I believe there should be a new rule for TTT traitor rdm, which i believe should consist of killing a t as a t, opening t rooms for innos and getting your teammates killed and basically the same as rdm but for traitors, because the amount of times a troll has opened t room to get me killed really just annoys me
It's called "Metagaming", actually. There's already a rule in place for this. EDIT: Assuming it's intentional.
I'm not in support of this, mainly because there have been multiple times where my intentions to enter or exit traitor rooms have accidentally turned into moments where I let innocents or detectives into the room. Under a new rule such as the one you suggest, my actions of simply entering or exiting a traitor room would be RDM if someone happened to enter with me and kill my t-buddies. Also, there is no way to definitively prove who opened a T-room door unless they admit to it, so this would create a large amount more word vs word situations, which staff can't slay for anyways. If we were to change the rule, but allow situations like the one above to not be RDM, we are already at where we are. When accused of intentionally letting innocents into the t-room, someone can lie, and if they do not lie, they are metagaming, and will be punished according to the rules that we already have. Essentially, a rule change is not needed, and would only result in traitors who are doing things that they are allowed to do getting slain, which I do not support. -1.
There's not much proof for who opened the T room because it is not saved in the logs and it can be opened from a distance and through walls.
K den if there already is rule for this why do some mods not act upon this some one in my last game let 3 innos into the t room and got me killed, and the mod dealing with the situation did nothing about, it was obvious it was intentional because he only came in after the innos went in
The reason that this isn't acted upon often is that quite regularly there is no concrete evidence available to issue punishments. Metagaming is tricky, and getting proof that someone is intentionally letting players into the room is very hard. Therefore, we as moderators would be unable to punish or ban for anything unless someone essentially says "I am letting innocents into the traitor room on purpose" over the chat or mic. Also, adding when someone activates T traps is already mostly in the logs, there are some problem traps on certain maps, but it shows for the most part. The reason that adding who opens the t-rooms isn't the best idea is that it wouldn't really help. These rooms can be opened several times, and even if we knew who opened the room, we can't tell what their intentions were for opening it, and without knowing their intentions, we can not issue a punishment. Edit: Also, when you say it was obvious it was intentional, it is most likely an accident, as they are also exposing themselves too. Evidence like that isn't solid and concrete enough to ban for.
They should atleast attempt to deal with the situation instead of just leaving it unresolved and not letting the victim in on the situation
Most of the time, they do attempt to deal with the situation, since dealing with potential rule breakers is part of a moderators job. These attempts are not always over a medium where you can see what is happening, however, as most of the messages a moderator sends to players are sent over the private chat system, and are replied to over the admin or private chat system. The best you can do to help these situations is inform the connected staff that you think someone let innocents into the traitor room on purpose, give them a name, and then trust that they will handle it from there. Staff will then message the player asking if they did let innocents into the traitor room. If they reply saying that they did intentionally, then we can deal with it, however, more often than not the response is that it was an accident, or that they didn't, and in that case we are unable to issue punishment for the offense.
Metagaming punishment is delt with admin discretion so the punishment varies based on what the admin feels is appropriate for the situation
