We have no clue on who mafia is, we could kill Cacti... but there's an equal chance that he's town too. Sorry, but you've got the short end of the stick.
It's less about killing someone because we think that they're scum, then observing the actions of the accussers.
If people accuse so-and-so of being scum, and so-and-so is lynched and is town, then we can consider them to be sketchy, etc.
If people accuse so-and-so of being scum, and so-and-so is not lynched, then we can analyse their claims. (Might be cop, or scum, etc.)
If people accuse so-and-so of being scum, and so-and-so is lynched and is scum, then we can trust them, etc.
If people accuse so-and-so of being scum, and someone defends them, and they end up being scum, then we can suspect them, etc.
If people accuse so-and-so of being scum, and someone defends them, and they end up being town, then we can analyse them, etc.
I could add more, but the point is this:
In the act of lynching someone, we can gauge those who accused / defended / suggested someone else / didn't vote, and figure out their game.
You get the point? It's nothing personal.
It's just that you seem scummy, or at least unproffessional, and if we lynch you, for example, then we can get more information next day.
That being said,
I'd rather not lynch without sufficient evidence, so if you can give me good reason not to vote, then go for it. So far, I haven't seen that.
