Ok, so here is all I've achieved to do in processing the Day 2 lynch. I have no idea if I'll be able to develop further during this phase.
Everything that follows is analysed under the scenario that nutella and Long Con are
not teammates - hence LC was a counter-wagon on D2. I have no mental capacity left for this phase to analyse a scenario B in which they might be teammates.
First, a
stat rundown of the lynch votes between the two main wagons. I personally find it arguable that zebra was a main wagon, based on the main evolution of this lynch, but everyone is welcome to include his votes in the equation.
nutella started 1-0 - but there were already two votes on other players.
LC then went 1-3 (this includes indiglo's vote, who has since been removed by the mafia) - with just one new vote on a different player.
nutella surged to 5-3 - interspersed with three new votes on different players.
--- four new votes have been placed on players not named nutella or LC ---
LC receives one more vote to close in on 5-4
nutella receives one more vote to distance again at 6-4
nutella votes herself to get her within saving distance, 6-5
nutella is doomed with three more votes, 9-5
LC receives just one more vote, 9-6 - plus one more vote on a different player
Second, a
rundown on how the suspicion / case-making on nutella developed UNTIL votes started pouring in. I will structure this into major players to have opened a lead on her and chronological reactions that followed (which were either substantial or minor). I will also note if any of these players concomittantly had any stance on Long Con. Disclaimer: I didn't check players' stances on Long Con as thoroughly as their stances on nutella.
1. Scotty - ping
2. JaggedJimmyJay - major case [
Long Con: disagreed with him as suspect]
- Nerolunar - credited the effort, but didn't see much to it [Long Con: agreed with him as suspect]
SVS - pending thoughts
Long Con - disagreed with the case
3. Silverwolf - major hunt
- juliets - pending thoughts
Scotty - agreed
nutella - rebuttal (several)
ObscureAllure - disagreed [Long Con: agreed with him as suspect]
4. G-Man - minor hunt (I'm only describing it as minor, because he only developed his case as far as having vibes from Biblical)
- bea - pending thoughts [Long Con: inclined to gree with him as suspected]
SVS - pending thoughts, but soon found an angle for suspecting nutella
Lorab - undecided [Long Con: disagreed with him as suspect]
Other players who had a stance on Long Con as suspect, but, to the best of my research, had no serious stance on nutella:
DrumBeats
Spacedaisy
Sig
[all finding LC suspicious]
====
Based on the votes rundown, I would be willing to believe we have a couple of tense moments from which we could extract potential teamies moves:
a) Long Con going up 1-3. Nerolunar and LoRab contributed directly to this
b) scattered votes around the time nutella picked up votes to level with Long Con. These votes belong to Matt, sig and Long Con himself.
c) the four scattered votes, after nutella found herself in a pickle, leading 5-3 all of a sudden. These votes belonged to bea, myself, DrWilgy and Polo
d) potential save attempts while there was still some hope, around nutella leading 5-3 or 5-4
e) potential bus moves after nutella went out of reach from 6-5 to 9-5.
Based on
combining the two rundowns:
A. I find no plausible scenario in which JaggedJimmyJay and Silverwolf would actively build a case or initiate a hunt on nutella as their teammate - even for the biggest goldmine of civcred -, only for that to develop into a dire situation in which they would lose her in the lynch. Their D2 efforts are for me
strongly non teammate indicative
B. I could similarly judge Scotty's, SVS's and G-Man's FoS's on nutella as not something desirable to happen, given the outcome. However, their efforts have been more variable. Scotty launched a ping, but then he could have easily gotten stuck on having to stick with it. SVS picked an ultimately very good angle to distrust nutella, but her ideas developed late into the phase and based on another player (G-Man) listing nutella as a suspect; therefore, open to interpretation. SVS and Scotty's votes, however, would be downright absurd bussing, at a time when LC was the larger wagon. G-Man has done, in theory, a case & hunt on nutella the same way JJJ and Silverwolf did, but I find the substance of his case was not substantial enough. Vibes and meta and such. Nonetheless, I'm inclined, for the moment, to consider these three player
moderately non teammate indicative.
C. juliets pushed nutella to 6-4, forcing nutella to lifeline for 6-5. Purely face value, I can't consider this teammate indicative.
D. Glorfindel added a vote to LC, whilst nutella was long doomed. I find this move downright suicidal if teammate indicative, so I'm inclined to not consider Glorfindel to be nutella's teammate. [I should now add that it intrigues me that Nerolunar is inclined to consider this, but more on Nerolunar later].
E. Players like bea and ObscureAllure are null on my radar, based on this rundown. As in no idea how to interpret their vote move, from the perspective of a potential teammate.
F. BlackRock and DrumBeats' votes are within potential bussing range. Sig, Wilgy, Long Con, Polo and DFaraday count as spreaders, during various moments (some transitory, some critical) during the main wagon wars. All these players receive
a minus. I find that some could potentially be teammates who fled in comfortable, non-committing directions.
G. Nerolunar, LoRab and Spacedaisy contributed actively to Long Con's counter-wagon, during times in which this counter-wagon could have been still worthwhile to potentially save nutella. I find them
moderately to strongly teammate indicative.
====
Finally, here are few reads on individual players. I focused, for obvious reason, on some of the players that stuck out to me as potential teammates. I will just list the fact, with a minus (-), plus (+) or null (~) in front of each point, as a way of judging how I think that move makes them look, in the context of the Day 2 phase and lynch
Nerolunar
- pat JJJ on back for his case-making on nutella
- wishy-washy on jugding nutella himself based on JJJ's case
- appealed to nutella's rebuttal powers
- argued, during the wagon wars, that she is the Low Hanging Fruit player that's being voted to be lynched
- rather sudden FoS on Long Con, during the phase (which included, yet again, coattailing a bit on JJJ's case on LC)
I find evidence to be very damning for Nerolunar. I am considering him a lynch candidate today.
LoRab
- potential lying low tactic (talked a lot of mechanics and such during Day 2, before finally engaging in suss talk)
- plunged straight into defending herself against the accusation that she and nutella might share BTSC
- formed no strong opinion on nutella (slightly invoked nutella's RL schedule in her defense, too)
- afterwards, seemed to yet again slow down on activity and simply talk about other subjects or extra details
- votes early for Long Con, right when his wagon could have looked real promising
- stays active for a while and suddenly adds posts about finding nutella's latest rebuttals bad; this could look like course-correcting, in light of nutella's situation worsening
I find evidence to be damning for LoRab. I'm particularly surprised in her nuancing her stance on nutella, after having casted her vote for Long Con. Civ LoRab is usually resolute in her lynch choice, to the point of not bothering much with the main talk, if it doesn't intersect with her own suspicions. So, again, it is
very surprising to see from LoRab the need to nuance her views on nutella, in real time.
Spacedaisy
~ catch-up posts: vague, but not giving me the impression that she's a "tryhard". Mafia Spacedaisy's catch-up posts usually tend to be chokefull of reads.
~ picks up angle on suspecting Long Con.
NAI (not alignment indicative) - spat with Silverwolf
- goes with voting LC, nevertheless goes to some lenght to state her distrust in everyone pushing for a nutella lynch (including a disclaimer that nutella "could be fooling her")
I find evidence to be not favorable to Spacedaisy, but not decidedly damning. It's a matter of WIFOM, but it would have been very unwise for Spacedaisy to be so vocal about nutella lynch being wrong - then again, that disclaimer could have been added for post-lynch backlash.
sig
- liked JJJ's case on LC, but then made no final commitment to lynch Long Con
- found zero validity in lynching nutella
- votes Epignosis, based on Long Con connection (and on obstinately wanting Epignosis lynched)
- lobbies hard for Epignosis to develop into a lynch wagon
~ is pinged by Daisy's stance on nutella and on the last players to vote nutella
~ keeps on drumming on Epignosis being lynched
I find evidence to be not favorable to sig, but I can't put a final finger on what would profile him as a certain teammate. He had all the right preparation to wagon on Long Con. Did he get scared of being too obvious of a counter-wagoner (if indeed nutella's teammate)? His Epignosis vote only makes sense if you count his obstinancy in Epig needing to be lynched. I'm not sure how to interpret him berating Daisy for defending nutella. It could be a cover-up, it could be a genuine ping, but it is also contradictory to him not finding nutella lynchworthy
himself.
BlackRock
+ ping on LoRab
+ read on LC not being bad
~ lean on nutella comes off as slightly unconvincing, by saying she would have rather waiting for a connection between LoRab and nutella to be confirmed
+ votes to save LC
I find evidence to be relatively favorable to BlackRock. While her vote momentum could potentially be a buss move, her content wouldn't reflect that. Particularly I find that she blocked all means to ever potentially vote Long Con as a counter-wagon, by resolutely disagreeing with his lynch. It doesn't give me an impression of a baddie who would keep his options open. Her slight hesitation to judge nutella on her own does give me a bit of a pause, though.
Polo
- zero lynch reads, in context of the ongoing phase
~ advocate of lynching a lurker
- wanted to abstain from voting
- went with voting Vompatti
I find evidence to be troubling in regard to Polo. His intentions to lynch lurkers aren't a surprise and have actually payed off back in E.S.T. (mainly because most of the mafia did lurk their ass off
), but this time it's starting to sound a bit one tone. His intention to abstain from voting could be a newb anxiety moment, nothing more. Nevertheless I find his actual vote to stand as wild sidelining (plus, very convenient to pick on Vompatti, of all the oddballs or dubious players) and his low invest in contributing with relevant reads is starting to make me suspect him of trying to fly under the radar.
And... well, that's all I could do for now. Right now, I would consider voting for Nerolunar, LoRab or, amongst sideliners, sig. Nero's Day 3 moves have just made me feel even worse about him, for instance.
A suspect is a suspect, and I don´t think we necessarily have to lynch someone based solely on one in-thread event.
If so, why so?