I already defended against this, from both angles.In post 994, scum reading wrote:You were pressured to hammer no-lynch to look town. You had an epiphany that town would always advocate for no-lynch and you hopped on the wagon? Took you 40 posts, damn. You even struggled to give statistics and everything and value the risk versus reward when you could’ve just gone for no risk and high reward. That’s townie perspective, except you’re ww, pushing on inactive slots, cuz that’s where scum thrive, being opportunistic.
1. I didn't take into account the seer results; and I still believe that in the absence of seer a lynch is, on an average, better for town in that gamestate. I gave my reasons for this.
2. The benefit of pushing for a mislynch that aggressively if it's anti-town doesn't outweigh the risks. Being vocally against a NL and causing a ML leads to me being checked and/or lynched the following day; scum would thrive on coasting in this gamestate (till attacked).
Also, it's not just the inactivity - McQueen's posts when he posted were scummy, and the quickwagon implying you're not Maf is strong objective evidence, and the PoE is strong as well.