I agree that your argument for pursuing a no-lynch is anti-town. I disagree that voting someone you have a > 0 town read on to avoid lynch is in any way pro-town play. I saw scummy behavior, I voted on it. The lynch didn't go through, so I voted on it D2. The scummy behavior didn't magically disappear.
Your argument about sitting back D1 and then swooping in at deadline to derail a lynch is also a bunch of crap seeing as I was V/LA leading up to the night before. But I'll be damned if I'm going to come in and say "I suspect Insomniac, but get a town read from Lekkit. I'll vote Lekkit because it's cool". Sorry, but no.
Now we have 1 confirmed town dead, instead of (what I believe) would've been two. Instead of spending your time trying to condemn behavior that, if you had your way, gives scum free license of unaccountability, why not spend your efforts hunting for scum around the single dead confirmed town we have? Maybe there's a reason you want to redirect from that?
There's still some miscommunication here. You said that my argument that nolynch is worse than town-lynch gives scum license to sit around doing nothing day1 and spontaneously vote at deadline in order to deadline lynch. I specifically argued against that point by saying that sitting back all of day1 is scummy regardless of whether they push through a lynch or not. You then applied that argument to yourself and excused yourself with V/LA. But I never applied it to you, nor intended it that way.
You keep saying that saying that nolynch is scummy gives scum free license to lynch at the last minute. I keep saying it doesn't because lynching at the last minute is ALSO scummy. There are 3 things that can happen day1:
1. A wagon slowly builds, with strong arguments from the lynchers, and weak counterarguments. If it happens on town, we should really look into why they lynched, because, man, lynching town is scummy. It may be that the lynch was largely town-driven (how I felt about the MIV lynch for instance), but that doesn't mean we excuse the lynchers. We might find the 1-scum that contributed. No one should ever lynch with weak arguments, it's not pro-town.
2. No wagon really gets going during the day, at deadline, the town pushes through a lynch because, hey it's better than nolynch. If it happens on town then we should really analyze everyone who was on the wagon because, man, lynching town is scummy. It may be that the lynch was driven by townies who recognized that lynch>nolynch. But we should still look into people's arguments, seeing why it came to a deadline lynch. Who was lurking, who didn't contribute to scumhunting? Did the people that deadline-lynched really look like they were trying ALL DAY LONG to suss out scum and make a lynch happen? Or did they show up at the last second and push for a townie to get lynched (especially if they did so over other viable candidates)? Well, we look and analyze and try to find scum here because people had some scummy behavior.
3. No wagon really gets going during the day, then at deadline, no lynch happens. Well, what do we do here? We look at why nolynch happened. Maybe someone switched the lynch at the last minute (we don't know how scummy this is because we don't know if they hit scum, or deflected from scum). Maybe some people actively pushed for nolynch, claiming that such action was protown. Maybe a bunch of people were complacent, not really scumhunting and so at the last second we still didn't have any good information. We should look through and try to find scummy behavior, because well, nolynch happened, and man, nolynch is scummy.
This is my whole argument. I'm not implicating anyone specific, I am not giving scum a pass for lynching at deadline. I AM saying that there are 2 anti-town results of day1. 1: town lynched. 2: no lynch. The ONLY other outcomes is 3: scum lynched, which is clearly pro-town. If someone contributes to an anti-town result on day1 we should find out why they did it and analyze their behavior. Was it genuine? Did they really contribute to scum-hunting? And if they didn't, then we should lynch them day2. End of story. It does not give people a pass for scummy behavior. It simply doesn't, because "hey, deadline-lynch" is not a valid excuse. Avoiding one anti-town result for another anti-town result is not pro-town. It's simply a different form of anti-town. But it's okay, town players have to do anti-town things occasionally. I'm not going: ooh, ooh Galzria's scum because he nolynched. I'm saying, "hmm...Galzria is more suspicious than null because he contributed to the nolynch. He should be looked at more carefully." Obviously I find you less likely scum than other players, or else I probably would have voted for you by now.