zak, I think you try to derail this by going for catwalk. Reading what he wrote, all I thought was "god catwalk, you really are an awful villager, how can you give that ammunition to the wolves?". And guess who jumped right on it? Honestly, that post screams "villager" to me. If a wolf would actually write something like that, we would not be going from 13:4 to 8:4 as we are doing it right now.
Anyway, to show that I am actually not only accusing you for the scooter-thing (though it is another strong indicator). The first part of the zakalwe-post-analysis. I have put uninteresting bits in spoilers so that everyone can quickly find my reasons for suspecting you, but every post you wrote should be commented till 427.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post 16: zak formulates suspicions on MNG and Lewwyn (both innocents). Votes then for Roland because his opening post sounds like the kind of opening post he would do as a wolf. Doesnât explain how so and if you read Rolands opening post, probably nobody can explain it.
Post 18: Answering the suspicion from Rowain (post 17) that he [zak] does not vote for himself as mayor because he is not innocent. Zak explains that he simply does not vote for himself because there is not much point to it before people believe he is innocent.
Post 24: Answers Meiz post about the candidates running for mayor (Gaspar, Lew, TT, Rowain). Defends TT because he thinks that âI think running for mayor is the kind of thing TT would perceive as a good, villagerish thing to doâ. Well, isnât that exactly one way how you catch wolves zak? By looking at people who do things they think would make them look good and not because it is best for the village? Interestingly, now you perceive that as villagerish - btw: what catwalk did is probalby something he perceived as a good, villagerish thing to do, why do you accuse him of not being villagerish then? Your whole argumentation throughout the days makes no sense.
Tries to cast more suspicion on Lewwyn also.
Post 38: Tells Roland his vote was only to get him talking. Tells catwalk that he is trying to post less and wonât keep hammering on Rowains poor arguments (isnât that sentence itself hammering on them via the âpoorâ?...). Votes uberfish for his âI am a wolfâ talk. Exactly after his post, I ask uberfish if he is serious. Thinking about it, zaks reaction is interesting because it is only half an hour after uberfish post but zak has already decided that he has to be a discontented wolf.
Post 48: States that uberfish posting doesnât look like a joke. States
Quote:Uberfish is claiming to be a wolf. If he is villager, then he's lying, so he should be lynched anyway under the lynch all liars policy.
Someone said it earlier but I dismissed it (as so many tells). That is not a villagerish thing to do. If uberfish is a villager and lied, he is still a villager and should not be lynched. This sentence right there â AFTER zak had time to think it through â is clearly anti-village.
Post 53: Comes up with the idea that the vig could kill uberfish. Again, I have not thought enough about that before. If he believes uberfish is a wolf then we should lynch him right away, no discussion about it. Why lynch a potential innocent AND use up the vig-kill on an identified wolf? That makes no sense whatsoever from a village standpoint.
For me all that stuff from zak sounds like âI might not get the whole village to follow me on that lynch, but maybe the vig will follow my adviceâ.
Post 68: Explains very calmly and reasonable why he now believes that uberfish is a villager. Quite good arguments for it tbh. Reading it again, I am not sure why we even lynched uberfish.
Post 72: uberfish explained before that one of the reactions he expected is trying to paint him as a untrustworthy villager. Zak agrees that that is exactly what he would do as a wolf. Well, it is exactly what you did zak!
Paints suspicion on TT for doing exactly what zak did â but TT did it without actually voting for uberfish and somehow that seems to be really bad in zaks mind. So he votes for TT.
Post 85: Is called out on the TT stuff and answers it with âI pushed harder on uberfish then TT, so I canât be a wolf because then I would have known that he is a villager and would not push that hardâ. So basically âI canât be a wolf because a wolf would never do thatâ. Yeah, we had that kind of logic before.
Then he goes on to tell us that TT maybe is innocent as well â and therefore he votes for MNG because MNG thought uberfish is joking. That vote was called before by Rowain btw.
Post 87: Gets accused by Erebus that his play regarding uberfish was never considering that uberfish is a villager and explains that he did consider it and conclude that he canât be a villager as that would be extremely bad villager play. Looking at post 48, he lies here as he clearly concluded in post 48 that even if uberfish is a villager he should be lynched.
Re-emphasizes that uberfish canât be a wolf as there is nothing the wolves would gain with that play.
Post 92: He is questioned by Injera about his uberfish play and explains again that his play would not make sense as a wolf. He further explains that as a wolf your reaction would be to sit back and watch as a villager will inevitably come and attack uberfish.
So, letâs re-phrase that: zak thinks that a wolf who wants to look like a villager should attack uberfish. What is exactly what he did.
Post 128: Talks a little bit about joining Gaspar on Sareln because Sareln is a bad player. Decides against it and also against going for TT again. Instead votes for Erebus (another innocent) because he suspected zak first and has now switched to uberfish. Clearly another sign that zak does not regard uberfish a wolf anymore â otherwise that vote would be completely senseless.
Post 144: Questioning Rowain why he is not putting more pressure on him [zak]. He is following up with that on something others have initiated (what is a theme throughout all posts till here). Read my post (141) for an example of it: He states that Rowain is trying to have others do his dirty work (something I stated in that mentioned post.)
Post 157: Answering uberfish who still finds his attack on TT suspicious. Zak explains that he attacked TT because it seemed to him that TT was in the known [about uberfishs alignment]. He doesnât explain why he thinks that though. Additionally he found it suspicious that TT emphasized the fact that uberfish actions would be damaging to the village, even if uberfish is innocent. He explains further that he agrees with that general statement, the difference would be that he found it unlikely (at that time) that uberfish could be a villager.
Again I point to post 48. He found it so unlikely that uberfish could be a villager, that he even told us to lynch him if he is a villager, as he would be a liar then (pointing to post 72 and 92 as well).
Post 158: Tells uberfish that uberfish himself is responsible if uberfish gets lynched. Emphasizes again that he thinks uberfish is a misguided villager.
Post 161: Pressured by Rowain why he is still so angsty [as indicated in post 158], zak explains that he mainly wanted to make the point that if he gets mislynched uberfish is to be blamed for it. Very villagerish zak, very villagerish.
He then asks Rowain why he is still voting for zak. Again I didnât think about it at that time, but isnât it funny that zak has in post 144 painted Rowain as suspicious for not putting more pressure on him and now he questions him for not moving away his vote? Imo that is another example of zak trying to make others look bad without staying even consistent in his accusations.
Post 185. zak starts to paint uberfish as at least untrustworthy, trolling villager and possible WW due to uberfish last post which stated âInteresting that zak is happy to bandwagon people based on reactions to my troll while simultaneously decrying it as bad village play...â which zak answered in post 183.
Now, I agreed at that time that uberfish was acting strange here, as I could agree with zak that something can be a bad play and still you can use the reactions to it to form an opinion. But what I overread the first time is that zak states here again that he considers a âLynch all liarsâ-policy. Meaning lynch even a villager if he lied. Thatâs not village play imo.
Post 217: He votes uberfish because âa villager Uberfish could possibly try this gambit, though it seems very strangeâ. I point to posts 68 and 87. That is completely contradicting what he stated before.
Post 292: comments uberfish âraise your gameâ post and explains that he could see uberfish making that play as a villager [didnât he state in post 217 that this play seems strange for villager uberfish â but now he could see him making it?] but that he thinks uberfish other play on that day is wolfish. He also states that he didnât expect such a landslide but that this maybe just reflects that there were not many good lynch candidates to pick from.
Again, I ask myself when reading this if that should not ring zaks alarm bells. It is easy to not catch it when you are not writing something yourself. But when you write yourself that you donât expect a landslide but there are not many other good candidates, should that not have you start thinking if that is really normal for day 1? Some players commented before this post even that this landslide is suspicious â nevertheless zak uses it as excuse for his own vote? That is btw another point which makes me suspect zak: why does he already make before the lynch his excuses for it? Because he know it will be a mislynch?
Post 344: comments on the write-up for the lynch, not on the lynch itself. Seems he was not really surprised by it eh? He wants to do some rereading to see if anything stands out.
Post 347: States that Meiz, Ichabod, Serdoa are his probable villagers, though he want to look at Meiz still. He thinks catwalk is in line but has not enough experience with him. Also Gaspar is added to the probable villagers. And he is happy with what he saw from MNG, TT, scooter. And he canât see a reason to suspect Lewwyn. His suspects were
Rowain, Jkaen, Sareln, Erebus, Injera, Roland.
He explains then that he doesnât really suspect Rowain as his play does not fit for a wolf. Why is he not in your innocent-camp then zak? Simply because he dared attack you?
Roland he is simply unhappy with because he doesnât like what he writes.
Sareln seems off for him because he was upset that zak called him a bad villager and still used that later as defense. What I find more interesting though is that sentence by zak
Quote:But if you don't know who to nominate for mayor, you should obviously go for the one known innocent there is, i.e. yourself;
Ok, and why didnât you do that then zak? Because you stated at the start you did not vote mayor as you have no one who you believe innocent. Well, he voted random instead. I agree that I donât think that is particularly smart, but if he does not stay till the end on it, I think it is not worse then what you did.
Anyway, he lastly states he has no clue about the other 3.
And that he does not want to push heavily for any particular lynch. And that is zak you say? Village-zak? Who does not want to push for a lynch? Have I missed something or has he changed his personality between this and the last game by 100%?
Post 352: Guesses that Rowain is the vigilante kill. I later suspect (together with others) Erebus for stating that as well. And Erebus even told us that zak mentioned it first. I was feeling this is a suspicious move by Erebus because it gives the wolves (who know who was vigged and who was wolfed) a great alibi if they later slip and talk about that xxx was killed by the wolves, forgetting that nobody knows that for sure. I even stated that in the thread. I feel stupid that
I did not count 1 and 1 together and understood that not Erebus was being suspicious but the real suspicious move happened by zak. Erebus was merely so unlucky to repeat zaks words.
Additionally he answers my suspicions about his uberfish play with:
Quote: First, when he made his opening post, I thought he must be a wolf since it seemed like a ludicrous village play. Then he made a fairly convincing "reveal" post, stating how he intended to use his gambit to catch wolves, so I figured he was a villager.
Please reread his posts (68 especially). He never even mentioned that reveal-post as convincing him.
Post 374: Addresses Roland and that he thinks they both agree now that the other is innocent. States he will make more comments about other suspects shortly afterwards.
Post 383: Explains that he was distracted by his son.
Also does not want to make his comments any more as there is so much time left, he wants to wait what others do. Again, the zak I know never waits to gets his points across. He is leading the village, not waiting what happens.
Post 400: Frames Erebus because
- Erebus concluded that Lew was the wolf-nightkill. States that he did the same but that Erebus takes it a step further (we had that explanation with TT on day 1 as well, remember) as he wants us to speculate why Lew was night-killed. True zak, while you only stated that Lew was night-killed, Erebus wanted to investigate why they choose Lew. Can understand why THAT is suspicious for you...
- Erebus asked others to look into this [Lew-nightkill]. Zak thinks he should do it on his own to take credit for a possible wolf-lead he could come up with. Well, that is exactly your playing-style zak, so why are YOU not doing that?
Explains further that he thinks Erebus wanted to get someone to tell us that Lew suspected Sareln so that we would then mislynch Sareln. He votes Erebus.
Last part is about a post by MNG who votes for Roland.
Quote: To me, he just comes off as incredibly eager to get a bandwagon going against Roland here. And even though this is only day 2, that is a really bad reason to vote for someone. He thought Roland was innocent on day 1, so therefore he must be guilty on day 2? Seems like he just decided that he wanted to vote for Roland and saw his previous innocent read on Roland as an obstacle that he had to somehow dismiss, rather than a reason to reconsider.
zak, looking at day 1, it seemed your previous âuberfish play can only be a misguided villagerâ was something you just wanted to dismiss and not a reason to reconsider your wolf-hunch on uberfish. I stated that above already:
You clearly stated that his play makes no sense for a wolf but then you donât take that into consideration afterward but instead you even stated yourself that when ignoring his gambit his other play is wolfish. And that is now the 3rd time that youâve suspected someone for doing exactly what you did yourself.
Post 423: Questioned by Ichabod why he didnât comment about Ichabods vote on Sareln on Day 1 â because zak suspected Sareln at that time â zak states that he had no issue with Ichabod voting for Sareln and he had nothing to add for Sarelns defense so there was nothing to comment on.
Again, when zak plays a villager he is normally obnoxious with his comments. Here, he does not at all live up to that but instead â as seen here â simply states that he didnât care. Not caring is part of a being a wolf zak, not part of being a villager.
Post 425: Injera asked why Sareln piled on uberfish when he was certain that uberfish would get lynched as this would only give more cover to the wolves. zak states that this would be a valid question â and then he follows it with a defense of Sareln and why this is normal for him.
. [SIZE="1"]Ps. Erebus was killed already and he was a villager[/SIZE]