After recently getting into a small debate with poor @kynwall -and having similar issues with others- I figured making a Q&A on this topic would be a good way to clear up any misconceptions players or staff may have regarding these situational circumstances (the following scenario's are all based on recent in game events) =============================================================================First off, I'll quote the extended rules: Please answer the following scenarios stating Yes or No to RDM, and provide an explanation. Scenario 1: Jeff enters a closed room, and Bob leaves the room after Jeff. Jeff notices there is a burning body off in the corner, and proceeds to kill Bob. RDM: (Yes/No)? Spoiler: My Viewpoint Explanation: With only one person in the room at the time and the short amount of time it takes to burn a body, Jeff can be certain that this player is the one who burned the body with a flare gun. Scenario 2: Jeff enters a closed room, and Bob leaves the room after Jeff. Jeff hears a C4 beeping in the room, and proceeds to kill Bob. RDM: (Yes/No)? Spoiler: My Viewpoint Explanation: While Jeff did not actually see the C4, he can however locate its location with enough certainty to know it is within this room. Bob exited a room without having called out or acknowledging there to be a C4; therefore, Jeff has enough motive to kill Bob. Scenario 3: Jeff is standing on a platform above Bob- Jeff cannot see Bob. Bob fires a couple sniper shots near players, Jeff locates the direction the shots came from and immediately jumps down to Bob's platform and kills him. Furthermore, Jeff locates two other players that were within view of Bob having taken his shot, and so he decides to kill the other two players. RDM: (Yes/No)? Spoiler: My Viewpoint Explanation: In order for the kill on Bob to not be RDM the events must take place within close proximity of Bob having fired his sniper and Jeff having began shooting Bob. Jeff can be certain that Bob made the shot by locating the direction of the shot to his position and killing the culprit shortly after the initial shot. Additionally, depending on the layout of the surrounding structure (ie. closed room) Jeff may be able to kill spectators who did nothing about Bob sniping. Scenario 4: Jeff is standing outside a room when he hears gun shots and death sounds in the room next to him. Rather than choosing to enter the room he pulls back and waits for the player(s) to leave the room. Shortly after Jeff identifies 3 players leaving the room without having identified the bodies inside; Jeff proceeds to kill all 3 players. RDM: (Yes/No)? Spoiler: My Viewpoint Explanation: Jeff is able to locate with certainty the room in which the death sounds originated from and he is able to keep an eye out for any notifications of bodies being identifed. Should no bodies be identified before the player(s) leave the room, then Jeff has enough motive to shoot any players for the reason of "not identifying bodies" Scenario 5: Jeff enters a closed room with 2 players, but as he does so a discombob goes off between the two players. Jeff is unsure which player threw this discombob, so he decides to shoot both players. RDM: (Yes/No)? Spoiler: My Viewpoint Explanation: Jeff was certain one of the two had thrown a discombob because it was a closed room, while he did not know which player had thrown it, he can be certain that one is guilty for throwing the discombob and the other is guilty for not doing anything about it -GBA; therefore, he has enough motive to kill both players.
Hey there Law, so the situation at hand was Player A had been inside a room on train and Player B had killed Player A for exiting the room that had a burning body in the closet of said room. The response in the report was as follows "You had left the room with a burning body." a vague and gray area response. In my own opinion if you DO NOT witness the traitorous act you are killing on suspicions IE: A player shoots down a hallway and another player kills him/her for that not knowing if there were people down it or not however we do carry a "Common Sense" legislation with us that states the following: "Common Sense: In TTT, common sense and logic is huge. You may kill on these grounds, if it implies 100% certainty. This also works for unseen traitorous acts, regardless of the stigma that shrouds this area of the game. You may kill for something you have not seen, only if you have 100% certainty. For example, in 1-way entrance rooms if you hear someone get killed (confirmed only with screams of death or weapons falling on the floor after shots being heard) and you can pinpoint with 100% accuracy which room it happened in, you don't necessarily have to enter the room to find a body." In the case stated above, there was no flare-gun heard, there were no death screams or weapons falling to indicate a murder, it was just a player that exited a room with a body in a closet, meaning Player B had to have entered the room and checked the closet, and then killed Player A off of the assumption that there was no other possible explanation besides that Player A had been the cause of the body that was set a-blaze. Feel free to add your own input on the matter! TL;DR It is a gray area that can cause issues between the players and Staff to the point where discretion from an Admin would be needed due to the severity of the variables that take place.
Yes, the time of bodies burning is short, but the time it takes to teleport out is much shorter. Bob may have left in search of the unknown player who had teleported out. Unless, Jeff kills Bob for not saying that a player that would have been in the room with him had shot a flare gun or teleported and thus kill him for GBA. Yes, Unless Jeff finds the c4, it is possible to be planted on a wall on the outside of the room. Unless you have super perfect headphones, in which case it would be simple for Jeff to look directly at the c4 before killing Bob. No, not if he can tell exactly where the shots came from. Following tracers is pretty easy. But, killing the other players may lead to a karma ban. If the room only has one entrance/exit and there is not was for the body to fall in a way which would make it unreachable, then No. He could tell a player died in the room and the other players refused to ID it for some reason. No, as long as he kills them for one throwing the disco and the other not doing anything about it. The time it takes for a discombob to go off I believe is shorter than the time it would have taken for someone to teleport out of the room.
I can say with confidence that all the scenario's you have listed here are not RDM, but under very very specific circumstances. As the extended rules state, you may kill for something you have not seen, but only if you have 100% certainty. In Scenario 1, if you can determine with 100% accuracy that Bob either fired the flare gun or was GBA to a person who teleported out then go ahead and make the kill. Bob is in a closed room with his T buddy, his T buddy flare guns the body and immediately teleports out. Jeff then enters to see the body burning; he can now kill bob because he can be certain that he either didn't shoot a player who teleported or he burned the body himself. In Scenario 2, if Jeff determines the location of the C4 to be in the room Bob left then Bob can be killed for not calling out a c4. In Scenario 3, This one can be boiled down to as simple as Jeff killed Bob for shooting at players, and two people saw him shoot at players and decided to do nothing about it so Jeff killed them. Completely not RDM as long as Jeff knows for a fact those two players were able to see Bob firing those shots. In Scenario 4, all three players were determined to have walked by unidentified bodies so they were killed by Jeff. Since Jeff is able to see when bodies are identified by looking at the top right of his screen, even if none of the three players killed anyone, they all left a room where they could have clearly seen unidentified bodies. In Scenario 5, if you can determine with 100% accuracy that one of the two players threw that discombob, both of them are able to be killed. Although I would argue this situation is a "Could you? Yea. Should you? Probably not." They are in a closed room and somebody threw a discombob, Jeff should play smart and determine that nobody was trying to harm anybody in that situation. I hope this answers your question about not witnessing Traitorous Acts, although it is exactly as the Extended Rules state. Have a good day, Jeff!
To finalize this and answer your thesis question, yes, you can kill with sound logic. The examples and scenarios everyone has listed are just that -- scenarios and situational examples -- that's why the majority of our rules are so vague to accommodate for the majority of the possible scenarios. The tldr, is that if a player gets reported for a kill they made (using logic and context clues), they will be judged based on their responses and the feedback they provide when questioned; simple as that. If it all checks out then they're in the clear. If the evidence they claim to be sufficient proves to not be, they'll be punished accordingly for lack of sufficient proof to kill.
