Dude, I'm not trying to lower the credibility of your post at all (in that sense); you're just wrong. I'm sorry you went to so much effort for nothing.
From my unenlightened point of view, it does seem very, if not extremely plausible. Oh bother, at least I tried, the material is out there for perusal, I've asked questions, restarted discussion in a different angle, and done my civic duty as a dead townie

This is just not true. Did you even go back and check my interactions with Zack yesterday? Does that really look like two mafia to you?
A quick skim. Then again, you are rather capable of hiding your intentions in my opinion, and I am rushed for time.

I'm not going to try to engineer a tie with me in it just to allay your doubts, but I won't avoid it, either.
That's perfectly understandable, but my central point was that at the point of time, you presented an unsubstantial rebuttal of something that I did consider very likely from an independent point of view, especially considering that I hadn't factored in a creative curve ball by the host.

I didn't "choose not to respond", per se; I simply didn't have the time to. My claim should make no difference to Zack's overall scumminess or lack thereof, but I did intend it to shed light on what should and should not be considered evidence for that. That said, I think it quite possible that your conclusions about the "saving vote" are giving you some confirmation bias as regards Zack himself. I myself do not find him particularly scummy right now. I agree with his vote today on fluffy, and I'm most interested myself in the two players who used your (false) reasoning as evidence to join the Zack bandwagon. That would be slashandburn and Nightbringer. I think both should be greatly pressured.
Fair enough, but I'd still like an opinion from a CFC'er on whether Zack usually behaves in such a sardonic and sarcastic manner when pressured/faced with lynches.

Yeah, you might want to check what the lag is on inactivity. I don't think I actually did anything on the site after posting; if there's a 15 minute lag, that would fit right in.
Hmm alright.

You don't think his vote on fluffy was any good?
I'm saying that gradually his reasoning on fluffy evolved due to public criticisms of his reasoning. Its hardly his own reasoning anymore, but rather what he thinks the public will accept the best. You don't doggedly pursue a single suspect for many consecutive voting rounds simply based on wishy washy reasoning. If Zack had investigative results or something he would have mentioned it by now or at least alluded to it.

And Romanic still needs to answer my question about why he ignored the fact that Khazaar was being Khazaar but defended Fluffy being Fluffy, especially considering that he's played on this site for quite a while already.