So, let's make this one easy for you Fallacy...
Which part of this play looks like how I usually play scum?
notquitethere claims that this is classic scum webadict. They have brought forth no evidence from Super10 because this is literally the opposite of my demeanor.
Caz said that I'm usually more aggressive. Caz has done literally nothing to try to prove themselves.
Explain which part of the Town role PM would let them have access to the coins aspect of the Scum role? It doesn't matter if I'm lying.
If it's literally just flavor, then it could be mentioned at any point in the town role PM. I don't think your argument proves anything, wuba.
... Yes? That's my point exactly.
A: If Caz was Town and it was mentioned in their role PM: Caz wouldn't have argued the coins don't exist.
B: If Caz was Town and it wasn't mentioned in their role PM: Caz wouldn't have argued that the coins don't exist.
C: If Caz was Scum and it was mentioned in their role PM: Caz wouldn't have argued the coins don't exist.
D: If Caz was Scum and it wasn't mentioned in their role PM: Caz
would argue the coins don't exist.
A doesn't matter at this point.
B would have argued that I'm lying about having a coin with Caz's fingerprints on it. This Caz has no idea what Ellif is like, BECAUSE I HAVE THE TOWN PM AND IT LITERALLY ONLY SAYS THAT ELLIF IS BACKING THE OTHER CANDIDATE. If Caz had brought that up, I'd question the authenticity of such a coin, NOT whether those coins are a real thing or not.
C would have literally implicated NQT as the ally. This would have been a perfect outcome for me as well because Caz would be fighting against someone who revealed information that they didn't.
D would have known for a fact that Ellif doesn't have coins and that no coin with Caz's fingerprints exist.