PART ONE - Inconsistencies in rules From Pups's ban appeal (https://www.seriousgmod.com/threads/pupss-appeal.46662) I noticed something I had not previously realized - spectator controlled barrels being shot by living players counts as RDM for the spectator - this seems extremely inconsistent to me, considering anyone who shoots a barrel being carried by someone who is NOT trying to kill the person carrying it is given any resulting punishments. Per the extended rules: If an explosive prop carried by someone is shot and explodes, the responsibility for the damage it causes depends on the situation. If the prop was shot intentionally, the SHOOTER is responsible. If the prop was shot accidentally (i.e. while trying to kill the carrier), the CARRIER is responsible. Why is it that if innocent A shoots barrel being carried by innocent B and kills innocent C, player A is slain (and 99.9% of the time, player B is unpunished, and can pretty effortlessly loophole out of it - even when I've shot barrels being carried by people accidentally I have, as of yet, never seen a carrier slain for it), whilst if the situation is in terms of spectator, player B will automatically be punished, and player A can get away with it a decent number of times. Excluding the means of movement, all other factors are identical here - player A has actively chosen to shoot player B's barrel, fully conscious of the fact it could well hit and kill other players (and potentially intending it to do so). All fault actively should lie with Player A (and in the first instance, where Player B is alive - Player A does currently bear the consequences). Player B in both situations is often actually unable to prevent Player A from carrying out the shooting. Either the rules should be adjusted so that player B is guilty in both cases, or that Player A bears sole responsibility in both cases, it should not be the case that functionally identical incidents are in fact dealt with substantially differently. To be clear - my personal preference would be that both Player A (excluding crossfire barrel explosion) and Player B is responsible in both cases (unless traitor as living) as carrying the damned barrels near people is traitorous in the first place. This is - per my reading of the rules, not entirely the case as it currently stands; as for some reason player B does not currently hold responsibility for the shooter intentionally shooting the barrel. PART TWO - Poor phrasing in extended rules Beyond the above mentioned inconsistencies - the rules regarding spectator props are... vague. VERY vague. Essentially the solely defined act against the rules is putting props in jump-pools. To break this down a little further I'll go through what I mean per the bullet points in the extended rules - ANY damage or deaths caused by a spectator controlling a prop is an RDM under their responsibility, and they will be punished according to the usual protocol. This includes moving possessed props into pools and other drops areas where players are supposed to land from heights, causing them damage from their fall - for instance, the pool at the bottom of Life The Roof or the landing pool at the ceiling of 67th way. This rule can be seen in two ways - it could be either actively using the props to hurt people is against the rules (props in pool, jumping barrels onto corpses in water, dropping props from height etc) or additionally triggering damage passively - example; possessing a prop which is then exploded, or indeed altering the flight of a thrown prop. If only the former is true, then this part of the rules is adequately explained, however if it is not, the phrasing is ridiculously vague. Does it count, for example, if you're possessing a prop and jump it into the path of a shotgun blast, which then catapults the prop into someone? (have both done this as a spectator and been victim of it - so whilst rare it does happen) If you're possessing a prop and it's dropped and you don't prevent its movement - are you still responsible? The implication is that any damage the prop causes, whilst you're possessing it, is fundamentally your fault - regardless of whether the spectator is actively using the prop or not (the phrasing implies that the spectator is to blame - even when the prop is not actively being used to cause damage) Spectators controlling props in way that is disruptive to the gameplay of living players (i.e. taking away a prop from core gameplay or hiding a prop that has some functionality) is also not allowed and will be dealt with according to the harassment protocol (see above). This one I have particular issue with - by default effectively any prop in an area with people is potentially disrupting the gameplay of living players; from nudging players when they're about to shoot, blocking shots, effecting map movement, there are a dozen ways this effects gameplay. (and to be clear - I have seen this from, and done this to, staff from both EU and NA; some with substantial round altering results - including my personal favourite, the de-bunkering of doors by removal of props) Further there's the vague reference to "core gameplay" and "hiding a prop that has some functionality" - regarding the former - what constitutes "core gameplay"? Because to some people, the capacity to throw a prop at someone and kill them could be considered core gameplay - whereas to others, things that include t-props like the electric axe or nuclear keycard aren't even considered core gameplay, let alone your humble barrel. As for hiding a prop that has some functionality - does this include props such as explosive barrels and t-props? Does hiding include moving props to unreachable areas (Example - jumping props off the map) or simply placing a table over a t prop for example. Finally - why on earth is it classified as "Harassment"? I would argue that anything that substantially changes a round - (which to use a pretty obvious, and probably non-contentious example of a method of doing so - could involve knocking a health/death station out of the map with a prop) should then be treated the same as an RDM. The likelihood of there being more than a single occurrence where a prop can substantially alter the course of a round in a day, let alone a map or two, is slim - meaning a warning is irrelevant for all intents and purposes. To move on from the specifics - again I can only emphasize how vague much of the terminology is that is used. I admit I didn't actually check each map's map specifics to see if spectator rules are specifically listed on any of them; however I doubt the vagueness if clarified much, if at all, in any of them. I would suggest a rewrite to clarify the above issues (note - I probably missed some), particularly regarding those where punishment is potentially harsh. This has been written at close to midnight, I expect there are holes in what I've said, and will correct/clarify them if pointed out. PS - This totally isn't due to the fact I'm concerned that people might start reporting me for my antics as a prop - honest.
Carrying a barrel is not traitorous. Carrying it towards other players is. When a spectator carries a barrel towards a player, they are putting them in danger and therefore affecting the round. Even if a T is the one who shoots the barrel and it's not RDM, it wouldn't have been there if it weren't for the spectator, so the spectator indirectly RDMed
See my point regarding the inconsistencies of how this is dealt with though - intentionally shooting the barrel both Player As are guilty, however only living Player B isn't guilty, dead player B IS guilty; why should this be considered different? At the end of the day, said barrel wouldn't be there regardless of whether player B is living or dead. Further, for said barrel to inflict damage/kill, clearly player B has to have the barrel picked up near people; I admit, in a thread taking issue with lack of clarity, failing to point this out is flawed so I'll go and edit that part to add in "Carrying barrel near players is traitorous". Even merely picking up the barrel and standing still (which to be clear, people don't, they nearly always run around with them) does in fact effect the easy of shooting for Player A; meaning the rationale between having different results for the two players is... silly. Player B is equally guilty of moving a prop to a position which enables RDM in both cases, which means they should share equal guilt in both cases.
Let me start by explaining the reason for slaying the shooter vs slaying the carrier so you understand a bit better. The reason we have this is to settle a dispute between proximate and ultimate causes of the rdm. Say I have Player A as the shooter and Player B as the carrier, Player C is rdmed in both instances when the barrel explodes. Say Player A tries to kill Player B, but has no intention of hitting the barrel but hits it in crossfire, ultimately Player B is always to blame because he brought the barrel into the room to start with. Now, if Player A aims for the barrel than he becomes the rdmer, this is because before there was a chance that Player C could have survived, as Player A was avoiding the barrel. In the second situation, Player C will always die because Player A was aiming for the barrel and intended to shoot it. I do not believe that slaying the shooter vs slaying the carrier should be removed. It is perfect the way it is, and it solves the problem of ultimate and proximate causes. It also forces innocents to reconsider picking up barrels and walking near players, as well as making innocents think about spraying the person holding the barrel instead of spraying the barrel itself. This rule actually serves to demote the idea that causes the rdm from it, and in doing so is a masterfully crafted rule. Secondly, if a player is possessing a prop they become responsible for the prop that they have possessed. Under normal circumstances this is not a problem, as you can't kill players using normal means, you have to position the prop or the prop itself needs to be dangerous from the offset. Now, in a situation where a player picks up an explosive barrel that is possessed, I would consider the prop to be controlled by the player that is carrying it. I am not sure the context of the appeal you listed, from what I saw it seemed to be for a different reason than simply "she possessed a barrel and it got someone killed" it seems the player went out of her way to get people killed. In a situation where an active player has taken up a prop that has been possessed, I would consider that prop's actions as the active players. This would mean that the fact that it is possessed would no longer be considered while the active player is using it. You go on to say that the prop rules are very vague. That is because for the most part situations that you are describing here do not happen. Certain maps prompt them more often than others, but for the majority prop related killings happen very minimally compared to other means of killing. I mean, did you know that it is actually impossible to kill someone with a prop as a spectator without doing it in the ways that you have mentioned? The extended rules don't persist on it because there are only two ways you can really do it, and those are: Moving the prop to a position where players will fall on it and possessing the exception props (which I will not mention, but you can kill players with). Considering they don't happen often, the rules don't need to cover them in depth. I understand your point about the damage though, I do believe that can be clarified way better. In it's current phrasing you could say that if I possessed an explosive barrel I would always be the cause of any damage it deals, regardless if it was my fault or not. For that I think this thread may have some merit. I would rephrase it as such: ANY damage or deaths caused by a spectator controlling a prop is an RDM under their responsibility, and they will be punished according to the usual protocol. This includes moving possessed props into pools and other drops areas where players are supposed to land from heights, causing them damage from their fall - for instance, the pool at the bottom of Life The Roof or the landing pool at the ceiling of 67th way. ↓Changed to↓ ANY damage or deaths caused because of a spectator's actions while controlling a prop is RDM under their responsibility, and they will be punished according to the usual protocol. This includes moving possessed props into pools and other drops areas where players are supposed to land from heights, causing them damage from their fall - for instance, the pool at the bottom of Life The Roof or the landing pool at the ceiling of 67th way.
A few things to clarify because I think you're confused: 1. A T shooting a barrel that leads to damaging another Innocent that was actively moved there by a spectator is RDM on the spectator's part 2. An player who shoots a barrel in crossfire is not RDM on anyone's part 3. An Innocent who shoots a barrel in crossfire and does damage to other players or himself due to a spectator flying the barrel around is RDM on the spectator's part 4. An Innocent who shoots a barrel intentionally to damage a player for no reason is RDM on the innocent's part
I understand it perfectly fine - this is not the issue, it's the irrational manner in which the two rules diverge - if player B is always responsible when dead, then player B should always be responsible when living - there is, to be clear, no (and I do mean no) rational reason for an innocent to pick up an explosive barrel in an area where others can be hit by it or carry it to a position where they will be hit - ergo, any innocent carrying the explosive barrel is by extension automatically guilty of EVERYTHING that a spectator moving it is - the same responsibility of shooting still also applies with player A (with the exclusion of crossfiring a carrier, as there isn't one). Strip away the specific mechanics of carrying and the two are identical situations with currently different rules applying to them - Player A in both cases is guilty if player A intentionally fires on the barrel, however Player B is also guilty if Player A fires on the barrel when a spectator is involved, yet is absolved of all guilt when living; there is no reason nor rationale behind player B being treated differently in the two situations. There was no death scene footage from the appeal (which makes this hard to demonstrate) however from the logs it is clear that the barrel was shot/hit with an incen - extremely early in a round I might add; as the damage logs list 1:46, meaning a likely "open fire" time at 1:44-1:45 - with enough innocents around (3 hit, plus at least one survivor who called KOS on the traitor) that would imply an area fairly near spawn. However I highlighted the appeal because it's the first clear cut evidence I've seen of an RDM for prop possession where the prop did not themselves carry out the killing (via, for example, the pool method) and was instead shot. The specifics of the appeal were not the purpose of me highlighting that thread, it was the fact that said appeal drew my attention to (at least my) perceived inconsistencies and lack of clarity in the rules. There are ways to kill people with props that are in neither of the categories you list. Any suitably heavy prop can be used to kill - and this goes beyond the extremely heavy ones like the picture frames; there's a certain trick to it that requires a fair bit of luck, but anything too heavy to lift with a magneto can kill given enough altitude or a secondary form of momentum - indeed I've killed someone with the TV on Dolls before by catapulting myself off the fan, and have been killed by the heavy balls on 67th way from the melon obstacle course because someone rolled one in front of a car, which flew off and hit me. Equally there are the less vague methods - triggering tripwires, pushing people off heights (yes you can do this) jumping props into the path of someone crouch jumping... I could continue the list. I get killed by spectator props on a nearly daily basis, and, at an estimate, only around half are from the 'conventional' means. Spectator rule breaking is MASSIVELY under-reported, because frankly the overwhelming majority of players (and, I would wager, a good number of staff and ex-staff) either don't know the rules, don't care, or aren't recording and thus can't prove anything. Only a small handful of people (most of whom I might add, are immensely hypocritical and do similar or equally toxic things) who are not current staff are ever going to know the rule, have the evidence to back it up AND have the will to actually report. Pretty much every scenario I've listed so far in this thread I've ever done or had done to me - I've not even included things that I've seen done to others, as I haven't seen incidents well enough to know exactly how it worked. I'm not confused about these - the issue is how 4. is handled - a player intentionally shooting a barrel carried by a living player is RDM on Player A (the shooter)'s behalf - it is not however RDM by Player B (the Carrier). Meanwhile, if player B is spectator, Player B is deemed to be RDMing. The two Player Bs should be treated exactly the same - either Living Player B is guilty, or Spectator Player B is not; considering that both player Bs are pretty equally likely to be intentionally getting shot. There is, again, no rationale behind having two separate rules As an aside - claiming this rule is "Masterfully crafted" is absurd - this is the single most easily loopholed rule in the entire server (more so than using GBA or voice KOS), where any shooter who knows said rule WILL just loophole it by just hitting the barrel "unintentionally". The only people that get caught by (and even then - likely not deterred by) said rules are new players - meanwhile player B has virtually no reason to fear being slain, because 90% of the time reports are solely issued on the shooter, and mods extremely rarely have the time or patience to have to deal with the unreported damage. This is demonstrable by the number of times I've been slain for running around with explosive barrels that end up hit in crossfire - which is at most 1-2 times, if not 0. Granted, I have only got 2-3 slays for SHOOTING as well, despite at least 3 crossfire incidents with barrels in the last week alone (what can I say, there are people who actively try to get me karma banned on a daily basis). A far greater deterrent would be a "Yeah, you were carrying the barrel in a stupid place, serve your slays" punishment, which might actually reduce the number of people who use barrels to T bait (myself being one of them - to be clear). EDIT: To be clear - this post has been written at 2:40 am, and thus has probably lost some sense along the way - I might edit it to clarify tomorrow if I decide it is particularly flawed, or I might not. If I misinterpreted either one of your comments, my bad, it's way past when I normally sleep I just expected this to be a shorter response.
I do agree the inconsistency from spectator to alive seems a bit a odd. However, alive people run the risk of being of being kosed and killed for carrying the barrel. Spectators do not have to worry about this, so having them doing it labeled as RDM makes some sense, since they are only trying to grief. One could argue that innos could be griefing by moving the barrel when alive as well, and I agree. There really isn't a reason to move barrels when inno, but again, you can be killed for it. And honestly, having people take slays due to them moving an explosive barrel sounds rediculous and will make people confused and angry. It will also start tons of drama and report happy players will no doubt use it as much as they can. Not really worth it IMO.
A reminder that, per the rules, every inno who carries a barrel that is hit in crossfire (which due to the fact that - as I said above - this rule is hilariously easy to loophole, this is most innocents who carry barrels that explode) is guilty for any of the kills from the barrel as it stands, this would merely extend it to intentional barrel shooting as opposed to just crossfire barrel shooting. The only reason the reports, and associated drama, doesn't already happen is because of the lack of pop up saying "SLAY THIS GUY FOR RDM?"; which would still not be there, meaning the reports would generally still be limited in number.
Yeah, but you shouldn't be slayed because someone else is being a jerk (or a Traitor) tbh. Yeah nobody likes that guy who moves the barrel around to create an event, but at least it makes things interesting. People would loophole this to try to get them slayed as well. And like I said, you can be shot for it anyway, so they probably won't be alive for long after the barrel is shot. It's a dumb thing to do already because of what the outcome will be. Being slayed for it just seems overkill.
