I'd like to revisit the circumstances of the Day Two lynch.
Now that I'm looking at it with a new perspective, things stand out to me. If we understand that the crux of Day 2 was me, Pokechu and partially Ura arguing that BOTH Bard and Uni are mafia, we know that the mafia are going to want Bard to be the one that's lynched. They cannot afford to let Uni be the one.
So the day begins. I had a case prepared against Uni and Bard. I suspected Uni more. I told a lot of people that, including Uni.
But before I can present it, Ura makes his case against Bard. If Uni and Bard are working together, it makes little difference, so I say, fine, let's push Bard today. I also knew that Uni had been given the dragon trait by Praline, so worst case scenario, I just kill Uni night two.
Right off the bat I know people are going to be suspicious of me because of Shiny. So one of the first things I post is a question to Golden.
And he replies
Okay. A bit frustratingly vague, but I understand playing your cards close to the chest at this juncture. I was hoping to be more definitively established as town so people trust my conclusions more, but I can work with this.
I state my case for Bard and Uni, Bard and I get in a fight, and I vote Bard. Golden then also votes Bard at this time, and signs off for the night.
Let's fast forward a moment to night 2. I ask Golden specifically which part of our conversation he checked. He specified he'd lie detected my entire role. Not just one sentence, like I'd expect. Four sentences, with several different possible true and false outcomes. Seems a might overpowered in this setup with several neutered roles, but okay, I'll buy it.
From that conversation:
Rewind back to day two. When Golden comes back the next morning...
"I may trust Vaan." He has my entire role confirmed as true and he may trust me? He's unsure about my decision to go against Bard, which, fair enough, I got heated. But he had also already cast his vote for him and never removed it. My judgment is based on emotion, enough to question it, but that's not enough to make him rethink his own vote?
Why even say this if you agree we should vote out Bardul, if not to weaken my position in the town?
In fact, I was the only person on the Bard train to ever unvote Bard. After people (rightfully) called me out for being a prick, I said fine, I wanted Unikorn in the first place anyway, and switched my vote. But nobody else did. My argument for Bard v. Uni makes enough sense for Golden to vote for Bard, but when people suggest I'm just biased against Bard and I unvote and attempt to move the train on to Uni, one of the very people who doesn't like the way I presented my case keeps his vote on Bard?
In fact, Golden came back later on and gave us another reason to suspect Bard, the fact that he was an Avenger. That's the very reason I switched my vote back.
So why would Golden make a point to question my judgment about Bard, only to keep his own vote on Bard and not join me in voting Uni instead?
Because Bard was town almost about to get mis-lynched, and Uni was mafia.