[Festive]

I feel like constant rdm wasn't really defined on the motd or the rule book. I know the name kinda speaks for its self but I want more of a definition to go by rather then posting a ban request thinking I got em for constant rdm when really it was on a rdm + leave. I want more of a "if they rdm 3 times in a row" def. Just something more specific than a name

[VolfVoss]

So you're looking for "Player RDM'd 3+ times" sort of thing?

[Gabe]

There is something on consistent Rdm in staff guidelines


Edit: well I was typing up a longer and detailed response but for some reason I closed the tab but now I have to go out for a bit and can’t finish it now. Will post again later

[MilkManFromMars]

I think he makes a good point. Some parts of the rules aren’t really explained well. It leaves too much to the vocal explanation which could get newer users in trouble because they wouldn’t know. Too much in some cases, like constant rdm, is just left to staff determination for the time being. That leaves a lot of room for bias. If a staff member didn’t like someone and that guy just happened to accidentally kill the third person on the last round of a map then he could slip it off as “constant rdm”. I think it should be better defined as X amount of rdm in Y amount of rounds, or per map. Things like room claiming or spam rules are even foggy. People can spam a bind like 4 times before they get told to stop, and kos messages are practically bottomless. I think the rules should be reviewed and some of them better explained to be more user-friendly

[Tedgp908]

The issue is that it’s a balancing act between having comprehensive enough rules and making them short enough that a new player will actually read. With the current state of the rules 99% of new players aren’t going to read them.

[MilkManFromMars]

The issue is that it’s a balancing act between having comprehensive enough rules and making them short enough that a new player will actually read. With the current state of the rules 99% of new players aren’t going to read them.

As much as I agree that it’s a problem that new players wouldn’t read rules, I think it should be better explained because with the current state of the rules it’s the staffs fault for making it unclear, but it would be much better and easier to explain that it’s the user’s fault for not reading the rules. In the end it just seems better to put the weight of blame on the careless user rather than careless staff

[Dildo Shwaggins]

I only speak for myself but if someone RDMs in the neighborhood 3-5 times over the span of 2-4 rounds then that's when I would probably do it. Still situational, but that's probably where I'd start to consider it

[matt_st3 (Strongrule)]

When I joined I was told each round of the map they played was a rough standard. Which allows for 3-4 rounds depending on how fast staff slay. I always though that a low bar, and that’s rarely enforced. If they kept that rate over say 2 maps, or they just refused to stop rdming with answers like dhdkskduushdhd then yeah.
And I thought about it, Tbh I would verbally explain the rules rather than tell a friend to read the rules. They are so long and like 90% covers specific instances. Most of the issues can be covered in less words than the metagaming paragraph. Yet people are determined to find ways around rules so we have a long list. Discretion is fine so long as admins are only promoting staff that actually deserve it, and not simply because they didn’t do anything wrong that month. So - if you don’t like the decisions staff are making, instead of tying up specific rules why not comment (and actually think about them) on staff apps. Too many times I see +1 why not on even mod apps. Also cough active admins needed. Cough not inactive. Thank you for coming to my rant.

[lacer]

Also cough active admins needed. Cough not inactive. Thank you for coming to my rant.

We had active admins until you resigned

pls come back we miss u

[Gabe]

This is the definition of Consistent RDM that is located in the staff guidelines that is available for everyone to view. It is located under Guides and Information > Trouble in Terrorist Town > TTT Staff Guidelines. As it says, it is hard to give a textbook definition of it because it generally relies upon context and discretion of how to handle it based on the context of the situation and every situation is going to be different. Should be looking at trends by the player and if they are frequently rdming with malicious intent over multiple rounds, maps, or days.

I think he makes a good point. Some parts of the rules aren’t really explained well. It leaves too much to the vocal explanation which could get newer users in trouble because they wouldn’t know. Too much in some cases, like constant rdm, is just left to staff determination for the time being. That leaves a lot of room for bias. 1. If a staff member didn’t like someone and that guy just happened to accidentally kill the third person on the last round of a map then he could slip it off as “constant rdm”. 2. I think it should be better defined as X amount of rdm in Y amount of rounds, or per map. 3. Things like room claiming or spam rules are even foggy. 4. People can spam a bind like 4 times before they get told to stop, and kos messages are practically bottomless. 5. I think the rules should be reviewed and some of them better explained to be more user-friendly

1. That is something that should never happen. Staff are supposed to remain unbias when it comes to reports/bans/etc whether they are a friend, foe, or random. Everyone is treated equally. In the event that this did happen there is always the Staff Abuse section and would be handled by Admins.
   
   
2. I explained this above.
   
   
   
3. As for claiming, the rule as stated in MOTD says:  "A valid claim requires that the room not be an intersection needed to move through the map, and the claim must be called out with a description of the space being claimed.  The claim is in effect only while the claimer is within its bounds" as well as stating that "Owners of a claim may kill any non detectives that tries to enter or open the door to the claim"
   
   The definition of a room is "a partitioned part of the inside of a building" and an intersection is "a place or area where two or more things intersect(to meet and cross at a point)." So basically what this rule means is that you cannot claim places that are needed to move throughout the map or entire sections of a map. It must be a room.
   
   So I'm not quite sure what's foggy about this rule, it seems pretty clean-cut to me if a person actually reads it carefully or even just asks a staff member to clarify it verbally.
   
   
   
4. In MOTD it says Chat and mic spam are never allowed which also implies that it isn't allowed post or pre-round. Spamming adminchat, binds, random stuff, radio commands, and whatever else are all things that can fall under spamming and should be enforced that way. So I'm not quite sure what's so foggy about this either seems clean-cut to me if a person were to take the time to read it or ask a staff member to clarify verbally.
   
   
   
5. Tbh in my experience rules from TTT server to TTT server are generally around 90% the same while having server-specific rules for some things. Sure, somethings can perhaps use a bit of tweaking/re-wording in the explanation and maybe some of the bigger issues/loopholes can have something added, but we can't possibly cover every specific situation and spell out everything in the MOTD, it would just make it unnecessarily long and just give people another reason not to sit there and read it. I also feel that even now with the MOTD people don't take the time to read it and then suggest that we should add a rule or specify it more even though it is already there or specified enough that it can be verbally clarified by a staff member.