quote:

---

Zakman86:
Bandwagoning can be a valid strategy if it's used right. [...] I'm not posting my vote because it's better for people to think for themselves instead of sheeping onto an opinion.

---

quote:

---

Zakman86:
Because my original plan was to vote MW before WCFMo went crazy and I needed to find someone who I knew wouldn't have votes on them.

Simply put: A Mafia member would have been crazy to vote MW, knowing that he's a confirmed cit. It's called leaving a tell.

---

quote:

---

Zakman86:
Basic thinking: "Wasting" a vote is subjective. We already knew that WCFMo was leaving the game. I presumed a sane Mafia member wouldn't vote for MW because either he would be a NK Target or they would use him as a pawn and that other people would see the same thing.

---

quote:

---

Obviously WCFMo wasn't sane, and to keep that vote would have implicated me as Mafia due to the circumstances, thus the switch.

---

quote:

---

Unfortunately, I contradicted myself during the switch trying to find someone who I knew wouldn't have votes on them. Mea culpa.

---

There's not much else to say. You're saying "oh crap sorry guys I tried switching my vote to someone else who wouldn't get votes because... (well, I have no bloody clue why you are so concerned with voting for someone who won't get lynched, adding another layer of WTF-ery onto this already sizeable pile) ... anyway, instead of choosing someone among the ten or so people who don't have votes on them, I chose the confirmed cit. My bad."

No.

I didn't like the LA3-Zakman replacement in R1 when LA3 nearly got lynched (as PD put it, if LA3 were a cit, why not just hang?). Zak going WFCmo on us is probably going to strip this round of anything extremely useful, other than a discussion about game theory and confirmed cits.

His other behavior (hiding plans, voting for MW, ommission from vote analysis) brings with it a high level of suspicion. To do it openly, however, is awkward as hell. I'm not sure if this is the rookie in Zak showing up, or sleep dep causing a big slipup. This coupled with my previous suspicion are enough to get my vote, though. At this time, voting Zakman86.

quote:

---

Originally posted by AlmasterGM:
1) If WCFmo flips scum, look at people who quickly abandoned their previous suspects to nuke him. This is called bussing - they are probably mafia.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Masterwolf:
If WCFmo is mafia, then I would look for at least 1 mafia among:

Bernek77
OGB

---

AlmasterGM posts this before MasterWolf does.
+1 in my eyes for AlmasterGM

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zak:
Quite frankly, if you weren't wary of me, I'd be more suspicious of you than I am.

Now that we're down to 2 Mafia, I expect to see one of them in the bandwagon in both rounds, and one of them not.

---

This makes little sense to me, seeing as how WCFmo's stunt got people to change their votes. I voted PD b/c I thought he was mafia, playing the helpful cit card here. Obviously I was wrong(as were some others)

WCFmo, had my vote before his, now pretty clever, move.
Please expaling how either of them is wagonning by me?

Did Bernek catch you here?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bernek:
Zakman your list is pretty convenient for people that voted for both and people who voted for neither. It seems your missing one person on that list. Can you figure who seems to be that player? YOU!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by zak:
I figure that the top 3 targets for Mafia NightKills at the moment are myself, Bugger, and AGM, simply because we're the most talkative and the biggest threats

---

That would be a good assumption. Unless of course there is a mafia in there.

quote:

---

Originally posted by OGB:
How exactly did your voting plan get shredded? You didn't vote for the most obvious person last round, who turned out to be Mafia, and you DID vote for someone you claimed you wouldn't. And to top it all off, apparently it's part of some grand scheme that isn't at liberty to be shared with anyone else

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bernek:
Did your voting plan really get shredded or thats your excuse now seeing as you didn't vote for WCFmo last round. I think it's real convenient that you did not want to reveal your vote and now your going with your voting plan was screwed up. How can we be sure it was? You can get away with anything you want by not declaring. I do not like the fact that you did not declare yet you change your vote both rounds and not to either suspect. Dodging piles so you can do a pile analysis?

---

Between your post, OGB's, and Bernek's post, I too have now become suspicious of zakman, and am leaning on voting him this round.

quote:

---

Originally posted by thror:
2) I think I understand why MW was NK'd this round. I agree with Zak, however, that having a confirmed cit around can be useful to the mafia. Unless the CC is closing in on them, the mafia can let the CC live long enough to hopefully send the other cits down a wrong track or 2. CC's don't have any more insight than the rest of us, and are incorrect in their scumhunt more often than not.

---

Which is why I voted PD, 1st round.

However, looking back who did WCFmo declare he was voting for before his episode?
Monty.

I don't know about anyone else, but unless he was gonna sacrifice Monty (if he was mafia), I think it clears Monty.
Monty was gonna receive votes from Bugger and XplicitR, totaling, at that time 3.
The votes then started to pile up for WCFmo even before his "thing" (I'm running out of things to call it).

So it is highly unlikely that 2 mafia members were accumulating votes at this time. And of course as it turns out WCFmo was mafia.
Just my opinion of course.

Fake edit: I started typing this well over 1/2 hour ago and just now am finishing as more people chime in.
I too will not be around tmro night as I will be playing basketball from 6-9. However, after that, I should be right back to here.

~MM

__________________
[Help me PIMP my Slide!] [Join Us,or DIE!][Refs][Me] [Werewolf 9!][My Brute!]

__________________
How many times do I have to have sex with your mom before you realize we have something special.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zak:
Simple. WCFMo is getting bandwagonned. The last thing the Mafia wants to do is give information on someone being or not being Mafia. Therefore, said Mafia member getting lynched moves his vote to the one person who everyone knows isn't Mafia in order to not give any additional information.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Liq:
Zakman86 - AlmasterGM (1)

---

1) Zak is using a form the very tactic he accuses WCFmo of using - voting for someone completely off the radar in order to avoid releasing data. Now, I am obviously not "off the radar" suspicion wise, but I was definitely not going to be the lynch last round. If you flex Zak's logic just a little bit, he is scummy according to his own reasoning.

2) The first quote is AMAZINGLY good. Almost as if Zak knew exactly what the mafia strat was ahead of time.

3) (Not related to the quote) Zak calls WCFmo an idiot, but never votes for him or pushes the lynch. Read: He positions himself to jump on the wagon if needed, but never follows through with the bus.

4) Gawain also thought Zak was scum, for what that's worth.

quote:

---

Originally posted by AlmasterGM:
1) Zak is using a form the very tactic he accuses WCFmo of using - voting for someone completely off the radar in order to avoid releasing data. Now, I am obviously not "off the radar" suspicion wise, but I was definitely not going to be the lynch last round. If you flex Zak's logic just a little bit, he is scummy according to his own reasoning.

2) The first quote is AMAZINGLY good. Almost as if Zak knew exactly what the mafia strat was ahead of time.

3) (Not related to the quote) Zak calls WCFmo an idiot, but never votes for him or pushes the lynch. Read: He positions himself to jump on the wagon if needed, but never follows through with the bus.

4) Gawain also thought Zak was scum, for what that's worth.

That's my analysis on Zak. Honestly, however, I would MUCH rather lynch either XplicitR or fwy. Neither of them have contributed much this entire game. I'll case them next round after this Zak thing goes away.

---

@AGM: Yeah you should just lynch everyone who doesn't agree with you. Good idea AGM, surely to get the same level of success as your other "brilliant" plans.

@Jaz: I have you under suspicion because the way I read the conversation between you two it felt like something you would have over Instant Messenger and that he was just throwing himself under the bus (he had only a few votes coming in against him when he decided to sacrifice himself)

@Zak: I explained to you why the confirmed cit is more valuable to the cits than the mafia, that is why the mafia would want to take away our advantage. You are creeping up my suspicion lists as you continue to divulge your out of field theories and as a result is the person I am voting for this round. Also why is it that you think that everyone is following you like a sheep in the game?

quote:

---

Originally posted by XplicitR:
@AGM: Yeah you should just lynch everyone who doesn't agree with you. Good idea AGM, surely to get the same level of success as your other "brilliant" plans.

---

You are trying SO incredibly hard to get me to explode so you can an easy lynch off me that it's funny. This is what, the sixth time you have said a reiteration of one of these "AGM sucks" lines? Nobody cares anymore - unlike you, we are all busy playing the game. If you are going to use this tactic, at least do a good job and be a bit more subtle. Right now, you can be seen coming from a mile away, and if me and my incessant stupidity can see it, I'm sure other people can as well.

I just read all your posts in isolation. You give consistent IIoA, rarely scum hunt, SAID YOU DIDN'T THINK WCFmo WAS MAFIA, contradicted yourself on the PD issue by simultaneously arguing that I'm an idiot for wanting to get him lynched and that letting PD live even until R4 is dangerous because he will always talk his way out of a lynch, didn't declare suspicions of anyone except Montague until very recently, and your current suspicion list has no stated justifications behind it. And you STILL haven't answered my questions. Here they are for you:

quote:

---

Originally posted by AlmasterGM - 10 Pages Ago:
What constitutes real analysis? How many shots am I allowed to fire before it becomes random? These are serious - not rhetorical questions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zack:
I presumed a sane Mafia member wouldn't vote for MW because either he would be a NK Target or they would use him as a pawn and that other people would see the same thing.

---

I think you were trying to trick the lot of us here if you would have voted MW your theroy as it stands would have fell faster then it is now...lol

I believe you were trying to bluff the citizens into believing that "Why would I do this" unless Im a cit...knowing full well he would not get a a single vote except yours??? Knowing full well he would not get lynched...

Wouldnt this call alot of attention to you and your strategy if it played out??? A very weak play if either mafia or not.

quote:

---

Originally posted by XplicitR:
@Zak: I explained to you why the confirmed cit is more valuable to the cits than the mafia, that is why the mafia would want to take away our advantage. You are creeping up my suspicion lists as you continue to divulge your out of field theories and as a result is the person I am voting for this round. Also why is it that you think that everyone is following you like a sheep in the game?

---

Yes, you explained it, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with your opinion. I'm surprised more people don't consider thinking outside the box.

I'm not convinced that anyone's following me like a sheep; however, I feel that putting a vote up THAT early in the round makes it easier for Mafia or Cits to bandwagon and not formulate their own opinions.

It IS OK for people to have differing beliefs on game theory, you know. :-)

Because I haven't played before, my theory on the game is still evolving quite a bit, and trying something to see if it will work or not really isn't out of the question. Now I know for next time something that won't work. It doesn't mean I won't think outside the box again next time though.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zakman86:
Yes, you explained it, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with your opinion. I'm surprised more people don't consider thinking outside the box.

I'm not convinced that anyone's following me like a sheep; however, I feel that putting a vote up THAT early in the round makes it easier for Mafia or Cits to bandwagon and not formulate their own opinions.

It IS OK for people to have differing beliefs on game theory, you know. :-)

Because I haven't played before, my theory on the game is still evolving quite a bit, and trying something to see if it will work or not really isn't out of the question. Now I know for next time something that won't work. It doesn't mean I won't think outside the box again next time though.

I'm voting for someone who I think is likely to be Mafia.

---

By that logic if the mafia finds out who the angel is they should keep them alive too right? What's one little angel going to do to ruin their plans...

In a game of information the less you have the harder the game gets. Why on earth would the mafia give us more information than what we need (no one says people need to bandwagon with a confirmed cit - that's something that happens rarely and usually earlier in the game).

@ AGM: I am leaving to work shortly so I will do what you asked and outline those when I get back. Until then, why do you keep saying that I only posted suspicions of Montague recently - I have been saying it since round 1 along with his playstyle that is all too familiar to me. Funny how you go after me and say I haven't contributed much to this game but you ignore Montague while you are at it. Arguing that lynching PD in round 2 is wrong but not letting him live past round 4-5 is not contradictory - despite what you may seem to think.

I don't see why I would need you to explode for an easy lynch, I win when the cits win, not when you lose unless you are mafia.

quote:

---

Originally posted by XplicitR:
By that logic if the mafia finds out who the angel is they should keep them alive too right? What's one little angel going to do to ruin their plans...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zakman86:
I'm not convinced that anyone's following me like a sheep; however, I feel that putting a vote up THAT early in the round makes it easier for Mafia or Cits to bandwagon and not formulate their own opinions.

---

Yet you say bandwagoning is a valid strategy...

quote:

---

Because I haven't played before, my theory on the game is still evolving quite a bit, and trying something to see if it will work or not really isn't out of the question. Now I know for next time something that won't work. It doesn't mean I won't think outside the box again next time though.

---

What, now you're playing the noob card?

quote:

---

I'm voting for someone who I think is likely to be Mafia.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bugger:
You realize this doesn't help the cits either? If you've found someone you think is mafia, keeping your reasons to yourself is massively unhelpful to the citizenry, because it means your target won't get lynched. There is a very stark difference between campaigning for votes and posting your suspicions; if you think you've found scum why the hell would you keep that (or your reasons for thinking so) to yourself?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bugger:
Yet you say bandwagoning is a valid strategy...

---

Show me where I said that.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bugger:
[b]What, now you're playing the noob card?

---

Being a "noob" and seeing the game from a different abstract because you don't have a lot of experience are two completely different things. Try comparing it to when a veteran baseball team brings in rookies instead of using it as an insult and you might get my meaning a little better.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bugger:
You realize this doesn't help the cits either? If you've found someone you think is mafia, keeping your reasons to yourself is massively unhelpful to the citizenry, because it means your target won't get lynched. There is a very stark difference between campaigning for votes and posting your suspicions; if you think you've found scum why the hell would you keep that (or your reasons for thinking so) to yourself?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zakman86:
WCFMo got suspected at first because he bandwagonned to "save his own hide" at the end of R1 when he didn't need to, then went crazy when he got enough votes on him to lynch. Bandwagoning can be a valid strategy if it's used right. Regardless, in this case it doesn't matter because the confirmed citizen is gone.

I'm not sure exactly what I'd need to deflect; I've said my opinion on who I suspect this round, and I'm not posting my vote because it's better for people to think for themselves instead of sheeping onto an opinion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by OGB:
Here you go.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zakman86:
I don't need to repeat myself 100 times either. I put my list up, there haven't been any real changes that I've seen, and my vote is a person off my list. Instead of complaining that I'm not saying exactly WHO I'm voting for, maybe you should read my analysis...

---

I really don't want to debate the meaning of the word "is". It was bad enough the first time you got caught contradicting yourself, at least you apologized. But for whatever reason, this time you want to deny it completely, despite a preponderance of the evidence. You've talked yourself into a corner yet again. This type of behavior was WCFmo's downfall.

According to the above post, you appear to be voting for a random person from your list. So there are two conclusions:

1. You AREN'T voting for someone random on your list, but have a reason to vote for one of those people over another, and aren't sharing it, or;

2. You ARE voting for someone random, which is fine. What isn't fine is not declaring who you are voting for if that's the case. If you say who you are voting for, you are giving more information for everyone to work with, which, as Bugger said earlier, is the best weapon the cits have.

It seems to me that either way you are withholding information and therefore are either mafia or just a counterproductive cit. Either way I think your lynch this round is justified.

quote:

---

Originally posted by XplicitR:
Funny how you go after me and say I haven't contributed much to this game but you ignore Montague while you are at it.

---

I didn't ignore Montague - I explained that I don't think the mafia are playing the silent game, and thus I don't think Montague is mafia. This is different from "ignoring" him.

quote:

---

Originally posted by XplicitR:
Arguing that lynching PD in round 2 is wrong but not letting him live past round 4-5 is not contradictory - despite what you may seem to think.

---

It looks contradictory to me. The only other possible scenario is that you were trying to say is we can ONLY lynch PD in Round 3, which is in-between round 2 and 4. That makes zero sense and didn't seem to be your intent at all.

quote:

---

Originally posted by XplicitR:I don't see why I would need you to explode for an easy lynch, I win when the cits win, not when you lose unless you are mafia.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zakman86:
Show me where I said that.

---

I already did, yesterday, and OGB just took care of this.

quote:

---

Being a "noob" and seeing the game from a different abstract because you don't have a lot of experience are two completely different things. Try comparing it to when a veteran baseball team brings in rookies instead of using it as an insult and you might get my meaning a little better.

---

Fair enough.

quote:

---

I don't need to repeat myself 100 times either. I put my list up, there haven't been any real changes that I've seen, and my vote is a person off my list. Instead of complaining that I'm not saying exactly WHO I'm voting for, maybe you should read my analysis...

---

WCFmo much? This is your third blatant contradiction. If the person you're voting for is not on your suspect list, how can looking at your suspect list inform the rest of the players as to who you're voting for? It can't. Sp either you are voting for someone who you don't think is suspicious, and lying about it (as well as not revealing their name), or you are voting for someone who is off your list and you do find suspicious, but are lying about their being on your suspect list. Any way you slice it, you're lying. If a cit were acting like this they would have to be purely irrational. No, worse. There is absolutely no motive for a cit to make this kind of logic gibberish. But a scum going down in flames has a very clear motive to be as inscrutable and informatively empty as possible. I'll concede that, to a degree, it's WIFOM, but there is simply no reason for a cit to act like this, repeatedly.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zakman86:
I do think it's ironic that you say that I haven't helped nab any Mafia when I was the person who immediately pointed out at the beginning of R2 how suspicious WCFMo's bandwagon jumping was, and everyone jumped on it once you started posting finally.

---

As I was going back and reading over the thread today, I came across this post, which again brings about suspicion of Zakman's intentions in this game.

So he's quick to point out that WCFmo was mafia, then when more and more people start to see his argument may have merit, he switches votes to MW for some unknown reason, and then ultimately votes AGM, who himself said that he was going to be safe.

And now when someone calls him out on it, he still defends that he "helped" catch mafia when his voting history and every facet of his gameplay suggests otherwise.