RIPIYWG Dilan and Gaerwen.
I've read back through a few player's posts that have been mentioned as suspicious and have written down my thoughts while reading through them.
Gobnait - Very active during Day 0 and discussing tables and whatnot. Agrees with Dierdre in being somewhat pinged by Mainchin's post about a mafia being at each table (that it sounds like something a mafia member would say), and in the same post defends Laine. Most of his following posts are about his theory that Queran and Bronwyn are bad. After Jorhan flips civvie, says he will need to re-evaluate since his case doesn't make as much sense now. Begins to get somewhat pinged by Carmen and Laine and continues to suspect Queran, but for new reasons. Decides to take a step back from his tête-à-tête with Queran to focus on the lynch.
Carmen - Day 1 she seems to be defending Jorhan because she doesn't like the "random" votes for him and votes Caillic. Day 2 she says she wasn't defending Jorhan by voting Caillic and proves that by voting Jorhan. Then posts that she thought "we had this one right" re: Jorhan which seems odd based on her Day 1 votes. She later explains when questioned that she thought the cases seemed fair. The flip flop on Jorhan seems abrupt considering she explicitly stated she was leaning good on him Day 1...but she doesn't have many posts so it's hard to get a solid read on her.
Mainchin - Table switcher. First to propose the idea that there is at least one mafia at each table and that the hosts may have decreed that. Says he will likely randomize Day 1, then ultimately decides to vote for a low poster, Gaerwen. He defends Laine
here when Laine began taking heat for his posts and vote Day 1. He has a couple of posts defending Gobnait (maybe buddying up to him??). And I was somewhat bothered by his post
here. At the end he says he will try to find some time to read back and form some opinions of his own, but barring that will vote for "the most satisfactory argument from my esteemed fellow creatures." To me this reads like a nice little set-up for being able to place the blame on someone else's case if a civvie gets lynched again.
Laine - Day 1 originally says he will likely vote Gaerwen for being against posting in foreign languages. When pointed out that would make communication in thread horrible, he turns to possibly voting for Caiilic for not wanting to try to find a way around Rumple's ability, then when the hosts make it pretty clear there will be no getting around Rumple, he then moves on to voting Bac for voting a low poster when there was a non-poster. He makes it clear he really wants a reason for giving someone a vote (fair enough) but then when pressed on it admits to having simply been wrong in his reason. Then jumps on the Jorhan bandwagon without adding to the discussion at all. When asked by Gobnait who his suspicions are, he says that he's pinged by Queran but that he's not sure since the case for her being bad hinged on Jorhan being bad.
Finnian - Has 12 posts which don't add to discussion at all. Is clearly keeping up with the game because he has voted in the night polls, but not the lynches... He almost seems cavalier in how little attention he's been paying to the game (see his post
here). I'm not sure if that makes him bad, or simply disinterested?
At the moment I'm thinking Gobnait is more likely to be good. But there are things that ping me about Carmen, Mainchin, and Laine. One of those three will likely receive my vote today.
The most talkative among us (unfortunately) elected Jorhan to mount the pyre. You, late in the Day, voted again for the centaur without giving a clear reason for doing that. You only said why you didn't vote for Carmen (who, I believe, has had even less to say than Jorhan or Mainchin).
(also I'm pretty busy, but moreso that last bit)
Maybe I could look.
