Lol))) It would have been one thing if you had written "I was actively trying to get peaceful Pandora eliminated" (and even that would be based on personal preferences), but your treatise on saving...
Who was saving me? Besides myself?) Well, everyone immediately started trying to eliminate, someone decided to think rationally.
And it seems like you're the Mafia, Logash.
First, you threw out a provocation to see how the town would react and whether it would be possible to eliminate someone without much effort. When that didn't work, you made excuses. Then you "analyzed" one player and then another, essentially just trying to subtly spread the vote. Later, seeing that Lynx, who is 100% peaceful, had already chosen me as her target for elimination, you decided to support her, offering a rather strange argument that when they tried to eliminate me on the first day, activity suddenly appeared. But almost immediately, realizing that it might not work, Logash writes another post in which he casts doubt on his conclusions, so that if I am eliminated and it turns out that I am peaceful, he can later say, "Well, it wasn't me who was eliminating him, I was unsure. Look, I wrote this here." It's like an insurance policy. The second one in the game. And all because there are no excuses for being too active towards someone, and you can be eliminated for making a mistake in your judgments.
Now, our Logash is relying on Vistrit's vote and my mistake with Pandora. Plus, there's Lynx. Even though she doesn't have a vote, she is a convincing argument in favor of someone. Logash cleverly gave her his vote. Especially considering that she wouldn't have changed it. Very convenient.