A look at Tim Whatley's treatment of all players still in my POE pool:
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.
For context, prior to this post Whatley had focused pretty much exclusively on players that are currently either confirmed town (Soup Nazi, Estelle) or near-confirmed (Elaine, Jerry). The next player he turned his focus on was George with this generic mafia prod. It's not an accusatory prompt, but it does come from out of left field and seems to be an effort to at least establish basis for suspicion (the middle question). I am more inclined to think that a scum player would be more direct in an accusation against a teammate. A bus is usually a deliberate action, but this setup feels very timid from Whatley, like he didn't want to do anything too abrupt to upset George and draw
his suspicion. So I'll chalk this up as a positive for George, but I'm open to other interpretations.
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.
This is more direct evidence of my theory above. Whatley was almost certainly trying to establish a basis for suspecting George in his previous post, and here he's become bold enough to state it out in the open. This does not feel like a bus, and all of his other targets so far are town. He then does an interesting thing by pledging to take a look at the people who voted for the Mr. Steinbrenner and the Soup Nazi. Which brings us too...
Tim Whatley wrote: ↑Sat Oct 14, 2017 1:43 pm
@Uncle Leo, why did you vote Stein day one? Your vote on Puddy, was that you crying "No you?"
Uncle Leo wrote: ↑Thu Oct 12, 2017 10:07 pmpeterman
-why: hasn't said much of anything substantial. voted for Puddy
Arent you in the same boat?
This is a juicy post. At the center of Whatley's accusation are Uncle Leo and Peterman. The accusation is being spun
against Leo, but it can also be read as a soft defense of Peterman. If I am assuming George is town, then to this point Whatley has not wavered from pursuing townies exclusively. I'd be playing with fire if I tried to state definitively whether or not his strategy was to only pursue non-teammates and leave his partners alone in the thread, but he has appeared to be trending this way thus far. It would be a rather sharp turn, after pushing so hard against nothing but townie, to suddenly spin his focus onto a relatively unsuspected teammate in Leo (hypothetically speaking). So, if I am rolling with that logic, I am brought to the other player involved in this triangle, J. Peterman. Whatley is using a line of accusation against Leo here that, by its nature and by his own admission, must also apply against Peterman. Yet he singularly targets Leo in this post, and by virtue of this is also deflecting the criticism away from Peterman.
Granted, if we flip the supposed alignments of Peterman and Leo here then we can say that he chose to pursue Leo with this accusation and not Peterman because he was only interested in distancing. Either way, this post strikes me as being deliberately targeted at Leo but not Peterman for one reason or another. Leo's response will be worth looking at once I'm done here.
Tim Whatley wrote: ↑Sat Oct 14, 2017 3:12 pm
Sien, what do you think of Uncle Leo's vote for you? What do you want right now?
He asked for my thoughts on Leo's day 1 vote and then seems to be goading me into something unspecific. I should have been more alarmed at that in the moment. That second question is totally directionless. Word vomit is all it is. But the main point here is the continued push against Leo. He's clearly moved on to that angle, and I'm feeling more and more like Whatley's strategy was to incite confusion and town-on-town violence. I do not think scum players tend to bus
indirectly like this. He appears to be trying to plant seeds of suspicion against Leo in my brain rather than making an original accusation here. I'm feeling more good vibes toward Leo.
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.
This post came ~20 hours after his previous post, and towards the end of the phase but not quite in End of Day mode yet (ie, prior to Elaine's big news). If memory serves me correct, Peterman was looking like a highly likely lynch at this point. Whatley's only previous involvement with Peterman was the aforementioned soft deflection via accusation against Leo, but here he casts an unapologetic vote against him (and would later claim this was done for the sake of reactions, but that is the second most bogus claim he made all game). A vote for Peterman at this time would not be critical to his lynch, but it would certainly contribute to it; a textbook bandwagon vote. I am torn here. My investigation up to this point has brought me to suspect that Whatley has been actively working to get a townie lynched. All of his suspicions and accusations suggest as much. So if he's voting for Peterman here, there should be some suggestion that Peterman is just another expendable townie.
On the other hand, for all of Whatley's angling prior to this vote, he never once mentioned Peterman and, if anything, appeared to to defend him despite Peterman being public suspect #1 for most of this time. If Whatley wanted to push us towards lynching a townie, here is his easiest target. Instead he kept his distance until a lynch seemed inevitable, or at least immanently likely. I can assume that this vote was cast under the assumption that Peterman was most probably going to be revealed at the end of this day phase. With that in mind, we need to consider how he would have wanted to appear after Peterman's flip. If Peterman is town, then Whatley is hopping on a mislynch, despite having no prior ties to the bandwagon or any observable reason to want to contribute to it. That's the type of move that draws a lot of attention from townies everywhere. If Peterman is bad, then Whatley has a chance to score some townie points by jumping on a successful scum lynch when there was just enough open space for the vote to have
some influence on the final outcome, but not so much that he was integral to the lynch. If Whatley's endgame here was his standing in the thread post-lynch, then this looks like a very possible bus vote. If he's angling to get a townie lynched, then this is a scummy as hell vote. But Peterman didn't get lynched, so we can't know for sure yet. It's also worth noting that if Peterman is scum, he's the godfather and I had not yet made my role public, so protecting the godfather as much as possible would have been a priority for the bad guys. Both Jackie and Whatley made no attempts to pursue Peterman at any time in the thread.
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?
Denies responsibility for needing to justify his Peterman vote. Yuck. He's comfortable enough to cast a vote, but not enough to discuss reasons for voting. I don't know if this tells me a whole bunch about Peterman, but it's definitely a bad look for Whatley. Not that that matters anymore. I might say I have a slight indication to read this in Peterman's favor. If they are partners, then it shouldn't be too much of a challenge to look into Peterman's 7 posts and pull out something that smells guilty. But I could say that regardless of Peterman's alignment, so null.
George Costanza wrote: ↑Sun Oct 15, 2017 2:37 pm
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.
I'm noticing a trend of people who just didn't give a damn about their day one vote. How is this acceptable?
Disgusted by George's Day 1 carelessness. This does not look like a teammate interaction to me.
Tim Whatley wrote: ↑Tue Oct 17, 2017 11:53 pm
Good evening everyone. I'd like to apologize for my absence today. The office was slammed.
Regarding my Peterman vote without much reason, truth is there was none other than me wanting to gauge reactions. I figured if Peterman was bad, I should pressure vote and see who scrambles. This didn't happen.
I probably would've swapped to Leo or Elaine if it weren't for her hard claim.
I will review my suspects tomorrow. Until then, goodnight.
Now that Peterman is not in the line of fire, Whatley pulls back his suspicion and denies that it ever existed in the first place, and then lets us know that Leo is still on his radar.
Tim Whatley wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 6:25 pm
And my pressure vote on Peterman? Is there anything wrong with that? am I supposed to not hunt and generate information? Also, to go back to the events of my Peterman vote, if I had a reason other than it being a pressure vote, why the hell did I swap to Chiles?
More hard denial that he ever had a reason to suspect Peterman. This is not a good look for the P-man.
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?
Leo, Frank, and George. This marks the very first time all game that he's mentioned Frank in any capacity, which is certainly worth noting. It's also worth noting that he names every non-inner circle player left in the game except for Peterman. So I really don't know what to make of this post. He is most actively pursuing George here. At this point Whatley was either making one last push to spin a lynch against a townie, or trying to serve us heaps of WIFOM for after his flip. If it's the former (as I'm more inclined to believe, given the volatile nature of yesterday) then George is his strongest "suspect" here, and thus the player who I am most inclined to read favorably in this post. Leo and Frank receive passing mentions and nothing more, but Leo has been a consistent target for Whatley since his entry into this game and I continue to view Leo favorably for it. Frank is a mystery and his placement here was essentially a necessity from Whatley. It could very well be that he made no mention of Frank earlier because they're teammates and he didn't want to accidentally get tangled up in lynching the godfather, or it could be that he simply paid Frank no mind. I don't know.
Tim Whatley wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 6:57 pm
J Peterman wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 6:43 pmTim Whatley - Good Jackie vote last round. My issue at this point is that he keeps saying he voted me and is voting people for reactions, but I haven't seen much of what intel he's actually garnered from these so-called reactions. It makes me think he's just saying that to say something. Have I missed an explanation?
Let's talk about how Elaine's hard claim came shortly after, hindering the time I had to judge. The only person I saw a reaction from was Jerry, but Jerry is... Y'know a troublemaker. Unless you are scum Peterman, his reaction meant little.
Tim Whatley wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 6:57 pm
J Peterman wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 6:43 pmTim Whatley - Good Jackie vote last round. My issue at this point is that he keeps saying he voted me and is voting people for reactions, but I haven't seen much of what intel he's actually garnered from these so-called reactions. It makes me think he's just saying that to say something. Have I missed an explanation?
Let's talk about how Elaine's hard claim came shortly after, hindering the time I had to judge. The only person I saw a reaction from was Jerry, but Jerry is... Y'know a troublemaker. Unless you are scum Peterman, his reaction meant little.
Ah, here's the first true interaction with either Peterman or Frank. Peterman calls him out for the faux-pressure vote (because duh), but that tacked on question at the end gives the accusation a tentative feel. Whatley's response is sharply defensive and he blames his failing tactics on Elaine's supremacy. His concluding sentence is a head-scratcher. "Unless you are scum Peterman, [Jerry's] reaction meant little." He's only hypothetically acknowledging the possibility of Peterman being scum despite a supposed POE list of 4 players which absolutely should include him, after already naming everyone but him as a suspect. It's possible that Whatley was cultivating this arms-length relationship with Peterman to mislead us, but I can also read this as two teammates whose backs are up against the wall trying to interact with each other without either of them incriminating the other too much. It feels stiff. I don't think this looks good for Peterman.
Tim Whatley wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 7:06 pm
Jerry Seinfeld wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 6:52 pm
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?
Tell me more about Leo and Frank. I'll give you two options, please address one or both:
1) Why do you suspect Leo and Frank most?
2) Why do you suspect George and Peterman less?
1) Leo's vote day 2 pinged me hard and that ping never went away. Frank because of POE, but I must admit that Peterman and George can be swapped with Frank, but that leads me to...
2) My reads of George are tonal. I just don't read him as mafia, even recent posts I read tonally as civ, but the problem I have is that I know there's some bias. Part of me wants to believe he's civ because I want to be right on that judgment call. The same bias applies to you and Elaine. I don't think we had a tie between two mafia, so I'm excluding Peterman.
Leo is town. Whatley has been weaseling his way toward this suspicion for a long time. It does not feel like a bus attempt. He offers no real comment on either Frank or Peterman, which is a concern. I am growing more and more confident that one of those two is the godfather, but Whatley's entire comment on Frank is "POE" and he dismisses Peterman as a suspect because there's no way town is good enough to have forced a tie between two mafia players yesterday. I like neither of these things, though I suppose I'd be inclined to say that the Peterman comment is the worse look. He's still offering a defense of him, and "Frank is a POE suspect" is a given at this point and also gives him a reason to swing his vote to Frank if the thread dictates it. But I don't get anything strong from this post.
Then he votes for Leo. Leo is town.
Tim Whatley wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 7:09 pm
During day 3, no one seemed to hard oppose a Peterman vote. The only person that jumped at my pressure vote was you, and I don't think you had malice while jumping at it.
More defense of Peterman. During Day 4, Tim Whatley seemed to hard oppose a Peterman vote.
Tim Whatley wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 7:23 pm
Frank Costanza wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 6:35 pm
Alright, I'm back, SERENITY NOW'ed, and ready to vote for George now that Jerry has also seen the light. Will look at Whately just to be fair.
He looks to me like a civilian being thrown into the game and wanting to engage with the main posters, make sure they didn't escape suspicion. That both of those main posters have turned out to look eminently civ is just the way the game unfolded.
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.
The thing that looks worst to me is this.
Regarding my Peterman vote without much reason, truth is there was none other than me wanting to gauge reactions. I figured if Peterman was bad, I should pressure vote and see who scrambles. This didn't happen
That's after previously defending the vote with this:
Interesting. What should I say over his 7 posts that hasn't been said already?
That strikes me as a lack of transparency, which isn't a great look at this point in the game, when we're all really scrambling to solve and avoid LYLO. My gut says it's good for him to come clean rather than fabricate a reason, but I realize that's open to interpretation.
In summary, I still think George is a stronger suspect based on what he's said about Estelle and Jackie.
Regarding this, would you say that this makes sense following my reveal of this being a pressure vote or not? How was my vote supposed to be transparent, when I had no real reason for it other than for observation? I want to know why you are valuing transparency here as it seems to be irrelevant to me.
Finally, Frank and Whatley are interacting. Frank came in late and shared his two cents on the dentist. He gave him a light town read, but then provided basis for suspicion (the Peterman pressure vote, again duh). I don't think this is a great looking post for Frank. The accusation again feels a bit tentative and reserved, but I do like (at least a little) that he provided a town read but then dug up and shared a reason why he might go against that read. Whatley's response appears more defensive here compared to his response to Peterman's very similar accusation earlier in the phase (above). He asks pointed, borderline accusatory questions for Frank, which might suggest a little bit of panic as well as a knee-jerk reaction to push suspicion back against him. I think this response looks more hostile than his response to Peterman. Good look for Frank.
Tim Whatley wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 7:38 pm
@Uncle Leo If I vote Frank, what will you do?
A pledge to vote for Frank instead of Leo after the Leo self-vote fiasco. I dunno. Empty gesture and WIFOM city. I am inclined to think that Whatley wanted a townie to be lynched Day 4 and was conspiring toward that end. If this is the case, then Peterman looks much, much worse than Frank or anyone else. If, on the other hand, he was trying to put some distance between his teammate and himself, Frank looks worse. I am leaning toward the former, so I am leaning toward Peterman.