More In-Depth Rule Clarification on Vents Needed.

[Rabbit]

So say there is a vent with a secondary past or in it ie

 

-usp vent under stairs on lego

-deag vent in vip on vipinthemix

-usp pool vent on summer jail

-others i cant remember right now

 

A T goes in the vent UNSEEN BY ANY CTS comes out with a pistol and is seen and is killed immediately. Is this a freekill? Now before you say "no because going through vent is kos and always kos" hear me out.

 

My opinion is no because a CT cant just assume that that specific T went through the vent and grabbed the pistol. ANYTHING can happen in jb and just assuming that T grabbed the pistol is dumb because for example 2 Ts are in vip cell on vip one goes through vent grabs deag throws it in vip then runs to pool to get the Scout. A CT goes to VIP cell and kills the T because "hes the only one who couldve gotten the gun" , how are u supposed to know?

 

I've gotten killed over this a couple times and would like whatever the conclusion is added to the rules.

[Goku]

9:56 PM - [sG] Son Goku: the reason he killed you was for harming a ct?

9:56 PM - [sG] Son Goku: like is that what he said

9:56 PM - Rabbit ?: wait when he freekilled me about the vent and deag?

9:56 PM - [sG] Son Goku: the situation you told me yeah

9:57 PM - Rabbit ?: This is what happened i got the deag and waited for cells to open he comes into vip via vent before cells are open and kills me

9:57 PM - Rabbit ?: he didnt say anything

9:58 PM - Rabbit ?: then when i complain he tells michelle he was the only one in vip so it had to be him and she agrees

9:58 PM - [sG] Son Goku: where'd you get the deag from?

9:58 PM - Rabbit ?: the vending maching thru vent

9:58 PM - [sG] Son Goku: he killed you for harming someone, or getting the deagle?

9:58 PM - Rabbit ?: getting the deag lol

9:58 PM - [sG] Son Goku: that's very different then. the only way for you to have gotten the deagle was to take a vent

9:59 PM - [sG] Son Goku: if it was for harming a ct, that'd be different

9:59 PM - Rabbit ?: bruh

9:59 PM - Rabbit ?: u turned on me goku

9:59 PM - Rabbit ?: but he didnt see me go in the vent

10:00 PM - [sG] Son Goku: the only way for you to get the deag was to take a vent

10:00 PM - Rabbit ?: but he didnt see me and you cant just assume

10:00 PM - Rabbit ?: anything can happen in jb

10:00 PM - [sG] Son Goku: cells closed, only way you get that deag is to leave your cell.

10:00 PM - [sG] Son Goku: which is autokos

10:00 PM - Rabbit ?: someone couldve gotten the deaf threw it in vip then ran to pool

10:00 PM - Rabbit ?: alr

10:01 PM - Rabbit ?: im gonna make a post on the forums to see what others say

10:01 PM - Rabbit ?: but ill take ur word for it now

10:01 PM - Rabbit ?: cus its a problem that should be adressed in the rules

 

 

 

Copy and pasted directly from our steam chat. Highlighted your answer for emphasis.

[Rabbit]

okay that was my situation what about any others

really in that situation the only thing he knows i did for sure was exit my cell thru vents so ya i guess MY situation wasnt a freekill but still

[ExRev]

Rabbit has a point, and honestly if we're going to let CTs kill on assumption, may as well just kill all Ts at the round start. They might rebel.

[BlackWhite]

Rabbit has a point, and honestly if we're going to let CTs kill on assumption, may as well just kill all Ts at the round start. They might rebel.

 

when do we allowed CTs kill on assumption? I do remember we have to physically see it in game that he is rebelling to kill him.

[Luke]

Killing on assumption should not be allowed. In this situation, the T should not be killed (unless seen in the vent or just coming out)

 

A situation that I feel would be enough proof is if a breakable vent is NOT broken and the CT achknowledges that there is one prisoner in the cell with the vent. If doors have not been opened before that same prisoner is seen in the same cell with a pistol specific to that vent then that is proof.

 

However the above ^ is way too situational and to cover everything, it should simply be you can only kill them if seen rebelling.

[Metal]

Killing on assumption should not be allowed. In this situation, the T should not be killed (unless seen in the vent or just coming out)

 

A situation that I feel would be enough proof is if a breakable vent is NOT broken and the CT achknowledges that there is one prisoner in the cell with the vent. If doors have not been opened before that same prisoner is seen in the same cell with a pistol specific to that vent then that is proof.

 

However the above ^ is way too situational and to cover everything, it should simply be you can only kill them if seen rebelling.

 

Just like ttt.

You need solid proof.

[Vy]

Killing on assumption should not be allowed.

Why not?

 

You tell someone on Lego to go to soccer. You go into soccer and you see a guy standing in the command booth. He obviously either went through a vent.

 

Just cuz someone has a gun doesn't mean he got it through a vent. That ain't really obvious. Common sense and not being an asshole should win in such situations.

[Luke]

'Killing on assumption should not be allowed.'

 

Yes, I stick with my statement.

 

Why not?

 

Why would you question why killing on assumption isn't allowed? I don't see any logic to it being allowed.

 

You tell someone on Lego to go to soccer. You go into soccer and you see a guy standing in the command booth. He obviously either went through a vent.

 

Indeed, what's your point? This is not killing on assumption, he's in a place where you can only get to by going through a vent, this is proof.

 

Just cuz someone has a gun doesn't mean he got it through a vent.

 

Indeed. Once again, unsure where your point is. This just backs up what I said.

 

Common sense and not being an asshole should win in such situations.

 

Common sense quite clearly shows that if 3 T's are in a cell linked to a vent containing a gun and one of them is holding said gun. If I didn't see them go into the vent I wouldn't kill them. That's common sense.

 

 

I'm unsure if you're trying to back me up or not, but your post supports mine. There isn't much more I can say except for 'Think about it a bit more' as to why you can't kill on assumption. You need proof.

[Vy]

Yeah, it's kinda obvious you can't kill people like that.

 

I did think you meant something else tho.