f you're going to kill someone because they attacked your party member, you need to make sure they know you're together

[Wilhelm Panderino]

<If you're going to kill someone because they attacked your party member, you need to make sure they know you're together (local chat or voice (not OOC/Advert)). Not doing so will cause confusion and most likely result in a sit which no one wants. (This applies to raiding as well)>

Could someone explain this rule to me as apparently i dont understand completely. 

My party member was warned for RDM for defending his party and hitting his party bind after the person died. Cuntbucket claims its implied in the rules that the bind must be used before attacking but i do not see anything regarding this. From what i can tell, this rule is to simply avoid stupid sits (like the one that was called) from wasting peoples time.

 

If by somehow, its implied that you must hit the bind first, could the rule section get an update to reflect this implication?

[Zesty]

You can go under the examples of a GOOD party/gang member, in which it states this "Running up to the player who killed their party/gang member and telling them they are about to die for killing their member" 

 

Going through that you can pick out the keyword "about" meaning it hasn't happened yet. This means you need to run up towards the player, tell them they will die, then attack them.

[Crabroll]

In addition to what zesty wrote, I want to point out that this is very similar to the logic behind warning someone before killing em. This is a courtesy that is used to dissuade any confusion during interaction. Tell first so that the other person knows, then move forward. 

[Blue.]

10 hours ago, Wilhelm Panderino said:

If by somehow, its implied that you must hit the bind first, could the rule section get an update to reflect this implication?

Since clarification is never really a bad thing i think adding this to @Doge Skeletor's motd suggestion doc we've been working on is a good start.

Edited March 15, 2021 by Blue.