Implemented Rule Clarification around C4

[Zikeji]

A recent scenario that came up revealed that the rules around C4 are somewhat ambiguous / confusing.

Under traitorous acts:

- Planting or arming C4.

The only mention under the extended rules:

8. USING, PLANTING or HOLDING TRAITOR-ONLY WEAPONS
[...]
14. C4 (D *Arming)

It could be interpreted a few ways. Planting could mean the act of placing C4, however if that were the case then why would radio's line item specifically get a mention to placing?

15. Radio (Cannot be killed for using, only for placing)

"Planting" itself is present tense. Someone staring at a C4 could be perceived as planting the C4. Does planting in this context mean I witness the C4 go from the disarmed state to the armed state? Or does it mean I place it? Using is also confusing, because being in the menu (or being perceived as in the menu) could also be using.

Examples​

Below are a few examples based on how the rules was clarified to me by a few staff.

If I, as a traitor, were to place a C4 and open the menu to arm it, and someone walked around the corner (they didn't see me place it) and saw me looking at it and then kill me. I can report them and get them slain for RDM.

If I, as a innocent, walk up to a armed C4, and enter the menu to disarm it, and an innocent/detective walks around the corner and sees me looking at an armed C4 and they mow me down, I can report them and get them slain for RDM.

---

In both of the above examples I would never report the player who killed me. And I didn't even broach the topic of "common sense" under the extended rules, which, IMO, killing someone in a dark corner looking at a placed C4 is common sense.

Is this something we can clarify in the extended rules?

 

[RobertClark]

You can hear a C4 being planted and armed. I think a player being killed for looking at a C4 should not be allowed, but being killed for placing or arming one is absolutely okay.

 

[helix]

A recent scenario that came up revealed that the rules around C4 are somewhat ambiguous / confusing.

Under traitorous acts:

- Planting or arming C4.

The only mention under the extended rules:



It could be interpreted a few ways. Planting could mean the act of placing C4, however if that were the case then why would radio's line item specifically get a mention to placing?



"Planting" itself is present tense. Someone staring at a C4 could be perceived as planting the C4. Does planting in this context mean I witness the C4 go from the disarmed state to the armed state? Or does it mean I place it? Using is also confusing, because being in the menu (or being perceived as in the menu) could also be using.

Examples​

Below are a few examples based on how the rules was clarified to me by a few staff.

If I, as a traitor, were to place a C4 and open the menu to arm it, and someone walked around the corner (they didn't see me place it) and saw me looking at it and then kill me. I can report them and get them slain for RDM.

If I, as a innocent, walk up to a armed C4, and enter the menu to disarm it, and an innocent/detective walks around the corner and sees me looking at an armed C4 and they mow me down, I can report them and get them slain for RDM.

---

In both of the above examples I would never report the player who killed me. And I didn't even broach the topic of "common sense" under the extended rules, which, IMO, killing someone in a dark corner looking at a placed C4 is common sense.

Is this something we can clarify in the extended rules?

It's funny. I was actually apart of the discussions as lead when this changed over at SGM. It was a REALLY hot topic of debate. In both of your scenarios here:these would in fact be RDM. In order to kill for it, you would need to see the C4 go from it's unarmed state (no timer) to an armed state (timer now visible).

At SGM- this wasn't always the case. It used to be that just seeing someone staring at a C4 was KOSable. I have a feeling this is what you're remembering because back when you were most active at SGM, this is how the rule was. This later changed however because it was getting abused SO SO badly. It ended up turning in to a case where try hards would kill someone whenever they were near a C4- armed or not, if they were in the vicinity of it, prompting the change. I wish SGM's forums were still open because there is a massive thread that goes over the implications and how it ended up being a change for the better overall.

That being said-- you brought up common sense, and I'm glad you did. Common sense still applies here- even if you didn't visualize them place the C4, if you can deduce beyond a doubt that there was not a C4 there before, only one player was in the area, and now that there is a C4, you can still kill them even if you do not see them place it. That is because you can use common sense to deduce that they did indeed place it- that in itself being traitorous.


Edit: Hah. I actually found the thread in wayback machine. Check it out: Rule Change: C4/Tripmine Callouts & Proximity (Edit 5/16/17)

 

[Zikeji]

It's funny. I was actually apart of the discussions as lead when this changed over at SGM. It was a REALLY hot topic of debate. In both of your scenarios here:these would in fact be RDM. In order to kill for it, you would need to see the C4 go from it's unarmed state (no timer) to an armed state (timer now visible).

At SGM- this wasn't always the case. It used to be that just seeing someone staring at a C4 was KOSable. I have a feeling this is what you're remembering because back when you were most active at SGM, this is how the rule was. This later changed however because it was getting abused SO SO badly. It ended up turning in to a case where try hards would kill someone whenever they were near a C4- armed or not, if they were in the vicinity of it, prompting the change. I wish SGM's forums were still open because there is a massive thread that goes over the implications and how it ended up being a change for the better overall.

That being said-- you brought up common sense, and I'm glad you did. Common sense still applies here- even if you didn't visualize them place the C4, if you can deduce beyond a doubt that there was not a C4 there before, only one player was in the area, and now that there is a C4, you can still kill them even if you do not see them place it. That is because you can use common sense to deduce that they did indeed place it- that in itself being traitorous.


Edit: Hah. I actually found the thread in wayback machine. Check it out: Rule Change: C4/Tripmine Callouts & Proximity (Edit 5/16/17)

2017 explains why I haven't seen it.

You even brought up me bringing up common sense after pointing out that both scenarios were RDM, despite the 1st scenario being laid out as the common sense scenario, granted it is ambiguous, so it would likely be more accurate to say "could be RDM" and not "is RDM". But given the example alone a decision couldn't be made without more context.

That being said, I still believe it needs some clarification or examples like that megathread SGM had with a shitton of examples lol. Not to say we need to create it, but as a returning player I did go over the rules and traitorous acts and definitely interpreted the current form in a way contrary to the intention.

 

[Noctorious]

"Planting" itself is present tense. Someone staring at a C4 could be perceived as planting the C4. Does planting in this context mean I witness the C4 go from the disarmed state to the armed state? Or does it mean I place it? Using is also confusing, because being in the menu (or being perceived as in the menu) could also be using

Planting refers to watching someone take a c4 from their inventory and place it. If they are staring at a wall and suddenly a c4 is stuck on it that would be planting. If the c4 was already there it was planted previously and cannot be killed for unless you see it become armed.

Arming refers to switching the state from disarmed to armed. If you see the state switch you can kill for it. If you did not see the state switch and did not see them plant the c4, you cannot kill them for being near a c4. You do not have evidence that they didn't come across a planted c4 just as you came across them at a planted c4.

The radio does not say planting as a matter of semantics. The radio cannot be stuck on a wall and 'planted' as the c4 can.

Side note:
In STTT this was different, it was traitorous to come across a C4 and not call out that there was a c4. This allowed for a lot more of the kills as you described are now RDM

 

[Zikeji]

Planting refers to watching someone take a c4 from their inventory and place it. If they are staring at a wall and suddenly a c4 is stuck on it that would be planting. If the c4 was already there it was planted previously and cannot be killed for unless you see it become armed.

Arming refers to switching the state from disarmed to armed. If you see the state switch you can kill for it. If you did not see the state switch and did not see them plant the c4, you cannot kill them for being near a c4. You do not have evidence that they didn't come across a planted c4 just as you came across them at a planted c4.

The radio does not say planting as a matter of semantics. The radio cannot be stuck on a wall and 'planted' as the c4 can.

Side note:
In STTT this was different, it was traitorous to come across a C4 and not call out that there was a c4. This allowed for a lot more of the kills as you described are now RDM

That's perfect, let's use that.

 

[Noctorious]

That's perfect, let's use that.

I'll discuss with leadership if a glossary of terms should be added as an additional post to the extended rules thread

 

[Siddo]

I generally prefer to keep our rules fairly minimalist as long as it is intuitive to do so.
I think a glossary would make it very tempting to add and define a bunch of terms, adding bloat that can ironically mess with the overall clarity of the rules. In my opinion, if we need to be clarifying terms to solidify an interpretation, then the wording of the rule is at fault - not the absence of a glossary.

I'm still a little groggy, so my reading comprehension is still coming online. Please correct me if I'm wrong in this interpretation;
Your issue with the rules as-is, is that they do not clearly define whether someone interacting with the C4 is in itself traitorous or not. You read it and thought "Well, if I'm staring at the C4 (perhaps even with the menu open), I look to be using it, so it's traitorous like the rule says." - but were then informed that that's not actually the rule? Did I get that right?

 

[Zikeji]

I generally prefer to keep our rules fairly minimalist as long as it is intuitive to do so.
I think a glossary would make it very tempting to add and define a bunch of terms, adding bloat that can ironically mess with the overall clarity of the rules. In my opinion, if we need to be clarifying terms to solidify an interpretation, then the wording of the rule is at fault - not the absence of a glossary.

I'm still a little groggy, so my reading comprehension is still coming online. Please correct me if I'm wrong in this interpretation;
Your issue with the rules as-is, is that they do not clearly define whether someone interacting with the C4 is in itself traitorous or not. You read it and thought "Well, if I'm staring at the C4 (perhaps even with the menu open), I look to be using it, so it's traitorous like the rule says." - but were then informed that that's not actually the rule? Did I get that right?

You read it and thought "Well, if I'm staring at the C4 (perhaps even with the menu open), I look to be using it, so it's traitorous like the rule says."

No, there was an incident in-game that lead to creating this thread, where I was given 3 separate answers (but 2 were similar enough) answers. Ultimately had I been better informed I would have argued my case under "Common sense" in-game but that's it's whole own can of worms and not the topic of discussion here. I didn't think that simply staring was traitorous, and I'm not advocating for that to be the case either.

My issue is that it was ambiguous enough to lead to 3 separate answers, "they disarmed the C4 therefore it was RDM", "staring is not traitorous", and "you have to see them activate it", and that when I turned to the rules for more clarification I was just left more confused in seeing both perspectives. Heck, we even still have "using" affixed which is itself ambiguous ("using, planting, or arming").

 

[Siddo]

No, there was an incident in-game that lead to creating this thread, where I was given 3 separate answers (but 2 were similar enough) answers. Ultimately had I been better informed I would have argued my case under "Common sense" in-game but that's it's whole own can of worms and not the topic of discussion here. I didn't think that simply staring was traitorous, and I'm not advocating for that to be the case either.

My issue is that it was ambiguous enough to lead to 3 separate answers, "they disarmed the C4 therefore it was RDM", "staring is not traitorous", and "you have to see them activate it", and that when I turned to the rules for more clarification I was just left more confused in seeing both perspectives. Heck, we even still have "using" affixed which is itself ambiguous ("using, planting, or arming").

I see. How would you feel about this wording instead - changes highlighted in orange:

8. ACTIVATING, DEPLOYING, or EQUIPPING TRAITOR-ONLY WEAPONS

Change reasons:
"ACTIVATING" - More accurately covers that passive/non-dangerous interaction is not itself traitorous. I.e. looking at the C4 or disarming is not traitorous (=deactivating), you have to see them engage/arm it (=activating). Should also adequately cover other "using" cases like healing off what turns out to be a death station (though that is already covered under common sense).

"DEPLOYING" - More accurately covers that it is plopping whatever down (e.g. c4, death station) that is traitorous, rather than a specific unique kind of placement interaction.

"EQUIPPING" - More accurately covers that it is having something equipped in your hands that is traitorous, not merely having it in your possession - i.e. holding it in your inventory.

EDIT: Of course, the simple rules/!motd page would also need updating to properly reflect this if we implement a change to the wording.

Using these words instead should make the rule more clear in its intent, but if you have a different perspective or think it still doesn't do a good enough job, I would love to hear it <3

 

[Zikeji]

I see. How would you feel about this wording instead - changes highlighted in orange:

Change reasons:
"ACTIVATING" - More accurately covers that passive/non-dangerous interaction is not itself traitorous. I.e. looking at the C4 or disarming is not traitorous (=deactivating), you have to see them engage/arm it (=activating). Should also adequately cover other "using" cases like healing off what turns out to be a death station (though that is already covered under common sense).

"DEPLOYING" - More accurately covers that it is plopping whatever down (e.g. c4, death station) that is traitorous, rather than a specific unique kind of placement interaction.

"EQUIPPING" - More accurately covers that it is having something equipped in your hands that is traitorous, not merely having it in your possession - i.e. holding it in your inventory.

EDIT: Of course, the simple rules/!motd page would also need updating to properly reflect this if we implement a change to the wording.

Using these words instead should make the rule more clear in its intent, but if you have a different perspective or think it still doesn't do a good enough job, I would love to hear it <3

I can't see this creating any additional loopholes and does in fact make things crystal clear. In fact, I'm fairly certain that picking up a traitor weapon isn't traitorous AFAICT, so this also closes up the ambiguity around "holding" you point out. If this were a standalone suggestion I'd give it my thumbs up.

 

[Noctorious]

I see. How would you feel about this wording instead - changes highlighted in orange:

Change reasons:
"ACTIVATING" - More accurately covers that passive/non-dangerous interaction is not itself traitorous. I.e. looking at the C4 or disarming is not traitorous (=deactivating), you have to see them engage/arm it (=activating). Should also adequately cover other "using" cases like healing off what turns out to be a death station (though that is already covered under common sense).

"DEPLOYING" - More accurately covers that it is plopping whatever down (e.g. c4, death station) that is traitorous, rather than a specific unique kind of placement interaction.

"EQUIPPING" - More accurately covers that it is having something equipped in your hands that is traitorous, not merely having it in your possession - i.e. holding it in your inventory.

EDIT: Of course, the simple rules/!motd page would also need updating to properly reflect this if we implement a change to the wording.

Using these words instead should make the rule more clear in its intent, but if you have a different perspective or think it still doesn't do a good enough job, I would love to hear it <3

Accepted and Implemented