Hmm...reading back I think I was actually arguing on reasons of xerxes' vote. i.e. I don't think scum would have pushed this lynch in a scummy fashion, because it wasn't likely to go through. Which led to conjecture as to what would be a scummy way to act towards it.
Anyways, looking back the following players interacted in some fashion:
TA (first vote)
yuma (second vote, added a couple quotes)
mail-mi: descriptive of the OMGUSRVS stuff.
nkribit: quasi-defense (i.e. states that the reasons for the vote read neutral to him)
ash (third vote, adds the comment that sudgy is copying his meta)
Eevee (fourth vote...frustration + believable scum-narrative)
Xerxes: counter-vote on TA.
Theorel: derailed the conversation (sorry about that; to be fair, I'm also the one that tried to re-rail it)
So, people who opposed the sudgy-wagon directly: nkirbit, Xerxes.
People who opposed the sudgy-wagon indirectly: mail-mi, myself.
People who ignored the sudgy-wagon everyone not mentioned above, initially myself also.
I would argue that nkirbit most closely resembles my proposed scum-narrative. Xerxes also looks scummy for opposing the wagon AND simultaneously pushing suspicion in a different direction. OTOH, that could be new-player caused rather than scum-caused. As a new-player I'm not sure how to read the action...it seems too clumsy for scum-play? But new-scum might end up being clumsy. Anyways, it weighs in less for that.
Okay, so re-read nkirbit...
He also: does some probability arguing (I don't understand the "haven't done theater" comment, is it relevant?), pushes ash to claim instead of implying his claim, and points out the huge flaw in follow-the-cop (i.e. ROLEBLOCKER).
That last one is definitely pro-town. Scum could have waited until a cop unwisely claimed. They could have jumped on it early for town-cred, but it seems more likely they'd hesitate.
Meh, I'm going to vote: nkirbit anyways, and see what happens (maybe it'll result in my having a vote on nkirbit? Ha, I made the joke before you could)