For the grenade suggestion, if someone is throwing a grenade outside of the map, or somewhere that it is clearly impossible to damage someone then you shouldn't kill that person. But the problem here is how can we tell where they threw the grenade, the logs only show a grenade being thrown not where it was thrown. So if you are able to get evidence of players killing you for throwing a grenade outside the map, and etc. then it can be considered loop-holing. And now for the T weapons, if you are holding a T weapon you recently received out then there is a high chance that you will be killed for it, and there are a couple possible scenarios. Either the person killing you saw you kill a traitor and then saw you with a T weapon and decided to shoot you or he didn't. If the player clearly saw you become proven then kills you then this is considered loop-holing and can be punishable. This is because the player knows you just killed a T and acknowledges the fact that you are now considered proven, but kills you anyways just because you picked up a T weapon. But if the player does not acknowledge the fact that you were proven then nothing can really be done if he kills you. He might have not seen you get proven, and is shooting you because all he sees is someone running around with a T weapon. One last thing that might happen is, that you might have not even killed anyone and just found a T weapon on the ground, if you decide to pull this weapon out it's quite obvious that the cause of your death was due to your own choice. So for this reason I don't think the rules shouldn't be changed, just use common sense and if you are being killed when you don't think you should be then feel free to gather evidence and report it.
How odd that a word vs word argument would be used the grenades now and if it were changed to your suggestion. Just as if shot logs show a player shooting or that they threw a grenade, staff can't see where they shot or where the grenade is thrown. Also, why are you throwing grenades in the first place? You know why I do it and why most others do it? To damage or kill enemies. As far as T weapons go, that rule couldn't be changed. This is simply because Traitor's could use the tactic and say, no I'm proven, I picked it up off a traitor. Leaving it as what it is mitigates any grey area that would arise from your suggestion. That would be like saying anyone who says they killed a traitor is immune to traitorous acts. The rule I always followed: If a player didn't witness you get proven, you aren't proven. It's easier for management to deal with more black and white rules. It's better for them to reserve punishment due to no evidence beyond reasonable doubt rather than to leave it to a subjective grey area where someone may be unjustly punished. It's better for a few players to learn to reserve their play style rather than changing the entire system for them.
I don't agree with either of these suggestions, and I'll tell you why. Firstly, the reason why I think the grenades rule is in place is because of the potential damage that they could cause. Obviously, both frag grenades and incendiary grenades can cause explosive damage,. The incendiary then places fire in the area surrounding the initial explosion site, which can cause further damage. The discombobulator, on the other hand, doesn't directly cause damage through its use. But it can cause people to fall and take damage/die, throw props around which deal prop damage, throw fire around, toss people into dangerous areas, etc. As a result, there's an obvious reason why these things could be KOSable. Now, in your suggestion, you stated that it shouldn't be KOSable if you don't throw the grenade at/near someone. While yes, this should be true, there's a problem with this argument. Unlike simply shooting near people, grenades have an area effect for their damage and so forth. So, even if you don't directly throw it at someone, you could still do damage if they're close to it. Also, you have to remember that grenades don't instantly explode. Unlike a bullet from a gun that basically travels to a target instantly, a grenade takes a few seconds to actually detonate and do what it does. In that time, it could roll towards people, someone could walk towards it not knowing that it's there, etc. Given this fact, it's very dangerous to throw a grenade around that could deal damage to players. As a result, you should be killed for throwing them, in my opinion. As for the traitor weapons, absolutely not. Traitor weapons are weapons bought and used by traitors. If you have one, that should be traitorous and you should be able to be killed for it. As others mentioned above me, it would be very easy for someone to have a knife and say "Oh, I got this from a dead traitor, so you can't kill me!". Then, he runs up towards you with a knife and knifes you. Based off your suggestion, it would have been RDM to kill him since he claimed to have picked up the weapon from a traitor, hence him having the knife not being traitorous. Obviously, that would be a pretty unfair situation for you if that happened. In my opinion, if you have a traitor weapon in general or have it out, you should be able to be killed for it. There's no way to tell if that person is innocent unless you witnessed them kill a traitor, or if they're simply lying to you and getting out of being killed for having traitor equipment. Obviously, there should be some common sense used by players to tell whether or not someone is innocent with a traitor weapon, but given the fact that traitors CAN lie about that stuff, it should be traitorous and KOSable to have traitor equipment. Don't want to be killed for having a traitor weapon? Maybe not whipping it out in front of everyone and their mother would be a good idea. And if you don't tell people that you have it, they can't kill you for it because they don't know, and it would be suspicion to do it otherwise. You also mentioned the word 'proven' in your argument. The reason the word proven doesn't show up in the rules and such is because of how grey the meaning of that word really is. When you think about it, what does it mean when a player says they're proven? Certainly, if you've witnessed someone kill a traitor, they should be proven, right? But what about from the perspective of the people who didn't witness them kill the traitor? Why should they believe what other people have said? Couldn't they just as easily be a pair of traitors who are lying, giving themselves the perfect cover to avoid suspicion? What if a detective who's proven someone made a mistake and simply guessed, or did so because the person is their friend? And how do you know that guy killed a traitor and got his T weapon instead of buying it from his traitor menu? As you can gather from all my questions above, there's no real way to prove someone is innocent for the entire server. Certainly, individuals could witness someone being 'proven' innocent by killing traitors, testing, etc. But that isn't a built in server announcement that clears it up for the whole server. Someone else that didn't witness that can still hold their suspicions and act on them, because mistakes can be made and people can lie in TTT, and they do all the time. Say Player A kills a traitor and gets his harpoon, then runs around with it. Player B, who didn't witness this at all, walks around the corner, sees Player A with it, and kills him. That, in my opinion, its a perfectly legitimate kill. Aside from asking to get killed for having a traitor weapon out, Player A could have very easily have lied about having killed a traitor. I do that kind of stuff all the time, and people fall for it. Next thing they know, I mow them down with an AK47 right in the back. All in all, I don't agree with these two suggestions, and think the rules we have in place now are just fine/make sense for the style of gameplay SeriousGMOD wants to promote on the TTT servers.
