTT Rules say so theres no need to keep repeating it.

Also to answer "If proof can be shown that Peepo was not in the area, and that D33r sought peepo out" for Jammin. Lil pleepo was still right next to where me and Eamtomlinson were by the greenhouse on dinkleberg, If he hadn't been still next to us I probably wouldn't have killed him as we would have easily kept fighting. Yet when I was revived I knew he would have just killed me again if he saw me. Though it sounds like I would have also been reported for killing Eamtomlinson anyway.

[Super Milk Chan]

I'm just going to keep it real and to the point. I have seen people who were at the time and still are mods do those exact same thing and that includes people who have commented on this privately. I myself have even been revived by staff members who were Ts, who proceeded to just walk off like nothing happened. It all so just seems instinctive to react to being revived by killing the Ts, I know it says otherwise in the rules, but again it's not like this doesn't happen on the regular because people find it funny. I'm sorry, but this whole thing just muddies the water between haha funny and actual concerns including current events. This whole thing is coming off as a beat on d33r moment instead of the goffy video game interaction it was intended to be.

[grasse]

completely agree with milk chan being i've done this, and had this done to me hundreds of times and its never been an issue with staff on. its for fun, its for giggles, and i think the intent being not to seek out other traitors but to just duel eam should be pretty obvious. rules are enforced via staff discretion so i don't see why things need to be cut and dry here. rules are rules but i know a large amount of players have done this exact thing before and never seen punishment because they're friends or the residing staff doesn't care.

[nico]

A few months ago I submitted evidence privately that got 2 players warned, after my T buddy defibbed their friend who was an innocent I killed who immediately went and killed me. The players involved took their warns in stride and resumed playing again after the day ban was over. Their warns will expire in another ~5 months.
The finger pointing on this post doesn't help, and instead causes confusion like I see in Jammin's reply. If there needs to be changes in rule enforcement that's something unrelated to this post imo. Overall -1 because y'all were in a VC and could've communicated continuing the rock 1v1 to living players and could've prevented your T buddy from dying using in-game chat.

[BIIG_SAD]

to the point, if you actually read the staff guides, it says that for severe teaming, intent is required, and that staff have to use a bit of discretion (and thus judgement) to determine if the teaming was intentional. In this case, it is readily apparent there was no intent to severely team. it was a 1v1 gone wrong.

fundamentally, the whole point of playing TTT is to have fun. if you pursue and chase the rules with no regard to context and to keeping fun as a priority, then you remove the main purpose of being here - it is a game.

many people do acts which are technically against the rules, but they are not because intent/act. If we punish everyone to the letter of the rule, it would become rules for rules sake, and it would drive people away.

if we are going to be cut and dry here, should we be punishing every TTT player the moment they die and flame each other with no regard to if it is a serious flaming or a joking 'haha, u suck, ima kill u' deal?

Should we punish every time an inno kills an inno regardless of the circumstances? it would, after all, be a 'random deathmatch'.
Should we punish any TTT players for teaming when they hop into server in their private voice chats? should it be ghosting?

Context matters. inno on inno happens for loads of reasons, many of which are "haha, funny" and do not result in punishment, because again, haha funny.
people like to chat with each other while playing TTT. should joining TTT while in a VC with another TTT player be bannable? this would ban most of the community tbh.

TL/DR, y'all are forgetting the primary purpose, which is to have fun. It seems eam and deer got caught up while having fun. They did not join the server with the intent to severely impact the game. They did not team up together to kill every single (to my knowledge) T (as prescribed by severe teaming ruling). Instead, they were goofing off every round by fighting each other, and it so happened that one became a traitor and did a goofy to fight during that round.

If you were in those shoes, would you want to be witch hunted over some low impact bad choices?

[grasse]

 because y'all were in a VC and could've communicated continuing the rock 1v1 to living players and could've prevented your T buddy from dying using in-game chat.

 hard agree on this bit, i don't see this being an issue at all if things were communicated properly on eam's part

[Vitamin D]

+1 for D33r, -1 for Eam.

I don't think D33r deserves a warn for this. Eam goes overboard reviving innos over and over to the detriment of his T buddies. I even asked him for a defib on a map shortly after this, and he just... goes and resurrects Aethy. And I had killed Aethy and myself with a poltergeist. Why resurrect the inno? It annoyed me. He puts people into this situation where they are alive and are restrained by the rules. So they just have to... run around or die? It's silly. This was just a silly thing and people are being a melodramatic.

[Jammin]

-1 to eam, they should appeal themselves if they care. Also incredibly obvious they were teaming.

Is rust rock a t weapon? That would impact my opinion.

I now understand rust rock to be a melee substitute.

I am not aware of any situation where there is an obligation to kill players in some order. It sounds like d33r was not aware of, consenting to, or otherwise supporting their revival as an innocent, but was aware Eam did the revival.

D33r then killed members of the opposing team - known traitor "The Guest" (i'm guessing this is Lil peepo?) and known traitor Eam.
To call this teaming is stretching things - in fact, I would argue, that standing there doing nothing is more akin to teaming than killing members of the opposite team.

As per the staff guidelines:



A traitor reviving an innocent then getting their T buddy killed is the actual definition we use as a baseline for Severe Teaming.

Thanks for posting these, as these prove my point. I'll quote from these guidelines, emphasis on the bolded portions:
"Severe teaming involves situations where the teaming results in major game disruptions. In these instances, both parties are actively working together to achieve the other's objectives and are fully aware that their activities will defeat the objectives of the game."
I do not believe that d33r was actively working with eam, as d33r was revived unwillingly, and continued to achieve the inno's objective, not the traitor objective.
Additionally, d33r was not a traitor who revived an innocent. If you are an innocent, being revived, you can go kill traitors. That's literally the game objective.
Are we living in a world now where you must kill traitors in order, just because someone else breaks the rules?
Should all innos immediately turn around and kill a traitor who revives them - a traitor with a strategic advantage - instead of trying to run and kill that traitor strategically?

Since the rules were brought up (not the Staff Guidelines), let's discuss the rules. The rules state:
"Do not team with or intentionally aid members of the opposite team, such as by giving traitor items to innos or reviving innos who then kill your fellow traitors."
This applies to Eam, as the reviving party, but how does the 'victim' of this revival get punished?

Like it or not, I believe that the Staff Guidelines, as well as the Rules, as currently written, defend d33r and require acquittal. Maybe moderate teaming applies, but this situation, if looked at objectively without emotions or silly grudges getting in the way, does not support "severe teaming" as currently written.

Dislikes to the right ----------------------------------------------------->

[chibill]

I would like to point out that after d33r was revived and killed his T buddy, Eam then bought a knife and went back to rock fighting D33r before getting killed by her.

[bunniey]

tl;dr -1 eam (even if he did make his own post), +1 deer by technicality

do i have any doubts that the intent was teaming to goof around? no, it sounds like you were in a call together, and it's just textbook teaming, but your only saving grace is that the first person you killed after being rezzed was the T that killed you, if it had been a T that hadn't killed you i would say -1, i think thats the only thing that makes it somewhat reasonable since you went to goofing around with eam after

for eams, obviously getting your t-buddy killed by rezzing an inno is teaming, no contest

do i think the only reason anyone said a word about this was personal feelings, and it likely wouldn't have come up if it was 80% of the rest of the people in the community? also yes

i do think defibbing people to screw around is fine, but i also think if you're defibbed as an inno and the first thing you do is anything aside from killingl the person that defibbed you (or the person that killed you), then it's teaming unless you just walk/stand around doing nothing