Hey, I was wondering about a possible rule clarification that we could make for Serious TTT. Is it traitorous to knowingly protect a traitor? For example, you see someone (player A) witness someone else (player B) doing something traitorous, and then person A calls the traitor innocent in response to someone KOSing the traitor? Is it okay to kill both players A and B in this situation? Expanding on this principle, I would like it codified into the rules that you are allowed to force the last 2 unproven players to fight it out (meaning you can kill them if they refuse). If there is literally only one possible KOS remaining (e.g. when there are only 2 unproven players alive), refusing to follow the KOS is knowingly protecting a traitor, as the player is aware that there are no other possible valid KOSes. This is very different from refusing a KOS when there are 3 or more unproven players left. Should knowingly protecting a traitor be considered traitorous? I'd like you all to voice your opinions in this post. I thought that forcing the last 2 unproven to fight it out was allowed (and was previously told by a lead admin and advisor that it is allowed a few months ago), as I've been doing it many many times over the course of my 1000 hours on Serious TTT, but today I found out that it isn't allowed when I received my very first slay for this. I asked the last 2 unproven to kill each other, informed them that they may KOS the other player, and they refused to KOS (since they were both traitors). Think about this long and hard--how is it not knowingly protecting a traitor when a detective informs 2 players that they are the last 2 and that one or both of them are traitors, but they won't even call each other out? I would like to use this post to reach a consensus with the staff regarding whether or not it is traitorous to knowingly protect traitors. Thank you for taking the time to participate. Edit: I probably should have titled the poll "Do you think that knowingly protecting traitors is traitorous?" to address the issue more directly. Too late to change the poll, and it's close enough.
What you described is GBA. If Player A did indeed witness Player B doing something traitorous and do nothing about it, they can both be killed. Now I'm assuming you made the thread in response to your appeal. The situation was that there was 5 players: 2 proven, yourself, and 2 other players. In this case you yourself are proven so that leaves 2/5. You cannot kill both of them if they do not follow your KOS on the other, simply because they do not know the other players are proven. You can say so and so are proven all you want, but they do not have to believe you and kill the other. This is similar to not following a KOS. Maybe the traitor was delaying to kill the other player, how would you know?
Saying you are "proven" holds no weight, that is the unfortunate truth. Anyone can doubt you for saying you're proven, as can they doubt the other players.
(Off-topic reply about my appeal re: @Rice) When I'm referring to proven, I mean proven to me personally. I'm not referring to the act of claiming that you are proven, only the act of me myself considering you proven. I knew these people were proven myself, and I was a detective so the 2 unproven players wouldn't have any reason not to believe my KOS. Also, if I tell the last 2 to fight it out, and one of them claims that they are innocent, is that not a KOS on the other (as I stated to them that one or both of them are traitors, so claiming to be the /one/ that isn't a traitor is also implying the rest)?
Just pay attention to the amount of traitors there could be at the start of the round and then how many would be left as they get killed and identified. That is the kind of deductive reasoning they look for here at STTT. You're a good player, sephr, and I know that wouldn't be too hard for you to handle.
I think if it's down to three people, your logic (for the situation that caused this suggestion) would have been sound. However, I tend to distrust anyone who says they're proven, or even anyone a detective says is proven, unless I personally see something that absolutely confirms it- IDing a body and leaving credits, being tested, etc. So even if a detective says "you're the last two unproven" I may not turn and immediately shoot the other person, if I still have suspicion on some other player. I'd have to be in the right mood, and trust the detective.
I understand your concerns Salisian, and they make sense. Of course nobody has to believe me (even if I saw it with my own eyes), so you do make a good point. I think we should narrow the discussion to the 3 person scenario that you described, since imo that is an even stronger argument for allowing someone to force the last 2 (if there are only 3 alive) to fight it out.
I'm pretty sure it doesn't jive with the majority of the server, but I'd think that once the last two innos are sure they're the last two (i.e. someone has pointed it out or it's been acknowledged in some way) then it's an inherent KOS from each of them to the other. Because the logic is 100% and simple enough that anyone can follow it, if they don't shoot each other it's as if they witnessed a traitorous act and are doing nothing about it. But there would have to be some sort of awareness of that, since not everyone is checking their scoreboards constantly.
The issue with this is that the two players refusing to kill each other might not know that the other 3 are proven and are not willing to take your word for it. I know I may have let you off on a situation similar in the past but I don't recall it being the same. Either that or I did not look into it very much for reasons unknown at the time.
