So, this is a question about RDM vs Suspicion that I had and i asked Falcor and i was still unclear, i want more opinions and a CLEAR answer of what really is the case. So lets make a scenario where there are two people in a room, with the doors closed and no windows. Person one is facing the wall, and person two is facing person one. Person two hits person one with a crowbar and then walks away. Person one turns around and kills person two. According to Falcor, person two RDM'd person one, becuase "They didnt see person two hit them" Even though they didnt witness the crime itself there is no other possible person it could be, therefore i dont think its RDM, while she thinks its RDM becuase its KOS on suspicion. Thoughts? RDM? Not RDM?
Person two RDM'd person one of they were both innocent and they randomly damaged them with the crowbar for no reason. Now, if person One kills Person Two, I would t think that is RDM. If they turned around and see person Two walking out of the one exit room with crowbar in hand, then it's not that hard for common sense to come into play there. However, if say person Two files an RDM report or even if they killed the wrong person and they file the RDM report, they need a legit reason to have killed them such as, "He hit me with a crowbar in the back and tried to run away." Now, if you killed the wrong person, then you RDM'd, but if you killed the right person for the right reason, I would call it a legitimate kill.
But there is nobody else in the room and no possible way anybody else could possibly damage them. So therefore it was the other person in the room by deductive reasoning. If it was outside it would be a totally different story becuase they could have got shot from far away, but two people alone, in a windowless room. I believe that They have the right to know that the other person in the room was the one who damaged them and have the right to kill them.
A prop could have fallen and damaged them. Someone may have left and came back. Two easy reason why it was a suspicion kill.
What Mango says is correct, but you have to have absolute certainty, that who actually hit you could not have left the room by the time you turned to kill them. Normally, you can't kill someone if you didn't see them actually hit you, (Consider you're in the open and three people are near you and you get hit, you won't know who did it) but if you are indeed in a one exit room and the person didn't leave after they hit you/you turned and saw them as they were leaving you can kill that person and it won't be RDM, because you have 100% certainty that it could not be anyone else. It is situation based.
So lets look at the rule Mango is trying to explain to you. And here is the situation you give. Common sense isn't needed here. The person hit you and ran away, you know they did because it was a crowbar hit and its easy to tell who hits you with a crowbar and runs away. Now a gunshot is different. Though you call out Falcor in this question. I highly doubt its as black and white as you make it sound here. But for the sake of your question, I believe it is fairly resolved or has been answered, no? In the sense as Mango and Carned spoke out, if you kill the wrong person, its certainly RDM because you didn't know who did it and didn't kill the person right, assumed who did it, tried to chase them down, and then shot the person who "you thought" did it. For example, I am in a room with someone, I crowbar them, run away around a corner, less then a second later someone else pokes their head around the corner. As this very commonly happens with players. they assume this person is the one who did it and shoots them. This situaition I explained is kill on Suspicion because you 'assumed' they had done it. I would even argue that the player would claim it was an 'accident'. But RDM is considered to be "Random Damage" and Accidental RDM is considered RDM still.
