@DLG:
My Striker (David's predecessor) suspicions:
link.
My CryMeARiver (other David predecessor) suspicions:
link.
Judging David himself, so far I can't tell if he's read the entire thread or how much. Its allowed him to stay silent on some pretty big issues, like yesterday's llama wagon and its supporting cast of Bub, Yos and Fishy in particular. I think town would want to look there for insight, but scum might not want to get caught up in it and be paired up with someone.
My Fishy suspicion came from your case DLG, how he transitioned from llama-defense to a vote is questionable, but the thing is I can't think of good conclusions as to why hypo-scum would defend a buddy that late, or feel the need to vote either townie if both wagons were mislynches. By like Darla, I have trouble seeing a town point of view in compromising the way they did, how they both changed their mind so quickly from not wanting to compromise---to compromising.
My brokenscraps suspicion up until recently has been a "I've got a bad feeling but I can't put my finger on it" feeling which I've been trying to develop before I explain, but I guess I pretty much understand it now so:
696 : broken thinks llama might be scum but focuses on his wagon being bad. He doesn't explain most of his reads (including my vote, werewolfs vote, darla's vote) in this post, which looks more like keeping his options (and his reasoning) open as long as he can. It looks like he's purposefully not taking a stance on whether llama or the llama wagon looks more scum.
This attitude helped me understand some of his Day 1 play:
443 : Broken unvotes llama, while still being wary of him, and then implies that scum might be responsible for the llama wagon falling apart. Its the same as 696, he feels like he wants to put suspicion on practically everyone.
--------
DLG, you make a good point about Darla's motivation for changing votes. I had not looked at it that way. I will have to consider it some more.