Traitor is standing in spot. You know the location of traitor, but don't have line of sight on them. You can confirm their location at the time Inno is shot by a sniper. An irrelevant amount of time later, a visualizer is used. This visualizer identifies the shooter as coming from the exact spot you knew the Traitor to be in. Is it RDM to shoot the traitor based off this information? Why would it/wouldn't it fall under common sense?
The visualizer is a tricky thing as there are alot of variables to consider when using it, as such its more of a suspicion item as unless you use the item a split second after the death and the traitor is still there its hard to prove it was that person. I would stick to using the logic of unless you physically see the person shooting its only sus
I mean, if you know the location of someone, the amount of time doesn't matter. It's not like any variable that could be considered changes based on time- If you're allowed to use it based off the instant, you should be allowed to use it based off 3 minutes ago.
That would be able to be used for a LOT of loopholing kills on sus. As such we have to check and see if you saw the person at the time of the kill, rather than just knowing they're in the general area.
I understand you logic and if you had the perfect situation then yes, however you will more than likely never get a perfect situation, for instance you say yourself that you did not have line of sight at the time of death so how can you be 100% sure that someone else didnt go over there and kill the guy? Unfortunately its also difficult to apply common sense to the visualiser as again there is just too much unknowns. Like i said the visualizer's purpose is more so to help you narrow down your possible T's rather than actually find them.
How often do you think the visualizer is used? Or would be used. This isn't really relevant to the question though. I'm not quite sure about this answer either. It's a lot more of a 'what if' response. I'm aware that the situations this can be applied to are incredibly rare and infrequent, which is why clarification would be nice. Assuming the following are accurate: -You know the exact time of death of the victim -You know the location of the shooter at the time of the victim's death -You have the visualizer match victim and shooter location Doesn't this override the need for line of sight? It explicitly replicates line of sight, gives you the angle you did not have. Assuming the space isn't full of columns and pillars, there aren't *any* unknowns, except maybe if it's GBA because a second person was there. From my standpoint, it's no different than a closed room scenario. If three people enter a room with a single door, you stand outside of the room, and you hear one of the players get killed by a harpoon (Supposing this isn't a space that a harpoon can go through the wall), you should be able to enter the room and kill the two remaining players even if they didn't ID the body. Even though you didn't witness the kill personally, you -Know the location of the shooter -Know the location of the victim -Know the time of death exactly -Know that, even if you don't know *exactly* what happened, the only possible way for it to have worked was through the killer or GBA. There are tons of unknowns there too, but it's all irrelevant. Edit: The only argument against it is if we accepted that you can't kill either of them because one of then could be standing there, facing the corner, so that means both aren't GBA because you don't know which is which- Which is ridiculous.
Basically if you can use common sense to 100% guarantee that someone was in the spot when the shot was fired, then you can claim that they had to either be GBA or have fired the shot. But using common sense to say that they were there without having LOS on them, is extremely difficult to do that. If there is absolutely no scenario, given the information you know, where they arent the one that fired the shot, then you can make the kill. But it is highly situational, and in order to answer this question about a specific kill, we'd need deathscenes, shot logs, damagelogs, etc. Even someone being 2 feet in another direction could drastically change the common sense verdict.
When you're det and you check a corpse, you can see who was the last person the guy saw before dying, if he was looking directly towards his killer, it's obvious, and if there is someone else that didn't called said person you can also kill him by GBA/Common Sense
This is where things get dicey. There are so many other variables at play in this situation. I don’t even know if the visualizer shows vertical angles of the player model. That combined with the fact that if it’s at a distance, then the person they are looking at might not have had time to turn around and see the person who made the shot. I can see very specific instances of this working, but everything would have to fall in place for you to do it
Bottom line, if there is any possibility where the person isn’t GBA or the killer (or commuted any other t act), then common sense doesn’t apply. Without actual footage to look at, I couldn’t tell you if any specific scenario would be common sense, since there is just so much that you have to take into account
I’ve actually been able to get a valid kill based off of a visualizer. I saw someone got killed, and the shot was behind me. I saw someone standing on a rock. I quickly threw down a visualizer and was able to kos them because someone from that rock shot them so it was either them or they were gba
