First of all, to oppose it in an attempt to look pro-town would be an in game reason. I fully acknowledge the fact that there is no in game reason for my opposition of the specific proposed policy lynches. I am opposed to policy lynches AS A GENERAL RULE. I don't like them. I've given my reasons why, and I'll not be repeating them. If you consider my arguments wrong, then fine, argue that. Don't tell me that because I have a stance that spans multiple games (I'm pretty sure I pointed out in the endgame of BM's game that I was surprised I hadn't been called out for supporting a policy lynch) that I'm scummy. The info is there. At least read it before you continue to push a null tell.Fishythefish wrote:Kairyuu wrote:@Fishy: The problem being that there is no difference between what you say and what I say. By acknowledging that my stance is considered to be pro-town you are also acknowledging that by arguing it I appear pro-town.Absolutely not. I think that policy lynches are generally considered antitown, and opposing them protown. However, here, it doesn't feel like you are opposing the idea for in-game reasons, but just for the sake of looking protown. Thus I think you are scum trying (and failing) to look protown.
You really don't seem to be understanding what you're saying. If someone is going out of their way to avoid dropping scumtells, then guess what they're NOT DROPPING. That's right, by avoiding dropping scumtells on purpose, the person in question is NOT DROPPING SCUMTELLS. There is no way, therefore, to tell the difference between someone who is not dropping scumtells by way of being pro-town, or if they are not dropping scumtells by way of deliberately avoiding dropping scumtells.Fishy wrote:Kairyuu wrote:The Too Townie fallacy covers cases where a person is suspected because their arguments are supposedly contrived with the purpose of appearing pro-town, which is another way of saying that the person in question is acting pro-town so they must be scum.I don't know if this is true in the common usage, but it's flat out wrong. If someone doesn't drop any scumtells, that makes them more likely protown. But if I know that someone is deliberately going out of their way to avoid dropping scumtells, I think they are probably more likely scum.
I don't think your arguments are contrived to look protown because they look so protown; they look contrived. The TT fallacy is a red herring here.
That said, I'm not overly bothered by your denial of the fallacy. Generally speaking the person committing the fallacy is either doing it deliberately to provoke a lynch (dangerous, and therefore a poor move) or is completely convinced that they are correct (much more likely, and also much more likely to be done by town). I think your situation is the latter.
@wolframnhart: They apparently both claimed miller (google translator is my friend), which makes me lean more towards believing them. Of the two though, tubby's claim is actually more believable methinks, as it wasn't until he claimed it that SSK mentioned his own millerhood, which I could see as an attempt to keep up the parallel.
@Fishy(again): Are you a miller too? All three of the post restricted players being millers would lend credibility to the parallel methinks.
