So, Lordy made a verdict that doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, absolving Jabba of toxic gameplay. I'd like to get a solid explanation after reviewing a few things. If we can't get a solid/satisfactory answer I guess we'll have to take it to another forum for longer discussion. This is pretty self explanatory. This is also pretty self explanatory. However you need to also view it from a proven innocent standpoint. Watching someone get tested proves to you 100% that they are not a traitor. This is also fairly self explanatory. I do want to highlight the word "fairness" though. We'll get back to this later. Under our existing ruleset, I agree. I think an argument can be made that Jabba witnessing Senor test absolved the initial player of being being susceptible to traitorous acts, but this is easier dealt with in a case by case base of toxicity. Jabba himself does not shoot Senor, recognizing that their traitorous act did not change the fact they were a proven innocent. This honestly doesn't make much sense in context, even more so out of it. It has no bearing on what happened in this situation. Senor was 100% proven innocent. Yes, you can; Yes, it is. Yes, he would have been toxic for doing so. This sets him up to either be punished for toxic gameplay, or ignore the traitorous act. This is an unfair position to be in. I said we'd be getting back to this. We have. By definition Jabba has committed toxic gameplay in this user's humble opinion. Ody was in an unfair position in our ruleset. Either commit toxic gameplay by shooting Senor, or ignore the traitorous act and potentially be killed for it. This is unfair to be killed for, especially by a lead admin who works to revise the extended rules and should know them by heart. This is a lead admin we're reporting. Lets not move the goal posts for competency please. I don't often see ignorance or mistakes forgiven to regular seasoned players in these types of situations. Most of us don't shoot because we don't want to be blasted by 3/4 of the room, allowable by the rules or not. Considering this was thrown by a proven innocent, it doesn't have any real bearing on Jabba's innocence or guilt. We're just trying to justify the initial reasoning for the kill here I guess. This honestly is what gets me. We do not allow players to be killed for not testing. We do not allow for kills on suspicion. "Lined up to test" .... Why in any shape or form would that be relevant? You're using suspicion to help justify the kill logic here and make it seem less toxic. Yes, it was not RDM under our ruleset, but this is debatable if you combine common sense and GBA. It is easier dealt with under toxic gameplay though. I do firmly believe that this kill was indeed "super toxic." Ody had the option to to either be potentially punished for toxic gameplay or be susceptible to GBA. He chose not to potentially break the rules, and exercised some common sense in not shooting a proven innocent. Jabba chose to shoot Ody, killing him for being put in an unfair position of either breaking the rules or ignoring the act. This situation is literally what we have toxic gameplay rules for. Situations/actions that do not fit cleanly in the ruleset but we know to be wrong. The fact that Jabba realized this retroactively or not isn't the issue here. He committed a toxic kill. It took a forum report for Jabba to take a slay. He doesn't get brownie points for not fighting it or realizing it after the fact. The simple fact is: He committed a toxic kill. This I frankly don't get. Jabba committed a toxic kill. We do not allow members, especially staff members to be toxic. So the end question at all of this is: Why is this report invalid given we've proven a toxic kill occurred and that is against our rules and no slay was issued at the time? How will we handle these situations going forward?
The very reason Jabba gave himself a slay means made a mistake and it basically implied that he did do a somewhat toxic kill. No idea why it was invalid. The situation the guy (who was killed) was damned if I shoot, damned if not. As inno, he either would lose karma (and might even be killed afterwards cause the guy he killed DID get tested innocent) or get killed by Jabba on the spot for “watching a T-act and not acting on it”; which happened. Staffing habits of old (idk if it works now) dictates that if you’re given a slay as staff, it’d mean that you RDM’ed or did something out of line. The report may have been focused on if it was RDM or not, but marking it as Invalid means that you can do it consistently and there’s “technically” nothing wrong about it.
To answer your question: It no longer is To expand on that: Having spoken in private with people, and given clarification to their grievances, I've realised I'd missed a few key points in my response that impact the report. As solar rightly points out, my conclusion and the report being marked invalid gives completely the wrong impression of the situation. And to use your own analogy, the goalposts are moved for staff.. closer, that's why this isn't some open and shut case with a note about potential toxic behaviour, because we hold staff to a higher standard of behaviour.
