Tribbies

[Twinblades713]

Hey, can a trib (WANTED) you if you attack someone who can't see you, and they yell 'someone is attacking me!' ...?

[Pali]

Pretty sure (and I very much hope) the answer is no.

[BigPapa]

Witnesses who can attest to the "somebody" by their own eyes.

Otherwise I am thinking not, but there is the LAW, and then there is THE law. I prefer the cops who work on the intent of the law rather than the letter...

[Mudder]

So here is how it goes from the Trib perspective.

If you hear this:

Bobby yells, "Help! Someone is attacking me!"

>where

Bobby Some Room

Killer Some Room

Tribunal(You) Watchtower

You can easily deduce that Killer attacked Bobby. But how do you know for sure? Maybe the attacker fled and only Killer remains in the room with Bobby and is healing him? Better go investigate.

You walk into the room and Bobby is indeed still fighting Killer. You heard no yells on your way to investigate. It is fair, and correct, to say that Killer attacked Bobby and thus broke the law.

I hope that helps.

[MyghtAndMagick]

I disagree. Because here's the part of the scenario you might not have seen:

You blackjack Killer.

You place a gag over Killer's mouth. (let's say the Tribunal recalls or walks into town at this point)

You look at Killer and grin evilly. "Watch this."

You yell 'Help, someone is attacking me!'

You backstab Killer. (who can't yell, because they're gagged)

Isn't there a way for Tribunals to see if someone has actually committed a crime?

[Twinblades713]

I've thought about whether or not that would be abuse of mechanics or simply good (devious) roleplay.

[Mudder]

Isn't there a way for Tribunals to see if someone has actually committed a crime?

Yes. That will not work on a Tribunal. And while that "abuse" may work for RP, it is I believe against the rules, or at least a Tribunal won't fall for it.

[MyghtAndMagick]

Fine, less "controversial" example (even though I disagree that it's an abuse of the game mechanics):

How about if they are fighting someone who is under "quiet" or "noyell" mode?

[Mudder]

Then they won't yell out when they are attacked, makes the Tribunal's job harder, doesn't it? In that case, the Tribunal would have to witness the attacks himself.

Or have two lawful witnesses tell him what happened.

Case in point? Don't be quiet or noyell mode if you want Tribunal protection.

[MyghtAndMagick]

I'm just saying, your statement that the Tribunal should use the method you detailed to mark a criminal is wrong in my mind.

[Zhokril]

Yelling "manually" will not fool a Trib..at least not a prudent one.

[Mudder]

I'm just saying' date=' your statement that the Tribunal should use the method you detailed to mark a criminal is wrong in my mind.[/quote']

Why? What do you think should be the standard?

The method I described is completely full proof. You will never mark an innocent man that way (human error aside) and you have full RP proof of what happened aswell.

[Anume]

1. That kind of fake yell IS abuse and would get you into trouble.

2. A BRIGHT tribby would not fall for it.

3. Mudder's method works.

[Kyzarius]

reminds me of when I was on silithis and a warrior did an "emote looks at you." trying to get me to come out of hiding.

[Twinblades713]

reminds me of when I was on silithis and a warrior did an "emote looks at you." trying to get me to come out of hiding.

HEhe,

pmote gives 20000 gold.