So Role-Breaking is defined below, But below in the notes, this is stated, I see no reason for breaking the tester to not be considered role-breaking, as an innocent or detective. It harms your team, and assists the enemy team. There's no reason for this to be done. I think it should be considered role-breaking.
I think role breaking already can be a slippery slope for most game play styles. So I disagree and dont want it to be. Buttttttt. Technically it should be. I just think if you're going to have punishments for something "role breaking" it should be a set protocol. Something like, warn, slay, ban. No discretion involved.
How is that at all accurate? There is no possible way for an innocent to gain a strategic advantage by breaking a tester. Irrelevant. If someone could reply with a valid reason as to why this should not count against innocents and detectives as role-breaking, that'd be great.
1. Manipulating crowds of people 2. Escape route 3. In 67th way if you break the tester you can easily tell when the door is locked which is basically indicating that an attack is about to happen There's a lot more strategies that I won't share
-1. Testers are annoying and I wanna break them Seriously tho, sometimes breaking testers save lives sometimes. No c4 spam= no deaths
Testers are a pretty controversial topic on TTT actually. A lot of players love them and depend on them, a lot of players hate them because they feel like it's the lazy method of playing TTT (I actually fall in this category). Sure, it fits the definition of role-breaking, but because of the controversy behind both T-testers, and health stations, it makes sense that they are excluded from the rule. Besides, these are auxiliary items in the game mode as it is. Also, just another note on health stations. I personally destroy health stations all the time as an inno. I don't want a health station laying around freely for any traitor to use when it's no longer being supervised.
i'd say no, cause: ~ you can do it pre-round ~ isn't necessary to inno win ~ traitors can easily use and abuse most testers to benefit themselves anyway. ~ it could happen by valid accident ~ you don't break to benefit traitors, you break it so people don't crowd around it and die to c4 instead of playing intuitively yes, it's against your role as inno to break a device for tester, but it isn't necessarily breaking your role.
These situations are why Discretion exists. I touched on it a bit back in the original metagaming thread, but if a player is getting banned for role breaking for stuff like this, questions should not be made about the rule itself but rather the staff that used discretion to ban for such a petty thing. No ban should ever be they used discretion 'case closed'. If you disagree with the use of discretion or felt it was done inappropriately in any case, report the staff member involved.
So technically we are forced to test, and can't destroy the tester.... But would that make gameplay fun? Technically if a D asks you to test and you are innocent and refuse. You are already role-breaking. So how far can we bring the rule? T-baiting might be role-breaking, because which A&^%le would shoot next to my face in real life as a friendly gesture? I feel the amount of bans rise by 10 every minute i think about it in depth.