I feel like this isn't taking into account the context of the situation yesterday; it can certainly be spun as me "ruling out PatCat", but you of all people should fully understand my intention - making sure we didn't suffer through a no lynch. I, at multiple points yesterday, attempted to gain consensus on pretty much any candidate. I would have completely supported a PatCat lynch had I thought he would be our best option for agreement; this is why I wanted as many people's input as possible, so I could reach a compromise with my personal suspicions and the rest of the players. But due to the nature of how the whole conversation started yesterday.... of course this wasn't going to be the case (more on that below).
This sounds very strange to me, Eduarda, because the entirety of the foundation we had for discussion yesterday was that I pointed out that I didn't like the justification for the PatCat wagon and was specifically concerned about the end of it due to the speed at which it picked up. In the event that I think the justification for the wagon for a given player is not warranted, does this not imply that I also believe the post in question was not scummy? This is a relationship that was established at the beginning and wasn't really contested by someone such as yourself until just now. I didn't believe his post in question made him a better lynch candidate than the very people he had on his wagon (Linkdude, Jamie). You can call it a "relationship" if you want, but I have to disagree that the only thing that qualifies as a "relationship" is pointing out that a certain wagon doesn't seem legitimate, I'm completely sticking to that.
That being said, this post is striking me as particularly problematic:
I'm not understanding how lynching Malon yesterday is something we should regret, nor have I ever understood the notion that some are throwing around that we effectively wasted a lynch due to him being a likely mafia target:
1.) There was going to be no consensus on a lynch yesterday. People were all over the place and wanted different people lynched for different suspicions they personally had. I specifically stated I found Linkdude to be the most scummy, and would prefer him to be our day one lynch in a perfect world where we all agreed on everything. It was obvious that wasn't going to happen, so we opted for the policy lynch. It was that or nothing, and nothing isn't acceptable.
2.) Malon blatantly said he would make no attempt to scum hunt and would attempt to stay neutral as possible. This is a type of player that the mafia loves to have in the game - an inactive, unwilling, passive player who will by his own admission not attempt to help the town cause and would purposely be as ambiguous as possible. It doesn't help that Malon has proven to be less than helpful for the town in previous games as well, showing no capacity to exercise his role to aid a town win.
3.) There was no way Malon would ever be a hot mafia night-one target with the players we have in this game, added on top of the context of this game specifically and what Malon "contributed" to the conversation yesterday. If we wanted him alive for a potential vigilante policy kill that's fine...... but once again, it would come at the cost of having a no-lynch on day one, which to my knowledge no one has said to be a good idea in a game this size.
All of this being considered, absolutely nothing Malon did struck me as particularly "scummy" yesterday (in fact, his reply that he wanted to remain in the shadows is such a terrible answer that I refuse his team mates would allow it). I thought our justification for wanting Malon dead was valid, all things I've mentioned being applicable. The fact that you seem to think it was anything other than a compromise policy lynch has me worried.
But as I alluded to at the beginning of the day, what concerns me the most is how we quickly climbed to a majority. I thought we would be lucky to garner just the six we would need to avoid the no-lynch due to everyone's lack of general agreement; but we went far beyond that.
The reason I singled you two out specifically, @Sadia and @Storm , was because you both were part of the climb to majority on Malon yesterday with seemingly little else to say about the situation, and after it had already been resolved (the six had already been reached and was unlikely to change). Mido and Eduarda were both quite active leading up to the end of the day when the majority was reached, making me less wary, and Kirino understandably had little to say due to being a late replacement.
I think it should be obvious there is at least one scum on the wagon; after all, it was a majority of the players and thus statistically the chances favor that hypothesis. But who, when, and why are the questions we should be asking in order to find where that potential mafia member is.
I still support a Linkdude lynch today, and would prefer this be the case. If he flips mafia, I think credence is given to PatCat and his innocence.
Although the inverse could be true as well - eliminating PatCat and having him flip mafia would, for me, validate the early parts of his bandwagon while making the second half even more questionable. Ripping out the root could prove more useful than cutting off one of the branches.
Eduarda made four serious votes yesterday, which to me, look like four attempts to get a lynch happening. But you're right, it's not like I was trying to delay majority by voting Malon. 
