The rule of Random Death Match (RDM) is often invoked when a player kills another without a valid reason. One might expect that this rule would come into effect if you find yourself under fire. However, that doesn't appear to be the case. Let me illustrate this with a scenario:
Player 1 received a contract to eliminate Player 2. Accepting the task, Player 1 initiates an attack on Player 2. Luckily for Player 2, Player 1's aiming skills are less than stellar, missing approximately ten to eleven shots from an SVD - a firearm capable of taking out a player with a mere one to two shots, given the player's 150 HP and 100 Armor. In a reflexive response to the attack, Player 2 retaliates, successfully killing the assailant without sustaining any damage.
To further ensure their protection against the RDM rule, Player 2 had the foresight to record the entire incident, thereby offering tangible proof of their actions. However, when this incident was reviewed by the game's moderators, Player 2 was asked to justify their actions. Player 1 claimed an RDM violation, insisting that since their shots never landed, Player 2's retaliation was unprovoked. In defense, Player 2 pointed out that Player 1 had both a contract to kill and had made active attempts on their life, an intent to kill clearly exhibited in the recorded evidence.
Unfortunately, the moderators deemed Player 2's self-defense an RDM violation, arguing that since no shot from Player 1 had hit Player 2, the retaliation was not justified. This interpretation of the RDM rule seems to be counterintuitive, given that an explicit threat to one's life should be deemed a valid reason to retaliate, especially when there's concrete proof.
It appears that the current implementation of the rule fails to consider such nuances and complexities. I propose a revision of the RDM rule, allowing moderators to exercise discretion on a case-by-case basis. Numerous instances similar to this one reflect the need for such an adjustment, ensuring players who justifiably defend themselves aren't unjustly penalized.
Player 1 received a contract to eliminate Player 2. Accepting the task, Player 1 initiates an attack on Player 2. Luckily for Player 2, Player 1's aiming skills are less than stellar, missing approximately ten to eleven shots from an SVD - a firearm capable of taking out a player with a mere one to two shots, given the player's 150 HP and 100 Armor. In a reflexive response to the attack, Player 2 retaliates, successfully killing the assailant without sustaining any damage.
To further ensure their protection against the RDM rule, Player 2 had the foresight to record the entire incident, thereby offering tangible proof of their actions. However, when this incident was reviewed by the game's moderators, Player 2 was asked to justify their actions. Player 1 claimed an RDM violation, insisting that since their shots never landed, Player 2's retaliation was unprovoked. In defense, Player 2 pointed out that Player 1 had both a contract to kill and had made active attempts on their life, an intent to kill clearly exhibited in the recorded evidence.
Unfortunately, the moderators deemed Player 2's self-defense an RDM violation, arguing that since no shot from Player 1 had hit Player 2, the retaliation was not justified. This interpretation of the RDM rule seems to be counterintuitive, given that an explicit threat to one's life should be deemed a valid reason to retaliate, especially when there's concrete proof.
It appears that the current implementation of the rule fails to consider such nuances and complexities. I propose a revision of the RDM rule, allowing moderators to exercise discretion on a case-by-case basis. Numerous instances similar to this one reflect the need for such an adjustment, ensuring players who justifiably defend themselves aren't unjustly penalized.
