Define “proven” somewhere in the rule sets.

Discussion in 'Rules and Protocol' started by john redcorn, Apr 21, 2020.

  1. john redcorn

    john redcorn strangers like me VIP Emerald

    Currently the only definition for what might prove someone as innocent in logic deduction scenarios falls under 100% certainty.

    Defining the term and giving examples of what is and isn’t proven would actually allow you to use scenarios which aren’t 100%, which is common place now. Clarification is needed since new players and players competent enough to be staff have a wide range of interpretation. See that discussion thread for more.
     
    • Agree Agree x 5
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  2. Noctorious

    Noctorious Your Best Nightmare VIP Emerald

    I would like to add to this suggestion to have 2 different terms in the rules, "proven" and "tested". We can still use "proven" as a not 100% means to identify someone who is most likely not a traitor, so people know to give the person the benefit of the doubt (let them check bodies of who they just killed, help them in a gunfight, etc.). While "tested" be used for a player who has been tested by a tester that either cannot show a false positive, or has a work around to guarantee the right result ( double testing).

    If we use 2 separate terms to differentiate the similar but different scenarios I feel there will be less confusion
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  3. Santa Claus

    Santa Claus Best Member VIP Bronze

    [​IMG]
     
  4. Ted

    Ted The knight in white armor! Silver

    I can see why you guys want this in the rules.
    But some previous leads had to simplify a list of 7-9 pages down to 1 so that new players don't have to study law school education before joining our server.

    All I see is some arguements going back and forward of what you are. Adding more complexity to the game.

    I can see the in game players:
    player A: I'm proven by tester (as most people have their bind)
    player B: Are you proven or tested
    player A: Tested
    player C: I did not see him test
    player E: Who tested?
     
  5. LBPotatoes

    LBPotatoes That’s so crunchy VIP

    Why’d you skip D >:-(
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  6. Pacifist

    Pacifist Cynically Insane VIP Bronze

    do you really need to make four godamn threads about this like jesus fucking christ. On the topic of proven: I don't think it requires much definition. It isn't established in the rules because having proven status effectively counts for nothing because you can still be kosed and or be killed for committing traitorous acts. Personally? The way we have it now is perfect.

    Like, the sitation comes down to this: 4 people left alive. Two of them are proven, you can kos the other one for being the last left unproven. The problem, of course, is this should never work, as being proven is not something you can ever 100% be unless you get tested. If this situation happened on Dust 2 you would not be able to kill for it. Mods and Admins just ignore that because imagine how fucking stupid it would be to know that a person is a traitor but not be able to act based on the rules.

    My problem with this suggestion is that you would need to literally define what being proven is and exactly what it means to be proven. If being proven makes it so you can't be killed for T acts, then fuck that because now some idiot can run around rdming people, but i'll get slain for killing him because he has immunity. great. Worse yet, now we have to prove whether or not the killer knew the guy was proven, which if you know anything about KOSES you'd know this is not something we can easily do. We would also need to define proven as strictly being proven by a T tester, as any other kind of proven is not 100% concrete (I can kill a traitor and claim to be proven, but be innocent)

    basically my position is this: you are making things more complicated than they have to be, the rules are fine, -1
     
    • Confusing Confusing x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  7. john redcorn

    john redcorn strangers like me VIP Emerald

    Guessing you haven't been paying too much attention to those four threads; this suggestion is solely about defining the term outside of the 100% certainty common sense ruling it resides in now; this way someone can use a lot of the evidence people commonly cite as "proven" (traitor kosed you, traitor shot towards you) which isn't technically 100% certainty as a basis for making those kills. The current lack of definition and enabling it to be ambiguous as allowed incorrect methods of deduction to be allowed under this mindset (the qna had an incorrect example posted by a soon to be staff member etc.)

    This isn't about "Oh everyone saw this guy test, he can do whatever the fuck he wants since the rules give him immunity" nor anything about toxic gameplay nor is there any hint of that in any four of these threads, feel free to prove me wrong on that. Literally asking for a definition so it can be used for logic based scenarios without having to cite a QNA post titled "fucking provens man" on a one liner quote from a lead administrator to justify my kill in a logic based scenario.
     
  8. Pacifist

    Pacifist Cynically Insane VIP Bronze

    Okay. Fine. If you really want a definition: "Being proven is a state where you have either kosed/killed a traitor or have been tested by a traitor tester. Being proven grants no immunity to traitorous acts"
     
  9. john redcorn

    john redcorn strangers like me VIP Emerald

    added that word.


    Where does a T kosing you and then dying fall into the mix96
     
  10. Pacifist

    Pacifist Cynically Insane VIP Bronze

    Ugh you are annoying.
    "Being proven is a state where you have either kosed/killed a traitor or have been tested innocent by a traitor tester. Additionally, you can be considered proven if you are kosed or damaged by a traitor. Being proven grants no immunity to traitorous acts"
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. john redcorn

    john redcorn strangers like me VIP Emerald

    Does this include things that could be accidental splash damage such as c4/incens/frags?
     
  12. Pacifist

    Pacifist Cynically Insane VIP Bronze

    I want you to know that every post you make on this thread literally kills a small part of me. I actually want to die. You are naunce fucking the rules SO hard right now it is not even funny. Does it fucking matter if the damage is caused by splash damage or not? Does it make you any less proven if the traitor gets you with the fire or the explosion? It gets to the fundamentally hard question of "did the traitor actually mean to damage that person?" which we can never know, so why the fuck are we attaching that vague stance into our definition for being proven?

    You want the impossible wink. You want this definition to tackle a grey area in the rules that has no clear meaning. Here is my new defintion:
    "You are proven if you do a thing to be considered innocent"
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  13. john redcorn

    john redcorn strangers like me VIP Emerald

    I want this definition to tackle a grey area and give it clear meaning, it's possible. I'm only asking these "what ifs" because it's a critical part of how you lay out a new rule and the repercussions it can have if worded wrong.

    The latest "what if" was to stop people from being proven under your definition by being tickled by an incen throw at a large group of people, since you would have no way to assume that attack was actually directed at them. I would argue that wording it:

    "Being proven is a state where you have either kosed/killed a traitor or have been tested innocent by a traitor tester. Additionally, you can be considered proven if you are kosed or were directly damaged by a traitor. Being proven grants no immunity to traitorous acts"

    Would absolve that statement of any iffy bullshit splash damage cases.

    I still disagree with the half I italicized, but if you had to include those clauses that's how i would do it.
     
  14. Pacifist

    Pacifist Cynically Insane VIP Bronze

    Motherfucker I included it because you raised the point.
    RIGHT THERE. RIGHT IN THE ITALICIZED PART.








    AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
  15. john redcorn

    john redcorn strangers like me VIP Emerald

    I'm talking about the splash damage bit. Your version left it open to assume any and every piece of damage can be used to say "ok you are proven because incen tickled your left toe in this huge crowd but dumb traitor" which is super fucking silly. By defining it down to "directed damage" the player has to confidentally be able to say "ok that was directed at him by a t and him alone"
     
  16. Pacifist

    Pacifist Cynically Insane VIP Bronze

    Okay well let me ask you this silly boy

    Player A (innocent) gets shot by Player B (traitor), Player C witnesses all of this and kills Player B, proving Player A. Player C tells the rest of the server "hey, Player A is proven now, I watched him kill a traitor."

    End of the round shows up

    Player D, Player A, and Player E remain. Player D kills Player E because he is certain he is the last T, as he heard that Player A is proven. Has Player D RDMed? He didn't know for sure that Player A was proven. He just heard it.

    Now, if you say that Player D is okay to do this, then does that not mean that Player C could have lied about the entire situation and the outcome would have been the same? What if Player A just says "oh, i'm proven lol" and so Player D just kills Player E?

    Basically, should I need to witness it with my own eyes to verify that they are proven?
     
    • Confusing Confusing x 1
  17. john redcorn

    john redcorn strangers like me VIP Emerald

    I would say you need to witness it, so do the current ambiguous clarifications since a similiar thing was wrongly approved and then redacted from the qna thread:

    You can only trust your own eyes with these things imo
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
    • Useful Useful x 1
  18. nikki

    nikki Dutch female gamer: cocky, rude/toxic. VIP Bronze

    kills based on deduction (every1 else is provne) happen fairly often and staff members and regulars all have a different stance on when someone is considered proven, so it would be nice to clear this up, i don't understand all the ANGER.

    examples:

    D mentions someone is innocent in chat but you did not see that person commit any acts that would prove his innocence, can you mark him as inno and consider him proven?
    guy calls a KOS on a traitor who is later identified, but you did not witness the traitor dying, can you mark him as inno and consider him proven?
     
  19. DocFox

    DocFox The Best Is Yet To Come VIP Silver Emerald

    "A person is proven if you have witnessed them being shot at by a known traitor, KOS'd by a known traitor, killing a traitor, or proven innocent by a tester."
    Note: If this is not witnessed, the logic of being proven cannot be applied.
     
    Last edited: Apr 22, 2020
    • Winner Winner x 1
  20. Dodley27

    Dodley27 Dolfin VIP Bronze

    There are other ways to become proven
     
    • Agree Agree x 1