I think that's where "lynch mafia not scum" comes from. Scummy is just a word, it means what you said it means. Now whether scummy implies scum depends on the player, but scummy play is just play that would benefit a player were they scum. Town players can be scummy.
I disagree. I think scummy play is about perception, and scummy players tend to be lynched.
I'm not sure I follow. Whether any specific play would benefit scum is a certainly a matter of perception, if that's what you mean. If scummy play is play that's perceived to be scummy then, that's just a circular definition. The "question" is: what play is perceived as scummy? I would argue that it's play which is perceived as advancing the scum agenda. Scummy players are players whose play-style appears to advance the scum agenda.
Scummy players tend to be lynched, yes. But we don't find players scummy because they tend to be lynched. I've certainly never thought: "hey that player is about to be lynched, he looks scummy".
Which brings us back to sudgy's original point which is that when looking for scum, the behaviors we consider scummy aren't the best thing to look for. To be clear, I don't entirely disagree with that point. Just with the idea that we need to redefine the term "scummy" to fit what's best to look for. We should indeed look for players who play to their "scum-meta" if they have one. But not everyone has a scum meta, and some aren't so cut and dry.
That's where scummy behavior comes in. Play which advances the scum agenda should be discouraged, the best way to discourage it is to lynch it. Scum-meta is a more useful way to detect scum, yes, but in the general case where scum-meta is not noticed you should lynch players that are actively working against town. The effect here is to create a town which plays better, and scum that need to avoid doing anti-town things, but must do some to win.
In order to do that effectively though, we need to know what behaviors are anti-town, and which remain anti-town when used by scum. I gave some examples before, let's talk about less-clear stuff.
-Provoking arguments: completely NOT anti-town. If someone starts a fight, they're helping town.
-Sheeping: This is less anti-town then it's made out to be. We need to lynch, and in order to do that everyone can't have their own opinion completely. Some people just need to vote in trust of other players. Ideally everyone would have their own argument for why we should lynch someone, because that means the lynch-target is doing scummy things on multiple levels (because multiple players noticed it). But scum doesn't play like that. At some point, you have to set down what you want and go with the flow.
-Voting against reads: Hmm...not sure on this one. It's a more severe form of sheeping, and might in fact be anti-town.
What other behaviors do we typically find scummy, whether we should or not? (or you know comment on sudgy's post, I think it's worth talking about, although we've had similar discussions elsewhere)