Urgh, I'll just rewrite it
So my scum hunting philosophy is to identify fallacies within the arguments people put forward. I first point out these fallacies, and explain why it is a fallacy. This is to show the player that they are using that fallacy, as it's not impossible for a player to employ a fallacy without knowing that they are using a fallacy. The reason I'm focusing on fallacies is because scum are, at some point or other, forced to use them, to make arguments that look like they're logically sound but actually or not. If they didn't, they either wouldn't be scumhunting, or their scumhunting would eventually lead the town to them or their partners.
The scum finding part of this comes next. If I see a player using the same fallacies later on, after being told about them, or refuse to concede that their point is not supported with what they currently have, then we have scum behaviour. Because they can no longer hide behind ignorance, and scum typically don't want to concede ground lest it reflect poorly on them.
This is not the only way I scumhunt, I use reactions and arguments in response to me to develop a read, but this is the crutch behind my scumhunting, and the form that is most clearly visable within the thread.
^Given the above, I've no idea how you can say I'm not scumhunting. So does this cause you to reconsider your position, or are you going to defend the claim you made?
