Accepted KOSer who koses det shouldn't be slain for dumb people

I said the exact opposite, you speed reader.

 

Which one do you guys think is more disruptive

Scenario 1: MiGGo calls a joke KOS on a Detective. People believe it for 2 seconds until realizing what is going on. Nobody dies, everyone moves on.

Scenario 2: MiGGo calls a joke KOS on a Detective, Dani sees this as an opportunity to kill MiGGo for the sake of killing (since what he did is a KOSable act). Dani kills MiGGo, who in turn gets killed by another innocent, who in turn gets killed by another innocent, who in turn gets killed by another innocent, who in turn gets killed by another innocent. Lordy leaves the server and resigns because he cannot be fucked with the 20 reports that were caused by this one rule existing giving someone an excuse to kill for a small mundane thing, that should've actually just been shrugged off. Riots begin in the shoutbox over the rule and other staff resign as well. Humancowcakes stops donating to SGM because all his friends are resigning and SGM gets shut down.

What I'm saying is the rule itself causes more disruption than calling "joke KOSes". Way more innocent rounds have been ruined because of the rule, rather than the actual KOS called on a Detective.

 

According to the "cause and effect" people, MiGGo is now solely responsible for SGM shutting down and should be punished accordingly.

 

I get the whole "a KOS on a D might dirupt gameplay a bit so we want to discourage it" argument that I read somewhere else, but what you wrote there just seems like a really uptight exaggerated way of thinking. A fucking joke that was obviously supposed to be a joke can't possibly be considered toxic gameplay. It's literally a harmless, dumb joke KOS that nobody would want to follow. Toxic gameplay is FOLLOWING that KOS just to cause chaos, despite being innocent.

Also, really? Chat spam? You're gonna go there? So it's chat spam because 1.5 seconds of the voice chat are taken up by a joke? Are we gonna gag everyone who disrupts the efficiency of voice chat? Like, are we finally gonna gag the people who say "KOS Dani KOS Dani KOS Dani!" and "I'm proven I'm proven I'm proven!" like broken records because they feel the need to say everything multiple times? Are admins at last going to mute the people in chat whose KOS binds are extended to take up two lines with some wacky additional automatic line like "Kill that ho and follow my KOS xd"? Are people who ask the age-old question of "Why are you hurt??" finally getting banned?

 

Just wanna add in here that the reason calling KOSes on Detectives is a T act in the first place is because of Ts pressing their "__ is a Traitor" bind while shooting at the Detective.

Just because people take it as a joke now doesn't mean it's always a joke. There is reasoning behind it.

 

That’s facts

 

Yes. This is a logical explanation for why you can be killed in-game for calling the KOS, but people are confused about why you can be slain for calling the KOS if it's followed by an innocent.

 

And even if we were talking about the whole effectiveness of the "KOSing a Det is Traitorous" rule, I can remember maybe two or three instances total where a Traitor gets killed because they KOSd a Detective while fighting them, but I feel like I see an innocent get killed for a joke KOS on a Detective every time I play. Most of the time in those scenarios everyone even knows that it's a bullshit excuse to kill them and laugh about it.

Just because killing the person that KOSd a Detective "worked" 1/100 times in your and your teams favor, doesn't mean it's a good rule.

 

Not to mention people killing the KOSer if they made the KOS in voice chat, thereby completely negating the whole "pressed the bind as a reflex" thing.

 

OKAY im here to put this all to skew. I have updated the rules to confirm that a KOS called on a detective is invalid due to detectives always being proven, thus whoever follows the KOS commits RDM, not the caller of the KOS. It SHOULD have always been enforced this way, it just appears that knowledge of this situation was lost in extended rule revision limbo. Accepted (I guess?)