[JesseTheUndeadCowboy]

For number 2, I disagree with mainly because if you kill a traitor and pick up a t weapon and you say you are proven, and someone kills you for that it should still be rdm and punishable.

Because anyone can say they're proven. There needs to be some kind of objective rules-wise delineation of what makes a player proven vs unproven, and a detective's word is an easy fix.

I do see what you are saying though about split second reactions when someone pulls out a deadly weapon nexts to you though but mistakes like that can happen and it should still be slayable.

Why? It's absurd that when someone pulls a knife on you, the rules force you to scroll up in chat and check their proven status (or simply have encyclopedic and instantly-recallable knowledge of who is proven in the given round.) No one would ever survive a knife or a jihad again if everyone complied with this.

Like I said, the game revolves around trust and knowing who to believe or who not to believe, sometimes you can tell when certain people are lying about being proven also. I will admit thought it can be difficult at times knowing who really is proven or who isn't proven just based on the words of others who may be lying themselves. Also you can use tab to mark someone as proven if they say that killed a t and have a t weapon, that may be easier then just scrolling up in chat or trying to remember. I just believe it all involves around making judgement calls and trying to make the right choice based on how others act and what they say. Also I think the detective could lie too about others being proven and make mistakes about who is or isn't proven just as well as an innocent or traitor can.