Serial Killer Game 73: Digital Infection - Round 2 Voting End 8AM Nov 25th

[FPLOON]

Nah.

I concede.

Game over, user wins.

No... I won't give you the satisfaction...

@Nexus Mod Manager: It's a good thing I feel no sympathy for the Killer because, in my eyes, [user]Nouw[/user] has been the best Killer I've seen out of all of the SK rounds I've been in...

Also, no one remembers Round 51... because Nostalgia's a beach...

 

[JoJo]

Well that was quick! Would have been interesting to see how far Team Good would have gotten, what with the apparent infiltration.

 

[Fat Hippo]

Well that was quick! Would have been interesting to see how far Team Good would have gotten, what with the apparent infiltration.

Yeah, me too. I wonder if any of the other "traitors" were panning to do a reveal of the Killer? Still, they can't recruit more than 3 traitors, and after the 3rd round if would've become apparent to all of their recruits who never actually got to turn into traitors that they got played, so with a second and very short spy list on the way, we might have had a shot in any case. Maybe.

 

[Neuromancer]

Good game I suppose, though I think we all know this goes against the spirit of the role. I wonder if you contacted Dema about all this before posting it.

And the only reason your head didn't roll this round was because funs was blackmailing me, saying he'd release our pms, where I revealed myself to him after his death, to 'his accomplices' to release publicly(edit) if I didn't recruit you.

Well, it's not like I told funs to blackmail you. For whatever reason that he did it. I guess he trusted me too much.

Even if I was killed, it'd hardly mattered.. I sent a PM to morsomk revealing that you were the lawyer. Your integrity would have vanished, and snek would've gotten a second question. The list would be smaller, and Armadox's days would have been numbered, considering I listed him among the potential killers, along with tf2, hippo and crimson.

I must say, all of this has left a rather sour taste in my mouth. Blatantly dicking over your own team (I suppose this applies to both of you, though only one explicitly) is a rather unfortunate way to 'win' the game.

C'est la vie, let's get on with the next round I suppose.

Except, I wasn't on your team. I pretended to be, and it worked well. Backstabbing has always been a thing in Serial killer. It has won rounds, it has cost rounds. It's an integral part of it. If anyone deserves to be mad at me it's funs. Speaking of.

And just to go on a little more, because I'm on a pc now and don't have to deal with buggy ass phone posting interface.

Maybe next time, instead of playing loose with the rules interpretation, especially with new roles involved, you ask the GM if it's fucking kosher. I must have PM'd Dema a dozen or so different questions regarding the ins and outs of what was allowed, because not only do I care about winning, I care about the integrity of the game. I tried arguing that 'according to the letter of the law', Aero shouldn't be allowed to rez snekadid in the 2nd cycle, because the wording states priests can sacrifice to rez someone from a previous cycle. I was overruled on that one, because there was precedence in favor against me, but I didn't throw a shit fit over it, I just said 'ok, thanks for the clarification' and moved on.

I guess it's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission though. It was a scummy thing to do, and you knew it, or else you wouldn't be gloating about 'fine print' nonsense.

Boy, you sure got salty over it, didn't you.

I didn't gloat about it, I pointed it out. Nor do I intend to ask for forgiveness. I acted within the grounds of the rules of the game, as clearly stated in the OP. It is no fault of mine if that wasn't intended. Unintetional fine print is still fine print. Michi won over fine print when she used two people to work with her in a round before the lawyer was even conceptualised. In another round, the spy was killed over fine print stating that if the killer gets his target before the medic tells the GM who he saves, the kill is valid.

Difference is, back then, when people used the fine print, it was accepted and rectified. The rules were made clearer and people accepted that it happened. I don't appreciate you calling me out over supposed fucking up the rules. I was simply paying attention to them and used them as they were written. You're acting as though I purposefully went out of my way to completely dick you over because I have a bone to pick with you.

And you're also acting as though if I didn't go on and join you as a traitor it would've made a difference. As though the fact that I joined you was the deciding factor, when in fact the moment you decided to send me Armadox's post the game was sealed. I only joined because I wanted to make a point: You either make sure that the rules are properly updated when adding new roles, or you don't add new ones. The game is already oversaturated with roles to begin with.

I'm not some convenient scapegoat to be used because people can't read or make things as clear as they should be. The game was over before I joined you. I was 99% sure you were the lawyer and that you were actually linking me to the killer. I have explained in great detail why I believed you to be the lawyer. That you fell for my feint is not my fault.

If anyone should be anywhere near mad at me, it should be funs. He apparently went out and risked his head to make sure you got to trust me. Oh, and by the way, isn't talking to the dead about info against the rules? Because it sure sounds like you did that.

Wrong. As soon as you became a traitor this afternoon you won or loss with the killer. You apparently only read half the rules, so while 'technically' you could screw over your own team... That's not really in the spirit of the game to screw over your own team. Team Evil should be working together, and Team Good should be working together (as much as they trust each other)

The spirit of the game? How exactly can you define the spirit of the game as arbitrarily as "Team Evil vs Team Good"? I am noticing a worrying trend where apparently restricting the roles by locking them to one side or the other is a good thing.

Serial Killer has always been a game about trust and paranoia. Every person is out for themselves, it just so happens that getting the killer is what suits everyone's interests. The lawyer was never role-locked in the past, and tha presented the killer a dillema: He could go for someone he knows and minimize the chances that he would be backstabbed, but that would mean if the lawyer was found out, then the killer was likely done for. Or, he could go with someone he didn't know well, and have to worry about getting backstabbed, but hey, at least if the lawyer was found out to be reliable, then it was unlikely he'd be found out.

Same applies with the traitors. The killer is not supposed to get outside help. He is not supposed to have numerical supperiority over votes unless the lawyer is really good at his job and tricks people. Getting help comes at the expense of the help ratting him out. By making the traitor a role and stopping him from ever backstabbing the killer, you take away one of the fundamental parts of serial killer. Both sides are fuelled by paranoia, and have to decide what risk is worth it and what isn't.

I would have been fine with you doing your deep cover and throwing them to the wolves once you knew Armadox was the killer. THAT is part of the risk of trying to recruit Traitors is that they have to know the killers identity BEFORE the switch, and there is no telling what they will do once they have that info. Yes, hopefully they send the PM to the GM saying they are joining Team Evil, but they could just as likely make a huge post exposing team evil. However, once you've actually joined them, it is expected that you will work with them to help them win. Not backstab them five seconds later.

Nothing epitomises what I said more than this part. The fact that I betrayed them after I joined doesn't matter in the slightest. I had more than enough evidence to get people to lynch Armadox without joining. As much as the game is concerned, my decision to join them is completely trivial, or do you mean to tell me that if I just posted the Jux PMs things wouldn't have progressed as they did? Yet, I get chewed on over some needless obsession to define who acts how.

I would have accepted this critisism if I was approached out of the blew to join the killer, did so to learn his name and ratted him out. But as the game progressed, whether or not I joined them in the end doesn't matter at all. This isn't arguing over a real gamechanging decision, this is arguing over a needless technicallity because the game has become more complicated than it needs to be.

@Neuromancer: Seeing you wear the Sans Avatar while laying out such detailed evidence with the "Dog" OST from Undertale ...
You really suit him, to a scary degree. Thank god I am not doing the Genocide Route (or on your bad side) because you'd wreck me.

guess you could say I did a ton of work.

a skeleton, *wink*

 

[Jux]

Good game I suppose, though I think we all know this goes against the spirit of the role. I wonder if you contacted Dema about all this before posting it.

And the only reason your head didn't roll this round was because funs was blackmailing me, saying he'd release our pms, where I revealed myself to him after his death, to 'his accomplices' to release publicly(edit) if I didn't recruit you.

Well, it's not like I told funs to blackmail you. For whatever reason that he did it. I guess he trusted me too much.

Even if I was killed, it'd hardly mattered.. I sent a PM to morsomk revealing that you were the lawyer. Your integrity would have vanished, and snek would've gotten a second question. The list would be smaller, and Armadox's days would have been numbered, considering I listed him among the potential killers, along with tf2, hippo and crimson.

And yet we already had a plan in place to trick Frappe, and one other, into unwittingly becoming traitors. It worked with tf2godz, and the round was far from a forgone conclusion. So don't try to pull that 'but it would have ended up like this anyway' bullshit. Not cool.

I must say, all of this has left a rather sour taste in my mouth. Blatantly dicking over your own team (I suppose this applies to both of you, though only one explicitly) is a rather unfortunate way to 'win' the game.

C'est la vie, let's get on with the next round I suppose.

Except, I wasn't on your team. I pretended to be, and it worked well. Backstabbing has always been a thing in Serial killer. It has won rounds, it has cost rounds. It's an integral part of it. If anyone deserves to be mad at me it's funs. Speaking of.

GM declared you lost the round, so yea, you were on our team.

And just to go on a little more, because I'm on a pc now and don't have to deal with buggy ass phone posting interface.

Maybe next time, instead of playing loose with the rules interpretation, especially with new roles involved, you ask the GM if it's fucking kosher. I must have PM'd Dema a dozen or so different questions regarding the ins and outs of what was allowed, because not only do I care about winning, I care about the integrity of the game. I tried arguing that 'according to the letter of the law', Aero shouldn't be allowed to rez snekadid in the 2nd cycle, because the wording states priests can sacrifice to rez someone from a previous cycle. I was overruled on that one, because there was precedence in favor against me, but I didn't throw a shit fit over it, I just said 'ok, thanks for the clarification' and moved on.

I guess it's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission though. It was a scummy thing to do, and you knew it, or else you wouldn't be gloating about 'fine print' nonsense.

Boy, you sure got salty over it, didn't you.

I didn't gloat about it, I pointed it out. Nor do I intend to ask for forgiveness. I acted within the grounds of the rules of the game, as clearly stated in the OP. It is no fault of mine if that wasn't intended. Unintetional fine print is still fine print. Michi won over fine print when she used two people to work with her in a round before the lawyer was even conceptualised. In another round, the spy was killed over fine print stating that if the killer gets his target before the medic tells the GM who he saves, the kill is valid.

Difference is, back then, when people used the fine print, it was accepted and rectified. The rules were made clearer and people accepted that it happened. I don't appreciate you calling me out over supposed fucking up the rules. I was simply paying attention to them and used them as they were written. You're acting as though I purposefully went out of my way to completely dick you over because I have a bone to pick with you.

And you're also acting as though if I didn't go on and join you as a traitor it would've made a difference. As though the fact that I joined you was the deciding factor, when in fact the moment you decided to send me Armadox's post the game was sealed. I only joined because I wanted to make a point: You either make sure that the rules are properly updated when adding new roles, or you don't add new ones. The game is already oversaturated with roles to begin with.

I'm not some convenient scapegoat to be used because people can't read or make things as clear as they should be. The game was over before I joined you. I was 99% sure you were the lawyer and that you were actually linking me to the killer. I have explained in great detail why I believed you to be the lawyer. That you fell for my feint is not my fault.

If anyone should be anywhere near mad at me, it should be funs. He apparently went out and risked his head to make sure you got to trust me. Oh, and by the way, isn't talking to the dead about info against the rules? Because it sure sounds like you did that.

When you have contradicting statements in the ruling, in this case, the contradicting part being:

The Traitor is a role given to players who have decided to side with the Killer. Traitor role wins the game if the Killer wins.

You don't just decide on your own which one is more important.

It's the first two bloody lines of the Traitor description. You accepted the traitor role, you decided to side with the killer. You win if he wins. Conversely, you lose if he does. In what game, barring maybe Calvinball, does a player get to decide what interpretation of the rules he's going to follow, when there is a question?

And yea, had you just decided to blow things open before actually joining, I wouldn't be mad at you. Just funs. I stated as much in post #422 and #425. Your point could have easily been made after the game, in the UG, without all this drama baggage attached. That you decided to do it this way does make it look like you're gloating.

 

[Neuromancer]

And yet we already had a plan in place to trick Frappe, and one other, into unwittingly becoming traitors. It worked with tf2godz, and the round was far from a forgone conclusion. So don't try to pull that 'but it would have ended up like this anyway' bullshit. Not cool.

Ah yes, Frappe, who was working with me. Or Morsomk, who, in case of my death, would have taken over Fractral's place, given people clear cut instructions on who to vote for, chief among them being Armadox.

And it didn't matter, anyway. You went to get me to work with you. The moment you did that things were settled.

you were on our team.

What did I say about obsessing over technicalities and missing out on the bigger picture?

When you have contradicting statements in the ruling, in this case, the contradicting part being:

The Traitor is a role given to players who have decided to side with the Killer. Traitor role wins the game if the Killer wins.

You don't just decide on your own which one is more important.

It's the first two bloody lines of the Traitor description. You accepted the traitor role, you decided to side with the killer. You win if he wins. Conversely, you lose if he does. In what game, barring maybe Calvinball, does a player get to decide what interpretation of the rules he's going to follow, when there is a question?

And yea, had you just decided to blow things open before actually joining, I wouldn't be mad at you. Just funs. I stated as much in post #422 and #425. Your point could have easily been made after the game, in the UG, without all this drama baggage attached. That you decided to do it this way does make it look like you're gloating.

I didn't turn it into drama, you decided to when you took it personally and decided to twist the reveal into some sort of overblown exercise to satisfy my vanity.

I already explained why I decided to reveal everything after I joined team evil. To risk repeating myself, I wanted to showcase just how much new folks are obsessed with role-locking and dictating who acts how. And hey, guess what, there's plenty to showcase here.

Nor did I decide which statement is more important, and nor is it contradictory. The traitor gets to join Team Evil. They are allowed to backstab the killer in expense of losing the round. As unbalanced as the traitor is, such a clearcut penalty suits the game because the game is inherently one about trust, paranoia and betrayal. It's the same penalty that the lawyer has always had, until the role-locking was in effect. Need I repeat myself why rolelocking is bad again?

 

[Jux]

Ah yes, Frappe, who was working with me. Or Morsomk, who, in case of my death, would have taken over Fractral's place, given people clear cut instructions on who to vote for, chief among them being Armadox.

And yet it never actually played out, so unless you have alternate future reading powers, this is just post hoc rationalizing.

And it didn't matter, anyway. You went to get me to work with you. The moment you did that things were settled.

This is solely the fault of funs, I'm not laying that on you.

What did I say about obsessing over technicalities and missing out on the bigger picture?

Says the guy that goes looking for technicalities in the wording to exploit? Not a very principled argument.

I didn't turn it into drama, you decided to when you took it personally and decided to twist the reveal into some sort of overblown exercise to satisfy my vanity.

Because that's what it looks like. You could have ended it without joining. You could have asked Dema for clarification. You could have just pointed out what you felt was a flaw in the wording after the round. And yet you didn't, and there's a reason for that.

I already explained why I decided to reveal everything after I joined team evil. To risk repeating myself, I wanted to showcase just how much new folks are obsessed with role-locking and dictating who acts how. And hey, guess what, there's plenty to showcase here.

The game has obviously changed over time. If that's not to your liking, it's perfectly fine to say so, and can easily be done in a way without getting people bent out of shape. Also, if the game is moving in a direction you don't like, but the majority of others do, you're not forced to play it.

Nor did I decide which statement is more important, and nor is it contradictory. The traitor gets to join Team Evil. They are allowed to backstab the killer in expense of losing the round. As unbalanced as the traitor is, such a clearcut penalty suits the game because the game is inherently one about trust, paranoia and betrayal. It's the same penalty that the lawyer has always had, until the role-locking was in effect. Need I repeat myself why rolelocking is bad again?

You can repeat yourself till yer blue in the face. When we go into a round with the understanding that roles are locked, if you think you see an inconsistency, you PM the guy in charge.

Again, I ask, in what game other than Calvinball does a player get to decide what interpretation of the rules he's going to follow? The biggest role of the GM is to make sure people are following the rules, to provide an impartial head. If you think you found a way to exploit the rules, at the very least it's incredibly unsportsmanlike to just do whatever the hell you want instead of consulting the guy running it.

 

[Demagogue]

I am noticing a worrying trend where apparently restricting the roles by locking them to one side or the other is a good thing.

I'm sorry, so a game where you win purely by sheer luck of no one decided to screw you over is a fun game to you?

Serial Killer has always been a game about trust and paranoia. Every person is out for themselves, it just so happens that getting the killer is what suits everyone's interests.

Yes, and that sounds like such a fun game to be the killer in... I broke down those statistics already in my reply to Frappe in the UG. 7% seven percent of the killers won their games before the lawyer came into existance. And it is no wonder why when you can't trust anyone... no one has a true goal or purpose, and it is a game of people doing whatever the hell they want.

Difference is, back then, when people used the fine print, it was accepted and rectified. The rules were made clearer and people accepted that it happened. I don't appreciate you calling me out over supposed fucking up the rules. I was simply paying attention to them and used them as they were written. You're acting as though I purposefully went out of my way to completely dick you over because I have a bone to pick with you.

Yeah, and those fine print and rectifications are what has brought us to the game we have today (in some parts) The rules are so convoluted now, because of people who would take every little piece of fine print and exploit it for their own win. YAY you won because you found a loop hole, bravo.

And yes, you did purposefully go out of your way to completely dick over team evil. Why? To prove a point that there was a gap in the rules, where we didn't say "You can't throw the game for your own team" because who would have thought someone would be as self serving as to lose the game for themselves, to prove a point.

 

[Fractral]

@Funs: We could do a rewrite, from the ground up- I think someone has already suggested that. Though deciding who gets to do it would be tough since we don't have anyone like Michi who everyone trusts.

Although there's always been ambiguity in the rules, and certainly when I GM'd my solution was simply to make the decision myself, based on which I thought would be more fun. If you're not sure whether you're allowed to do something, ask the GM- they're a neutral arbirtrator, just like in D&D, with a bent towards making the game enjoyable. Then the loophole/ambiguity can be ironed out at the end of the round, much like has been happening anyway.

 

[Neuromancer]

Ah yes, Frappe, who was working with me. Or Morsomk, who, in case of my death, would have taken over Fractral's place, given people clear cut instructions on who to vote for, chief among them being Armadox.

And yet it never actually played out, so unless you have alternate future reading powers, this is just post hoc rationalizing.

It's not so much post hoc rationalizing as assessing the situation. Things were looking extremely bad for the killer. Armadox also admitted to this being a sinking ship. The rebound was possible, but extremely unlikely. So yes, while I will admit that I worded it badly by saying that "it wouldn't have mattered", truth of the matter is that it most likely wouldn't have.

Says the guy that goes looking for technicalities in the wording to exploit? Not a very principled argument.

I didn't cherry pick what I wanted to believe. It was literally there. But back to this point down below.

Because that's what it looks like. You could have ended it without joining. You could have asked Dema for clarification. You could have just pointed out what you felt was a flaw in the wording after the round. And yet you didn't, and there's a reason for that.

A reason that have twice now stated clear as fucking day. Seriously, Jux. You wanna hate me because I tricked you, that's your problem. But I'm growing tired of your passive-aggressive implications that I did what I did because I wanted to specifically dick you over and wanted to flaunt over it. You don't know me well enough to make such a claim. In fact, you don't know me at all. Seriously. take a step back and stop taking this personally.

The game has obviously changed over time. If that's not to your liking, it's perfectly fine to say so, and can easily be done in a way without getting people bent out of shape. Also, if the game is moving in a direction you don't like, but the majority of others do, you're not forced to play it.

Well, I'm sure you'll be delighted to know that I most likely won't be joining the next round. I showcased the faults of the current system, and rather than inspire dialogue on how to fix them and go on, you instead decided to lynch me.

You can repeat yourself till yer blue in the face. When we go into a round with the understanding that roles are locked, if you think you see an inconsistency, you PM the guy in charge.

And you can go on conveniently missing the point I'm making 'till the second coming of Billy Herrington. That does not change the fact that it's a valid point.

Again, I ask, in what game other than Calvinball does a player get to decide what interpretation of the rules he's going to follow? The biggest role of the GM is to make sure people are following the rules, to provide an impartial head. If you think you found a way to exploit the rules, at the very least it's incredibly unsportsmanlike to just do whatever the hell you want instead of consulting the guy running it.

The rules were clear. All other roles can do as they wish. Even the traitor, even if he is evil-aligned. This has since been changed in the post-game rule-tuning, but that does not mean that it didn't apply in this round.

 

[Drummodino]

I really miss Michi, man. *Cries on your tentacles*

Oh and Frappe suggested that. As for find a replacement for Michi: That's tough, man. Not a lot of people share her authoritative. Though, your name is on the hat.

Michi was legit. Wherever did she wander off to?

Oh hi guys, can I join the next round? It's been a while since I played.

 

[Jux]

It's not so much post hoc rationalizing as assessing the situation. Things were looking extremely bad for the killer. Armadox also admitted to this being a sinking ship. The rebound was possible, but extremely unlikely. So yes, while I will admit that I worded it badly by saying that "it wouldn't have mattered", truth of the matter is that it most likely wouldn't have.

Armadox called it a sinking ship when I first joined him as the lawyer, try not to read too much into that.

I didn't cherry pick what I wanted to believe. It was literally there. But back to this point down below.

And yet despite role locking having been discussed before the round started, and it being understood that role locking was going to be a thing, you went ahead and did it anyway. That's still cherry picking.

A reason that have twice now stated clear as fucking day. Seriously, Jux. You wanna hate me because I tricked you, that's your problem. But I'm growing tired of your passive-aggressive implications that I did what I did because I wanted to specifically dick you over and wanted to flaunt over it. You don't know me well enough to make such a claim. In fact, you don't know me at all. Seriously. take a step back and stop taking this personally.

I don't hate you. I don't even dislike what you did because I was tricked. I dislike what you did after I was tricked because it was poor conduct.

Well, I'm sure you'll be delighted to know that I most likely won't be joining the next round. I showcased the faults of the current system, and rather than inspire dialogue on how to fix them and go on, you instead decided to lynch me.

The way you decided to showcase those flaws is what has me riled up, not that you decided to point them out. As for my personal feelings towards you, I'll be leaving that at the door when the next round starts.

And you can go on conveniently missing the point I'm making 'till the second coming of Billy Herrington. That does not change the fact that it's a valid point.

I find it distressing you still feel that way.

The rules were clear. All other roles can do as they wish. Even the traitor, even if he is evil-aligned. This has since been changed in the post-game rule-tuning, but that does not mean that it didn't apply in this round.

Not according to how everyone understood it to be. Seriously, if you see something in the wording you think is a flaw, how important is it really to exploit it to make a point? That you chose to do that instead of pointing it out to the GM and letting him make the call is the heart of my disagreement with you.

 

[Demagogue]

@Funs: We could do a rewrite, from the ground up- I think someone has already suggested that. Though deciding who gets to do it would be tough since we don't have anyone like Michi who everyone trusts.

I really miss Michi, man. *Cries on your tentacles*

Oh and Frappe suggested that. As for find a replacement for Michi: That's tough, man. Not a lot of people share her authoritative. Though, your name is on the hat.

Actually I would throw Fractral's name in the hat too if he was up for it\had time.

 

[Fractral]

Michi was legit. Wherever did she wander off to?

Oh hi guys, can I join the next round? It's been a while since I played.

Druuuuuuuum! Where you been?

@Funs: I'd suggest Aero personally, if we had to pick. Or we find Michi and make her come back.

 

[Jux]

@Jux. Errr.... Jux. I think it would be best if you did what I did earlier and just step away from the keyboard.

I appreciate the concern, but I'd rather air my grievances now while the time is appropriate. If you, or Neuro, want to keep arguing your cases, that's fine, but I'm under no obligation to let them go unchallenged.

And for the record, I think our stuff is cleared up, and water under the bridge, or at least I hope so.

 

[Drummodino]

Druuuuuuuum! Where you been?

Fract! *hugs*

I fell victim to the MMO addiction drug. I'm trying to break away from it at the moment

 

[Armadox]

Yah, I called it a sinking ship to the lawyer at the very first moment the game started. Mainly because I get killed right off in a round just BECAUSE, not for things like reasons, so winning was HIIIIGHLY unlikely. That being said, this round I had few people actually want my head before the backstab..

Could I have won? Maybe with vote control, but not likely. I'm not to angry about this whole thing..

Because now I'm GM... and the fun really starts..

Ha ha ha HA HA ha HA ha ha....

 

[Demagogue]

I fell victim to the MMO addiction drug. I'm trying to break away from it at the moment

Welcome back (apparently)! How is FF14 now, have they made it so you don't end up locked with story quests behind dungeons yet, or at least so there is an easy way to find groups to do them?

 

[Drummodino]

I fell victim to the MMO addiction drug. I'm trying to break away from it at the moment

Welcome back (apparently)! How is FF14 now, have they made it so you don't end up locked with story quests behind dungeons yet, or at least so there is an easy way to find groups to do them?

Thanks! The story is absolutely locked behind dungeons, but you can very easily just queue for them in the Duty Finder and find a group relatively quickly depending on the time of day. Even as a DPS you shouldn't be waiting too long, people do them all the time for daily roulettes.

On the topic of SK, I'm in favour of a rule rewrite. I just had a look at the OP and the number of roles and there seems to have been a large amount of bloat and needless complexity added to the game in my absence.

 

[Wary Wolf]

Well, if we're suggesting rules changes, and for someone to write them up, I'll nominate Dr Frappe if he's game. Partially because people seem to trust him and partially because he's calling for it.

I'd do it myself but for some reason you guys don't seem to trust me...

This would be my starting point anyway:

Wolf: Eats the sheep
Sheep: Gets eaten by the wolf