The Syndicate

Everybody had the same mathematical chance, minus Steinbrenner, of being mafia on D5. Get out.

Sorry, civilians. This one's on me. We had it and I blew it. I've had bad games before, but I haven't singlehandedly lost one. I have now.

Terrified.

It definitely easy, Leo. It doesn't necessarily imply it's wrong. I thought Peterman may have given up yesterday because he thought he was screwed.

If it's not him it's George. And if George has been fudging this MYLO and playfully role playing around right in my face while I contribute to losing the game to him, that's cold blooded.

You could use a little relaxation, George.

That New York time zone, I tell ya what.

George has looked very town in this MYLO. If I'm still wrong then I'm going to be in throw-arms-up mode.

I generally hate that Peterman went to all the trouble of making that post of reads just to arrive at a "conclusion" of four possible votes.

Okay. I don't actually care about MP's answer to that question. Regardless of the rule, there's an explanation available which allows Peterman to deliver that kill, and it's not one that requires a great deal of mental gymnastics. He logged in, sent a kill, and fucked off to wherever.

My purpose here was to test George one last time. I'd say the test was passed. If after all this I am still wrong, then I'll just have to live with that. We had George lynched and I turned it away from that at the 11th hour. I'm genuinely sorry to the civilian team if I made the wrong decision.

I don't think I am going to sell myself on a Leo lynch, and I don't want to try. If he's mafia, then good game sir and you deserve your banner.

And, though I don't like to be in a position to make this kind of call -- I agree that losing to a man with 17 posts would be hard to take.

*Vote Peterman*

George Costanza wrote: ↑Mon Oct 23, 2017 5:18 pm I still feel if we add everything up, Peterman is the best case.

I want to emphasize that this doesn't necessarily reflect Jerry changing his mind for the nine millionth time. I'm just tying up a loose end.

Fixed:

George Costanza wrote: ↑Mon Oct 23, 2017 5:15 pm further, and pending what MP says, is it possible for Peterman to have logged in quickly from his phone at any point during the night phase and simply sent in a name for the night kill without making an appearance itt?

Sock accounts like these are blocked so that we cannot see one another online, and we also cannot see the last log-in time for any sock. It prevents us from solving games this way. So yes, it is plausible that Peterman logged in, sent a kill, and did not say anything. That's a guess we have to make based on our intuitions.

George Costanza wrote: ↑Mon Oct 23, 2017 5:15 pm

further, and pending what MP says, is it possible for Peterman to have logged in quickly from his phone at any point during the night phase and simply sent in a name for the night kill without making an appearance itt?
[/quote]

Sock accounts like these are blocked so that we cannot see one another online, and we also cannot see the last log-in time for any sock. It prevents us from solving games this way. So yes, it is plausible that Peterman logged in, sent a kill, and did not say anything. That's a guess we have to make based on our intuitions.

George Costanza wrote: ↑Mon Oct 23, 2017 5:13 pm If the mod says we aren't allowed to submit night kills ahead of time...

Do we really want to go back to implicating Leo after all that was said and done? Do I really want to believe a scum leo would resort to emotional blackmail of sorts to get us off his back I don't know. I have no idea who is behind the sock and what s/he is capable of, but I kind of don't want to believe it (despite everything else screaming for a lynch of him before).

WHY AM I DOUBTING MYSELF SO MUCH.

I think we'd need clarification from the mod if night kills are allowed to be sent in ahead of time.

I don't want to imply that I trust Peterman more or Leo less or you less. There are explanations here. I am just exploring an angle before I take the dive and click that fateful button.

George Costanza wrote: ↑Mon Oct 23, 2017 5:09 pm I saw Peterman's last post stating he'd be busy at a music festival over the weekend. If I was the last scum and I was anticipating a busy weekend where I had a target to submit, I'd more than likely send my kill to the mod ahead of time. Unless that would go against the rules and the scum is only allowed to send in the kill after the lynch is revealed? Is that what you're saying?

Let's ask!

[mention]MovingPictures07[/mention], is it legal for mafia members or power roles to submit actions prior to a night phase if necessary?

Just one question, [mention]George Costanza[/mention]. Do you think Peterman could have delivered the most recent night kill?

MovingPictures07 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 22, 2017 9:47 pm

Jerry Seinfeld wrote: ↑Sun Oct 22, 2017 9:19 pm @MovingPictures07

If the mafia team doesn't submit a kill, is there no kill at all or a randomized kill?

No kill.

Just as I would treat any power role (i.e., if a standard cop was in this game and did not submit a check Day 1, I wouldn't randomize one for them).

HEY GANG!

I think I know what I'm going to be doing today, I'm just waiting for a response.

Spacedaisy wrote: ↑Sun Oct 22, 2017 9:53 pm So I know that I'm a mod and I should be in the know, but I still don't get the difference between LYLO and MYLO. Can someone please explain these concepts for me?

I like to divide these into three categories:

MYLO -- "mislynch and lose" -- if a civilian is lynched, the civilians lose. It's still possible to no lynch instead (e.g. 3 versus 1, 4 versus 2, etc).

LYLO -- "lynch or lose" -- if a civilian is lynched OR there is no lynch, the civilians lose (e.g. 3 versus 2, 4 versus 3, etc).

True LYLO -- sudden death -- the result of the lynch dictates who wins the game either way (e.g. 2 versus 1).

[mention]George Costanza[/mention], what do you think of that?

[mention]MovingPictures07[/mention]

If the mafia team doesn't submit a kill, is there no kill at all or a randomized kill?

It adds time and sacrifices a voice. Given the circumstances, I'd rather have the voice.

I think I agree. I'm not sure they'd kill me as a tinfoil magnet, but a Leo kill has a similar effect anyway.

Another point to discuss while we're all still here:

To no lynch or not to no lynch?

Mathematically speaking, it should be an easy choice. Do it and reduce the pool with the ensuing kill. However, this is only meaningful if the suspect pool is still expansive (i.e. it still includes everyone among Jerry, Leo, George, and Peterman). In that case, removing one has real value. If it's not the case, then what's being removed is a voice, not a suspect. That might be a problem.

George Steinbrenner wrote: ↑Sat Oct 21, 2017 10:34 pm So... Peterman?

That's what I think, yes. However, if you read the George material he posted or I posted about him and don't agree with my conclusion, feel free to say so. Feel free to tell me I am a poop head too.

Loneliness and cheese

As I read through the things George was throwing into the thread toward the end, I was asking myself two questions over and over:

1) Does this post have legitimate legacy value and does it look like an attempt to leave a legacy, or is it a no-quit mafioso doing what it takes to survive under dire circumstances?

2) Does this post represent negative utility for a mafioso?

George suspects Jerry Seinfeld

The vote is 4-George and 2-Frank. Jerry has spiritual control over the lynch, as Leo has pledged to vote with the majority for team cohesion, and Steinbrenner is away. George is aware that if he is to survive, he has to move my vote and/or Leo's vote.

So he called me scum. Or at least he called me second-most scummy.

To me, this looks like a distinct "yes" answer to question #2. Tinfoiling on me in that moment isn't the best way to move my vote (barring a very accurate crystal ball in George's possession). In theory it should be a sure way to leave my vote where it is, which suggests to me that it might imply the answer to question #1 is "this is a legacy read".

This spoke to me more loudly than Frank's vouch for Peterman did.

I'm going to attempt to describe what went through my mind as I 14%ed my way through EOD5, specifically relating to George.

George Costanza wrote: ↑Sat Oct 21, 2017 9:48 pm If I'm alive, I'll be voting Peterman.

no doubt about it Jerry's "Also important" post reads very sincere. If he is lying to me, I'll retire mafia.

I just wanted to wind him up right now to give him a taste of his own medicne. SEE WHAT YOU PUT ME THROUGH EVERY DAY OF MY SEINFELD MAFIA LIFE JERRY?! George is petty. You know that.

I do what an analyst must do. I haven't the intuitive superpowers that some boast. I need data, data, and more data -- and sometimes people have to be annoyed to make that happen.

If you're lying, then I'm already a world-class boob and deserve a dunce cap for blowing the game at the end of Day 5. It'd be one of my worst moments as a player.

George Costanza wrote: ↑Sat Oct 21, 2017 9:41 pm Up until a couple of hours ago, I had 4 votes against me as the last scum, yours included, Jerry. You didn't discredit me because of The Soup Nazi target. I like to think I'm an active participant here, though not in the several hundred posts category yet. Telling me you can't be scum because you wouldn't have killed Soup Nazi, because it's insulting to assume you would--well it's insulting to me too.

I don't think the Soup Nazi kill directly implicates you. I haven't had a reason to eliminate you from being capable of it though -- not because I think you're a bad player (I don't), but because anyone who hasn't maintained a constant presence in this thread is capable of oversight.

Let's consider this though: if you agree that the kill is such a bad one that you'd be insulted by the accusation of having been a part of it, then very well. That means that when you accuse me of being mafia, regardless of the specific nature of your accusation, you are asserting that I was a part of that kill.

With that in mind, can I be mafia? Does it make any sense?

George Costanza wrote: ↑Sat Oct 21, 2017 9:36 pm Following this reasoning, why would I have killed The Soup Nazi?

Prior to Day 4, your involvement in this game was sporadic and inconsistent (which facilitates a lesser-developed understanding of events in the game). The kill occurred on Night 3.

George Costanza wrote: ↑Sat Oct 21, 2017 9:24 pm

Jerry Seinfeld wrote: ↑Sat Oct 21, 2017 9:16 pm

George Costanza wrote: ↑Sat Oct 21, 2017 7:05 pm I don't care if I'm wrong about Peterman and he is the godfather. There is genuinely not enough content or even context through other mafiaers to warrant my total suspicion of him. He's going to be second or third on my list, following my look into Jerry (a brief one since I don't have much time, fuck a Saturday evening).

Do you think it makes sense for a suspect to be relegated to the bottom of the pile simply because they have the fewest posts (and thus the fewest opportunities to raise suspicion)?

Why Peterman and not you?

I can make the same assertion as prior, and it can be drawn as parallels from your own posts:

The Soup Nazi kill is made by a player who doesn't know what's going on. I know what's going on. I have had tabs on this thread at all times. To accuse me of making that kill is to accuse me of some elaborate scheme to solidify my "town credit" despite the fact that I already had a huge pile of town credit. This is a classic example of "but but you could have been... [insert tinfoil]. "Could" should mean much less than "would" or "should".

If I'm mafia, Elaine and Steinbrenner are both dead before Soup Nazi. Anything else is a poor decision.

Peterman hasn't known what's going on at any juncture of this game.

George Costanza wrote: ↑Sat Oct 21, 2017 7:05 pm I don't care if I'm wrong about Peterman and he is the godfather. There is genuinely not enough content or even context through other mafiaers to warrant my total suspicion of him. He's going to be second or third on my list, following my look into Jerry (a brief one since I don't have much time, fuck a Saturday evening).

Do you think it makes sense for a suspect to be relegated to the bottom of the pile simply because they have the fewest posts (and thus the fewest opportunities to raise suspicion)?

Also important:

I am not a fucking mafioso. I have given everything I can give to this game despite terrible time constraints, and it has actually hampered my ability to handle my real-world responsibilities as well as I should. This game started poorly for the civilians, but we sparked our way back into the contest and I want to see it end properly. I have fought tooth and nail to get us there.

If I get lynched because of end game tinfoil, it will be an absolute travesty and I refuse to let that happen if I can help it. If you have your suspicions, fine, state them. If I deem it prudent, I'll answer them (the most important thing is finding the bad guy, not wasting time fending off tinfoil arguments).

There's a reason both Elaine and Steinbrenner stopped paying attention to me as a potential suspect. The Soup Nazi kill wasn't some strategic ploy, it was a stupid kill. Someone who is paying attention (I clearly am), and someone who has a lot of playing experience (I clearly do) doesn't make that kill. It's not WIFOM. It's not ermagerd what if????? It's obvious because it's true.

Shitty.

I'm home now and can actually think things through at a reasonable pace instead of having to frantically speed through on a dying phone. That was infuriating.

Most important thing to me: Big Stein's perspective on George's EOD5 (and generally George's legacy reads when under the heaviest lynch pressure). If those are believable, then it's Peterman and we're still perfectly fine.

Essentially, my two-man POE shifted from George-Peterman to Frank-Peterman in light of that development, and I moved to the player more likely to be lynched under the circumstances.

Tomorrow will demand another reassessment if necessary. My first guess would be Peterman gun to head. He'd be the only one left for whom I cannot provide any inspiring civilian argument and have no strong feeling for.

I'm not good enough at this game to be a mafioso with this post history. Big posts are easy. Real emotion and solving urgency are not.

Voting Frank.

His civilian case hinges upon one thing, the Peterman read at EOD4. That's not incredibly compelling.

I agree with George that he's the most likely to be clueless about the power roles, which implicates him in the kills. I also hate that he's sat quietly today while we've argued about everyone else, mostly to his benefit.

George's self referential critiques in his casings looks like legacy civilian more than frantic mafioso. If I'm wrong, well-played.

A LyLo with George and Peterman is a daunting one, but winnable.

George, would you lynch Peterman instead of Frank?

George Costanza wrote: ↑Sat Oct 21, 2017 6:42 pm I want answers to questions I've asked. I'm getting lynched in an hour and a half and that's all you got to say?

It's impossible unfortunately. I'm at 14% and am unlikely to be back home in time. All I can do is open this sparingly, read, and vote.

Still listening, phone is really low on battery.

George, thoughts on Peterman please

Still reading and thinking as much as I can. I hope as many people as possible are available at EOD with or without me.

Not Frank.

George Steinbrenner wrote: ↑Sat Oct 21, 2017 1:50 pm Jerry Seinfeld
Uncle Leo
Frank Costanza
J Peterman
George Costanza

I do not advise lynching Frank today. I think we should lynch Peterman or George. If we're wrong, lynch the other one tomorrow. If we're wrong again, somebody has fooled me.

Agreed.

I've decided that my vote will be George or Peterman at day's end. Please continue to talk it all over. As long as there's a two-vote margin when it's over there can be no shenanigans.

I think it's George. My intuition is pointing hard in that direction. He is the owner of the most suspicious posts in this thread, he looks bad next to Jackie, and he was bad with Whatley at EOD4.

I don't think it's Frank. It can still be Peterman.

Get thereal mafioso in a POE of two and the game is over.

I'm going to be away for much of the afternoon. I will try my best to be available in the evening, but I can't make guarantees. I'll be relying on my phone.

I appreciate the input Leo. I'm definitely thinking over what you've said. I may not be able to say much here until tomorrow afternoon.

Consistency is easy. Frank has been "consistent" against George. It means nothing to me.

Also, I'd call George's outlier votes a distinctly bad thing.

George Costanza wrote: ↑Fri Oct 20, 2017 6:12 pm I got some catching up to do.

Some notes:
1. I haven't had a good game. I've never been this distracted IRL and played a game before, so to claim it's my worst yet is an understatement. HOWEVER, I haven't given up despite being dead wrong in my initial intuition leaning towards Leo (and gosh damn it is hard when people don't post so much and when they do post their characters are sleazy and creepy and have weird eyebrows), I still feel something off with Frank. Maybe because I hate being wrong and I'm just stubborn or whatever, but I can't shake it off.

I sounds like you've conclusively decided that Leo is a civilian. I'd be interested to hear about what leads you to that read.

George Costanza wrote: ↑Fri Oct 20, 2017 6:12 pm 2. Why was my EOD4 so bad, Jerry? I mean, more so than my usual?

3. I genuinely got upset when Whatley flipped. I was happy we caught a scum of course, but really felt bad about my reads. When I posted that post about how it's not possible to have 2 cops? Elaine made fun of me, but that was me feeling dumbfounded and genuinely bad at how wrong I was about someone. Right after I'd gotten it wrong about Leo too.

These are related so I'll answer together. I can easily forgive you for being wrong about Whatley. I don't think that's a good reason to suspect somebody, at least not at face value -- indeed, civilians are inherently prone to wrongness given their lack of information. That's the point! However, I am concerned that your efforts at the very end of Day 4 were so kind to Whatley that I am forced to question your sincerity. You went to some trouble to supply a civilian read in that case, and it could have swayed the lynch permanently onto Leo (and if Leo is a civilian that sends us to LyLo).

However, I'll also state that I am more concerned about your reception of the Jackie Chiles analyses than anything else. The arguments you raised are familiar to me, and in the wrong way.

George Costanza wrote: ↑Fri Oct 20, 2017 6:12 pm4. I think most of the basis to why I would vote for Peterman at this point is because he's someone who's been as confused and absent as Whatley. On the other hand, Frank isn't that much better but he is still a tad better + he was ID'd civ by our cop so the misfortune of targeting a dead player on night 1 and the godfather on night 2 is only something I'm capable of I think.

Given that the last mafioso must be a godfather mechanically speaking, the civilian ID on Frank is no longer relevant. The cop could ID any player remaining right now and the result would be civilian for everyone.

~~~

Most importantly, your cases for and against the other players in the suspect pool is what is likely to decide how I read you (and Steinbrenner too perhaps among others). The merit and usefulness of self-defense has is minimal at this point.

Frank Costanza wrote: ↑Fri Oct 20, 2017 3:27 pm Gonna be occupied for most of the weekend starting very soon. Peterman, that vote on me is as rotten as a week-old herring. I didn't think you were bad, and I know I'm not bad, so why go for me other than that I'm the number two suspect on Jerry's list and thus the easiest mislynch?

It's got to be either George or Peterman, then. I'm good, and Uncle Leo's weirdo self-vote actually worked to help lynch a baddie.

Why vote for George after making this observation?

I'm always listening, [mention]J Peterman[/mention]. Could you express what your primary concerns are with Frank?