[ENDGAME] Seinfeld Mafia

[November]

A rainbow list with thoughts prior to me doing any digging today:

Elaine Benes - Claimed tracker. This claim lines up with my own role in the matrix, has not been countered, and netted us a scum lynch. Elaine is as close to confirmed as can be. Leaving her alive for Day 4 was a silly move.

Jerry Seinfeld - Jerry would not do something silly like leave the most confirmed town player in the game alive with his team so close to victory. Also the only argument I can come up with for him being scum is that he's faking it perfectly. That Jerry Seinfeld, he's no phony.

Tim Whatley - I sensed some genuine urgency and investigation coming from Heisenberg when he popped in mid-Day 3.

Uncle Leo - Leo's thoughts have appeared the most organic and easy to follow among this group from the start of the game up til now.

Frank Costanza - He feels bad, but my ID on him says otherwise. Has to be the godfather if he's bad.

George Costanza - That last post was hideous. I've not looked too closely into the interactive reads yet, but there is a whopping pile of analysis against him there and his first move today was to come out and say the suspicion against him is "lazy" and "terrible", two qualities George Costanza should be most fond of. I think the digging it took to produce that read of George is the least lazy thing anyone has done in this game.

J. Peterman - I still feel like he's bad, though I should note that a part of my suspicion was that Peterman and Elaine seemed to have a really strained relationship in the thread, and Elaine has completely reversed my suspicion against her so I need to abandon that angle. I still can't feel good about Peterman's 8 posts. I may be chunneling. It seems every other post Peterman makes is a call for more activity, but he's yet to supply any himself.

[Julinook]

One question worth asking: why am I not dead?

I am comfortable attributing the Kramer and Estelle kills to power role hunting. They were both laying low. The Night 3 kill is more striking, in that they killed anyone other than a role claimer (Elaine or Steinbrenner), and they chose Soup Nazi over me. Soup and I have both enjoyed pretty comfortable games so far on the suspicion front, and we'd both likely have been difficult lynches compared to the lower post count population.

Should I care that they killed Soup Nazi instead of me? Is there a discernible motive for that given some disparity in Soup's reads versus my reads? Is this just aimless WIFOM?

[Julinook]

Something comes to mind: Elaine mentioned earlier that a lynch of the Godfather today, if not Frank, would confirm Frank as a civilian. This is true. Another truth is that a lynch of the remaining vanilla mafioso today would render Frank's chance of being mafia equivalent to all other candidates (his being checked by the cop would no longer have any mathematical importance).

[Julinook]

I'm going to engage in a little dangerous night kill analysis for Soup Nazi. I just stated that his being killed over me is something I've considered, and there is also at least one discernible motive I can conceive of to kill him over the two role claimers -- their reads. If the mafia team decides that none of the three (Elaine, Steinbrenner, and Soup Nazi) is going to be lynched, then they have less obvious interest in killing a role claimer given that both are claimed to be expended. Their choice can then be otherwise motivated. I want to see what Soup Nazi's reads looked like in his final day.

Soup's analysis of Puddy voters

He summarized his analysis as follows:

Witch > Leo > Mowgli > Costanza

This translates from Soupian to Elaine is more suspicious than Leo is more suspicious than Peterman is more suspicious than Frank.

Omit Elaine and perhaps this draws a visible motive for Leo and/or Peterman.

Spoiler: show

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?

You must be hungry for some falafel, little man, yet this is just fallacious.

He took a swat at George for the fallacious main character argument.

Further criticism of George qualified as "iffiness".

Soup wasn't impressed by Whatley either, though he was less conclusively accusatory in his language.

====================

This actually doesn't differ from my own reads at the time that much. He was most critical of George, Leo, and Peterman on Day 3. He was less critical than I was of Frank.

[mention]George Steinbrenner[/mention]
[mention]Elaine Benes[/mention]

Do Soup's Day 3 reads differ significantly from your Day 3 reads in any way that you find striking?

NOTE:

I understand that any night kill analysis is inherently going to equate to a big helping of WIFOM. It's also possible the mafia team made this kill choice because they wanted the civilians to over-analyze and veer off-track. That doesn't mean I won't at least explore the possibilities though.

[November]

I'm not going to bother ISOing Jerry and Elaine. If anyone wants me to elaborate on them, I will but I think my reasons are self-evident.

Tim Whatley/Kenny Bania

The only thought Bania contributed toward the game was a soft suggestion for less roleplay, whatever that is.

So I've just about read everything I'm going to and I have 3 specific points of interest.

What are our thoughts on Jerry? He's a troublemaker.

What are our thoughts on Elaine? She's here, but what has she contributed?

What happened to the Soup Nazi voters? What changed your mind?

Whatley's first serious contribution. He raises three issues and probes the threads for responses to them. I like this aas an entry point, But his follow-through is going to be the most important thing.

Also kinda shocked Jerry not NKed N1 when he's probably the SPK -- I have no idea who Kramer is even.

K bai

What is the purpose of this post?

Im glad you pointed this post out. I wondered if you would. Before Estelle answers, why do you think this post was made?

I can see an earnest line of thought behind this post and the question, but there's also clear potential for this to be scum seizing the opportunity to piggyback on a budding suspicion. This is one of many events in this game which never amounted to anything. I don't think Estelle ever addressed the concern, and there was no follow-up from Tim.

Don't be so upset Jerry, discussion will come.

Your theories regarding Steinbrenner, that's a lie isn't it? At least in regards to having deeper thought on him.

I still have no idea what this post means, but Mr. Steinbrenner told me to be alert for any mention of himself.

Spoiler: show

So I've just about read everything I'm going to and I have 3 specific points of interest.

What are our thoughts on Jerry? He's a troublemaker.

What are our thoughts on Elaine? She's here, but what has she contributed?

What happened to the Soup Nazi voters? What changed your mind?

I've contributed a lot, Tim. More than you have.

First of all, Tim is a re-gifter. A re-gifter people. Of a label maker. Does anybody use label makers anymore?

Why is he asking about the Soup Nazi? Doesn't his job prohibit stuff from touching his teeth? Does he make meth after hours? Doesn't meth ruin your teeth? Inquiring minds want to know!

Also kinda shocked Jerry not NKed N1 when he's probably the SPK -- I have no idea who Kramer is even.

K bai

What is the purpose of this post?

Im glad you pointed this post out. I wondered if you would. Before Estelle answers, why do you think this post was made?

This post though...the methy dentist guy is asking Jerry to answer for Estelle. Jerry refuses to answer- I think rightfully- but then Estelle is dead.

I'm going to borrow methy dentist guy's direction and rephrase the question:

Jerry, why do you think Elaine Costanza died instead of you or me?

Your not wrong, you have contributed more than me. Since joining up with you fellows I've not had the time to flesh out full reads. Just slight tonals from my skim.

In regards to Estelle not answering and then dying, if these events were related all it means is that the mafia can read. However, I wouldn't think that my question would prompt a kill.

Looking at the matrix, there's a cop, tracker, killer, or blocker. Someone should have some information by now. Get it together people.

Elaine, I understamd wanting to solve the game, but how should someone have solved the game when your throwing out misinformation?

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.

I don't know what the point of your little trick is, Jerry. You're making up false allegations about Big Stein, and for what? You want a piece of the Yankees? Talk to my people, see if they can cut you a deal. But you have to be straight with us. Honesty and integrity are a big part of what we do here at Yankee Stadium!

Yes. I'm definitely pulling a trick. Mmhmm. Definitely. You should spend the day making tons of reads. Yep.

Did you even vote him when you said this?

I'm not a big fan of Whatley's small concession to Elaine in the first section of this post ("[You're] not wrong..."). I see this as the sort of thing scum can do to de-escalate a mounting suspicion against themselves. But that's a very minor thing and I'm not about to launch an anti-dentite campaign around it. I also did not understand his accusation against Elaine's "spreading of misinformation" at the time and asked about it. Here's his response:

Do you feel like Elaine's misinformation is directly impeding your efforts to solve the game, Whatley?
And I can assure you Seinfeld voted for me earlier.

My efforts in specific, not at all, what bothers me is that she requests information from others. Why request that of us as a whole based on roles in play when she's lying about her role? What purpose does that carry?

Thank you for the vote information.

Still don't get it. False claiming is a viable and common strategy in a setup like this. Her purposes in doing it should be easily observable. She wants real information on the table because the game was getting on in days at this point and information is useful. Now we obviously know the full scope of Elaine's play. On revisiting this, I am less certain of this being a genuine thought process from Whatley than I was initially. It continued:

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.

" " followed by an out of the blue probe of George.

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.

Then he collects himself and injects some fresh thoughts into the thread. Nothing tremendously substantial here, but I like that he provides us with a glimpse into the direction of his mind. Could be scummy compensation, or it could be an honest look. There's definitely evidence in this post history to suggest that Jerry and Elaine were his most immediate suspects upon his entry, and wanting to take a step back from that sort of thing is usally a good thing. He then provides a new line for investigation and gives two tentative suspects. I'm not seeing why (George?) Costanza is one of them, but I don't object to him being a suspect.

@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?

Kicking the tires on the ole Uncle Leo investigation. I don't hate this.

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.

This is a true assessment, Whatley. Who knows what roles could be out there at this time? But I have a bone to pick with you here and Big Stein's gonna fight, you better believe that! First, you criticize Elaine because she asked for role claims. But then you can't point to any specific harm that could come from this. You gave a non-answer. The Yankees are all about answers! I don't know how you do it in dentistry, but here we get to the bottom of things! I'm as iffy on Elaine's roleclaim as anybody, but I don't understand what you're saying about her here.

I see, I interpreted what she was asking differently. I see no harm in asking for role claims. I see harm in people who are lying to make vague statements about needing to get more information.

This relates the core of our situation. We are always trying to get more information. I'm sure when we have more information and the time is right to share, we will. Elaine should know this.

Sien, what do you think of Uncle Leo's vote for you? What do you want right now?

This is the most complete explanation of his previous concerns about Elaine and roleclaims. I can understand the logic behind it, though I remain a little skeptical of the thought process which lead him there.
He continues his inquiry into Leo as a tack on, which I again do not hate.

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.

Looks to strike up a conversation with Jerry, a good look.
Votes for Peterman for what amounts to very little reason and 0 mentions of him prior to this, bad look.
Promises to maybe review a few players, we'll see.

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?

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?

I don't like the top half of this post. Denies responsibility for giving a reason behind his Peterman vote, and rejects Jerry's observation about him. I do like the bottom half though, at least at face value. I sense some real frustration from Whatley on how Day 1 played out without him. But this is a very easy stance for scum to fake.

I'm also speculative of Elaine' s claim. Ever hear the tale of the boy who cried wolf?

Linki - I guess we'll see.

It's not LyLo, so all this move gets the mafia team (if Elaine is lying) is a push to LyLo with a confirmed mafia in place. That's not terrible for them, but she'd have no need -- unless Peterman is also mafia.

If it's a claim for teammate save I'd be somewhat shocked, it feels too early for that.

Hesitant to accept Elaine's tracker claim to get Jackie lynched, but he came around eventually and rejoiced in the blood of his enemies:

That's what we needed right there.

And that's where we are now. There's a few things I can pick out as reason to be suspicious, but nothing strong enough to propel Whatley into the realm of top suspects. He remains in the POE pool though. As with everyone else, I need to hear more.

[November]

I don't see anything strikingly different about the Soup Nazi's reads and my own. I was perhaps a bit more favorable to Whatley and less so to Peterman, but that's about it. Peterman and Elaine were my top two suspects much of the day and I didn't have any clear distinctions between everyone else. I might suggest that the nightkill was submitted before I roleclaimed and never altered afterward. I looked a little shady before then, so I would not have been a very likely kill target. That does nothing to explain why you (Jerry) or Elaine are still alive.

[Julinook]

Don't be so upset Jerry, discussion will come.

Your theories regarding Steinbrenner, that's a lie isn't it? At least in regards to having deeper thought on him.

I'm not sure what you mean. I'm lying about welcoming opposing reads on him?

[mention]Tim Whatley[/mention], I'd like an answer to this question please.

[Julinook]

Having reviewed your look at Tim, employee-of-Steinbrenner, I find my read on him moving south. There were a number of posts you highlighted that you interpreted negatively, and I agreed. There were a couple posts you interpreted positively, and I disagreed. I'll try to peel them out of the analysis and talk about that.

Let's remember, gang: if we can correctly isolate our POE pool to three suspects, then the civilians win. We get one more mislynch.

[Julinook]

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.

Looks to strike up a conversation with Jerry, a good look.
Votes for Peterman for what amounts to very little reason and 0 mentions of him prior to this, bad look.
Promises to maybe review a few players, we'll see.

I don't think this was a good look. I might generously call it a null look. Whatley had previously voiced suspicion and even fear of me, and it's a little difficult for me to reconcile his comment here with that in mind. If he felt that my forgetting about him was unjustified given his rate of contribution, having already viewed me as troublesome, I'd expect to see a harsher response here. His question and protestation are very timid, in a way that looks unnatural to me.

I'm noticing a trend of people who just didn't give a damn about their day one vote. How is this acceptable?

I don't like the top half of this post. Denies responsibility for giving a reason behind his Peterman vote, and rejects Jerry's observation about him. I do like the bottom half though, at least at face value. I sense some real frustration from Whatley on how Day 1 played out without him. But this is a very easy stance for scum to fake.

I don't care for either half of this post. In most Mafia games, a decent or larger portion of the player population tends to care little about their Day 1 votes (because people erroneously believe it to be a crapshoot). This isn't atypical, and I don't know why Whatley is so perturbed. Moreover, he didn't qualify this accusation, because it's definitely accusatory, with any names beyond the individual he was addressing (George). This doesn't look authentic to me.

I'm also speculative of Elaine' s claim. Ever hear the tale of the boy who cried wolf?

Linki - I guess we'll see.

This bugs me too. I can understand a little initial doubt about the honesty of a role claim in this Syndicate environment, but I kind of hate the way it is presented here. It's in the third person, not directly addressed to Elaine herself, as commentary. No thanks. This doesn't promote deeper examination of the claim, it promotes public doubt of the claim.

We can credit Tim for ending the day with his vote in the right place, but my willingness to hand out credit for that is very limited. As we saw, Jackie still had his own vote open to place himself in a coin-flip tie. If Whatley is his teammate, the danger of losing a teammate in this scenario was still only 50-50, and the danger of looking terrible if it didn't work out was 100-0.

[Julinook]

Right now, my three-man POE looks like this:

George Costanza
Tim Whatley
Uncle Leo (backup)

The wild card would thus be Frank.

[Julinook]

I forgot about Peterman. Meh. I really would like to think a mafioso under constant pressure would naturally end up with more than 9 posts.

[November]

Uncle Leo

HELLO!

I was with Jerry’s cousin Jeffrey. You know Jeffrey, he works for the parks department? He would have this whole thing figured out quick.

How many times do I have to tell you all that my past is not who I am these days. It was a crime of passion! I never knew this Susan.

Now if you’ll excuse me, I have an Asian woman waiting for me.

Makes one post on Day 1 to say HELLO and nothing else. Hello.

Jerry, Hello! How could you do this to Newman? Your cousin Jeffrey, you know, at the parks department, can't believe you'd get something like this wrong. What a guy that Jeffrey.

So now that that's out of the way,

Newman did very clearly state that he was innocent. On day 1, what more could he have said to indicate that he was "trying?"

For the record, I am a senior citizen with a record (it was a crime of passion!) however, I am innocent of all other crimes.

I am suspicious of Steinbrenner for "latching on to me" as someone put it. It didn't hold or gain traction so it makes sense that he changed his vote. Still, suspicions exist. Call it retaliatory, call it whatever. I know that I am good and until Steinbrenner gives me a reason to change my mind, he is as good a target as I was to him initially.

As for Puddy (high five!), you are good and not going to hell, so why no vote? Were you too busy at a hockey game and forgot?

I would also be suspicious of Elaine & our resident sweetheart, Soup Nazi. Potential throwaway votes against each other (because we had a clear victim with votes stacked up against Newman) "backed up" by phony talk in the thread. I guess we will see how they vote in the future.

Leo is a nocturnal creature, as this post is much better than his Day 1 entry. The little bit about Newman's claimed innocence is head-scratching, but I do not think it was meant to be a meaningful contribution. He then turns around a suspicion against Mr. Steinbrenner for his reckless treatment of Day 1 votes. Mr. Steinbrenner would like to issue a statement declaring that he in no way latched onto Uncle Leo, and his vote was off of him within a couple of hours. But it is natural for a player to be attracted to those who express suspicion against them. I do not fault Uncle Leo for being skeptical of Big Stein off the bat. I do not see where his initial town read of Puddy comes from. Leo, why did you feel so good about Puddy before anyone else did? The observation about Elaine and Soup Nazi was a solid one, but now we see that it didn't amount to anything. That's not a criticism of Uncle Leo. Most of Day 1 is throwing crap against the wall. This was a good throw. But it's not a throw that scum couldn't have made. I like this post on the whole though.

I’d like to clarify that by “clear victim” I meant that at one particular point in time, nothing needed to change for Newman to be lynched. No more arguing or persuasion from anyone to anyone was required. Anybody could have changed their vote for any reason but the end tally was what it was. (and the result was: Newman was lynched, and Elaine & Soup Nazi, if mafia, were able to provide cover for each other.)


By the way, Elaine, why didn’t I get a Christmas card?

This post demonstrates an intricate knowledge of the Day 1 poll for somebody who was not present during Day 1. Hey Leo, what's the deal with this?

<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 don't agree that the idea of goat kisser & evil hex working together is a "ludicrous notion."

So I've just about read everything I'm going to and I have 3 specific points of interest.

What are our thoughts on Jerry? He's a troublemaker.

What are our thoughts on Elaine? She's here, but what has she contributed?

What happened to the Soup Nazi voters? What changed your mind?

I am always suspicious of characters like Jerry who are very vocal and commanding. I agree he's a troublemaker. HOWEVER, I am usually wrong about those people being bad so I have decided to not focus any further on Jerry at this time. This is purely a personal track record issue.

Nothing has changed my mind about Soup Nazi. I am curious what has caused Puddy to distrust me. I distrust his distrust of me and left a vote for him based on that. I am actually uncomfortable voting Puddy with Jerry & Elaine as the other two votes.

Leo gives a few justifications for some of his thoughts. I like that he's unafraid to share thoughts, though there's not much I would have agreed with here and I am not clear on why the Soup Nazi was a primary suspect. I feel a compulsion to reject the idea of "vocal and commanding" players as inherently suspicion, but I don't mind players having their guards up against this type of player. I'll let it slide, but with a prolonged, squinty-eyed gaze in his direction.

I was very legitimately unable to be present until right this moment. If I had been back before now, I would have changed my vote. That means absolutely nothing though, so you all can ignore it.

I would like to proclaim, again, that I am 100% completely innocent and the perception that I am playing my hand close to my chest is simply due to me NOT being mafia and therefore not having to engage in a verbal circus of misdirection and persuasion.

current working theory:

good:
me, uncle leo
-why? because I am, despite my senior moment with the puddy vote

jerry
-why? Voted for Peterman

steinbrenner
-Why? voted for Peterman after deliberating between Puddy & peterman

frank
-Why? Out of 8 posts, has only (loosely) defended Steinbrenner & Soup Nazi, both of whom voted for Peterman. Vote for puddy is an unexplainable mark against him.

soup nazi
why? voted for peterman


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

Tear it apart you animals!

And Jerry, a fall from grace, really? That's rough, haven't I always been a good uncle? Who always told you that you print well?

Leo demonstrates two things here: defensiveness, and astounding confidence in the badness of J. Peterman.

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.

<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?

Some light grilling of George about Peterman. This is consistent with the above-mentioned confidence.

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.

Here is the reason for that confidence. J. Peterman is bad because Uncle Leo is comfortable leaving a vote on him. Yes.

The contributions are not terrible and there's a consistent tone heere, but it's entirely possible that Leo is just coasting behind the pre-existing and easy suspicion against Peterman. There is literally no justification from Leo for it in these posts.

[Spooky Ghost]

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.

[November]

I forgot about Peterman. Meh. I really would like to think a mafioso under constant pressure would naturally end up with more than 9 posts.

Leo's post history has me considering that Peterman is town more than anything else I've seen in this game. It looks like scum bandwagoning 101.

[November]

Voting Uncle Leo.

[Julinook]

I forgot about Peterman. Meh. I really would like to think a mafioso under constant pressure would naturally end up with more than 9 posts.

Leo's post history has me considering that Peterman is town more than anything else I've seen in this game. It looks like scum bandwagoning 101.

I can see what you mean. My intuition isn't in disagreement with that assertion.

[Julinook]

Another angle which can be immensely helpful for Day 4 that we really ought to work with: living-teammate analysis. We have a relatively small suspect pool, and two names to isolate.

We already have an idea who we trust. If we can manage a suspect pool of four or five, then we can check every single possible two-man team within that pool to see whether there's reason to cut them out as potential teammates. That allows us to further reduce the possible game scenarios to as few as we can, and that often ends up revealing one of them anyway (i.e. if one player is included in all theorized teams, that player is mafia).

I can't do this now, but I will attempt it later. I could use some help.

[Celeste]

Don't be so upset Jerry, discussion will come.

Your theories regarding Steinbrenner, that's a lie isn't it? At least in regards to having deeper thought on him.

I'm not sure what you mean. I'm lying about welcoming opposing reads on him?

Tim Whatley, I'd like an answer to this question please.

Ah, sorry. I was just poking you to see what would happen. Nothing interesting unfortunately.

[Julinook]

Another angle which can be immensely helpful for Day 4 that we really ought to work with: living-teammate analysis. We have a relatively small suspect pool, and two names to isolate.

We already have an idea who we trust. If we can manage a suspect pool of four or five, then we can check every single possible two-man team within that pool to see whether there's reason to cut them out as potential teammates. That allows us to further reduce the possible game scenarios to as few as we can, and that often ends up revealing one of them anyway (i.e. if one player is included in all theorized teams, that player is mafia).

I can't do this now, but I will attempt it later. I could use some help.

This is the pool I intend to work with, including the 5 suspects I deem worthy of investigation and all possible combinations therein (not including repeats):

[November]

Frank Costanza

Hi, I'm George. I'm unemployed and I live with my parents.

As if we needed any more proof you're a good-for-nothing bum! Didn't bother showing up at all to the Mafia for the first day of it.

Hiding? I've been serving soup behind a counter for nine hours already today.

Except for you. Know why?

NO SOUP FOR YOU

You're through, Soup Nazi. Pack it up. No more soup for you. Next!

Vote The Soup Nazi

You leave that Nazi alone. He's a man after my own heart. For the delicious soup, I mean. Not the Nazi part. We used to fight Nazis back in the Army. At least, the Army used to fight Nazis. You know what I'm saying! George, get me some damn soup!

Frank's first post that says anything at all. Calls out George for not being here, and expresses deep support for The Soup Nazi because... I don't know.

Anyway, I've been waiting for hours for dinner. Estelle was supposed to make some fusilli, but of course she's nowhere to be found...



ASSMAN! I'LL GIVE HIM ASSMAN!

*votes Kramer*

A vote for Kramer because... I don't know.

Back from an early dinner with Naomi. Good lord that laugh of hers.

Spoiler: show

I have grievances to air about both Costanza parents. We got nothing all day!

I'm sorry I can't be at your beck and call, Jerry. After Assman kicked the bucket, I've been left to work on the man-ziere all by myself. It's enough to drive a person crazy, I tell you!

George, I'm disappointed you. Why don't you stop crying and fight your father face to face, like aman? Listing Kramer as good on Night 1, then knocking him out, would be an excellent way to establish some civilian cred. Especially when you're also buddying up to that goody-two-shoes Jerry Seinfeld.

I think that Mr. Steinbrenner has a good head on his shoulders. Can't manage his team out of a paper bag, but his heart's in the right place. He's following up on questions, asking the right ones about David Puddy and Elaine. Even if it takes him a few minutes to get there in any given conversation.

Hand-wavey defense against Jerry, a contorted accusation against George, and some substantiated defense of Mr. Steinbrenner. Okay. Frank's posts are not moving the needle on my Town-o-meter one bit.

You lack an actual tone.

The soup man has some spunk! I'm getting heated just thinking about it! Serenity now. SERENITY NOW!

**Squinches nose as Mr. Soup**

And then this guy comes in here, saying he'll have some dirt on the Soup Man, and follows up with a nonsense gesture. You want to put a man in his place, you put up your fists! You don't dodge like a little girl!

Puddy, you've got less content in thread than a Chinese sweatshop T-shirt. And you're tunneling on the Nazi like a rat. I don't like it one bit.

Linki: All suspicious? Even the ones with just pictures? You suspicious of Goodnight Moon too?

Frank describes his own contributions in criticism of Puddy, with the only difference being a reversal of their stances on the Soup Nazi.

I think you're all barking up the wrong tree with the Soup Nazi, and I'll be a monkey's ass if I let him go down. Already didn't like that Puddy guy, so here goes nothing. *votes David Puddy*

Then this. I don't know where Frank is drawing any of his reads from.

ESTELLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE?!?!?!?!?!?!?

No! It can't be! My wife is dead because of you animals! She would drive me up a wall, but she was being quiet around you people, and now someone thought it was worth shutting her up even more.

Only people she mentioned before she passed that might get up to such a thing were Jerry, David Puddy (who I agreed with), the lawyer, and George. She even put in a good word for the Soup Man! The Soup Nazi, who people think is as bad as the actual Nazis!

SERENITY NOW!

I gotta take a breather. Right now, my gut says there's something in looking at those mentions, but I don't know what yet.

I've already talked about this post. It is deliberately exaggerated, but the intentions behind that are still up in the air. I could easily see this being the response of a baddie who knew the result and how he wanted to spin it ahead of time.

ESTELLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE?!?!?!?!?!?!?

No! It can't be! My wife is dead because of you animals! She would drive me up a wall, but she was being quiet around you people, and now someone thought it was worth shutting her up even more.

Only people she mentioned before she passed that might get up to such a thing were Jerry, David Puddy (who I agreed with), the lawyer, and George. She even put in a good word for the Soup Man! The Soup Nazi, who people think is as bad as the actual Nazis!

SERENITY NOW!

I gotta take a breather. Right now, my gut says there's something in looking at those mentions, but I don't know what yet.

The Soup Nazi? Who thinks the Soup Nazi's bad. I don't see anyone gathering up their pitchforks to go after that man, Frank. I welcome your investigations though. It can't be easy to lose such a fine woman, that Estelle. Look into your suspects and tell Big Stein what you think.

SERENITY NOW! SERENITY NOW!

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!

Continues to tunnel George and reverse tunnel the Soup Nazi, and I continue to not know where this is coming from. Frank is just stating that he has suspicions all game long. That does nothing for me. Maybe they're good suspicions. Maybe they're fabricated ones. I have no way of knowing.

My son hasn't said a thing today. Maybe he needs to get wrestled?! *votes George Costanza*

Frank Costanza's post history has become quite frustrating. The tunnel on son George is hard to understand given that he hasn't explained it much apart from George's periods of absence. Moreover, it's all he's bloody done lately. I really hope that's not civilian work. Come on y'all, the game can easily still be won.

I gave you a hypothesis, Jerry!

I don't see it.

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!

And as far as I can tell, George still hasn't given a good reason for that baddie listing. Too buys moving on to the next victim, probably.

You and the Soup Nazi seem to have gotten in quite the wrestling match yourselves. One of you've got to be civ, because there's no way two mafia would spend all that energy putting on a show. Given the effort you're both showing, you may even both be civ.

I think Big Stein's analysis of the lawyer has a lot of merit. And not just because he's black. I mean, not because he's black at all! But one thing you missed, Steinbrenner: he did mention Estelle before challenging Jerry.

On another not, rereading Estelle's three posts, I find it satisfying to read them in her roleplaying voice. It works despite her admission that she doesn't know how.

Not sure what to make of that, other than that he's mentioning her to mention her.

Calls out George for being quiet. Okay. But why is he suspicious in the first place, and why him of all the silent players?
I prodded Frank about his comment regarding my Jackie ISO earlier because I do not know what he's talking about. My "analysis" was more question-asking than stance-taking. If he liked my analysis, then he should have thoughts of his own to share about what I dug up. Not vague support right before the baddie is getting lynched. Could be soft distancing that went wrong when Jackie ended up on the chopping block.

If Elaine is telling the truth, we have a cut and dried case. If she's not, we at least get more intelligence from a Jackie flip than a Peterman flip. *votes Jackie*

Credit for voting Jackie, at least, but as Jerry pointed out, the risk of looking awful here was 100%.

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.

This is a completely uninspiring ISO (no offense, Mr. Costanza), but I have an ID that says he's a civilian. If we lynch another vanilla mafia then Frank's a top candidate for godfather.

[Spooky Ghost]

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.

Spoiler: show

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.

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.

Spoiler: show

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.

Spoiler: show

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.

Spoiler: show

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

what 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!

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.

Spoiler: show

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.

[Julinook]

I'm going to move to unvote for the moment. Breathe, George, and keep at it. I can't review that thoroughly at present, but I will soon. Show me the baddies.

[Spooky Ghost]

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.

[Julinook]

One point I want to make immediately, because it irks me, is this:

George Costanza, I never said at any juncture that the host revealed or hinted at you being a mafioso in the game introduction. Of course that didn't happen. I said you called two votes upon you "throw-away" votes, one of which was my vote, and I didn't say anything about the host's content. It wasn't a fair representation of my own vote for you.

[Spooky Ghost]

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

[Julinook]

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

You have the most role play-friendly role in the game and you were taking entirely too long to get started (so I supposed you might be hesitating due to alignment nerves). So I threw poop at you. Was it substantive or damning stuff? Naw. Was it a real accusation? Sure.

[November]

George is playing with heavy WIFOM in that big defense post. It's entirely possible that Jackie incriminated one of his teammates with his dying breath. It's entirely possible he incriminated an innocent townie. Either way, he did it so that we would be left scratching our heads at it. That George is relying on it for the basis of his self-defense is not promising.

[November]

As a low-ranking member of the Yankees' social media outreach team, I have no idea what any of you mean when you talk about roleplay.

[November]

George Costanza

It was my understanding that George Costanza poisoned his fiancée with envelope glue. Despicable, degenerate, deplorable! He'll get my vote.

Oh come on! Be sensible.

and since when did we ever trust an attorney

George entered with a handful of fluff posts. This is the first one to catch my attention. I could see it being two baddie teammates poking fun at each other in the beginning of the game. Casual distancing, possibly.

...and they're spectacular tier:
Uncle Leo
Jackie Chiles

This feels like the good side of role play tier:
George Steinbrenner
The Soup Nazi

The yada-yada tier:
J Peterman
George Costanza
Kramer
Kenny Bania

What's up with _____ tier:
Estelle Costanza
Frank Costanza
Elaine Benes
David Puddy

Don't insult me, my friend.

You were after all the deciding vote in Newman's fate, were you not?

Costanza's first move of the game is to throw Jerry's suspicion back in his face because Jerry cast a vote for Newman on Day 1. Uninspiring, but better than nothing. He at least seems interested in making things happen.

Of the people with more than one vote, I could lynch Newman or Soup Nazi. Not lynching Big Stein.

How about Puddy though? What is it with this guy?

Why Newman? You could have swung with Soup Nazi and left it to fate.

What's the obsession with Puddy? What are you trying to say about him?

"Why take initiative when you could absolve yourself of responsibility?" A very Costanzian notion, but not conducive to good mafia play.
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'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.

Also kinda shocked Jerry not NKed N1 when he's probably the SPK -- I have no idea who Kramer is even.

K bai

I find these kind of posts really suspicious. "Oh why are you still alive, unless you're mafiascum, they should have definitely killed you because you're outspoken but they didn't so...connect the dots"

It really doesn't sit well with me. And to come from my mother of all people....

I may be a Costanza idiot, but I definitely inherited that from my dad.

Here's Frank's favorite post in the game. I don't object to the prod of his mother here, though I'm very paradoxically wary of posts that claim to be "suspicious of x type of post" because it can be used as a way for the player to plan suspicion without necessarily having to engage in direct analysis of a player's motives. They can just say "This resembles something scum might do, so I'm gonna pin a suspicion on it" and call it a day. I'm not thrilled at the way George employed it here.

I'll be here all day if I finish this ISO right now. I don't want to do that. George is presently here, so I'm going to post what I have and hope to engage him more directly. Hi George.

[November]

[mention]George Costanza[/mention], why are you voting for No Lynch?

[Spooky Ghost]

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.

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.

[Spooky Ghost]

@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.

[November]

Another angle which can be immensely helpful for Day 4 that we really ought to work with: living-teammate analysis. We have a relatively small suspect pool, and two names to isolate.

We already have an idea who we trust. If we can manage a suspect pool of four or five, then we can check every single possible two-man team within that pool to see whether there's reason to cut them out as potential teammates. That allows us to further reduce the possible game scenarios to as few as we can, and that often ends up revealing one of them anyway (i.e. if one player is included in all theorized teams, that player is mafia).

I can't do this now, but I will attempt it later. I could use some help.

This is the pool I intend to work with, including the 5 suspects I deem worthy of investigation and all possible combinations therein (not including repeats):

This would be a very worthwhile exercise that I will look into when I've recovered some energy.

[November]

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?

[November]

@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.

I encourage this analysis and look forward to it. But I also have questions for you because I feel like Mr. Steinbrenner left you alone for much of the game and so my notes on you are lacking. Don't let me stop you from getting things done though.

[Spooky Ghost]

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.

[November]

Nitpicking words is what Mr. Steinbrenner pays me to do.

[Spooky Ghost]

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.

[Spooky Ghost]

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.

[November]

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.

I am most interested in hearing your thoughts on those other folks right now. Keep doing that.

[Spooky Ghost]

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:

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.

[Spooky Ghost]

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.

[November]

You raise an interesting point about the night kill, George. Someone had to have been here to submit it. However, the target of the kill might suggest that it was done by someone (or a pair of someones) who aren't paying close attention. Off the top of my head, Peterman and Uncle Leo best fit that bill.

I also tend to think it's more likely than not that a scum player will mention at least one teammate in their list of suspects.

[Paul Stevens]

People, I'm freaking out about RL work stuff right now. Contributions are not happening tonight.

[Julinook]

What's the deal with George and Frank Costanza?



George's comments

Spoiler: show

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.

George responds to some prodding from Frank on Day 3. This was the first time George acknowledged his father in this game as far as I can see. The middle portion is of some interest, as George contested the truth of his father's assessment of him but didn't seem to find it concerning in the realm of becoming suspicious.

OMGUS accusation thrown back at Frank

Suspicion is implied here, but not stated. Ehh.

Spoiler: show

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.

This was in response to my musing over the possibility that Jackie left a teammate in his parting suspects list (featuring George, Frank, and Elaine). I'm struck by George's willingness to adopt this notion despite the real possibility that [theoretically from the perspective of civilian George] there may not have been any teammates in that little list of three. There's only one possibility in that mind frame if any and we're straight to "let's lynch Frank". It feels overeager.

Continuation of his Day 4 suspicion of Frank

Spoiler: show

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.

He expands some here on his willingness to assume Jackie left a teammate in that list. I don't follow the math that I just highlighted, George please tell me what that means.

=========================

Frank's comments

Spoiler: show

Hi, I'm George. I'm unemployed and I live with my parents.

As if we needed any more proof you're a good-for-nothing bum! Didn't bother showing up at all to the Mafia for the first day of it.

George, I'm disappointed you. Why don't you stop crying and fight your father face to face, like aman? Listing Kramer as good on Night 1, then knocking him out, would be an excellent way to establish some civilian cred. Especially when you're also buddying up to that goody-two-shoes Jerry Seinfeld.

Frank has never been kind to George in this game, and to me it has often looked cooked. I even suggested earlier in the game that it looks like forced distancing. The highlighted portion is about to become a little trend:

Spoiler: show

ESTELLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE?!?!?!?!?!?!?

No! It can't be! My wife is dead because of you animals! She would drive me up a wall, but she was being quiet around you people, and now someone thought it was worth shutting her up even more.

Only people she mentioned before she passed that might get up to such a thing were Jerry, David Puddy (who I agreed with), the lawyer, and George. She even put in a good word for the Soup Man! The Soup Nazi, who people think is as bad as the actual Nazis!

SERENITY NOW!

I gotta take a breather. Right now, my gut says there's something in looking at those mentions, but I don't know what yet.

Refer again to the highlighted portion. These last two examples show Frank using convoluted, far-fetched reasoning to pin both of the first night kills on George (among a few others in the latter case). I have my doubts that a civilian thinks about the game this way, and it may also be significant that he focused on his son both times.

Spoiler: show

My son hasn't said a thing today. Maybe he needs to get wrestled?! *votes George Costanza*

And as far as I can tell, George still hasn't given a good reason for that baddie listing. Too buys moving on to the next victim, probably.

His George-centric suspicion continues through Day 3.

Frank immediately goes after George after the Jackie lynch for their interactions

This features by far Frank's most conclusive, substantive accusation against George. The point he makes is at least an interesting one. I'll have to look into it myself.


=========================

Conclusion

I still think these two are compatible teammates, and they're both compatible with Jackie. The suspicion from Frank's side especially may even be suggestive of that relationship.

[Julinook]

What's the deal with Frank Costanza and J Peterman?



Frank's comments

Spoiler: show

If Elaine is telling the truth, we have a cut and dried case. If she's not, we at least get more intelligence from a Jackie flip than a Peterman flip. *votes Jackie*

Frank chose Jackie over Peterman. I think this was an easy decision regardless of either Frank's or Peterman's alignments in this scenario.

======================

Peterman agreed with Frank's mud on Puddy

I felt at the time that this was cozy piggy-backing by Peterman (on Frank's suspicion) to justify his participation in the crappy Puddy wagon. That's still plausible, though I am less confident that this is the behavior of mafia teammates. They'd have wagoned Puddy right in our faces in that case, which is pretty brazen behavior for two people who have so few posts (meaning their general play has not been brazen).

======================

Conclusion

The one meaningful point I had to make has me feeling a non-teammate relationship here. It's hard to make a conclusive statement without more content, but that's life when there are so few posts.

[Julinook]

What's the deal with Frank Costanza, Kenny Bania, and Tim Whatley?



Frank's comments

Nothing.

=====================

Bania's comments

Nothing.

=====================

Whatley's comments

Nothing.

=====================

Conclusion

Uh. I didn't expect that. I don't think it's typical of mafia teammates to completely ignore each other through Day 4. I don't think I can justify eliminating the possibility either. It's compatible, but not indicative.

[Principal Skinner]

Voting Uncle Leo.

This is a bad idea if you have intentions of winning this game as a civilian.

I was out of town over the weekend and have had a really busy day today. My posts may be crap but I believe most who have read them agree that I am sincere, if nothing else.

Contributions from me should be expected late tonight.

Don't mis-lynch Uncle Leo because he is old and senile and lost.

[Julinook]

What's the deal with Frank Costanza and Uncle Leo?



Frank's comments

The only comment is tangential.

==================

Leo's comments

Spoiler: show

I was very legitimately unable to be present until right this moment. If I had been back before now, I would have changed my vote. That means absolutely nothing though, so you all can ignore it.

I would like to proclaim, again, that I am 100% completely innocent and the perception that I am playing my hand close to my chest is simply due to me NOT being mafia and therefore not having to engage in a verbal circus of misdirection and persuasion.

current working theory:

good:
me, uncle leo
-why? because I am, despite my senior moment with the puddy vote

jerry
-why? Voted for Peterman

steinbrenner
-Why? voted for Peterman after deliberating between Puddy & peterman

frank
-Why? Out of 8 posts, has only (loosely) defended Steinbrenner & Soup Nazi, both of whom voted for Peterman. Vote for puddy is an unexplainable mark against him.

soup nazi
why? voted for peterman


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

Tear it apart you animals!

And Jerry, a fall from grace, really? That's rough, haven't I always been a good uncle? Who always told you that you print well?

Frank is a bit of a standout in this read. The other three non-self civilian reads Leo had offered were all justified by votes for Peterman. Frank had voted for Puddy, the wagon we Peterman voters were trying to supplant. This civilian read requires mental gymnastics to work out, and is much more complex than the others here. This would be a rather bizarre teammate connection, but I can't award points for such a convoluted civilian read in this interactive-read context.

==================

Conclusion

I'd call them compatible, but it isn't a connection that moves me much.

[Julinook]

What's the deal with George Costanza and J Peterman?



George's comments

Spoiler: show

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.

<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.

George initially pledged to look into Peterman after my airing of grievances. He didn't quite follow up. Leo asked him about it, and he pledged to do it. He didn't quite follow up.

==================

Peterman's comments

Nothing.

==================

Conclusion

George's failure to discuss Peterman doesn't exactly make this look great. I also find myself wondering how hard it would have been to say something about his teammate though given the obvious need to do so. That he never followed through has me playing WIFOM in his favor.

I'll call them compatible, but again it's not moving me.