So, I was reading through Python's report against Credence and I wanted to spark a discussion about the logic that went into denying it since I find it partially flawed. So from my understanding of the report Python calls a joking KOS. False but actionable none the less. Falcor immediately calls a counter-kos. By performing this action, Falcor commits a traitorous act against Python even though it is in response to Python's traitorous act. Python then kills Falcor. My logic is as such: Python commits a traitorous act in calling out Falcor. Falcor takes no direct damage from this KOS at this point. Falcor then commits a traitorous act against Python by KOSing Python. At this point Falcor has committed the act, albeit in response to Python's KOS. Falcor was in no way shape or form damaged before her KOS was issued against Python. In issuing the KOS against Python, Falcor has made a conscious decision to commit a traitorous act. Falcor loses RDM protection from Python at this point because of the issued KOS. Falcor is killed for the KOS issued against Python. She was under no obligation to counter-KOS Python. In doing so, she committed a traitorous act that resulted in her death. She may have been initially false KOS'd but in issuing the KOS against Python she gave Python a valid reason to kill her. If anyone other than Python had shot her, this would have been RDM, and Python should have been punished. I don't deny Python's KOS called this mess, but Falcor did give Python a valid reason to kill her. If anyone else had shot Falcor this would have been clear cut RDM. Python at most is guilty of the toxic KOS, and even that is iffy given that Falcor gave Python a valid reason to kill her. Excessive use of false KOS would be toxic of course. All in all, the kill against Falcor is allowed given the current writing of the RDM rules. Falcor was killed for committing a valid traitorous act. The initial callout that resulted in her death should at most have been handled under toxic gameplay. From the way the report sounds this was handled under RDM. Unless discretion was issued for the slay against Python, it was in error. Just to be clear: I'm in no way shape or form against slaying Python. It was toxic albeit jokingly so. The presented logic in going about it is my issue. I'm honestly interested to see peoples thoughts on this. Its a bit of a logic twist and grey area in the rules since we're into toxic gameplay. I also miss the old, old extended rules. We're missing so much information and so many rule clarifications in the new set.