[Mallakk]

heres a idea, Im a T, at the beginning of the round ii fall off a building and lose 19 hp i walk up to someone afk and shoot them in the face, whe someone comes up i say AW MAN HE CROWBARED MEEEEEEEE

guess im innocent and get to walk scott free

This is the point that should be focused on, if someone were to kill the T in this scenario whether or not it's rdm is not based of the information the killer had. If the person had crow barred him its rdm if he didn't its not the scenario is exactly the same from the inos point of view but one is rdm one isn't.

That's not what he's saying in this situation though. He's asking if he were to fall, does someone have to believe that he was crowbarred. Yes. They do. Because there's no proof for or against that claim. It's that easy. Every single one of these hypothetical scenarios are based off of one word: proof. We're not arguing about whether or not Lycan RDMed Burrito Bowl. We're arguing whether or not Luke Warm HotDog Water had the proof to definitively kill Lycan. He didn't. He was slain for it. Are we done here? I think we are.

again you miss the point so im going to say it one more time then give up on you. I'm turning hotdogs scenario from one into 2 different ones. the first the victim is acting in self defense the second he isnt, regardless of whether he is a T or not. In the first scenario in the way you are reading and enforcing the rules he will be slain but in the second he wont. This leaves a big issue not only are you giving the person who is lying full control of the situation rather than trying to be coconvincing with his lying the game does it for him. Seconded and probably more important whether or not this is rdm cant be know to the inno until after, in both situation the inno sees a valid reason to kos and whether its rdm is behind a lie that they can not get the answer to. The information present is the same in both situation for the inno so why would one be rdm and the other not? when the only information you are missing the the total and complete word of mouth of one person why should the be the deciding factor. you are saying the are based off proof and the only proof this person has is that the victim here did something kosable.