The Syndicate

November

I expect to die tonight. I've shared everything I can think to say at this point, so I don't have any new legacy reads to add. I'll just leave this post again for any questions about why I'm confident it's Peterman. Good game, win or lose y'all. Be the Astros, not the Yankees.

November

I obviously want everyone who's still alive to continue talking everything other. If the consensus is that we should take an extra day, do that. But I am confident enough to vote for Peterman right now, and I have been for a couple of days. I've been swayed off of wanting to vote for everyone else multiple times.

November

I'm nearly confident enough to vote for Peterman now.

November

It's between Peterman and George for me and an extra 72 hours doesn't add much.

November

Jerry Seinfeld wrote: ↑Sun Oct 22, 2017 2:54 pm 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.

I think it's pointless. They'll just kill you and me, and (I think) no one is considering voting for either of us. The suspect pool is not being reduced.

November

Jerry
Leo
George
Peterman

November

The George vs. Peterman argument for me hinges on how each of them was treated by the other two mafia. Jackie and Whatley both avoided Peterman completely until he was looking like a slam dunk lynch, for the most part. But they also both started to "suspect" George at around the same time, in a game in which George has professed to being stretched thing on time and energy. I could potentially see that as a behind the scenes agreement to bus their struggling teammate for credit.
The second point feels like more of a stretch, and I don't think the Whatley/Bania pairing was much better off than George at the start of the game, so for the team to agree to bus a player who was far from their least active member seems to be lacking in a bit in strategy.

Also the simple fact that George's contributions have been much stronger in this game. If it comes down to a coin flip, I'd rather lose to George's 100+ posts than Peterman's 17. I don't think we'll need a coinflip.

November

Jerry Seinfeld wrote: ↑Sat Oct 21, 2017 10:39 pm
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.

As of right now, I agree with your conclusion. I'd like to know how everyone else is feeling as well.

November

George Costanza wrote: ↑Sat Oct 21, 2017 7:05 pm Some reasons that make me question my vote:
1. He was there when Elaine self-proclaimed vigilante on Day 2. So following my line of thought in #1 above, despite her claim being bogus, it was suspicious. If I was scum, and I saw it, I would have most likely targeted her on Night 2, unless I was attempting to frame her but even then I would have targeted her Night 3 instead of Night 4 - especially when she claimed she wasn't out of shots.

I do not think this point should be applied to Peterman, but George's application of it makes me feel a bit better about them. The mafia team knows that there is no vigilante in this game from the start. They have a godfather, and according to the matrix, this means the town power roles must be a 2-shot tracker and a 2-shot cop. The entire mafia team (presumably) would have known Elaine's vig claim was bogus from the start. I think this contributed to her survival in the game.
On the flip side, George is making this observation, and the thought process appears genuine to me. This feels like an earnest assessment of George's reasons for and against a Peterman vote yesterday. That this thought existed in his mind tells me that he had not considered the point, and thus was not aware of the falseness of Elaine's first roleclaim at the time it happened.

November

That game was a real heartbreaker, love-taker, shoemaker.

November

Big Stein is inconsolable.

November

I'll review things later. Mr. Steinbrenner insists that I remain focused on Game 7 right now though. Our dear Yankees are in a hole right now, it's just dreadful.

November

So... Peterman?

November

My most confident read in the game right now is that Jerry is town.

November

This massive post is a comprehensive account of my thoughts RE: all of you. I came out of it believing firmly that Peterman is scum. Nothing has changed my mind, but doubts about George have become more prevalent. I'll have more to say after I've read this EOD phase.

November

George Costanza wrote: ↑Sat Oct 21, 2017 9:27 pm
George Costanza wrote: ↑Sat Oct 21, 2017 8:20 pm I'd like to know what the argument for Peterman and not Frank is from Big Stein.

I'd like a bullet point list of why Peterman from anyone. 3 reasons.

Frank's tunneling of you was not believable as a scum tactic, and his last post on Day 4 was to proclaim Peterman as the least likely scum player among the non-confirmed. If he was scum, Peterman would have been the first person he'd be pushing for.

November

November

I am out and am not likely to return prior to the deadline. I hope that we all make good decisions tonight. Sorry I can't hear you out, Georgey boy.

November

George Costanza wrote: ↑Sat Oct 21, 2017 3:43 pm I haven't given up yet, but if I am lynched, please look into Frank/Peterman or possibly Jerry! Analyze Jerry. Everyone's kinda given him carte blanche and he's not confirmed townie. I am not in a timely position to do an analysis tonight but it's worth looking into.

Do you have time to analyze these people today?

November

Uncle Leo wrote: ↑Sat Oct 21, 2017 3:33 pm Vote moved to George per the conversation that has taken place today. I'm away for the day but can check to potentially move the vote again closer to EOD. I'm really not feeling Peterman based on his vote record but that is faulty instinct at work and not necessarily based on analysis laid out by the group.

If you can, tell me more about your thoughts on Peterman's vote record.

November

George and Peterman are about even in my mind. I'm voting for George because that's where the other votes are. I'm confident that it's one of those two, but I do not know which one. I wouldn't hate splitting the votes between them if we can't reach a consensus.

November

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.

November

George Costanza wrote: ↑Sat Oct 21, 2017 1:43 pm
George Steinbrenner wrote: ↑Sat Oct 21, 2017 1:39 pm Moved my vote to George. I do not expect to be here for the EOD proceedings again. George can easily put his vote on Frank to force a tie at this point. @J Peterman @Uncle Leo, please be cautious and considerate of where you place your votes. If the town splits its votes, then the remaining mafia can just force a tie and put this lynch in the hands of a coin or something.
If we are going to split the votes, I'd rather it be on the two players I suspect most. I'd rather not split the votes at all.
You're making a mistake. I will address your posts, and hope you can show up and read them before EOD.

That's what everyone keeps telling me when I vote for them.

November

George Costanza wrote: ↑Sat Oct 21, 2017 1:40 pm Sorry guys, I'm on a deadline with a work project report. I promise I'll address as much as I can before end of day.

The Penske file?

November

Moved my vote to George. I do not expect to be here for the EOD proceedings again. George can easily put his vote on Frank to force a tie at this point. [mention]J Peterman[/mention] [mention]Uncle Leo[/mention], please be cautious and considerate of where you place your votes. If the town splits its votes, then the remaining mafia can just force a tie and put this lynch in the hands of a coin or something.
If we are going to split the votes, I'd rather it be on the two players I suspect most. I'd rather not split the votes at all.

November

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"

I made the same observation as George here, but while he seems to have followed it to a scum pairing of Whatley/Frank, I followed it to a pairing of Whatley/Peterman. I'd like to know how your thoughts have developed from here, George.

November

George Costanza wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 6:27 pm 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.

George's criticism of Jerry's initial vote from him after lynching Jackie is something that will never make sense to me. Jerry did some pretty heavy lifting and analyzed a ton of content, posted all of his findings in the thread, and then came out with a vote for George. George's response was to call that a lazy and terrible vote. Huh?

November

George Costanza wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 6:10 pm 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 read the same tone in this post as well. "I'm voting for Whatley because it will make me look good."

November

George Costanza wrote: ↑Tue Oct 17, 2017 3:41 pm
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.

This isn't exactly a rousing defense of my initial criticism of George's previous post. Just more of the same, really. "I could be doing all sorts of shady things, but look at me not doing those things!" This doesn't strike me as a very townie mindset. Something like "I didn't vote Newman because x, and Player B was more suspicious because y" would have been a much more natural response than "I don't want to look bad."

November

I think I can comfortably narrow my POE down to George and Peterman at this point as well. Frank's gameplay has been at times frustrating from the perspective of someone who's trying to analyze him, but I see very little room to interpret his behavior as distinctly villainish. Leo has been eliminated for reasons previously stated.

November

George Costanza wrote: ↑Sat Oct 21, 2017 12:59 pm
George Steinbrenner wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 11:46 pm I do not like Frank's game-long tunneling of George, but I have to ask myself whether I think it's something that a scum player would do. He's been calling for George's lynch since Day 1, but has not yet provided any really substantial case for why it should happen. That almost seems too bold to be a scum strategy.
His reasons are because I suspected my mother, who seemed unsuspicious to everyone else and flipped and of course Jackie's parting words on how I'm scum.

Again, if we take into account Jackie named three players: me, Elaine and Frank. Since Elaine is confirmed town, and I know I'm town, that leaves Frank. Is it possible Jackie named three townies? Yes... But it seems a little less likely when he had two other team mates to keep both of them in one group. This is just one reason to why I feel Frank is suspect.

I'd like to hear all the reasons.

November

George Costanza wrote: ↑Sat Oct 21, 2017 12:55 pm
Frank Costanza wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 8:35 pm
Jerry Seinfeld wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 8:24 pm
Frank Costanza wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 8:22 pm It looks like nobody else is going on George, so I'll switch to Whatley. I can see the argument for him being bad, even though my gut says he's not. And obviously my gut has been wrong on several different occasions this game.
Is there anyone for whom you cannot see the argument for their being bad? Disregard Elaine, Steinbrenner, and I.
Other than me? I think Peterman is having fun roleplaying and isn't worried enough to be mafia. Anyone else is fair game, particularly Leo for that self-vote nonsense.

Linki: WTH?
Linki: And my gut was wrong! Hooray for listening to people!
The Hooray for listening to people! rubs me the wrong way. It's like he's really trying to blend in and be non-confrontational or cause alarm towards himself.

Hey George, tell me how that highlighted section makes sense if Frank is scum.

November

I don't like any of this post:

George Costanza wrote: ↑Tue Oct 17, 2017 3:27 pm
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.

Downplays the alleged aggression in this post from Day 1 by explaining that Jerry was not the sole target of this interrogation, but the "obsession" line still reads as aggressive phrasing. "What are you trying to say?" is more open to interpretation, but something about this response and the original post seems incongruous to me.

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.

TheThe first line is worthless. My criticism was about this particular list of suspects that George made on Day or Night 1. I am not interested in how those reads developed from here, I am interested in what they were at this exact moment. But George deflects it by saying "Yeah but that changed." This is totally irrelevant to me.
The middle paragraph might be my least favorite thing anyone has said in this game, and I pointed it out at the time. "I couldn't jump on the bandwagon, even though it would probably have made me seem less suspicious in some ways." Gross. Yuck. This gives the impression that George's primary concern on Day 1 was casting a vote that would not make him look bad. There are three players in the game who would be employing a strategy like this, and they're the three players we're all trying to lynch. He doesn't want to be a part of a bandwagon that he knows won't look good because he wants to look good. Not because Newman is a bad lynch or anyone else is a better one, but for the sake of appearances.

November

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.

George Costanza wrote: ↑Sun Oct 15, 2017 2:23 pm
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.

Jackie and George both prodded each other, and both responded casually to the other. Without any sense of nervousness or defense. I could see these being teammate interactions. Especially in George's case, as most of the other time he has responded to suspicion with some occasionally severe back-against-the-wall type defense. An example

November

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.

Considering this admission, George is a prime candidate for bussing. A mafia player who is too busy to keep up with the game will, in my experience, usually welcome their teammates to bus them, or at least stand down from resisting it.
Both Jackie and Whatley turned abruptly on George as a leading suspect around Night 2/Day 3:

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.

Tim Whatley wrote: ↑Sat Oct 14, 2017 1:24 pm I guess I should share where my head is at if I am to ask this of others. Joining in Day 2 I was very much fixated on Elaine and Jerry. So much so that I've decided to take a step back and review other leads and questions I have.

I'm curious about the Soup Nazi and Stein voters from day 1. I'm reviewing them now.

I could currently vote for Costanza or Elaine.

Jerry, I'm unsure what to think. Truth be told, I'm unsure if I'm suspicious of Jerry, or just afraid.

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.

His analysis
Jackie did name George as a "distant third" suspect on Night 1, but the dramatic turn came around Night 2/Day 3, roughly the same time as Whatley. I could see George permitting his teammates behind the scenes to go after him to earn some townie points and free him from the commitment to this game. If this was the strategy employed, it completely backfired.

November

I should ISO Georgey Boy.

November

Peterman, I appreciate your efforts in spite of time constraints and know how difficult that can be. However, your low activity has very little to do with my reasons for suspecting you and, as such, your apology does nothing to sway me. I know you feel behind, but the best thing you can do (for my sake, at least) is to dive into the content being thrown around in this thread right now.

November

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.

If you put on your investigative pants and have to choose one or the other, is it George or is it Peterman?

November

The Costanzas are still wrestling on my floor for those second and third spots though.

November

Leo is fourth on my list of four possible bad guys. I don't see myself casting a vote for him at any point in this game.

November

I see what you are saying and agree with it.

November

Jerry Seinfeld wrote: ↑Fri Oct 20, 2017 1:45 pm Of the four names in the "pool" entering today, I think the strongest case for each being civilian is as follows:

Frank Constanza
~ His chosen strategy of tunneling George all game long hasn't helped him to earn trust, but he hasn't abandoned it. This may evidence sincerity.
~ He didn't interact with Whatley or Bania even a single time prior to D4.
~ I think his D4 interactions with Whatley help him more than hurt him.
~ At the end of D4, he named Peterman as the most likely civilian in the POE pool -- the same guy who should logically be his mislynch teddy if he's mafia.

How compelling is this? Decently compelling.

George Costanza
~ He's been the most active and engaged player among the four.
~ It's plausible enough to consider that Jackie may have left him dangling as a low-hanging fruit in his post history.
~ Whatley's early reception of George's D4 burst of activity looks resigned rather than supportive.

How compelling is this? Barely compelling.

J Peterman
~ He has the lowest post count of the four, and hasn't seemed to care all that much about the pressure he's faced all game.
~ He left his vote alone on me (instead of a more viable counterwagon) throughout D3 when he ought to have been expecting his own demise, before Elaine's tracker reveal.

How compelling is this? Not very compelling.

Uncle Leo
~ At face value, I think his contributions have appeared the most genuine of the four.
~ His self-vote maneuver on D4 significantly increased his likelihood of being lynched (even after he moved his vote back to Whatley). If he's mafia, he must be the godfather, and this would mean he was putting his own critical role at serious risk to save/distance from Whatley -- with the potential of clearing Frank. There's questionable strategy and there's nonsense.

How compelling is this? Quite compelling.

I encourage anyone else to provide additional reasons, or to contest the reasons I provided, as you see fit.

What does this mean?

November

Yes, I did not mean to imply waiting til after the lynch to re-evaluate those things. Just that him being town demands re-evaluation. It should be done now while we're all here.

November

@ everyone else, what reason is there to town read those two?

November

[mention]Frank Costanza[/mention] who is bad?
[mention]J Peterman[/mention] who is bad?

November

I don't have time for an in depth analysis right now, but with a gun to my head based off of what I did last night, I'd say George is more likely than Frank at this point. That last post of Frank's where he said he doesn't see Peterman being scum strikes me as backwards scum play and I do not see it being the case. I feel plenty good about George as well at this point too, but if Peterman flips town then there's a lot of things that need to be re-evaluated.

November

Leo, what are your thoughts on Frank?

November

So uh, voting Peterman. Anyone want to talk about that?

November

Great game, Epiglaine. We'll give the scum the final death blow for you.

November

George Steinbrenner wrote: ↑Thu Oct 19, 2017 6:12 pm
J Peterman wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 6:43 pm Frank - I've agreed with Frank on some occasions. They've been some of the few posts I've actually made! But I agreed on the wrong things, such as his Puddy comment. The vote record isn't great, except that last one getting Jackie. But then again, I suppose I could say that of anyone, considering we've only caught one baddie. Oh, and this little nugget:
Jerry Seinfeld wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 1:48 pm (chart cut)

Note though: Frank, Bania, and Whatley have never said a word to or about one another in this game thread. It's not typical mafia behavior, but I am not sure it'd be surprising in this scenario wherein both player slots have generally been populated by low posters.
I have a friend of a friend of a friend in Czechoslovakia (is that what they're calling it these days?) who has pulled this sort of stunt as a baddie on more than one occasion, so it puts the possibility of Frank being bad a little closer.
Hmmmmmmmm? "It puts the possibility of Frank being bad a little closer." What on earth is this? This is a joint accusation against Frank AND Whatley. Jerry's point is that Frank and Whatley TOGETHER could be scum because they've not interacted up to this point. Peterman responds to it by saying that he can foresee this meaning that Frank is scum. Just Frank. Not Whatley. But in order for this theory to even be applicable to Frank, Whatley must also be scum. But Peterman does not mention Whatley. He glosses over him, and moves onto spinning the case against Frank. Is this a simultaneous scum-slip and hand-in-the-cookie-jar catch? Am I seeing this right? Somebody help.

What about this post? Am I missing something or is this an obvious slip up?

Search found 199 matches