weak could be defined as players who haven't played well in previous games it could be people who aren't contributing in this one either lurking as posting little or posting nothing of value.  So not truely "random" since it would be based on the actions players have made themselves not random.org. 

I was telling you about general differences is me without really being specific to this game.  Part of why I would like to do that is to get people to activly participate.  It's slightly similar to modkilling inactive players but expanded to bad players as well. 

The biggest reason for a lynch is because barring a vigilante, it's the only way town can eliminate mafia. "Taking out the weak" should never be considered as a reason for lynching imo. I do agree that a lynch offers far more information than a no lynch, but the pressure part is more about voting than lynching.

A no lynch today doesn't necessarily mean another no lynch is needed later on. There could be a doctor that makes a save, or a good string of scum lynches prevents endgame from even coming up. Additionally, while no lynch does just give mafia the go ahead for a night kill, I still think it's better than a truly random lynch which would have better odds of being a mislynch than being scum. To explain that, let's assume townie X is going to be the night kill regardless of what happens today as far as lynching.(unless of course townie X is lynched) Since townie X won't be around day two either way, is town really any stronger if we also lynch the weakest player(simply for being weak and not based on suspicions, thus odds are they'd be a townie) instead of going no lynch because nobody stood out yet?

trangent was replaced by theRepublic, wtf is Nightsurge? And what do you mean by "could have had the role?"

Accident: Confused by avatar with the former.

Answer: Tanget may have had a mafia role. Republic has inherited his role.

Suggestion: Wait for TheRepublic, he may hold the answer we are looking for.

I see that you're online now. Anything new to offer about these things, or other things you've noticed?

I remember the last time you were mafia that you had said you wanted to be less active, but then last round I feel like you were right back to your talkative self anyway. This time around I feel like I want to hear from you more.

I it doesn't necessarily mean there would be another no lynch but it makes it much more likely. So although odds are that player X is a townie.  If a no lynch leads to the scum getting an extra kill.  Odds are it won't be player X and it 100% chance that the player is a townie.

If weakest player had a neutral or slightly positive effect on the town.  Meaning the participate, aren't a distraction. use sound reasoning, are clear in there posts. know what's going on and make informed decisions.  Then yes the town wouldn't be better off without them.  However if the weakest player has a negative effect on the town.  I'm all for taking the weakest player out.

However it seems the player that stands out is often the weakest player. 

Observation: Heph may have just logged in. If Heph posts in other threads while not posting here, I believe that would be a cause of alarm.

Oh and one more point yes the presure is more the voting than the lynch or what the vote represents the threat of a lynch.  So yes not the lynch itself but still something more than I noticed in my earlier games.

Your timeline does not add up, though.

1)Prof and stefl both began by voting for Linkzmax.

2) Immediately afterwards, I voted for stefl.

3) Shortly after that, in bold lettering, prof changed his vote to me. 

4) Stefl then changed his vote to prof, also in bold lettering.

In other words, on the very first page, it was clear that votes were not permanent.

5) I then voted for you.

6) You responded jocularly, over multiple posts.

7) To drive the point in even further, heph unvoted trashleg, in bold letters.

8) I then tried to move the game from horsing around and to a bit more serious play. 

9) In the very next post, you wrote that you might have to vote against me "after the day one accusation."

Only two hours elapsed between 5) and 9).

10) wonk immediately explained to you how the voting system works, including how we unvote.

11) Your response was not "oh so he was just joking," but rather that you would wait for prof to see if he was "bad news."

12) In response to prof, you made your "now I see" post.

13) Roughly twelve hours later, Final-Fan voted for you.

14) Two hours after that, trashleg finally voted for you.

15) Other site brought up, attention focuses more on you than anyone else.

17) Roughly twelve hours later, and several ABC posts after trash's vote, prof finally explains that his vote on me is akin to not having any vote.

16) A day after she voted for ABC, trashleg brings up how ABC never questioned her about her vote. 

18) ABC responds by saying that "we were still starting out" and because prof's post about undecided votes made him assume trash's was too, notwithstanding the fact that trash's vote came with a long explanation of her reasoning,. She even followed it up with another post about her increasing suspicions of him.

To review.  Your explanation for why you never pressed trashleg on her vote is not possible.  You had several hours to ask her about it, but you never did.  When she asked you why you never did, you pointed to something prof told you the next day.  Short of being able to see the future, there is no way that prof's post could have caused you to keep silent.  Additionally, you're trying to equate prof's "lol 2200 aliens!" post with the long, detailed explanation trashleg gave for her vote, a vote which she later emphasized.  This reeks of desperately trying to avoid the topic.  Why would you do that?

Another lie: you claim that the reason you never voted for me was that by the time several hours had passed since my vote you were under pressure from trashleg and others.  However, the above timeline shows that you had more than twleve hours between you mulling a vote on me and people finally focusing on you.  In other words, your using events that had not yet happened to justify what you had done earlier.  And it still does not make any sense how your initial response to my vote was to joke, and then (a mere two hours later) to take it seriously, and as a sign that we can not unvote in this game, notwithstanding the fact that several people had already done so...

In short, you're lying about why you are and are not doing things.  I still haven't completely made up my mind about your alignment, but I do know that I'm quite uncomfortable with you, since you're unable to keep your story straight without resorting to time travel.  I will leave my vote on you.