Not Planned KOS should mean KOS

[MS]

NOTE: I have re-posted this thread here.

Hi all, I think it's bizarre how EGO's TTT limits the power of KOSes. In nearly every other TTT server, all players can follow through with a KOS called by someone else.
This makes sense: KOS means Kill On Sight. Usually the reason to broadcast this is that a player has witnessed a traitorous act and is alerting everyone to kill said player.

But this isn't how it is on EGO. On EGO, only the player that calls the KOS (or witnesses said act) may kill the perpetrator. In other words, KOS means "I will kill this player, but you can't". It is in other words much less impactful in terms of gameplay. I recommend a rule change allowing innocents and detectives to both follow through with other innocents and detectives' KOSes.
I do not currently understand the reasoning behind this restriction. Detectives are essentially proven innocents. They are just as susceptible, perceptive, and able as a regular innocent in terms of KOSes. It is just as likely for a detective to call a false KOS as it is an innocent.

The most obvious change that this will have is balance. I believe that this change would not be substantial in terms of overpowered/underpowered roles. I believe that if this change were to be implemented. Traitors would be smarter about how they go about killing (they would want to kill quicker, and, if called out, would want to be less conspicuous), Innocents would be strongly encouraged to use their microphones and be less grouped up, and detectives would be less targeted.

Please let me know what you think about this suggestion, I am interested in hearing pros and cons. Please do your best to explain and support any opinions you have. Thank you.

NOTE: I have re-posted this thread here.

 

[4g0tt3nSou1]

The reason this is in place is to cut down on RDM, Though, it actually creates RDM too.
Spoiler goes into detail:

Spoiler: Explanation of why the rule exists

The problem is this:
Player 1 is going about their business, say on other side of the map.
Player 2 shoots player 3, doesn't kill them though, and both P2 and P3 run off in different directions.

Now it's standard everywhere you go that if you are attacked you may defend yourself without liability, assuming you can show they damaged you first or otherwise provoked the incident.
This, in effect, is a KOS.

They(P2) currently call out that they have a KOS on the player. (This establishes when they do eventually come across P3 and kill them, that others shouldn't shoot at you for walking up to someone and killing them)

The problem we run into is say, P2 falsely KOS's a random person, say P4. P1 kills P4 following P2's KOS. Now P1 just RDMed P4 just because they run off the assumption P2's KOS is legit. Say P2 is a T for intents and purposes within this scenario. T's can call false KOS's all day, that is their job to get people killed. But now P1 is liable for that RDM.

We have the rule to address when P4 gets killed by P1, Because P4 shouldn't have been killed, and It's not entirely P1's fault either. If we remove the "Anyone can follow any KOS's" factor, the RDM we get instead is people who shouldn't be killing people that they can't confirm are Ts.

It is just as likely for a detective to call a false KOS as it is an innocent.

This isn't accurate, Detectives are purpose-given extra tools to determine who is a T and not. Inno's cannot (and shouldn't) be able to do the job of a detective without actually being one. (We can get into a whole side-debate over the usage of logic, but I digress). If a detective is calling false KOS's, they are instead liable for the RDM. (We technically could apply the same logic to Innos, but it gets real grey as to what would happen when a T calls the false KOS, as technically they are pursuing their role, though slightly disrupting the server/game, again; I digress)

The most obvious change that this will have is balance.

Obviously paraphrasing ur paragraph.
Here is the thing here. They already have to do this(act smarter, quicker, quieter). While the rule exists, it is constantly broken and is something admins deal with on a regular basis of TTT. Adding this I think wouldn't change the meta like I think you think it would(hope that was said right).


Conclusion:
This would just simply be "lawyering" the rules. grinding it down to specifics(In the sense of having every single nuance written out, something we specifically avoid as well, I digress again.), and most importantly; this would be essentially trading one type of RDM for another.

While it would make for more consistency, it really just changes the way rules are broken, not followed.

I see why you want this; I also see the other side as to why this is the way this is. Personally, the only reason I'd say no to this, is we would have to not only get the entire CS Division on the same page about the change but also the players. Once people become accustomed to the server, people tend to pick this rule up pretty easy I'd say 7/10 times. It sounds like I am bullshitting this off, but getting everyone to follow what essentially is a small change to meta is a hellova challenge as is. Keep in mind; CS has one of the largest admin teams in eGO, and a player base even larger to match it; forgetting the fact that essentially anyone who admins CS would need to know this was changed.