The Syndicate

Julinook

I want to ensure everyone is aware and conscious of the importance of two things moving forward:

1) Civilians need to try to vote together as much as possible. Close votes give the mafia potential angles to rescue themselves. We need to make collective decisions and live or die with them. It's not an emergency at 6 vs. 2, but it's still a tight situation.

2) Civilian presence in the thread near or at EOD significantly increases the likelihood of a successful lynch. Full civilian control of end-phase vote mobility is how we work as a team to overrule their cooperative voting power no matter who gets lynched.

Julinook

That effort may be enough to change my 3-player POE to this:

Frank Costanza
George Costanza
Tim Whatley

Peterman and Leo don't fit into as many teams, and that's good enough for me to at least match the credit-value of Frank's civilian cop ID.

Julinook

Note: suggestive relationships are by default also compatible.

Dynamics:

~ Frank has 1 suggestive relationship and 3 compatible relationships.

~ George has 2 suggestive relationships and 3 compatible relationships.

~ Peterman has 2 compatible relationships.

~ Whatley has 1 suggestive relationship and 2 compatible relationships.

~ Leo has 2 compatible relationships.

Julinook

What's the deal with Kenny Bania, Tim Whatley, and Uncle Leo?

Whatley's comments

Spoiler: show

Same thing I mentioned in the previous assessment. I'm not entirely sure a mafioso poops on his teammates head like this.

He asked me about Leo's vote for me.

It's not much of a thing, but he did specifically seek to have my loud ass talk about Leo.

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

Leo's comments

Muses about his Jerry tinfoil, qualifying that he is usually wrong when he feels that way, in response to Whatley's entry concerns about me.

Spoiler: show

This one is kind of tasty. I like the indignance of Leo's response here, particularly in the highlighted portion, with regard to teammate [non-]compatibility. For some reason this thing is really trying to make me tag Leo here and it's pissing me off, so hopefully this long-ass sentence will get that out of my face.

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

It worked!

Anyway, that last point speaks to me a bit. I don't suppose these two make great teammates.

Julinook

What's the deal with J Peterman and Uncle Leo?

Peterman's comments

Leo is included in Peterman's player salad.

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

Leo's comments

Leo thinks three others are civilians because they voted for Peterman, and he thinks Peterman is "definitely mafia" because he "hadn't said much of anything substantial.

I don't entirely follow Leo's mindset here. This came in the immediate aftermath of the Puddy lynch. I don't know if it was necessary for Leo to yell and scream about his teammate here; it was still the night phase and nobody was about to be lynched. I'll still acknowledge the bizarre degree of confidence Leo must have that Peterman is mafia here for these reads to make sense though.

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

Conclusion

I think it's technically compatible, but gun to my head I say no.

Julinook

What's the deal with J Peterman, Kenny Bania, and Tim Whatley?

Peterman's comments

Bania is included in Peterman's player salad.

Another Bania prod

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

Whatley's comments

Spoiler: show

Whatley discredits a suspicion Leo states of Peterman by asserting hypocrisy. Not my favorite thing.

Spoiler: show

Despite that, he still voted Peterman despite having made no direct mention of him prior. I think at this point Peterman may have already had a tally lead (it was before Elaine's tracker reveal).

It's possible for this to be mafia-mafia, but my immediate inclination is to think that if there's a mafia here, it's Whatley, and Peterman is his easy vote.

Spoiler: show

Whatley turned away my hypothetical scenario featuring a mafia Elaine fake-tracking to rescue a mafia Peterman from a lynch. Again, if Whatley is mafia then this looks like TMI that Peterman is a civilian.

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

Conclusion

It's not rock solid, but my intuitions are telling me these two aren't teamed together.

Julinook

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

George's comments

Spoiler: show

Feeling good about Leo on N1.

Spoiler: show

George responds to Leo's concerns about me with a weird combination of waffling, tinfoiling, and trust (in me).

Spoiler: show

On Day 2 George was clearly less impressed with Leo, after initially having read him as a civilian. The change of heart here actually kind of speaks to me, because if they're teammates I don't see a good reason for that to happen. George had already picked a side on Leo and didn't need to reverse it -- I don't believe Leo was really a top-tier lynch prospect at this point.

George answers Leo's question about his Peterman read.

George explains his D2 read on Leo to Whatley.

George reiterates and reinforces his suspicion of Leo on D4. / Pledges likely Leo vote

Ended up voting Frank instead given Leo's recent absence.

This progression makes me feel the same way. George's read on Leo is malleable throughout the game, and in a way that I don't think looks ordinary for mafia teammate distancing.

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

Leo's comments

Nothing not already covered.

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

Conclusion

To me this interaction looks unlikely to represent a teammate relationship.

Julinook

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

George's comments

Spoiler: show

Standard prod.

Spoiler: show

George answers to a Whatley prod. I have more to say about the prod and will get to it later.

George praises Whatley on Day 4

If nothing else I disagree with the reasoning George provided here. He likes Whatley because he is "balanced, calm, and not impulsive", which to me basically describes a prototypical mafioso.

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

Bania's comments

Haha just kidding.

Whatley's comments

Spoiler: show

Returning to that prod. This pings me a bit. The prod upon George specifically kind of emerges from nothingness and in that regard it looks a bit forced.

Spoiler: show

This was a general comment made in response to a George post about his Day 1 vote being less substantial. Tim's comment is accusatory, but only indirectly (and he didn't address George himself here). I can see this exchange working between teammates.

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

Conclusion

I think they're compatible teammates and I'd call the interaction suggestive too.

Julinook

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

George's comments

Spoiler: show

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.

Julinook

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

Frank's comments

The only comment is tangential.

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

Leo's comments

Spoiler: show

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 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.

Julinook

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

Frank's comments

Spoiler: show

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 George and Frank Costanza?

George's comments

Spoiler: show

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

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

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

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

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

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

George Costanza wrote: ↑Tue Oct 17, 2017 3:02 pm 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.

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.

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.

Julinook

Jerry Seinfeld wrote: ↑Tue Oct 17, 2017 2:27 pm 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):

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.

Julinook

George Steinbrenner wrote: ↑Tue Oct 17, 2017 2:19 pm
Jerry Seinfeld wrote: ↑Tue Oct 17, 2017 2:12 pm 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

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.

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

George Steinbrenner wrote: ↑Tue Oct 17, 2017 1:43 pm
Tim Whatley wrote: ↑Sun Oct 15, 2017 12:24 pm
Jerry Seinfeld wrote: ↑Sun Oct 15, 2017 11:24 am I also keep forgetting Tim Whatley exists. That's not ideal.
Why do you think this is this the case? I feel like I've voiced my thoughts consistently?

I'll be voting Peterman. I don't feel bad about it, but there are a handful I can say that about. Let's see where this goes.

Stein, if time allows, I'll review those you asked about.
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.

George Steinbrenner wrote: ↑Tue Oct 17, 2017 1:43 pm
Tim Whatley wrote: ↑Sun Oct 15, 2017 6:32 pm 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.

Tim Whatley wrote: ↑Sun Oct 15, 2017 8:10 pm 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

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

Jerry Seinfeld wrote: ↑Fri Oct 13, 2017 6:13 pm
Tim Whatley wrote: ↑Fri Oct 13, 2017 5:42 pm 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

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:

The Soup Nazi wrote: ↑Sun Oct 15, 2017 9:12 am 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

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.

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

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

George Costanza wrote: ↑Tue Oct 17, 2017 12:13 pm you're basing your entire votes on Jackie's interactions with me, jerry/elaine? that's really lazy scum hunting. Terrible in fact.

Literally no, but it's of little consequence. I hate this post. First of all, it's the opposite of "lazy" to make interactive judgments -- it's the product of a crap load of analytic work performed in this thread during the night phase. Second of all, I have very little understanding of what has motivated your votes in this game. Third of all, why the hell shouldn't you receive votes?

Show me what makes you a civilian. Show me who isn't a civilian.

Julinook

Notice to low posters:

The mafia love to keep you alive because you're their ticket to a winner's banner. Don't let that happen.

Julinook

George Steinbrenner wrote: ↑Tue Oct 17, 2017 12:09 am
Frank Costanza wrote: ↑Fri Oct 13, 2017 9:07 pm 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.
If Frank is the godfather then he knew about Estelle's death beforehand and this reaction was likely pre-planned to some degree. Reading it, I could see that being the case, but it does not have to be so. There'd be a very clear intent to direct suspicion against the players listed here, but I don't recall Frank following through much on this at all.

It's complete player salad. I don't like that post.

Julinook

George Steinbrenner wrote: ↑Tue Oct 17, 2017 12:03 am
Jerry Seinfeld wrote: ↑Mon Oct 16, 2017 11:14 pm Sure I'll do a George vote.
You announced towards the end of Day 3 that you would not be voting for George. I assume that your interactive read between George and Jackie has a lot to do with your change of heart. What are the key points at the root of your George suspicion. Why is he your preferred lynch right now over everyone else?

I had a pile of people I was considering voting for, and George was the only one among them doing anything. He had a string of contributions in the latter half of the day, and I decided to narrow my focus. His interactions with Jackie look the worst aside maybe from Frank, and given your peek I'm willing to prioritize George first. It's POE as much as suspicion, especially when I found a reason to give Peterman some actual credit.

Julinook

Sure I'll do a George vote.

Julinook

Okay then. I'm going to hope that was an ill-advised attempt to cast suspicion upon Elaine and Steinbrenner, because it'd make me chuckle.

Later Soupochet.

Julinook

Elaine Benes wrote: ↑Mon Oct 16, 2017 8:14 pm In case I kick it, I don't suspect Frank at all. I have the merest eye-twich suspicion of Jerry. I don't suspect Stein. I mostly suspect Peterman (my suspicion of Jerry would increase if Peterman is bad, because this would mean Jerry loved Jackie and is now muting any suspicion of Peterman), and I mostly suspect George. The Soup Nazi is probably all right, even though he can blow it out his ass. Tim Whatley is yadda yadda yadda.

How d'you feel about Leo?

Julinook

Tim Whatley wrote: ↑Sun Oct 15, 2017 8:10 pm I'm also speculative of Elaine' s claim. Ever hear the tale of the boy who cried wolf?

Linki - I guess we'll see.

Elaine raises a good point about Whatley's vote. He didn't seem entirely convinced in the moment by the claim, but still made the sound vote which ensured at least a tie (once Jackie voted in self-preservation). That's a nice thing. He'd given himself an excuse to vote elsewhere if he wanted to, but didn't.

Julinook

Elaine Benes wrote: ↑Mon Oct 16, 2017 7:40 pmHow do you know he wasn't present? Just because you post doesn't mean you aren't present.

I suppose he could have been. He hadn't posted for a while at EOD and I can't see names down there.

Julinook

Elaine Benes wrote: ↑Mon Oct 16, 2017 6:29 pm
Jerry Seinfeld wrote: ↑Mon Oct 16, 2017 6:09 pm If it's unclear why I think better of Peterman now:

He placed his vote on me yesterday when he was leading the lynch clearly and I had no votes. I wasn't a likely lynch at all, and he didn't care. He stated his grievance with me and placed his vote accordingly. Moreover, he left his vote there all day long, probably expecting himself to be victimized or at least in grave danger. He didn't try to save himself at any juncture, and I think that's suggestive of a civilian low on time trying to promote the most genuine suspicion he had -- of Jerry Seinfeld, the guy who most vocally wanted him dead.

It's still a behavioral judgment and not concrete stuff, so I won't color him dark green for it. But it's a nice look I think and enough for me to prioritize other suspects well in front of him.
If he's bad, what were his options if he never talked about Jackie?

I don't think he'd have ever voted Jackie anyway because he wasn't present at the end of the day (and that wagon developed very late). I am referring to the earlier portion when the votes were pretty well spread. Peterman himself had 3 votes and then about 5 other people had one vote each. I wasn't one of them. He just stuck yet another solo vote on me (and I think I would have been a very difficult lynch to generate). He could have placed a second vote on any of those other players to improve his chance of survival, but prioritized his suspicion of me over that.

Julinook

Elaine Benes wrote: ↑Mon Oct 16, 2017 6:20 pmThere are nine left. Frank is unemployed, because he isn't a cop or a tracker. That leaves seven. One in seven is 14%. I forgot to exclude the vanilla mafia he can't be if he was checked, so that makes one in six, which is 17%

Is it possible I'm not as mathematically strong as I think I am?

I think you're right, if the roles are viewed a priori. I charted it out just to make sure there are no weird things happening in the math. I think it's like this, if we assume the power role claims are legitimate:

Julinook

If it's unclear why I think better of Peterman now:

He placed his vote on me yesterday when he was leading the lynch clearly and I had no votes. I wasn't a likely lynch at all, and he didn't care. He stated his grievance with me and placed his vote accordingly. Moreover, he left his vote there all day long, probably expecting himself to be victimized or at least in grave danger. He didn't try to save himself at any juncture, and I think that's suggestive of a civilian low on time trying to promote the most genuine suspicion he had -- of Jerry Seinfeld, the guy who most vocally wanted him dead.

It's still a behavioral judgment and not concrete stuff, so I won't color him dark green for it. But it's a nice look I think and enough for me to prioritize other suspects well in front of him.

Julinook

I've been in a rut lately. I have been single for an entire day! I mean, Sandy Robbins from the pilot set is acting like my girlfriend to get into her Elaine role, but that doesn't count. I've got my eyes on a new girl though, Amy. George, let me know what you think of her. Be sure to wear your glasses.

Julinook

Those analyses weren't the fountain of insight I hoped they'd be, which is the product of low-content players yet alive. Summary:

Almost certainly not a teammate of Jackie
Elaine Benes

Doesn't look like a teammate of Jackie
The Soup Nazi

Looks like a less likely teammate of Jackie
George Steinbrenner

Shrug
J Peterman
Tim Whatley
Uncle Leo

Look like potential teammates of Jackie
George Costanza
Frank Costanza

That's all purely with regard to the Jackie interactions. Now, if I account for role claims, scenario contexts, and general behavior in the thread as well:

Elaine Benes
George Steinbrenner
The Soup Nazi
J Peterman
Frank Costanza
Tim Whatley
Uncle Leo
George Costanza

Julinook

Elaine Benes wrote: ↑Mon Oct 16, 2017 5:42 pm Apparently, Jerry didn't have enough Pezzes. That should say 17%.

Could you show your work? I believe you, but I can't math right now. I just took a math test and my brain is melting. I just wanna make sure we're operating with the right numbers.

Julinook

What's the deal with Jackie Chiles and Uncle Leo?

Jackie's comments

Spoiler: show

This is technically a defense of Leo at the start of Day 1 even if in role play jokes. This is all he said about Leo.

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

Leo comments

Nope.

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

Conclusion

There's barely anything to talk about. He remains in the POE pool.

Julinook

What's the deal with Jackie Chiles, Kenny Bania, and Tim Whatley?

Jackie's comments

Spoiler: show

Kay.

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

Bania's comments

Nope.

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

Whatley's comments

Nope.

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

Conclusion

Julinook

Julinook

What's the deal with me saying typing the wrong name in my title? What's the deal with ruining the aesthetic bliss of my analyses?

Julinook

What's the deal with J Peterman and The Soup Nazi?

Jackie's comments

Spoiler: show

Jackie implied he found a Soup Nazi post suspicious in a roundabout way when he was talking with Puddy. He didn't mention this suspicion of Soup Nazi prior. To me it looks entirely like a fake concoction to justify feeding the negative press on Puddy, making Soup Nazi an incident participant in this dialogue rather than a strategic participant.

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

Soup Nazi's comments

Spoiler: show

This analysis features both positive and negative commentary and ends with a soft negative stance. I don't think this works for or against Soup Nazi really.

Spoiler: show

Soup Nazi was conscious of Jackie enough that he felt the need to reassess in double-over fashion here, and I think it looks fine. The conclusion isn't especially grounded and "I'll get to this later" isn't necessarily inspiring -- but the language in this thing still resonates well with me.

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

Conclusion

The worst I could say here is that there's strikingly little to talk about considering Soup Nazi's position in the post count ranking. That doesn't move me though, and I am comfortable retaining my civilian read on him.

Julinook

What's the deal with Jackie Chiles and J Peterman?

Jackie's comments

The one Officer Steinbrenner provided really is all there is to talk about. And I just talked about it. This doesn't make Peterman look terrible, but it doesn't help him either.

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

Peterman's comments

They don't exist.

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

Peterman must be read at face value essentially as before. He remains a valid enough suspect, though we can consider whether there's meaning to his having been a pseudo-counterwagon to Jackie's. It's probably more accurate to Jackie a counterwagon to Peterman than vice-versa.

Julinook

I might observe from that interaction that Jackie basically copy/pasted Peterman's comment and then rearranged the words a bit.

Julinook

Actually I'm not sure I care. You're the confirmed cop until someone else contests that claim.

Search found 389 matches