Claiming clarity, clear confusion?

[hdscorpio 90 / 1,438]

MOTD is about as vague as can be when it comes to certain unspoken rules in this server so I'm gonna ask this here.

 

Why on god's green earth do you have to claim an AWP?

 

The KOS rules are quite clear, you can only kill someone when you're actually certain that they're bad. Whether that be through a KOS, witnessing something, being attacked etc. Two innocent roles have access to the AWP. The very fact that innocent roles can even buy it should instil doubt that the carrier is a bad person thus removing that certainty of evilness. I've heard people argue it's because evil roles can buy it but evil roles can also buy the P90 so that line of reasoning holds no weight. 

 

A player in a game I played of anarchy literally said after a round "aw why did you give him a chance to claim it you shoulda just killed him" which demonstrates the current "meta" is just to blast people with an AWP which is kinda lame.

 

So, why is claiming an AWP necessary but not claiming a P90 or any other detective weapon that defect can buy?

[Rhysin_ 540 / 13,172]

Defective shows up as a Detective, has access to the detective shop. No other evil role can buy the p90 to my knowledge, so obviously if a non-D has a p90, it is not indicative of them being evil. AWP can be bought by many evil roles, not just Defective, which again, shows up as a Detective. So someone holding an AWP has a great chance of them being a traitor.
Though I believe going strictly on what the MOTD says, even if you can claim something you can still be shot for having a t weapon, but no staff adheres to that afaik.

 

[Dueler 42 / 1,128]

Because you know if a defect is in a game, and you can have suspects on who's defect.

AWP, Tele, Sandwich, etc. can be T weapons, that's why they have to be claimed.

 

[hdscorpio 90 / 1,438]

16 hours ago, Dueler said:

Because you know if a defect is in a game, and you can have suspects on who's defect.

AWP, Tele, Sandwich, etc. can be T weapons, that's why they have to be claimed.

 

 

My main issue is that the "use every single opportunity to get a kill off" crowd use it as an excuse to kill someone. I was in a round where someone was annoyed a player "let him claim it and didn't just kill him" pretty much 2 seconds after he picked the thing up...

[zurenea 86 / 2,475]

okay

[lord of burgers 67 / 3,332]

In my opinion, yeah, AWPs shouldn't have to be claimed because both innocents and evil roles can purchase them. The only rules I found related to this are:
 

(the definition of a T weapon)

• Traitor Weapon - Any weapon obtainable by a traitor from the credit shop. Note that traitor weapons may be obtainable by some special innocent roles, however these roles should call out the weapon in order to avoid being killed by accident.

The clarification of T weapons says that innocent roles should claim traitor weapons purchasable from innocent shops, which makes sense. But it doesn't specifically say that people with unclaimed innocent/traitor shop weapons can be killed for not claiming it. It says that they might be killed on accident, but I'll interpret it as though people shouldn't be killed on purpose for it.

 

(it's a sensible gameplay-related reason to kill someone for these next two rules:)

• They have a one shot weapon (like a knife / harpoon / AWP) and are aiming at you / charging you.

First of all, I don't agree with this one at all. I get it if someone's holding a knife or harpoon, but not AWP. It also doesn't mention if claiming the AWP nullifies this rule. I guess not? It doesn't mention if detectives holding this are exempt from it, either. If it's a defective round, could people kill any detective with an AWP just for aiming at someone with it? Even in a non-defective round, there's still the possibility of detective sidekicks, so could people use this rule to kill any detective they want? What's the definition of 'aiming at you'? Aiming down the scope of an AWP at someone, or just looking at a player for a split second with an AWP? It just seems like an unnecessary rule to me, and in regards to specifically the AWP, it would probably get more innocents killed than evil roles. Luckily, people either don't care about this rule or don't use it. Or, more accurately, abuse it.

 

• They have a traitor weapon and haven’t proven themselves to be trustworthy.

This one just sucks. I guess claiming T weapons, as per the MOTD, does nothing? It's worded as though only proven people can carry traitor weapons, and anyone not proven is liable to be killed for holding any T weapons, even if they claim it. I understand that in most situations a newly proven person will just pick up the traitor's weapons and this rule won't apply. But what if they happen to miss a hidden slam or knife or something? Other non-proven players are encouraged to either not pick them up, or just hide them for the rest of the round until they're proven, I guess. I think this rule should be removed.

 

I don't know if the person in the situation Scorpio's talking about was aiming at anyone with the AWP, but I guess that the person with the AWP was allowed to be killed because of the third rule I mentioned (if they weren't proven). In my opinion, the person who said they'd just kill the player for having an AWP before claiming should be blatantly wrong. And it shouldn't be meta.

 

thanks for coming to my ted talk

Edited August 1, 2021 by lord of burgers

[hdscorpio 90 / 1,438]

On 8/1/2021 at 9:48 PM, lord of burgers said:

In my opinion, yeah, AWPs shouldn't have to be claimed because both innocents and evil roles can purchase them. The only rules I found related to this are:
 

(the definition of a T weapon)

• Traitor Weapon - Any weapon obtainable by a traitor from the credit shop. Note that traitor weapons may be obtainable by some special innocent roles, however these roles should call out the weapon in order to avoid being killed by accident.

The clarification of T weapons says that innocent roles should claim traitor weapons purchasable from innocent shops, which makes sense. But it doesn't specifically say that people with unclaimed innocent/traitor shop weapons can be killed for not claiming it. It says that they might be killed on accident, but I'll interpret it as though people shouldn't be killed on purpose for it.

 

(it's a sensible gameplay-related reason to kill someone for these next two rules:)

• They have a one shot weapon (like a knife / harpoon / AWP) and are aiming at you / charging you.

First of all, I don't agree with this one at all. I get it if someone's holding a knife or harpoon, but not AWP. It also doesn't mention if claiming the AWP nullifies this rule. I guess not? It doesn't mention if detectives holding this are exempt from it, either. If it's a defective round, could people kill any detective with an AWP just for aiming at someone with it? Even in a non-defective round, there's still the possibility of detective sidekicks, so could people use this rule to kill any detective they want? What's the definition of 'aiming at you'? Aiming down the scope of an AWP at someone, or just looking at a player for a split second with an AWP? It just seems like an unnecessary rule to me, and in regards to specifically the AWP, it would probably get more innocents killed than evil roles. Luckily, people either don't care about this rule or don't use it. Or, more accurately, abuse it.

 

• They have a traitor weapon and haven’t proven themselves to be trustworthy.

This one just sucks. I guess claiming T weapons, as per the MOTD, does nothing? It's worded as though only proven people can carry traitor weapons, and anyone not proven is liable to be killed for holding any T weapons, even if they claim it. I understand that in most situations a newly proven person will just pick up the traitor's weapons and this rule won't apply. But what if they happen to miss a hidden slam or knife or something? Other non-proven players are encouraged to either not pick them up, or just hide them for the rest of the round until they're proven, I guess. I think this rule should be removed.

 

I don't know if the person in the situation Scorpio's talking about was aiming at anyone with the AWP, but I guess that the person with the AWP was allowed to be killed because of the third rule I mentioned (if they weren't proven). In my opinion, the person who said they'd just kill the player for having an AWP before claiming should be blatantly wrong. And it shouldn't be meta.

 

thanks for coming to my ted talk

 

 

I actually didn't realise it was in the rules, or at least that the rules were specific about traitor weapons being claimed. But honestly that rule if taken literally means all detectives should be claiming P90s.

I think anarchy's general lax attitude towards accidental RDM (besides my one and only warn, thanks alexis) is good in this sense that mistakes can happen and don't necessarily facilitate a warning. However, I really think people should shut down the whole "Oh that guy has given me the most microscopic reason to actually shoot my gun, off with his head" crowd. You know the types, the guys who see a gun fight and dont let people ID, the guys that see someone walking towards an unID'd (to ID it) and blast em, etc. Some people treat TTT as some sort of deathmatch and are frothing at the mouth for the chance to kill and they often kill people who have actually claimed the awp (without them listening). 

[Rhysin_ 540 / 13,172]

13 minutes ago, hdscorpio said:

But honestly that rule if taken literally means all detectives should be claiming P90s.

I don't think Detective is included in "Special Innocent Role" since you can see who is and isnt a detective (ignoring Defective)
I think it's mainly saying Survivalists need to claim anything that can be bought by a traitor (excludin things that can be bought by a defective, because obviously they arent a defective)
And I don't think that the Defective shop is included in what is considered a T weapon since they get the whole detective shop.
Though the motd does need some updates if thats the case, cause it can be confusing