The Syndicate

Julinook

Any reason in particular you didn't claim after your shots had been expended, or prior to now?

Julinook

What's the deal with Jackie Chiles and George Steinbrenner?

Jackie's comments

Spoiler: show

Jokes and banter.

Spoiler: show

This was a pretty concrete and aggressive accusation made by Jackie against Steinbrenner on Night 1, followed by a designation that Steinbrenner is among his three top lynch options for Day 2.

Color-coded stances analysis

Jackie was kinder to Steinbrenner in this assessment than he was to the other three, based upon the amount of content and his willingness to shift his stance on Frank. This represents a distinct shift by Jackie himself on Steinbrenner. I'm brought to wonder whether this reflects Jackie realizing he doesn't have a decent argument to make against Steinbrenner, or a capitalization upon the decent credit Steinbrenner has earned in the public eye as the game has progressed. My intuition leads me to the former, but I grant the inherent bias in my own read on Steinbrenner.

Jackie confirmed that he was feeling better about Steinbrenner.

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

Steinbrenner's comments

Spoiler: show

Steinbrenner's response to Jackie's earliest banter. It's a small moment I am not inclined to overanalyze -- at face value I don't think it looks suggestive of a teammate relationship.

Spoiler: show

Ironically I'm not sure Steinbrenner answered Jackie's accusation very well here. The accusation itself was ill-motivated, we now know, but we can still judge the interaction. The potential for a cooked dialogue increases when the exchange doesn't flow in a way that would seem typical (and I don't think the brevity of Steinbrenner's retort is a typical response to a loud accusation like Jackie's). That's not ideal.

Spoiler: show

This post may represent the loudest support offered to Jackie at any point in this game. If Steinbrenner is Jackie's teammate, he surely wasn't concerned about generating any distance.

Spoiler: show

By Night 2 it appears Steinbrenner had become more concerned with Jackie, after his prolonged Day 2 absence. Here he prodded me to discuss Jackie a bit.

Spoiler: show

Green in the Day 3 rainbow, placed similarly to my own placement.

Spoiler: show

Steinbrenner prods Whatley to discuss Frank and Jackie. This prod is probably minor, but it does suggest to me that Frank and Steinbrenner are unlikely teammates (did I already suggest this elsewhere? I think I did) -- I don't see a good reason for mafia Steinbrenner to ask Whatley for a report on both of his teammates.

Spoiler: show

This poke was directed at Elaine prior to her tracker reveal.

Large ISO wherein Steinbrenner reconsiders the matter of Jackie

At face value I appreciate the effort here by Steinbrenner to challenge his own town read on a player who had fallen off significantly after a strong start. I don't think the points he makes appear cooked or otherwise troublesome, and I don't know that there would have been an imminent need for a mafia Steinbrenner to take this semi-turn on his teammate at this moment. It wasn't obvious to me that Elaine had big news coming at EOD, so I doubt he was preparing himself for that eventuality. In that regard it looks like an authentic civilian mindset at work to me.

Spoiler: show

This was directed at Elaine immediately after her first reveal that Jackie had killed Estelle. This is going to need an explanation, Steinbrenner. I may have one already, but I want to hear it from you.

Spoiler: show

This one I don't have an explanation for. Mr. Steinbrenner, you just suggested that you didn't understand what Elaine was saying, and that "it looked like she was claiming mafia". Her preceding post literally was this:

Spoiler: show

What's not to understand? How can this be interpreted as a mafia claim?

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

Conclusion

There are some isolated moments worth questioning, and a number more moments that I like for Steinbrenner. That stuff at the very end of Day 3 though after Elaine's claim is pretty baffling, and it makes me hesitate to take anything else I said here seriously. Talk about it ASAP, Big Stein.

Julinook

What's the deal with Jackie Chiles and George Costanza?

Jackie's comments

Spoiler: show

Jackie placed an early Day 1 poop vote on George.

Spoiler: show

Jackie was gracious in his reception of George's little prod here. This exchange is a bit of a pinger.

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.*****

Spoiler: show

He reinforces that George was the worst look in his analysis.

Spoiler: show

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.

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

George's comments

Spoiler: show

This turned into role play banter.

Spoiler: show

He felt good about Jackie on Day 1. I don't fault him for that, but here it is for analytic completeness.

Spoiler: show

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.

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.

Spoiler: show

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.

Spoiler: show

Well this is eloquent and congenial for a guy answering an accusation from someone he has expressed uncertainty about (as evidenced in the prior point re: Steinbrenner).

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

Conclusion

I had more negative to say about George than positive. I am wary of the point marked with ***** though. He'd be an easy fall guy.

Julinook

What's the deal with Jackie Chiles and Frank Costanza?

Jackie's comments

Spoiler: show

Jackie threw some poop at Frank on Day 1 because of his random Kramer vote. It was a very easy accusation to render. If I lean any direction here it's slightly in Frank's favor, but it's not an inspired lean.

Agrees with my suspicion of Frank, but not my suspicion of Estelle on Day 1.

He TMI'd the Estelle read. Perhaps he also TMI'd the Frank read.

Spoiler: show

He listed Frank alongside Steinbrenner and George as preferred lynch options for Day 2. It isn't clear why.

Color-coded stances analysis

He noted that Frank consistently spoke ill of George, and separately in the Steinbrenner analysis he noted that Big Stein's Frank read had shifted frequently. One minor thing I draw from this:

I don't think the remaining mafia are Frank and Steinbrenner. I doubt Jackie would have tied his teammates together needlessly in this manner.

The specific four names he decided to focus on here align with the fake suspicions he'd stated previously.

Spoiler: show

Just before he was offed, Jackie threw these names into the thread when I asked "who is bad?". He was in serious danger of being lynched at this point, so anti-spew should be considered -- but I don't struggle to believe he has comfortably nestled a teammate in there (which would imply a Costanza in 99.9% of universes wherein that assumption holds).

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

Frank's comments

Spoiler: show

Frank didn't mention Jackie a single time, as far as I can see, in this game until after Elaine claimed her tracking snare against him. Considering Jackie was vocally anti-Frank across multiple phases, this concerns me. It isn't uncommon for distancing to be a one-sided affair like this, because a mafioso being accused by a teammate has no internal fire to respond to those accusations -- their motives are already understood. It's harder to make a priority of that than it is to respond to critical civilians (as seen for example with Frank's consistent willingness to respond to my accusations).

This isn't ideal.

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

Conclusion

I don't think this does Frank any favors, and the last point concerns me considerably.

Julinook

Interactive reads for days this night phase. My time will be limited so I need y'all to get on it.

Julinook

Elaine Benes wrote: ↑Sun Oct 15, 2017 8:35 pm

This was all I wanted to see. MVP and best role play.

Julinook

Peterman left his vote on me. He can't survive with that vote.

Vote Jackie!

Julinook

Tim Whatley wrote: ↑Sun Oct 15, 2017 8:26 pm
Jerry Seinfeld wrote: ↑Sun Oct 15, 2017 8:21 pm 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.

I don't think it's likely either. Hence my belief.

Julinook

Elaine Benes wrote: ↑Sat Oct 14, 2017 2:14 am Looking at the matrix, there's a cop, tracker, killer, or blocker. Someone should have some information by now. Get it together people.

Evidence Elaine was prepping for this reveal (truthfully).

Julinook

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.

Julinook

If Jackie is civilian Elaine is confirmed mafia. Lynch Jackie.

Julinook

Jackie Chiles wrote: ↑Sun Oct 15, 2017 8:15 pm You'll be lynching another Civ.

Who's bad?

Julinook

VOTE JACKIE CHILES YALL

Julinook

A hard claim is a conclusive claim with a pledge that it's not cover-claim.

Julinook

Just saw Elaine's claim. Elaine, give me the word "hard claim", and it's secure.

Julinook

lol I have to miss EOD sorry gang. Helping friend with studies.

/hypocrisy

Julinook

Elaine who bad

Julinook

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.

Julinook

I'm a bit queezy about a Peterman lynch just given the ease with which it has been sustained, but I am not completely turned off by it a la Puddy. With Puddy the development of the wagon was just horrendous; it really made things transparent. This time I am just experiencing standard civilian uncertainty, and I'm not going to campaign against a wagon for that reason. I also note the bevy of 1-vote "wagons" surrounding him in the poll. People are definitely trying to incite alternatives.

Julinook

By the way, my actual Night 2 track was much less interesting -- Estelle targeted nobody.

Julinook

I have no evidence of anything on Elaine. She's a tinfoil suspect. I don't think her role claiming behavior makes her bad, indeed it might even make her good -- it's cover and it incites reactions and conversation. That's a good thing. It's the same reason I pretended to track Steinbrenner into a kill. The issues I have with Elaine are more general given her disposition and candor -- she seems carefree to the point of caricature, and that makes me worry a bit about WIFOM gambits.

Julinook

I'm not lynching George today.

Julinook

Soup Nazi, what is your present take on Peterman?

Julinook

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

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

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

*opens Tim Whatley's post history*

*CTRL+F for "peterman"*

1 mention in entire history, and it's in this post with this vote. Naw.

Voting Tim Whatley.

Julinook

The Elaine/Peterman connection strikes me as rather blatant ("willingish"), but it wouldn't shock me.

Julinook

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

Julinook

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

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

Julinook

J Peterman wrote: ↑Sun Oct 15, 2017 8:47 amTake this Puddy fellow. Jerry, you're after him for two days, all the while throwing suspicions this way and that, you even place votes on him and encourage others to place votes, and then you "don't like it" all of a sudden when people do. You accuse me of not having a substantive reason for voting him, yet you yourself don't have a substantive reason except lines like "Puddy is confirmed mafia."

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

I substantiated my suspicion of Puddy once.

Twice.

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

Julinook

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

Julinook

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

Julinook

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

Julinook

The Soup Nazi wrote: ↑Sun Oct 15, 2017 10:23 am
Jerry Seinfeld wrote: ↑Sun Oct 15, 2017 10:12 am "Flaking"

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

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

kay eff emm

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

Julinook

The Soup Nazi wrote: ↑Sun Oct 15, 2017 10:21 am
Jerry Seinfeld wrote: ↑Sun Oct 15, 2017 10:11 am
Jerry Seinfeld wrote: ↑Sun Oct 15, 2017 9:53 am
The Soup Nazi wrote: ↑Sun Oct 15, 2017 9:49 am Oh, so you just moved on your lady friend, after contesting my read on her, because reasons?
I felt like jumping ship on Peterman, and yanno she's there. Your grievance with her Puddy vote doesn't quite sell as well in my own head, but I did hate that wagon and she was on it. Indeed she was the only one on it still present at EOD when I was trying to steer away from it and she didn't acknowledge me.

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

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

Julinook

"Flaking"

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

Great, winning mindset.

Julinook

Jerry Seinfeld wrote: ↑Sun Oct 15, 2017 9:53 am
The Soup Nazi wrote: ↑Sun Oct 15, 2017 9:49 am Oh, so you just moved on your lady friend, after contesting my read on her, because reasons?
I felt like jumping ship on Peterman, and yanno she's there. Your grievance with her Puddy vote doesn't quite sell as well in my own head, but I did hate that wagon and she was on it. Indeed she was the only one on it still present at EOD when I was trying to steer away from it and she didn't acknowledge me.

Julinook

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

George Costanza wrote: ↑Thu Oct 12, 2017 2:38 pm
Uncle Leo wrote: ↑Thu Oct 12, 2017 2:29 pm
The Soup Nazi wrote: ↑Thu Oct 12, 2017 1:19 pm
<snip>

Leo

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

Why Jerry? because he is the one that sealed Newman's fate by changing his vote (assuming no further actions were taken). If anything, that initial comment was more about me working in Jerry's incredible cousin Jeffrey, you know, at the Parks department.
I agree with what you're saying to some extent, especially earlier, like right after the lynch. The fact that Jerry downplayed it too, and made it seem like he didn't have any other options (which he did have), also made me feel weary. However, it's those balls of steel on a day 1 that make me place Jerry on my safe list now. He wouldn't have drawn that much attention to himself, he made a decision that killed Newman, he stuck by it. It was a deciding vote to lynch a townie on Day 1, not something mafia would have done to blend in. There's like a 2% chance he's not who he says he is. For now, he's on my safe list.

Similarly, Elaine is on my safe list for her frustration post and revealing/not revealing her PR.

Julinook

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

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

Julinook

The Soup Nazi wrote: ↑Sun Oct 15, 2017 9:57 am
I felt like jumping ship on Peterman...
Day 1 "So what's the deal with Puddy"

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

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

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

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

Julinook

The Soup Nazi wrote: ↑Sun Oct 15, 2017 9:49 am Oh, so you just moved on your lady friend, after contesting my read on her, because reasons?

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

Julinook

The Soup Nazi wrote: ↑Sun Oct 15, 2017 9:47 am I wouldn't be surprised if one or two mobsters act on point, considering how the majority of players are still playing worse than headless chickens -
which means a good amount of civilians. Good luck using reverse psychology in your searches, if that's your flavor. On that note, Yankeeman? Still nothing but praise for that man? He's probably pouring money into your show, that's why. Those are dirty money, comedian.

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

Julinook

The Soup Nazi wrote: ↑Sun Oct 15, 2017 9:35 am They lynched Poodie with zero in-thread reasoning? Hello?!

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

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

Julinook

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

Julinook

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

Julinook

Regarding Elaine:

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

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

Julinook

Frank Costanza wrote: ↑Sun Oct 15, 2017 12:40 am Jerry, you're dead wrong and I know it. Doing a hell of a job ordering the town conversation to bad ends there.

Please show me where I'm wrong specifically.

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

Sense of urgency, people.

Julinook

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

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

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

Julinook

Oh, Lanie.

Julinook

Elaine Benes wrote: ↑Sat Oct 14, 2017 10:59 pmAll of it. He's strange and beautiful and sensitive.

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

Julinook

I'm looking forward to hearing your cases, Chiles. Bring the goods.

Julinook

Elaine Benes wrote: ↑Sat Oct 14, 2017 10:37 pm I could drop Frank Costanza like a bag of dirt. I don't want to though. I like his stuff.

What stuff do you like?

How willing are you to lynch Peterman?

Search found 389 matches