Change dumb RDM rule

I'm not sure what your point is @BorkWoof
I wasnt replying to you

 

The point of slaying for RDM is about justice. Much like any justice system, the balance you have to strike is among three factors: vengeance, anti-recidivism/rehabilitation, prevention. These apply (in order) to the victim, the perpetrator, and the observers.

1) Vengeance: Although it's PC to insist on forgiveness these days, most people in TTT seem to ascribe to eye-for-an-eye. This pre-Hammurabi Babylonian law was intended to be a limitation on punishment, not an encouragement (e.g. if someone takes your eye, you can't kill them, you can only take out their eye.) This generally comes out as "You unjustly ruin my round, I ruin one of yours with this report." It's for this reason that I never liked the codified rule of slaying for small damage that doesn't affect the round, especially when the damaged player doesn't even want vengeance. Back when mods were less heavily pushed to check unreported damages, my general rule was that if someone damaged me, if they apologized and I survived the round, no report. There's no need for vengeance when there's no harm. So this would be a strike against a slay for an end-round jihad, since there is no actual harm done. If the jihad doesn't actually end the round though, then there is harm done.

2) Anti-recidivism: This is why slay punishments stack up, why we use gags as a warning to stop mic spam instead of immediate slays or kicks, and why some bans become global. The punishment is in the same vein as the crime in order to cause a change in behavior of the person being punished. If you RDM four people, you're generally not slain four times- that would be sufficient vengeance- you're banned for five days, to go sit in the corner and think about what you've done. This is also why discretion is a thing- if your RDM of three people was a stupid freak accident, discretion can be given to give three slays to satisfy the need for vengeance, because the assumption is that you, as a good person, don't need the time-out. This seems not to vote for or against slaying for a jihad, because the purpose of anti-recidivism is to encourage people to apply the rules, and the point of this argument is whether or not to change the rule.

3) Prevention: This is why punishments and bans are made public, but not always the rationale behind them. Here we're showing people that you can't get away with stuff. Otherwise there's no real reason that a mod's bans show up in bright red in the chat and all the names of slain people are listed at round start. "Hey, everybody, this guy was a dick and this is what happened." A lot of the arguments in 2) can be used here as well. Prevention is a vote for a slay for an end-round jihad, because its purpose is to maintain order, to keep good people good, and if people start seeing that such jihads go unpunished, they may get lax with warnings in other situations. Obviously this can be alleviated if the rules are stringent about the situations in which jihad accidents are acceptable.

Overall I feel this leans in the favor of no-slay.

My personal take on the matter is that when it's like six on one, it's customary for all the remaining traitors to buy jihads. It's so prevalent that it's almost part of core gameplay at this point. It's a thing we all do for silliness, for style points, whatev. Reporting for little mistakes during this end-round silliness is just petty.

 

it is still RDM and you would stil have to warn for it. I always do and so do alot of others that I play with. They always just say "hey imma jihad him real quick and end this"

 

So can we get a response on this? It's something that got a lot of attention, almost overwhelmingly in support of, but never really got an official answer.

Edit: And, in case anyone wants a summary of all arguments proposed in this without going through:

Spoiler: Copy-Paste Refresher

This seems like such a silly debate. Unless I am missing something, those against have 8 points
1. It isn't in-line with the current rules:
A. Killing people for running away from C4 and not calling out was also in-line with the rules until we changed it. There are all sorts of nuanced rules in SGM that don't fit with the pattern exactly. There is an argument to be had it actually does fall in-line with the current rules, as SGM typically does not support "What if" scenarios. A slay is meant to be a punishment for ending the round of a fellow player prematurely, or damaging them and altering it that way. Because the round ends the literal moment the Jihaad goes off, if the target is killed, you have done neither of those things. You couldn't call it "Random Death Match" because you detonated the device with the explicit and successful purpose of completing the game, even if your partner was caught unaware.

2. There is a chance you will miss:
B. Yes. Most people don't really give time for warning anyway (Lets be honest, the amount of time you have between warning and detonation isn't enough for 80% of people to react, on average). If your detonation does not end the round, then you will be slain.

3. You miss out on Post-Round fun:
C. Tough. It is literal seconds of gameplay, most of which is usually spent darting towards a name between walls, with even less names available to you if you are a T. It is after the round has already ended, and if we start punishing people that take it away, this would be the real slippery slope: The next step would be punishing people for killing others 'Too fast' once the round has ended.

4. It's a slippery slope for other rules:
D. The rules in SGM are so strict, I can't see how this could possibly happen, unless the Admins who are trusted so decide to go way off course, which is another problem entirely, and would have to do more with them personally than any different rule.

5. It's complicated:
E. If you miss, you get slain. If you finish the round, you don't. I could probably make this less words and be equally as clear.

6. Innocents could exploit it:
F. If the innocent warns, they wouldn't RDM (So long as they were targeting the T). Still, it's a dick move. The simple way to fix this is make it T-Exclusive, say "Unless you win the round" instead of "Unless you finish the round"

7. People would get lax about warning:
G. Newbie players wouldn't know this rule exists. If they see the MOTD, they will know they have to warn before detonation, and every time they fuck up, they will be slain. It is how a lot of people learn the rules of TTT. Veteran players will read this rule. They will understand that it is to prevent needless slaying. Or, they will stop warning at the end of rounds, fuck up at some point and get slain, then start warning again.

8. It is Technically RDM:
H. If you aren't willing to say completion of the game voids it being random, Goomba is the first thing that comes to mind were a little bit of RDM is forgivable. Right after that, I think back to all the times @DieKasta or some other staff member has accidentally bumped me with a barrel, did one or two damage, and didn't even ask my forgiveness. Because it is so unreasonable to slay someone over such a small detail that staff members of all ranks won't even report themselves even though they should. Technically. And if that was changed, then it was changed for just being so unreasonable. Like this should be.


If I missed anything, let me know. Not TL;DR, but I think it summarizes the argument.

 

Pretty ridicilous this still isn't implemented in the rules. If you're actually that hypocritical that you have to report your T buddy for "Ending" the round, even though he killed you withit, damn. You're not doing anything after the round ends after all, still don't know why people argue over this. And yea, if you only take your T buddy you should get slain for not warning, but only then.

People that minus voting this clearly can't acknowledge the true meaning of the game, in my opinion lol.

 

ya like u don't warn every time jihading to kill me

 

It's just a suggestion, ultimately it's up to the upper administration and they don't reply to every suggestion right away. They have lots of things to discuss including this one, just give it some time.

I also dont think it has "overwhelming support":

 

When you are closer to 100 votes in favor of the change than you are against the change, I think overwhelming is an applicable word.

It's also been over a month without official word, so I thought it was worth another highlight.

 

@Opalium

End the auts screeching and decide already this has been up longer than the 3 suggestions you commented on yesterday/last night

 

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

 

u ignored me :c
i need attention

 

To be honest, you guys just want to pad your stats. Don't act like you don't wanna have a reason to kill your t buddies jihading.

 

Honestly, a huge +1 from me. That is if you kill the last innocent of course. There's no reason you should be slain for ending the round even if your T Buddy happens to die. This is essentially the same thing as shooting people after the round is over, who cares if they die a round will literally start in a few seconds. I don't even know why you should be slain for this.

 

@.shirt May I ask as to why you think my opinion is dumb?

 

I disagree with this entire topic, that's why.

 

But WHY do you disagree, I’d like to hear your point so we can see both aspects and whether or not we should implement this.

 

"You do bring up a very constructive argument, HOWEVER, I disagree, so It's stupid. lol"

 

stop been a lazy ass and press the warn bind
less then 1 second
ez fix ez life

 

But why should you be slain for ending the round even if your traitor buddy happens to die?

 

if you die you lose 1 score points and that is bad kiddo