I have not had an opportunity to study, and tomorrow is going to be a rather busy day. The one thing that stands out to me is this:
We know DFaraday was direct in his dealings with his teammate Sokoth. However, his "criticism" of Sokoth was tied to a civilian (nova).DFaraday wrote: ↑Tue Aug 21, 2018 5:04 pmBut I want to vote Golden.DharmaHelper wrote: ↑Tue Aug 21, 2018 4:56 pm Anybody dicks up this three way tie and I'll come getcha.
DDL is reading totally genuine to me and his outbursts feel like genuine civ frustration, while Golden's reactions feel more manufactured. I'm not really examining things in-depth at this point, just going off reads.
I don't have much of an opinion on Enrique one way or another, but I could vote there if someone sums up why I should.
Linki: Golden's legacy post isn't making me feel better about him. Votes [VOTE: Golden] aubergine
The commentary on Golden is based on "feelings," is not tied to a civilian, and even gets its own qualifying sentence right after, which serves as a preemptive covering of the ass (funny that I see nutella has used that very expression against Golden just now).
Speaking of asses and covering, with regard to Enrique, there were ass cheeks covering both sides of the chain link.
The postscript is empty, and doesn't address anything Golden said or didn't say. It's another comment based on "feelings."
The issue for consideration, then, becomes this:
If Golden is bad, then DFaraday had to dance around two teammates who could be lynched. He placed a vote on Golden "backed up" by vague and unceremonious reasons. Golden, at the time, was a leading contender to be lynched, and Enrique was not. When DF voted for Sokoth, he had specific reasons, while here, there are none. This is a very different play.