I agree lurking is anti-town, but I do not think enforcing anti-lurk policy is pro-town.
I read and regurgitate things a lot. I am less good at picking out threads in a single game, but I think that angle based on analysing game wins/lost and player meta makes me suggest some pretty 'clinically insane' ideas.
I think enforcing anti-lurk is impossible in the meta here.
If our common goal is to win for town, which it is, then we need to be pragmatic and consider the varied interests/pressure/response for each player.
Like, I do not think lynching lurkers with a history of lurking is a good thing.
However, I do think lynching lurkers with a history of lurking as scum is a good thing.
Then, I do think lynching lurkers, with a history of lurking as scum, but is otherwise very active as town, is a very good thing.
I think that's the gist of how meta-cases are formed, and why my scumbuddy last game (Serela) folded quite optimally under the pressure from sb, a player who knew his meta very well.
I don't think I am doing the meta-casing quite right, since Bardiche did call me out on bullying which I became quite allergic to, probably subconcious guilt because I too myself am uncertain of Dormio's alignment.
But anyway, amongst the lurkers meow/Abu/beru this discussion is not helpful to lead to further lynches.
Its like the town massclaim discussion, it was fine when we had 3 days to deadline, now we have less than 1.5 days.
We should focus on the players who have had activity, and start there.