Serious <player> is a T, but no KOS

Welcome to the best TTT community on Earth
It's so awesome to see you. Sign up and join the party!
Join Now

MiGGo

Veteran Member
Crescent Lite
Joined
Aug 8, 2019
Messages
105
Ok, so I've seen a lot of people claim for some reason that saying "<player> is a T, but no KOS" is a valid kos somehow, because it includes "<player> is a T" in that sentence.

I feel like this has never been the case and is just a false rumor being spread around, so I thought i'd make this thread for a confirmation from the big admin boys and also to make sure everyone is on the same page about this.

I feel like it's completely ridiculous to say that it's a valid KOS, because with that logic you could say that "Did someone say MiGGo is a Traitor" is a valid KOS, because it includes "MiGGo is a Traitor" in the sentence.

yes
 

UncleBee

Hardcore Member
Crescent Lite
Joined
Sep 14, 2019
Messages
209
I disagree with miggo here, in my opinion this is a valid kos. This wouldnt have been a KOS if the wording was applied differently though.

If we check the rules the first part of the sentence "<player> is a T" is basically calling out a traitor, meaning its a valid KOS. Saying "<,but no kos>" after doesnt make any sense.
So you're essentially saying "Player X is a traitor, but you know just dont kill him", which ends up as meta-gaming iirc.

What im guessing is that the player here is trying to make a point that: Player X is probably a traitor for 99%, but he doesnt have the proof to kill him yet. If thats the case, the wording should have been worded differently to avoid the confusing like for example: "Player X is probably a traitor, but no kos yet", that would make more sense than the current method.

This is how I view it, but if thats not the case, ill hear it gladly.
 

Zyp

Veteran Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2019
Messages
119
ok lets put it like this, by using the word traitor you are putting a lot up to chance with koses. questions are covered in the kos section of the rules, so no worry there, but still why use "did someone say miggo is a traitor" when you can do something that causes no confusion by asking "did someone call a kos on miggo" then people who cant hear cause of in game events and only hear "miggo is a traitor" wont be thinking its a kos.

now with the no kos thing, again same issue you have no control over what people hear, and it is easily remedied by "x is highly sus, follow him" no valid kos, no confusion, easy. the kos rules state that saying that someone is explicitly a traitor is a valid kos, and the no kos crap explicitly says they are a t. you kinda cant call that off, all it does is ruin people's rounds because now they have a kos on them, but some people will act and some wont;. its dumb and only causes issues.
 

MiGGo

Veteran Member
Crescent Lite
Joined
Aug 8, 2019
Messages
105
I disagree with miggo here, in my opinion this is a valid kos. This wouldnt have been a KOS if the wording was applied differently though.

If we check the rules the first part of the sentence "<player> is a T" is basically calling out a traitor, meaning its a valid KOS. Saying "<,but no kos>" after doesnt make any sense.
So you're essentially saying "Player X is a traitor, but you know just dont kill him", which ends up as meta-gaming iirc.

What im guessing is that the player here is trying to make a point that: Player X is probably a traitor for 99%, but he doesnt have the proof to kill him yet. If thats the case, the wording should have been worded differently to avoid the confusing like for example: "Player X is probably a traitor, but no kos yet", that would make more sense than the current method.

This is how I view it, but if thats not the case, ill hear it gladly.
So what makes "X is a T; no KOS" different from:
"No kos, but MiGGo is a T"
"The Traitor said MiGGo is a T"
"MiGGo is a T every round"

You could say that all of these include "MiGGo is a T", but the context that it's said in matters too. None of these are obviously KOS, but according to what I'm hearing is that if I say "MiGGo is a T" then it's a KOS, no matter what. Same thing applies to the "MiGGo is a T, no KOS". In my opinion it's pretty braindead to completely skim over the 2nd part of the sentence, just because the first part by itself is a KOS.

And Zyp, I dont know what your experience has been like, but I've NEVER on my time here seen anyone follow a "X is a T, no KOS" as an actual kos, EXCEPT when someone specifically blurs out the words "Actually according to the rules that is a valid KOS". This is because no normal person ACTUALLY believes that there is a KOS being called, because the person specifically says that there IS NO KOS. They understand it how UncleBee wrote it, as them knowing that they're a T, but simply not having the evidence to kill them for it.
 

FrostedBlade

Active Member
Crescent Lite
Joined
Oct 16, 2019
Messages
83
Saying someone is a Traitor with certainty is always a valid KOS. In the phrasing, "Player A is a Traitor, but no KOS," the person is stating with certainty that they know Player A is a Traitor. Whether they say to kill them or not is negligible. If you want to call suspicion on someone, then you need to phrase it properly.

You may be thinking, "what's the big deal, people should know that it means suspicion when I say 'Frosted is a Traitor, no KOS.'" In a game where information is everything, people listen out for "KOS" and "is a Traitor." They may not hear or pay attention to the part where you say, "don't KOS." That's why in the ruleset, the players who call the false KOS'es are slain and not the person who kills the KOS'ed player. You can't expect someone to keep track of "KOS someone, but don't KOS them."

Another thing is that you could be killed before you finish talking. It has happened before.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UncleBee and Zyp

Zyp

Veteran Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2019
Messages
119
So what makes "X is a T; no KOS" different from:
"No kos, but MiGGo is a T"
"The Traitor said MiGGo is a T"
"MiGGo is a T every round"

You could say that all of these include "MiGGo is a T", but the context that it's said in matters too. None of these are obviously KOS, but according to what I'm hearing is that if I say "MiGGo is a T" then it's a KOS, no matter what. Same thing applies to the "MiGGo is a T, no KOS". In my opinion it's pretty braindead to completely skim over the 2nd part of the sentence, just because the first part by itself is a KOS.
"MiGGo is a T every round" doesnt imply he is right now,
"The Traitor said MiGGo is a T" means miggo is innocent, cause a t called him out.(this is now the fault of the person who kills miggo) you recognized that it was by a t, and therefore false. you can act on it, youre probably gonna get slain for toxic gameplay for saying he was still kosed, or rdm for taking it from a t after it was recognized it was from a t.
"No kos, but MiGGo is a T" this is the same boat as x is a t no kos. still valid
 

FrostedBlade

Active Member
Crescent Lite
Joined
Oct 16, 2019
Messages
83
So what makes "X is a T; no KOS" different from:
"No kos, but MiGGo is a T"
"The Traitor said MiGGo is a T"
"MiGGo is a T every round"

You could say that all of these include "MiGGo is a T", but the context that it's said in matters too. None of these are obviously KOS, but according to what I'm hearing is that if I say "MiGGo is a T" then it's a KOS, no matter what. Same thing applies to the "MiGGo is a T, no KOS". In my opinion it's pretty braindead to completely skim over the 2nd part of the sentence, just because the first part by itself is a KOS.

Yes, they are valid KOS'es in the proper context and phrasing.
 

FrostedBlade

Active Member
Crescent Lite
Joined
Oct 16, 2019
Messages
83
It's in the rules to not be an ass. If you wanna nitpick over someone saying, "MiGGo is a T every round," versus someone legitimately calling someone a Traitor, then go ahead. I'm sure if someone killed you over "MiGGo is a T every round," they would be dealt with properly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UncleBee

MiGGo

Veteran Member
Crescent Lite
Joined
Aug 8, 2019
Messages
105
But how does a human brain comprehend "MiGGo is a T, but no KOS" as a valid KOS callout? I'm so baffled that this is even an argument cuz it's such a forced rule
 
  • Like
Reactions: MisterWhy

Siddo

IQ below 0
Crescent Lite
Joined
Aug 8, 2019
Messages
214
This is this and that is that.
"MiGGo is a T" is a valid KOS, that's all there is to it.
Now, with the addendum of "but no kos" obviously only someone with actually negative IQ, like myself, would ever follow it, as it's clearly not intended as a "kill this dude rn" - however a number of issues spawn from this, both for text and voice chat.

Say you die mid-callout, all anyone hears is "MiGGo is a traitor" - obviously they'll follow that KOS. Or if someone is next to you while it's being called and they react the moment they hear "MiGGo is a traitor". In text, it's less egregious, but if someone is just quickly scanning the chat, they won't necessarily see "but no kos". Now, they probably will, let's be real, but it's entirely plausible that they don't in a heated moment.

The issue with all of this is simply that you are calling a 100% valid KOS and then adding "Oh, but don't actually kill the guy that I just with certainty said is a traitor" - that's in itself stupid, to call out a traitor and then say "yeah but don't do anything about it".

If you don't want to KOS someone, don't call them a traitor.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zyp and MiGGo

MiGGo

Veteran Member
Crescent Lite
Joined
Aug 8, 2019
Messages
105
Now, they probably will, let's be real, but it's entirely plausible that they don't in a heated moment.
So why should the fault then be the person that clearly announces that it's not a KOS? It's weird to me that we would cater to people that can't read a full sentence, when it's like you said, really obvious that it's not actually a real KOS. In my opinion it's completely the fault of the person not paying attention, rather than the person that made his intentions clear with the message they sent.
 

Siddo

IQ below 0
Crescent Lite
Joined
Aug 8, 2019
Messages
214
So why should the fault then be the person that clearly announces that it's not a KOS? It's weird to me that we would cater to people that can't read a full sentence, when it's like you said, really obvious that it's not actually a real KOS. In my opinion it's completely the fault of the person not paying attention, rather than the person that made his intentions clear with the message they sent.
Let's translate this to what I feel is a fair analogy.
You throw a frag into a room, but don't mean to kill anyone, just throwing 'cause boom haha funny sound. If it does hurt or kill someone, are you free of guilt since they could have just paid attention and ran away from the frag in the 5 seconds before it blew up?

EDIT: To clarify the point: you start the situation by your actions. Stop enabling someone else's stupidity, be responsible for your own :oo:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zyp

FrostedBlade

Active Member
Crescent Lite
Joined
Oct 16, 2019
Messages
83
So why should the fault then be the person that clearly announces that it's not a KOS? It's weird to me that we would cater to people that can't read a full sentence, when it's like you said, really obvious that it's not actually a real KOS. In my opinion it's completely the fault of the person not paying attention, rather than the person that made his intentions clear with the message they sent.
Why would you want to call a valid KOS, but cancel it? Just fix the problem entirely by not doing it. Call suspicion like you're supposed to. Yes, players with half a brain can read your text and know not to actually KOS the player. That doesn't mean that some people won't still KOS them. It creates an opportunity for people to loophole. I agree with you MiGGo that people should know the difference, but why make it a grey area and leave opportunity for misinterpretation?
 

mae

New Member
Crescent Lite
Joined
Oct 13, 2019
Messages
8
But what if you KNOW someone is a Traitor, but a rule is preventing you from KOSing them? That's not sus or high sus, you are fully aware they are a T. What kind of phrasing is supposed to be used in that situation if not ''x is a T but no KOS''?
 
  • Like
Reactions: MisterWhy

Siddo

IQ below 0
Crescent Lite
Joined
Aug 8, 2019
Messages
214
But what if you KNOW someone is a Traitor, but a rule is preventing you from KOSing them? That's not sus or high sus, you are fully aware they are a T. What kind of phrasing is supposed to be used in that situation if not ''x is a T but no KOS''?
"Don't trust X", "Be wary of X", etc.

If a rule is preventing you from killing someone, then according to the rules you don't have absolute proof of a traitorous act or indeed that they are a traitor, so according to the rules they are in fact only suspicious. Thanks to your game sense and experience, you're probably right, but that probably is not enough.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FrostedBlade

Zyp

Veteran Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2019
Messages
119
" high sus, cant act on what i got, but high sus follow this idiot" mae @mae
 
  • Like
Reactions: MemeDaddy

MiGGo

Veteran Member
Crescent Lite
Joined
Aug 8, 2019
Messages
105
"MiGGo is a T every round" doesnt imply he is right now,
"The Traitor said MiGGo is a T" means miggo is innocent, cause a t called him out.(this is now the fault of the person who kills miggo) you recognized that it was by a t, and therefore false. you can act on it, youre probably gonna get slain for toxic gameplay for saying he was still kosed, or rdm for taking it from a t after it was recognized it was from a t.
"No kos, but MiGGo is a T" this is the same boat as x is a t no kos. still valid
ok so I have a few problems with this:

"MiGGo is a T every round" doesnt imply he is right now,
How does "every round" not imply the current one?

"The Traitor said MiGGo is a T" means miggo is innocent, cause a t called him out.(this is now the fault of the person who kills miggo) you recognized that it was by a t, and therefore false. you can act on it, youre probably gonna get slain for toxic gameplay for saying he was still kosed, or rdm for taking it from a t after it was recognized it was from a t.
See here you are doing what I've been telling people to do. You are taking context into account, and not just reading "MiGGo is a T" and counting that as a KOS

"No kos, but MiGGo is a T" this is the same boat as x is a t no kos. still valid
How do I even begin to explain this. The reason you guys are saying that my original title line is a KOS, is because it starts off with "MiGGo is a T" and the KOS'd person might get shot before the rest of the sentence is said. How does that apply in this case? The "No KOS" part is said first, yet somehow you still rule it as a valid KOS.

I find it funny how you decide to pick and choose how in some cases context does matter, but somehow in other cases they dont. None of those would get followed as real KOSes ingame, except of course by an extremely toxic person that only wants to kill for the sake of killing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mae