ok ye this is kind of questionable
Okay but youāre host so you can sub them out anyways if itās obvious they arenāt playing
Itās technically (mathematically, not necessarily practically) optimal for town to no-lynch while an even number of players live, and for scum to then no-kill so that town doesnāt get to an odd number of players
Look up the MafiaScum wiki page on Happily Ever After scenarios
Why lol
it would be fun to have a soulcatcher or blasphemer
What if I have zero participation requirement and WotM out the people I donāt expect to play
Is that a valid way to do things
Dead interaction takes your kills and YEETS them away because as it turns out having multiple town treestumps is insane
I think thereās a meaningful difference between āI think Solic is scumā and ā[700-word wallpost on why Solic is scum]ā
Well and itās not fun having dead peopleās reads basically having a major say in the game when all but one of the alive players canāt interact with them
Realistically any standard I could set would end up being Goodhartās-Lawāed into oblivion but this one seems slightly less vulnerable to that
Then do it how you want. Iām saying itās less transparant and thatās true.
In my games, I just named it meaningful content instead of attaching a number to it. If you donāt trust my host discretion enough, then donāt join the game. 
Thatās a legitimate way of doing things but Iād personally prefer to avoid a standard where people might be uncertain of whether theyāre meeting it