The Syndicate

Whatley voting for Leo and not voting for me (to bring the votes 3 against each of us) also reads townie move to me tbh. He had all the reason to build a case and vote for me with Jackie cross references but he chose not to.

Tim Whatley wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 7:07 pm I voted Uncle Leo. It's the only vote I feel good about placing right now.

If no one is going to go with Frank, I'll vote for Leo too as he's my second suspect.

Jerry Seinfeld wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 7:06 pm

George Costanza wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 7:05 pm

Jerry Seinfeld wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 7:01 pm

George Costanza wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 6:57 pm The fact Peterman isn't even aware of the civ read on Frank is as interesting as Whatley not knowing that Steinbrenner is the "cop"

It might be interesting. Tell me why you think it's interesting.

Well, mafia team communicates to each other, this sort of information would have been made clear between them I feel, even if they aren't up to speed in the thread THERE IS A 2-SHOT COP - HE ID'D ESTELLE AND FRANK. It brings them both further down my suspect pile.

I considered it a potentially incriminating given that neither power role was killed -- potentially the result of mafia members being behind on the thread and literally not knowing what's going on (Peterman and Leo come to mind, which I dubbed a viable pairing).

I didnt consider that angle. Good point. Let me think it over some.

Jerry Seinfeld wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 7:01 pm

George Costanza wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 6:57 pm The fact Peterman isn't even aware of the civ read on Frank is as interesting as Whatley not knowing that Steinbrenner is the "cop"

It might be interesting. Tell me why you think it's interesting.

Well, mafia team communicates to each other, this sort of information would have been made clear between them I feel, even if they aren't up to speed in the thread THERE IS A 2-SHOT COP - HE ID'D ESTELLE AND FRANK. It brings them both further down my suspect pile.

The fact Peterman isn't even aware of the civ read on Frank is as interesting as Whatley not knowing that Steinbrenner is the "cop"

J Peterman wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 6:54 pm

Jerry Seinfeld wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 6:49 pm Thanks, Peterman. Now, tell me, having made your best effort to figure out my nonsense charts and the like, was there anything in my analyses you didn't agree with? I see the one comment you made there in your reads post. What else? Does Frank's civilian ID mean anything to you?

I assume you mean civilian ID for Whatley? Depends on his flip, I suppose. But he doesn't seem terribly sure about the ID, considering his last comment/quote from Whatley about not being sure. So of course it means something to me, but I have yet to see exactly what.

No, he means Frank Costanza flipped civ. Since there's a cop in the game, it is possible we have a godfather, however.

Jerry Seinfeld wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 6:51 pm EBWOP

George Costanza wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 6:48 pm I don't feel I have the support of town enough to actually sway people to vote for someone I want at this point. If my post helps confirmed townies, in my eyes I've done well. Otherwise, it's sticking to people I think are scum.

Imagine for a moment that you have total control over the lynch. Who dies?

I understand some of these questions are repetitive, but there's a reason I am asking.

I'd go with Frank, then Leo then you or Peterman.

J Peterman wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 6:43 pm IBut what I do like about Leo is, he's not afraid to go after anyone, no matter how "cleared" they may appear.

Where did he do that?

J Peterman wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 6:43 pm George - George's outlier vote last round doesn't look so great. George also keeps saying he'll go back and look at players he's suspicious of, but doesn't. Except Uncle Leo, which honestly, I agree with a suspicion of Leo. But these outlier votes and this new agreement to "do what the town does" but not really doesn't look great. Not a fan.

I've never been a sheep. I don't follow no herds.

I don't feel I have the support of town enough to actually sway people to vote for someone I want at this point. If my post helps confirmed townies, in my eyes I've done well. Otherwise, it's sticking to people I think are scum.

Tim Whatley wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 6:39 pm

George Costanza wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 6:36 pm Would be hilarious if Jerry is scum though. I mean really, hats off to you. While no one is questioning Elaine and Steinbrenner, you're not even a confirmed PR and no one's questioning your alliance.

I have a reason to think that Elaine and Jerry are civ. Steinbrenner however I'm not 100% on, I recall liking his thought processes and questions during day 3.

What kind of reason do you have?

Steinbrenner is the confirmed 2-shot cop.

Tim Whatley wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 6:37 pm

Jerry Seinfeld wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 6:27 pm Whatley, defending yourself is pointless at this point. Just do that hunting. That hunting is your defense. Who's bad?

Leo, Frank, recent posts makes me want to look at George but I can also see the angle of a frustrated civ taking heat solely based on mafia actions.

George, how do your actions counteract what is being claimed? Can any of your actions hold you accountable or no?

I haven't been a very low poster, but I don't have 7 pages to go through. Skim through them. Tell me if something I posted catches your eye (in context, not out of context) and I'll do my very best to explain myself. I feel I've been honest and open at all times. Vanilla townie is the easiest role to play, because I have nothing to hide and little to lose in terms of dying as opposed to a power role. I'm a little frustrated that I've explained myself repeatedly and after each time, Jerry or someone else bring back some other reason that has nothing to do with me and everything to do with Jackie. But again, well played to Jackie.

Would be hilarious if Jerry is scum though. I mean really, hats off to you. While no one is questioning Elaine and Steinbrenner, you're not even a confirmed PR and no one's questioning your alliance.

Sorry, the lol is one of exasperation. I feel like I've been guilty to you since Day 1, quite literally, and all I've done is go round in circles defending myself. so if you need to lynch me to get it out of the way, you do that Jerry. I hope everyone else can see the truth though.

Jerry Seinfeld wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 6:23 pm Why the hell wouldn't Jackie do that? It's the point of WIFOM. I've seen a mafioso fake track their own teammate into a kill and cruise to victory with it; I can certainly conceive of this.

we've all seen a lot of things. Since the narrator has chosen to disclose the actual identity of the player at death, I'm assuming that would help determine some player habits.

Sorry to break you out of roleplay mode, but would the player Long Con shout LYNCH GEORGE COSTANZA after getting lynched and knowing he'll be flipping scum if I was his team mate? If you say there's a greater percentage that he would, then lynch me. You'll be lynching a vanilla townie, but at least it'll give you information on how NOT to assess a situation.

lol.

You literally voted for me after analyzing my interactions with Jackie. You can call it whatever you want, I think it's weak. Sorry if that upset you but it doesn't change my mind.

Explain?

Frank
Leo
Peterman

Not because I believe Whatley is mafia, though, I don't see it (especially based on Kenny Bania's attitude--yeah, all 3 posts of them--read more like vanilla townie to me) but because this is a team effort and I want to be a team player.

I still think Frank is the better lynch today. I hear what you're saying about Whatley and will move my vote if it makes a difference.

Probably an unpopular choice for today, but if we were going to gleam anything from Jackie's scumspect list there (me, Frank and Elaine) -- there's at least a 25% chance that Frank Costanza is the one scum he did name (and the Godfather) if he did name any. And I do think he would name one. Naming 3 townies would mean he's thrown the scumspect pool a lot smaller for the last 2. I already had bad feelings about my dad (I've mentioned specific things here and there but will try to make a specific and full case later tonight or tomorrow morning). The only reason I didn't vote for Uncle Leo right now is because he hasn't shown up in 2 days. Soup Nazi was killed yesterday night. I feel like Scum Leo would have been slightly more interested in seeing what's going on and give his 5 cents at this stage of the game. Not eliminating his scumminess, but going with the person I think is more likely at this stage.

Tim Whatley posts seem really agreeable to me. He doesn't have all that many posts, but the questions he asked and points he made are all generally town-thinking (many things I thought myself, even questioning Elaine when she was acting all eccentric). He's balanced, calm and not impulsive, and contributed as well as anyone would for someone joining on Day 2 after all that heavy role play. I don't contribute his posts with mafia-reads. The only post that stuck out for me slightly was this:

Tim Whatley wrote: ↑Sun Oct 15, 2017 6:32 pm

Jerry Seinfeld wrote: ↑Sun Oct 15, 2017 12:55 pm

Tim Whatley wrote: ↑Sun Oct 15, 2017 12:24 pm

Jerry Seinfeld wrote: ↑Sun Oct 15, 2017 11:24 am I also keep forgetting Tim Whatley exists. That's not ideal.

Why do you think this is this the case? I feel like I've voiced my thoughts consistently?

I'll be voting Peterman. I don't feel bad about it, but there are a handful I can say that about. Let's see where this goes.

Stein, if time allows, I'll review those you asked about.

*opens Tim Whatley's post history*

*CTRL+F for "peterman"*

1 mention in entire history, and it's in this post with this vote. Naw.

Voting Tim Whatley.

Interesting. What should I say over his 7 posts that hasn't been said already?

Seinfeld, do you have a fascination with me. Why is this the case?

I wanted to know more about why he voted for Peterman, especially since he mentioned there's a handful he could say. What was it about Peterman that triggered the vote against him? Something specific? A bunch of things? Tell me.

Kenny Bania's three contributions strike me as overwhelmed vanilla townie, the role play in the beginning of the game was a tad excessive and made it impossible to read since everyone literally seemed like a jerk.

And I got nothing to hide, so throw all the work you got my way, I'll give you answers. I'll give you solutions.

George Steinbrenner wrote: ↑Tue Oct 17, 2017 3:33 pm

George Costanza wrote: ↑Tue Oct 17, 2017 3:27 pm
My Day 1 vote was not a heavily built up case; I was going by role play and did not feel Newman's outcries were insincere so I couldn't jump on the bandwagon, even though it would probably have made me seem less suspicious in some ways.

why are you concerned with appearing unsuspicious?

Hey now, don't go nitpicking my words. I'm just saying I could play the game easier, I could be more agreeable, I could be less vocal, I could bandwagon, but I don't feel I've done any of that. I'm sitting here going through Kenny Bania and Peterman's contributions because I actually care.

George Steinbrenner wrote: ↑Tue Oct 17, 2017 3:13 pm @George Costanza, why are you voting for No Lynch?

I wanted to see how the votes were split. I will not be voting No Lynch. I will most likely be voting for Uncle Leo. I want to stop defending myself and concentrate on lower post count people who I haven't really looked into or analyzed yet.

George Steinbrenner wrote: ↑Tue Oct 17, 2017 3:12 pm His language regarding the Puddy suspicion is a bit aggressive here as well. "Obsession" and "trying to say" tell me that George is trying to suggest some sinister intentions from Jerry. Or he could just be seeking more elaboration. Either way, I feel like pointing out an apparent shift in his position just two posts later:

I would like to clarify that I was not being aggressive here and my "What's the obsession with Puddy?" question wasn't directed to Jerry specifically, but several people in the thread were talking about him and he generally didn't catch my eye so I wanted to know what people were implying or trying to imply.

George Steinbrenner wrote: ↑Tue Oct 17, 2017 3:12 pm

George Costanza wrote: ↑Tue Oct 10, 2017 5:46 pm I'm feeling good about you people
Kramer
George Steinbrenner
Uncle Leo
Jerry
Jackie

I got bad feelings about you people
Elaine
The Soup Nazi
Estelle
Dad

I got no feelings about the rest of ya.

In the above post George is hinting at tension with Jerry, but here he puts him on his "good" list. 3/4 of his bad list are now confirmed or near-confirmed town, with the possibility of a fourth if Frank is not the godfather. The revealed scum is listed as good.

Yeah, but this list was right after Night 1. I changed my stance on Elaine and The Soup Nazi and brought Uncle Leo into my suspect pool.

My Day 1 vote was not a heavily built up case; I was going by role play and did not feel Newman's outcries were insincere so I couldn't jump on the bandwagon, even though it would probably have made me seem less suspicious in some ways.

I still stand by my intuition that Uncle Leo isn't open, and his contributions have been very wary/safe, avoiding real opposition or conflict.

Ok Jerry, so why had you already voted for me on Day 1 before I had even posted itt?

George Steinbrenner wrote: ↑Tue Oct 17, 2017 2:42 pm His only post today was a continuation of is harping on George which has been going on all game long. He mentions some stuff about Estelle and how George might have set her up for the kill by naming her as a top suspect prior to it, but this is such an arbitary and far-fetched accusation that I can't really give it serious consideration without knowing anything about how Frank arrived at his conclusion. It's a possibility, sure, but anything's a possibility. I am unable to do nothing with it.

He also called out Jackie for doing the exact same thing he did, in different words. That's what I didn't like.

Jerry Seinfeld wrote: ↑Mon Oct 16, 2017 9:50 am Jackie placed an early Day 1 poop vote on George.

As did a couple of others. I called everyone out on this. You call it a poop vote now, so I'm assuming you too don't believe the narration has anything to do with my actual role. I mean do people honestly think the narrator would intentionally try to incriminate me? How is that balanced for you? He's sure made my life harder, but George Costanza doesn't give up easily. Just ask every woman who's turned me down.

Jerry Seinfeld wrote: ↑Mon Oct 16, 2017 9:50 am

Spoiler: show

Jackie Chiles wrote: ↑Fri Oct 13, 2017 9:19 am

George Costanza wrote: ↑Thu Oct 12, 2017 5:46 pm Jackie has been quiet.

Just catching up now, Mr Costanza. Sorry for my absence, but in Real Life I was hospitalized with a chest infection last night. I'm home now, and getting right back to business.

Jackie was gracious in his reception of George's little prod here. This exchange is a bit of a pinger.

I don't know what the word "pinger" means, especially in this context. So I'll refrain from comment until you clarify please.

Jerry Seinfeld wrote: ↑Mon Oct 16, 2017 9:50 am Color-coded stances analysis

Jackie had a lot more to say about George than the other three people he stuck in this pile. He threw shade for George's history for "vouching", suggesting it may be indicative of TMI. It's plausible that Jackie himself was engaging in TMI here if George is his teammate. Relating to the point made by Frank, the portion about the Estelle kill is a little bizarre. I find myself wondering if this was an intentional dropping left by Jackie Con as a distraction, because it's really bad distancing if that's what it really is.*****

Just a thought for you: after Elaine all but sealed his deal confirming she'd tracked him, he went down shouting me as his top suspect.

Do you honestly think that, along with the post above, is actually something a team mate would do? Do I think one of the people he named in that post is a team mate? Sure, it's more than probable. Do I think it's the name he was yelling the loudest aka me; no.

I think you should give Long Con as a player a little more credit than that. That said, no doubt he's laughing in his grave now at how he got the two most vocal posters to vote for me without a hesitation. Well done Jackie. You played it well.

Jerry Seinfeld wrote: ↑Mon Oct 16, 2017 9:50 am

Spoiler: show

Jackie Chiles wrote: ↑Sat Oct 14, 2017 10:52 pm No problem, Mr Seinfeld. I used the time I had, and I had to stop. Just got home from the office, and I'm going to get back to it.

George Costanza looks the worst from my analysis so far.

He reinforces that George was the worst look in his analysis.

Again, do we think Jackie is going to be that blatant in bussing a team mate? I don't honestly believe you believe that----deep down.

Jerry Seinfeld wrote: ↑Mon Oct 16, 2017 9:50 am

Spoiler: show

Jackie Chiles wrote: ↑Sun Oct 15, 2017 8:17 pm George Costanza, Frank Costanza... Elaine Benes.

His fake legacy mafia reads included both Costanzas and Elaine. If he stuck a teammate in here, it'd have to be a Costanza unless you're inclined to tinfoil on Elaine to the point of needing a restraint jacket. It's not necessarily true that he included a teammate.

Frank. Cos it sure as hell isn't me, all my contributions have either been defending suspicion of myself in my limited time or trying to make gut reads as good as possible.

Let's lynch Frank.

Jerry Seinfeld wrote: ↑Mon Oct 16, 2017 9:50 am

Spoiler: show

George Costanza wrote: ↑Tue Oct 10, 2017 5:46 pm I'm feeling good about you people
Kramer
George Steinbrenner
Uncle Leo
Jerry
Jackie

I got bad feelings about you people
Elaine
The Soup Nazi
Estelle
Dad

I got no feelings about the rest of ya.

He felt good about Jackie on Day 1. I don't fault him for that, but here it is for analytic completeness.

Spoiler: show

George Costanza wrote: ↑Sun Oct 15, 2017 12:41 pmwhat is this even.

You know, I did think it was rather farfetched that all four main characters of the show (George, Seinfeld, Elaine and Kramer) would RANDOMLY be picked as town. Kramer was town, I'm town, pretty sure I have good feelings about Jerry...so Elaine, as someone who roleclaimed and wasn't night killed, what's your deal?

Sure Estelle is dead. Yes, I felt peculiar about her. No, I didn't vote for her at any time. Suspicion arises. Everyone is suspicious at some point.

Jackie was a lot more vocal, and when he was, I had good feelings about him. He disappeared, he missed voting. I questioned it. What's up with that? How is it random? I liked the way Jackie was talking, I didn't like the direction Estelle was headed. I'm allowed to make judgement calls based on how I see them.

The green stuff isn't related to Jackie, but this is a good place talk about this separately. It's obvious that George's assertion is fallacious, and I'd expect any civilian to understand that. He said it anyway. I wonder if he is right, and he knows he is right because of his own alignment.

I have no idea what you're getting at. I am positive of my alignment. I'm as vanilla as Marla, your ex girlfriend. If you can't see that, what can I do to make you believe me? I'll bare it all, god damn it!

Jerry Seinfeld wrote: ↑Mon Oct 16, 2017 9:50 am The orange stuff relates to Jackie. He explained his initial positive read on Jackie and his later prod about his having gone quiet. This was in response to accusations leveled upon him by Elaine. Apart from the fallacious green stuff, he was in a defensive posture here. I don't know that I like his tone.

Sorry, but with limited weekday time at my disposal, coming into a thread and finding suspicion directed at you, you’re going to want to clear yourself as much as possible to direct scum hunting efforts towards the real threats and try to get as many people believing in your claims. If you had people call you scum for fake role claims, I'm sure you'd react similarly. Don't tell me you've never been the defensive vanilla.

Jerry Seinfeld wrote: ↑Mon Oct 16, 2017 9:50 am

Spoiler: show

George Costanza wrote: ↑Sun Oct 15, 2017 2:14 pm

George Steinbrenner wrote: ↑Fri Oct 13, 2017 11:49 pm Jerry Seinfeld
The Soup Nazi
Jackie Chiles
Uncle Leo
George Costanza
Tim Whatley
Frank Costanza
Elaine Benes
J. Peterman

I'd like to know what Jackie did to earn him a high spot on your list.

I'm not jealous or anything. Why would I be jealous?

George questioned Mr. Steinbrenner about his positive read on Jackie. It's a fair enough question in a vacuum, though I find myself wondering why I wasn't asked the same thing -- I also had Jackie in the green zone.

I'd already asked you several things in my post catch ups, I wasn't going to quote every single post every single person made. I saw Steinbrenner online, I directed a question his way to engage in discussion. No mystery.

ooc-sorry, I'm working 10hr shifts and have guests in my house. It's been hard to get quality mafia time during the week (was hoping for a later start date). I'll get to work as I catch up.

you're basing your entire votes on Jackie's interactions with me, jerry/elaine? that's really lazy scum hunting. Terrible in fact.

Frank Costanza wrote: ↑Sun Oct 15, 2017 9:11 pm VENGEANCE IS OURS! Estelle can rest in peace tonight. Now to get started on the rest of you hoodlums.

I honestly think George is a good target for the next lynch based on interaction reads with Jackie, and I'll tell you why:

George Costanza

Jackie Chiles
Cosmo Kramer
George Steinbrenner
Uncle Leo
Jerry Seinfeld
Jackie Chiles
Elaine Benes
The Soup Nazi
Estelle Costanza
Frank Costanza
Estelle Costanza
Jerry Seinfeld
Elaine Benes
Uncle Leo
J Peterman
Jackie Chiles

Pretty even number of positive and negative stuff here. In contrast to my previous two analyses, this amount of 'vouching' makes me feel suspicious. Mafia know who's not bad, and I could see him finding it easier to be honest when giving opinions, if he's bad. On the other hand, Estelle was his biggest suspect, so why night kill her in that case? Where would that leave him?

That bit about Estelle now reads like pure covering. George never said anything about Estelle being his "biggest suspect." That's exaggeration by a teammate, buried in a long post with analysis of several others. Then, he later starts distancing from George, calling him his own strongest suspect.

Exaggeration by a team mate??

Frank Costanza wrote: ↑Fri Oct 13, 2017 10:28 pm Now that I've gained a little bit of perspective back, I realize the Soup Nazi's been knocked down a few rungs on the suspect list, especially by Jerry and Uncle Leo.

Of those remaining, I hate to say it, but my gut says my son. It's just the kind of sick, twisted thing he'd do after putting her on his baddie list, especially after providing no reason. She was a suspect he couldn't defend if he got asked, so he knocked her off to avoid being asked about her. And he was even the last one seen at her bedside!

George Steinbrenner wrote: ↑Sun Oct 15, 2017 2:21 pm

The Soup Nazi wrote: ↑Sun Oct 15, 2017 2:18 pm Of what? That she has not died?

That her role claim should have made her a target but did not. Any sort of follow up on her vigilante claim, really. Because from where I stand it still looks like the only reason she made that claim was to shake Jerry's suspicion of her, and I hate that.

she's been lurking behind role play and her character an awful lot, but I'm going to pin her down as vanilla town with nothing to lose and everything to gain by having fun and shaking things up a little.

George Steinbrenner wrote: ↑Sun Oct 15, 2017 2:32 pm

George Costanza wrote: ↑Sun Oct 15, 2017 2:27 pm

Jerry Seinfeld wrote: ↑Sat Oct 14, 2017 1:33 am

Elaine Benes wrote: ↑Sat Oct 14, 2017 1:09 am Jerry, why do you think Elaine Costanza died instead of you or me?

A few possibilities, more of one of which may be true.

1) The mafia didn't buy your vigilante claim (because their role arrangements don't include one in the matrix).

2) The mafia didn't prioritize you as a kill because they could role block you instead, or they thought you were in line to kill a civilian.

3) They suspected Estelle might be a power role herself, playing it safe and laying low, given her relative quiet.

4) Despite her relatively low post count, Estelle provided a decent set of reads -- perhaps she was on to something.

5) They targeted both Kramer and Estelle as low-posters because they'd be harder to trace to a source.

If I had to bet on just one, I'd take #3.

You gave Elaine a lot of answers, none of which she gave herself despite being promoted to. Hmmmmmm.

What are you getting at, Costanza?

I'm not sure myself yet. Just thinking out loud here but no one can be as sure as Jerry is of Elaine without actual evidence don't you think? Especially with everything she's done and said. I think he has some kind of knowledge of her innocence. I'm fine with that. I'll go with that. No way they're both scum. No way is Jerry going to place Elaine so highly on his list without evidence. That's all I'm saying.

Tim Whatley wrote: ↑Sat Oct 14, 2017 1:17 pm

George Steinbrenner wrote: ↑Sat Oct 14, 2017 1:12 pm Do you think it would be unwise for power roles to claim at this point in the game?

Depends really. There are too many variables in play still.

@George Costanza Where are you and where is your head at? Why did you vote the Soup Nazi day 1 but not day 2? You did say you had a bad feeling about him.

Day 1 votes generally aren't really substantial or based on actual specific clues or content. I didn't feel good about the Newman bandwagon. I didn't vote for Newman.

I'm someone who goes by gut instincts a lot, and I felt Uncle Leo was wishy washy in his stances, as long as he didn't draw attention to himself or garner too much opposition and preferred following the bunch; insincere; not as vocal or skeptical as people should be on Day 2.

My opinion on him hasn't changed yet.

Jerry Seinfeld wrote: ↑Sat Oct 14, 2017 1:33 am

Elaine Benes wrote: ↑Sat Oct 14, 2017 1:09 am Jerry, why do you think Elaine Costanza died instead of you or me?

A few possibilities, more of one of which may be true.

1) The mafia didn't buy your vigilante claim (because their role arrangements don't include one in the matrix).

2) The mafia didn't prioritize you as a kill because they could role block you instead, or they thought you were in line to kill a civilian.

3) They suspected Estelle might be a power role herself, playing it safe and laying low, given her relative quiet.

4) Despite her relatively low post count, Estelle provided a decent set of reads -- perhaps she was on to something.

5) They targeted both Kramer and Estelle as low-posters because they'd be harder to trace to a source.

If I had to bet on just one, I'd take #3.

You gave Elaine a lot of answers, none of which she gave herself despite being promoted to. Hmmmmmm.

ooc: my posts are coming as I am reading the thread and addressing new revelations as they come to me. Bear with me, folks.

Jackie Chiles wrote: ↑Sat Oct 14, 2017 10:52 pm No problem, Mr Seinfeld. I used the time I had, and I had to stop. Just got home from the office, and I'm going to get back to it.

George Costanza looks the worst from my analysis so far.

Care to elaborate, Jackie? Perhaps I can ease your concerns if I had more content to go by and address your issues.

The Soup Nazi wrote: ↑Sun Oct 15, 2017 2:15 pm

George Costanza wrote: ↑Sun Oct 15, 2017 2:10 pm

Jerry Seinfeld wrote: ↑Fri Oct 13, 2017 11:36 pm

George Steinbrenner wrote: ↑Fri Oct 13, 2017 11:25 pm You're a funny man, Seinfeld. Big Stein appreciates humor in dark times. But I will not stand for this kind of funny business, you hear me! Is this some sort of test? Trying to make Big Stein sweat, are we? You're gonna have to do better than that! I'll let it stand for now though. But come this time tomorrow I expect to see results on the table! Tell me what you want from and I'll have the entire Yankee organization at my back.

I'm a 2-shot tracker. Bania/Whatley did nothing on night 1. You killed Estelle on Night 2.

Is this a fake claim too?
Jesus.

I just TOLD you that!

I don't give two shits what you told me.
I'm addressing Jerry and seeing WHY he felt the need to do that.

Jerry Seinfeld wrote: ↑Sat Oct 14, 2017 12:01 am

George Steinbrenner wrote: ↑Fri Oct 13, 2017 11:57 pm Whoa whoa whoa whoa! What's this Elaine vote? One minute you're telling me she's got a good claim and sits outside your lynch territory, the next you're saying she should go? Explain yourself again, Seinfeld.

She's clearly full of shit.

And you're not?

Jerry Seinfeld wrote: ↑Sat Oct 14, 2017 12:37 am I wouldn't call George trusted at this point (from now on, "George" refers to Costanza). One thing I didn't talk about in my ISO:

George Costanza wrote: ↑Thu Oct 12, 2017 2:38 pm I agree with what you're saying to some extent, especially earlier, like right after the lynch. The fact that Jerry downplayed it too, and made it seem like he didn't have any other options (which he did have), also made me feel weary. However, it's those balls of steel on a day 1 that make me place Jerry on my safe list now. He wouldn't have drawn that much attention to himself, he made a decision that killed Newman, he stuck by it. It was a deciding vote to lynch a townie on Day 1, not something mafia would have done to blend in. There's like a 2% chance he's not who he says he is. For now, he's on my safe list.

Similarly, Elaine is on my safe list for her frustration post and revealing/not revealing her PR.

The contrast between green and orange is a bit gross. "I want to tell you why Seinfeld is shady and you shouldn't trust him, but he's basically confirmed civilian because he posted a lot on Day 1".

Are you intentionally misreading my post or what?

I explained my initial knee jerk reaction in the first part and why/how I changed my mind in the follow up part. I was explaining my thought process and being open; yes, I related to their concerns about you but here's why I changed my mind--in an effort to get people to show me why I'm wrong or possibly see the same thing I did and confirm my theory.

George Steinbrenner wrote: ↑Fri Oct 13, 2017 11:49 pm Jerry Seinfeld
The Soup Nazi
Jackie Chiles
Uncle Leo
George Costanza
Tim Whatley
Frank Costanza
Elaine Benes
J. Peterman

I'd like to know what Jackie did to earn him a high spot on your list.

I'm not jealous or anything. Why would I be jealous?

Jerry Seinfeld wrote: ↑Fri Oct 13, 2017 11:36 pm

George Steinbrenner wrote: ↑Fri Oct 13, 2017 11:25 pm You're a funny man, Seinfeld. Big Stein appreciates humor in dark times. But I will not stand for this kind of funny business, you hear me! Is this some sort of test? Trying to make Big Stein sweat, are we? You're gonna have to do better than that! I'll let it stand for now though. But come this time tomorrow I expect to see results on the table! Tell me what you want from and I'll have the entire Yankee organization at my back.

I'm a 2-shot tracker. Bania/Whatley did nothing on night 1. You killed Estelle on Night 2.

Is this a fake claim too?
Jesus.

George Steinbrenner wrote: ↑Fri Oct 13, 2017 9:07 pm

Elaine Benes wrote: ↑Fri Oct 13, 2017 7:42 pm

George Steinbrenner wrote: ↑Fri Oct 13, 2017 12:28 pm What bothers me most about Elaine is that she roleclaimed in self-defense. Not strategically, not to protect another player, but to save her own skin. Her second claim tells me that the first was bogus! A civilian has plenty of cause to lie about their role in this game, that's for sure. But that first claim of hers does not sit well with Big Stein!

What if the second claim was bogus? I Bear Lee recall you saying anything about the first claim at the time.

HA HA HA HA HA HA

I had my qualms with it, young lady! It was an act of defense! I saw no strategic value in it whatsoever and that does not sit well with Big Stein. Why did the mafia not kill the exposed vigilante last night, Benes?

Was this ever answered by Elaine?

The Soup Nazi wrote: ↑Sun Oct 15, 2017 1:59 pm

George Costanza wrote: ↑Sun Oct 15, 2017 1:53 pm

Elaine Benes wrote: ↑Fri Oct 13, 2017 8:00 pm The second claim was bogus. I didn't track Jerry. What if nothing I say is true? Don't even talk about grace, all right? I don't have grace, I don't want grace, I don't even say grace, okay?

I don't like this sort of impulsive craziness. I have a hard time pinpointing it down as scum--I hope--, but I wish we wouldn't make fake role claims and fake accusations based on those fake role claims like they were real.

Seinfeld did the same, claiming tracker and claiming Yankeeman disposed of your mother - probably to get back her season tickets and sell them at a better price than back in 1970, when she got them.

Yes, I'm still catching up on those posts. Nearly addressing that.

Frank Costanza wrote: ↑Fri Oct 13, 2017 10:28 pm Now that I've gained a little bit of perspective back, I realize the Soup Nazi's been knocked down a few rungs on the suspect list, especially by Jerry and Uncle Leo.

Of those remaining, I hate to say it, but my gut says my son. It's just the kind of sick, twisted thing he'd do after putting her on his baddie list, especially after providing no reason. She was a suspect he couldn't defend if he got asked, so he knocked her off to avoid being asked about her. And he was even the last one seen at her bedside!

For the first part, I'd like to know why Jerry feels good about the Soup Nazi now.

For the second part, that's untrue. I explained I found her post regarding Jerry not being killed N1 because he's outspoken makes him suspicious actually made her seem suspicious. I didn't need to defend it.......since I explained it. Someone's not paying much attention to his son.

As for going with narrative to accuse me... *yawn*
How many games have you been in with the narrator telling you who's scum...? Yeah.

Elaine Benes wrote: ↑Fri Oct 13, 2017 8:00 pm The second claim was bogus. I didn't track Jerry. What if nothing I say is true? Don't even talk about grace, all right? I don't have grace, I don't want grace, I don't even say grace, okay?

I don't like this sort of impulsive craziness. I have a hard time pinpointing it down as scum--I hope--, but I wish we wouldn't make fake role claims and fake accusations based on those fake role claims like they were real. At this point, Elaine looks like a vanilla townie who's just throwing shit around. I've seen fake role claims before, sure, but usually harder to prove untrue and I don't know how I feel about the shit she's flinging. Will have to have a closer look into posts after her claims, etc. Will do that after I go over the remaining "new" posts as I'd like to have a vote down asap.

George Steinbrenner wrote: ↑Fri Oct 13, 2017 12:28 pm What bothers me most about Elaine is that she roleclaimed in self-defense. Not strategically, not to protect another player, but to save her own skin. Her second claim tells me that the first was bogus! A civilian has plenty of cause to lie about their role in this game, that's for sure. But that first claim of hers does not sit well with Big Stein!

Can someone explain Elaine's role claims to me? She claimed she was a vig then she claims she's a tracker. She says Jerry shot Kramer.
How are we ignoring all these things? (Still going through Page 9/10, so don't shoot me if my question was already answered but I'm truly baffled and find her game play if town quite frankly dangerous).

Uncle Leo wrote: ↑Fri Oct 13, 2017 4:02 am

George Costanza wrote: ↑Tue Oct 10, 2017 5:46 pm I'm feeling good about you people
Kramer
George Steinbrenner
Uncle Leo
Jerry
Jackie

I got bad feelings about you people
Elaine
The Soup Nazi
Estelle
Dad

I got no feelings about the rest of ya.

George Costanza wrote: ↑Thu Oct 12, 2017 4:35 pm <snip>
I'll have to look into Peterman a little more now that you shed light on his inconsistencies.
<...>

He was off your initial list - why? Have you looked into Peterman further as you say in this second quoted post? If so, what is your conclusion?

He was off my initial list along with a few others who had left no impression on me at the time of my post. I am reading each person's posts individually now and will have a better read on Peterman and others in a few hours.

Jerry Seinfeld wrote: ↑Fri Oct 13, 2017 12:24 am What's the deal with George Costanza?

George Costanza wrote: ↑Mon Oct 09, 2017 2:23 pm I'll tell you one thing for sure-- the two who voted for me as a cheap throwaway vote are definitely getting my vote returned to them at some point in this game. You think I'd intentionally kill my own fiancée? I AM NOT A MONSTER, I AM A COSTANZA, LORD OF THE IDIOTS!

He was happy to dismiss the early votes he received as "throw-away votes". I don't think that was a fair depiction.

yes it was. You had nothing to go on except the narrator saying George's fiancee, Susan, was killed and assuming based on the series that it was me. That's a cheap throw-away vote to me. Do you honestly think the narrator would intentionally rake the odds against me (as he did in night 2 as well)? Yeah, I've been playing this game for some years and never has the narrator given a direct clue to who is scum (and why would my name be mentioned/related twice in a row?)

Jerry Seinfeld wrote: ↑Fri Oct 13, 2017 12:24 amAfter a little prodding and questioning, he spat out some reads. I do think it's decent that despite his questions about me, he still went for the "good" read. It evidences a thoughtful mindset for generating these reads, beyond just "what would be consistent with my posts?".

I don't understand this line of thinking. Prodding and questioning a user doesn't mean I suspect them automatically. I'm questioning things-everything-, gathering info, seeing reactions of the person I am questioning and how others react to me as well, determining reads. If I question you it doesn't mean I don't trust you, and it doesn't mean I don't trust you--unless I specifically say I do or don't.