[ENDGAME] Seinfeld Mafia

[Nicol Bolas]

All of it. He's strange and beautiful and sensitive.

Can you show me something that inspired you in Frank's posts?

Oh God, Jerry, I just closed out the tab.

[Julinook]

Oh, Lanie.

[Nicol Bolas]

I'm changing my vote to that shyster, Chiles. I can say "Shyster," can't I?

Vote Jackie Chiles

[Nicol Bolas]

Is anybody here? I'm so lonely ever since I killed David.

[November]

What does "willingish" mean and why is Jackie your strongest mafia read?

[Nicol Bolas]

What does "willingish" mean and why is Jackie your strongest mafia read?

If you had a dictionary in that big ass office of yours, you would see that "Willingish" means I'm in the vicinity of willingnesshood.

I didn't say anything about a strongest mafia read, but the shyster spent a lot of time coloring when he could have been doing more productive things. Don't you agree?

[November]

What does "willingish" mean and why is Jackie your strongest mafia read?

If you had a dictionary in that big ass office of yours, you would see that "Willingish" means I'm in the vicinity of willingnesshood.

I didn't say anything about a strongest mafia read, but the shyster spent a lot of time coloring when he could have been doing more productive things. Don't you agree?

Maybe. That could just be how he organizes his thoughts. I don't think it was a particularly shady thing to do and I'm much more inclined to vote elsewhere for other reasons.

[Paul Stevens]

Jerry, you're dead wrong and I know it. Doing a hell of a job ordering the town conversation to bad ends there.

[Julinook]

I think it's fine and prudent to keep Jackie under the microscope for the moment. There's a good reason he hasn't been present much since Day 1 (glad you're improving!), but until he finishes the work as he pledged to do he is less easy to trust than he used to be.

I just ask that all civilians please do the best you can to make an appearance here late in the day phase tomorrow. If you're not going to be here at 8:30 EST for the deadline, get as close as you can. I don't want any of our quieter people placing some half-arbitrary vote with 7 hours remaining and then disappearing. That's exactly how the mafia team can control the lynch with their voting numbers.

Let's keep in mind that in an 11 vs. 3 game with 4 civilians down, we're in a 7 vs. 3 position. That leaves us exactly one mislynch for the remainder of the game. The margin for error has closed. Let's get this one right and set the trajectory for a strong finish. Imagine if Jerry Seinfeld ever actually said this shit. Such role play.

[Julinook]

Jerry, you're dead wrong and I know it. Doing a hell of a job ordering the town conversation to bad ends there.

Please show me where I'm wrong specifically.

I'm listening Frank. I don't think you absolutely must be mafia. I need to know what you're about though. What's your deal? Please address my concerns sooner than later -- if you wait hours and hours into tomorrow there may be too little time for it to matter.

Sense of urgency, people.

[Julinook]

Regarding Elaine:

I can conceive of a universe wherein she's just been having a ball with WIFOM in this game as a mafioso. It's a tinfoil I am taking seriously. However, with half the players making themselves impossible to trust given their consistent absence, I don't think it's likely I will vote for her barring a convincing argument.

If you're a civilian and people suspect you, freaking do something about it. Fight.

[Nicol Bolas]

Regarding Elaine:

I can conceive of a universe wherein she's just been having a ball with WIFOM in this game as a mafioso. It's a tinfoil I am taking seriously. However, with half the players making themselves impossible to trust given their consistent absence, I don't think it's likely I will vote for her barring a convincing argument.

If you're a civilian and people suspect you, freaking do something about it. Fight.

Nobody suspects me, Jerry. And wine isn't my thing. You should know.

[Principal Skinner]

@Uncle Leo, why did you vote Stein day one? Your vote on Puddy, was that you crying "No you?"

peterman
-why: hasn't said much of anything substantial. voted for Puddy

Arent you in the same boat?

Am I in the same boat? No. Why would you think i am? I’m pretty sure you know that I don’t believe I am in the same boat. Did you mean to say “you’re in the same boat.” ?

I believe I explained my vote for Stein earlier in the thread. If not, it’s because it was Day 1 and what did I have to go by? Not much. So his quickness to suspect me aroused suspicion in me.

[November]

I suspect you, Elaine.

[Nicol Bolas]

I suspect you, Elaine.

I'm just amazed that you managed a thought in five or fewer words.

[Julinook]

Why the Peterman vote, [mention]Uncle Leo[/mention]?

[Principal Skinner]

[quote="Jerry Seinfeld" post_id=376524 time=1508044580 user_id=243]
Why the Peterman vote, @Uncle Leo?

Jerry, Hello!

Vote for Peterman because this is a vote I am comfortable leaving in case I am unable to change it before end of day. More to come.

[Chuck]

[Larry David]

One moment. I'm reading the most fascinating article on the most fascinating people of the year.

And, done.

Hmmm, and we are all complaining about me and others piling votes? So I voted for a good banana twice. Kudos to me for a job...done. I know. But it's easy to know who's good when you know who's good, isn't it? And avoid them? I know I've hired my share of bad newtons, but their resumes looked so good!

I'm disengaged today, and I apologize. It's difficult this time around to keep up with all of you and your problems - what with heading the catalog, looking this good, moving to the fine nation of Burma - so I'm not as "in the loop" as you'd like me to be. You may take that as you will. I am still catching up, but while I do so today (why, some at this precise moment!) when I have time, I have exactly one and a half thoughts that have been bothering me:

Jerry, you have no conviction. Every round of these shenanigans, you pull the same shenanigans - you're all over the place and change votes with the tides of the moon. I don't mind a man who changes his mind (believe me, I'm glad I changed into my Italian cap toe oxfords, with their rich dark brown calfskin leather, on the night I ran with the bulls. Loafers just would not do that day.), but you? You vote, you whine, you look like you know what you want, and then you conveniently move away. Take this Puddy fellow. Jerry, you're after him for two days, all the while throwing suspicions this way and that, you even place votes on him and encourage others to place votes, and then you "don't like it" all of a sudden when people do. You accuse me of not having a substantive reason for voting him, yet you yourself don't have a substantive reason except lines like "Puddy is confirmed mafia." I agreed with this Frank character, yes - what you've been calling piggy-BACKING - but it was the thought I had while reading through the thread. Haven't you had the same thoughts as someone else, Jerry? Haven't you not wanted to repeat what everyone else had been saying and just DO? Perhaps not.

What will you do this time around? You yourself said that your Puddy accusation took off into an "easy lynch," and then whined that no one was taking you on your Peterman "conviction." What will you do this time, Jerry? Will you complain again and take yourself off the wagon? Have yourself some of that smack, that white palace, that Chinaman's nightcap on another vote, and get another civilian lynched with your hands clean? No. I won't let that happen.

Now that I'm done with this article, I hope I can read juuuuuust a little more on the rest of you less fascinating people. But my vote goes on Jerry. For now, in case I must run from the bulls again.

[Chuck]

Ok, let us dissect the Pubby fiasco voters from yesterday.

Witch Woman

Indirect mention of Poodie while unsatisfied with Seinfeld's Day 1 picks.
Indirect mention of Poodie while still arguing with Seinfeld over his Day 1 vote switch (pissy that he didn't move to tie things up, instead of switching his one vote on Poodie to a fourth on Newman). Relevance?
Day 2, votes Poodie. Reason?
Unvotes.
Votes Poodie (for not offering her... pie...)
Unvotes.
Votes Poodie (for...)
Unvotes; nothing thus far in her head except for this idiotic switch game.
Suddenly vexed that Poodie made zero efforts to defend himself.
High demands from Poodie when she virtually did NOTHING during the Day except flick the switch on him.

Absolutely awful.

Senility Now

Defends my honor and lashes at Poodie for low content and tunneling.
Doubles down, votes Poodie.
Stays on Poodie.

If scum, he did enough to have content written out there. If citizen, ech, he just went with what he chose, I suppose.

Bear Shills

Poodie and four others have no suspicions, choose Newman out of those four.
Not pleased with Poodie's take on what posts of mine are suspicious or not.
Notices his work slave's constant votes on Poodie despite her Night 1 focusing having been against Jerry. Then proceeds to vote Poodie, acknowledging he said a bit on him, but not more than that.
Day 3, fingerpointing back at Seinfeld's wishy-washiness surrounding Poodie.

Don't understand how the dots connect in the third post here. Aside from irrelevant remarks on Awful Woman, his reasons to vote Puddy remain thin overall. I don't dislike the more recent stuff he said, but it's also not devoid of the possibility of clinging on to something to use in his defense.

Undecided on this shady (and stinky - always coming in my restaurant as if he'd played live Jumanji) character.

Uncle Who

Read Poodie fine?
Very mild rebuttal at Poodie suspecting him.
Then OMGUSes him.
Incomprehensible post-lynch analysis.

Awful.

Ranked by shamefulness:

Witch > Leo > Mowgli > Costanza

[Chuck]

Jungleman, detach yourself for a second from any factual observations on Seinfeld's vote behaviour and run me your scenario in which he's a mobster, despite his role claims shenanigans.

[Julinook]

Soup Nazi, I don't entirely follow how you derived your conclusions from those analyses. What made Elaine and Leo particularly awful, for example?

[Chuck]

They lynched Poodie with zero in-thread reasoning? Hello?!

[Julinook]

They lynched Poodie with zero in-thread reasoning? Hello?!

Ehhhh. I suppose. I just tend to think mafia members do provide reasoning. It's just insincere.

General question: Peterman's response to returning to the thread to find himself at 3 votes alongside a few 1-vote recipients was to vote for me (previously zero votes). I'm not a likely lynch, and he did it anyway. Does this reflect a genuine inclination toward my being evil? I think it may.

[Chuck]

I wouldn't be surprised if one or two mobsters act on point, considering how the majority of players are still playing worse than headless chickens -
which means a good amount of civilians. Good luck using reverse psychology in your searches, if that's your flavor. On that note, Yankeeman? Still nothing but praise for that man? He's probably pouring money into your show, that's why. Those are dirty money, comedian.

[Chuck]

Oh, so you just moved on your lady friend, after contesting my read on her, because reasons?

[Julinook]

I wouldn't be surprised if one or two mobsters act on point, considering how the majority of players are still playing worse than headless chickens -
which means a good amount of civilians. Good luck using reverse psychology in your searches, if that's your flavor. On that note, Yankeeman? Still nothing but praise for that man? He's probably pouring money into your show, that's why. Those are dirty money, comedian.

I haven't found Steinbrenner suspicious at any juncture of this game. If he's mafia then I am quite fooled.

[Julinook]

Oh, so you just moved on your lady friend, after contesting my read on her, because reasons?

I felt like jumping ship on Peterman, and yanno she's there. Your grievance with her Puddy vote doesn't quite sell as well in my own head, but I did hate that wagon and she was on it. Indeed she was the only one on it still present at EOD when I was trying to steer away from it and she didn't acknowledge me.

[Chuck]

I felt like jumping ship on Peterman...

Day 1 "So what's the deal with Puddy"

Day 2 "No, forget Puddy, so what's the deal with Peterman"

Day 3 "No, forget Peterman, so..."

[Julinook]

I felt like jumping ship on Peterman...

Day 1 "So what's the deal with Puddy"

Day 2 "No, forget Puddy, so what's the deal with Peterman"

Day 3 "No, forget Peterman, so..."

It's called playing the game. The only read that means anything in any day phase is the last one before the deadline.

Unfortunately though it can't work when 3/4 of the players aren't around at EOD to facilitate the vote mobility we need after all conversation has been fielded.

[Julinook]

"Why do you change your vote so much Jerry?"

Because the rules say I can. I can change it 3,000 times if that's what is helping me sort through my thoughts, and every switch creates a new dialogue.

[Julinook]

Voted George. I've decided I hate this post.

<snip>

Leo

Why pick on Seinfeld of all the Newman lynchers. Picks up on Yankees mogul's phony slander of him, but doesn't act omgusy about it. Ludicrous notion of me and evil hex putting up a fight to distract the crowd. Up your dosage, old geezer!

Why Jerry? because he is the one that sealed Newman's fate by changing his vote (assuming no further actions were taken). If anything, that initial comment was more about me working in Jerry's incredible cousin Jeffrey, you know, at the Parks department.

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.

[Chuck]

I wasn't pointing out vote switches. I was pointing out flaking from previous suspects.

But let's just tune in three-four hours from now, when you'll start berating people for piling on Jungleman.

I don't care how it helps you clear your head. Give me the reasoning for voting your lady friend, in full writing, right here.

linki: well, nevermind then.

[Julinook]

Oh, so you just moved on your lady friend, after contesting my read on her, because reasons?

I felt like jumping ship on Peterman, and yanno she's there. Your grievance with her Puddy vote doesn't quite sell as well in my own head, but I did hate that wagon and she was on it. Indeed she was the only one on it still present at EOD when I was trying to steer away from it and she didn't acknowledge me.

[Julinook]

"Flaking"

Stupid. "If you suspected someone you have to lynch them, otherwise you're a flake."

Great, winning mindset.

[Chuck]

Oh, so you just moved on your lady friend, after contesting my read on her, because reasons?

I felt like jumping ship on Peterman, and yanno she's there. Your grievance with her Puddy vote doesn't quite sell as well in my own head, but I did hate that wagon and she was on it. Indeed she was the only one on it still present at EOD when I was trying to steer away from it and she didn't acknowledge me.

All I'm reading is "I don't quite agree with what you dislike about here", "she was on the mislynch" (duh) and "she contradicted me".

[Chuck]

"Flaking"

Stupid. "If you suspected someone you have to lynch them, otherwise you're a flake."

Great, winning mindset.

"If you bail out and steer clear on consecutive lynch piles during already a week of gameplay, you don't deserve any bit of eyeballing."

kay eff emm

[Julinook]

Oh, so you just moved on your lady friend, after contesting my read on her, because reasons?

I felt like jumping ship on Peterman, and yanno she's there. Your grievance with her Puddy vote doesn't quite sell as well in my own head, but I did hate that wagon and she was on it. Indeed she was the only one on it still present at EOD when I was trying to steer away from it and she didn't acknowledge me.

All I'm reading is "I don't quite agree with what you dislike about here", "she was on the mislynch" (duh) and "she contradicted me".

She was the only one on the mislynch would could have moved her vote. I was yelling for a different lynch. She didn't acknowledge the conversation and stood pat. I don't like that.

[Julinook]

"Flaking"

Stupid. "If you suspected someone you have to lynch them, otherwise you're a flake."

Great, winning mindset.

"If you bail out and steer clear on consecutive lynch piles during already a week of gameplay, you don't deserve any bit of eyeballing."

kay eff emm

If it's eyeballing, that's fine. Eyeball to your heart's desire. If it's criticism of a basic Mafia action (to change one's mind when the thread climate develops), then *obscene gesture*

[Chuck]

Oh, so you just moved on your lady friend, after contesting my read on her, because reasons?

I felt like jumping ship on Peterman, and yanno she's there. Your grievance with her Puddy vote doesn't quite sell as well in my own head, but I did hate that wagon and she was on it. Indeed she was the only one on it still present at EOD when I was trying to steer away from it and she didn't acknowledge me.

All I'm reading is "I don't quite agree with what you dislike about here", "she was on the mislynch" (duh) and "she contradicted me".

She was the only one on the mislynch would could have moved her vote. I was yelling for a different lynch. She didn't acknowledge the conversation and stood pat. I don't like that.

If she would have had a stronger case on the guy, you would have basically asked her to drop that and comply with a different path.

Not saying she did (in fact, exactly the opposite), but what's the clear baddie side in her having rebuked you (besides that you're a terrible kisser; she talks behind your back all the time; the drunker, the more she blurts out)?

Moments ago you implied mafia would do better than this. Better than unreasoned voting / piling. Perhaps even better than sinking their teeth into an obvious citizen flip, despite popular demand to reconsider?

"Mafia could pull better moves in this game - but wait, if someone did something I didn't like, yeah, they prolly bad."

Ughhh

[Julinook]

The scenarios are different. Explaining a vote is a piece of cake independent of context. Moving off of a mislynch late in a phase which would propel a mafia team forward is strategically dubious.

[Julinook]

Peterman and Leo: your appearances amounted to like three total posts. Please don't be civilians if that's the way it's going to be.

[November]

[Julinook]

Mr. Steinbrenner, thoughts on Peterman's latest post?

[Julinook]

Take this Puddy fellow. Jerry, you're after him for two days, all the while throwing suspicions this way and that, you even place votes on him and encourage others to place votes, and then you "don't like it" all of a sudden when people do. You accuse me of not having a substantive reason for voting him, yet you yourself don't have a substantive reason except lines like "Puddy is confirmed mafia."

I do want to address this, because it is annoying me. Regarding the highlighted portion, Mr. 7 posts, how dare you?

I substantiated my suspicion of Puddy once.

Twice.

I substantiated my change of heart in about 10 different posts.

[November]

Mr. Steinbrenner, thoughts on Peterman's latest post?

I wasn't too impressed. Your point is under consideration though, I guarantee that. He addressed exactly none of the problems my people have against them. Instead he tried to spin it against you for God knows why! Just babbling on and on without ever getting to the point! That sort of thing makes Big Stein sick! My gut tells me he's a player who has not read everything but wants to appear well-versed, and that sort of thing doesn't sit well with me. Always listen to your gut, that's the Yankee Way. My gut's telling me it's lunch time. Where's Costanza?
Where was I? Right, Mr. Peterman. He lashed out at you and that tells me he's not following closely but just picked the first name he could make a believable case against. A townie might say, "Hey I don't know what's going on here!" Or they might try to dig and look a little further. But this Peterman just acted like it's bonkers for us to suspect him and turned the blame right around on his most visible opponent. A distraction tactic is all it is! Smoke screen, the old switcheroo. I always tell my managers I want to see the hidden ball trick more in the Major Leagues. But we're not on the diamond here! This is serious!

[Julinook]

My gut is telling me that Peterman's wagon is less worrisome than Puddy's was, and I've rejoined it. I'm sort of falling back to the Peterman-Costanza-Costanza team, with Leo as an alternative option.

Elaine is my tinfoil suspect. I do think she has had some civilian moments though beyond the role claiming nonsense -- I appreciate her grievance with Jackie, for example. I don't entirely agree with it, but I understand it.

[Julinook]

I also keep forgetting Tim Whatley exists. That's not ideal.

[November]

Whatley had some fine moments early in the phase. Didn't stick around long, but that young man made an impression on Big Stein!
The strongest mafia pairing I see is Peterman/Elaine. I still feel like I'm onto something there. Elaine's had some good moments, but like the Soup Nazi said, there's probably one mobster who's pulling strings and looking good. I can see either one of the Costanzas being their third partner.

[November]

This post talks about my main issue with Elaine, or at least my starting point. I've not done a deeper analysis of her body of work yet. My next post (two down) is a full Peterman ISO, for anyone who cares.