The Syndicate

So sorry, so sorry - my little vacation in the wonders of music took longer than expected. All right, who's dancing?

No one?

Well, I'll just have to get things started.


Or, you know, finished. I know I've been shit. I'm surprised I've survived this long with how I've been playing. But I don't want to waste time garnering pity - I just want to finish this out right. I may be paying attention badly, but I'm not bad. I am, however, sitting here in paranoia trying to figure out who is. I want to dance with the group, but the group's not dancing with me.

I will say that in the back of my mind, I've gone back to Jerry in my paranoia - I'd given him a pass a while back for switching to Jackie, but that's not indicative of goodness at this point. ARGH. Worthless commentary!

I'm rambling now. I know I need to read more thoroughly, but (theme of my game) I don’t have the time or energy to do so like the game deserves. I will, however, read and perhaps talk a very little bit tonight and vote from there. We’ve got this. I hope.

Linki - What to defend against? I've been doing so for much of this game. My vote record is terrible and I've been horrifically unengaged. I have fewer than 20 posts (I didn't even realize that until it was pointed out) and I have not the time to create a counter-case at this point except emphasizing some detached paranoia since I've been wrong far too often. So, I'm at a loss. And now I'll stop rambling. I think.

I'll be at a music festival all weekend starting this afternoon with limited time to check in here, but so it goes. And figures :P
Responses to things I'm seeing:

1) My low post count is a combination of my meta and my busyness this game. I estimated how busy and unengaged I would be in this game, but I still signed up, and I underestimated it. So it goes. Excuses, excuses, but an explanation not alignment-related.

2) My attempt to understand Jerry's paradigm (whatever he's calling it) is genuine, but also through the eyes of someone who has time some days to briefly read the thread, and no time on other days to even think about mafia. So my explanation was through the understanding I currently have, and I still don't quite understand it, but I'm getting there.

And this?

Jerry Seinfeld wrote: ↑Thu Oct 19, 2017 7:29 pm

J Peterman wrote: ↑Thu Oct 19, 2017 7:25 pm

George Steinbrenner wrote: ↑Thu Oct 19, 2017 6:04 pm

J Peterman wrote: ↑Thu Oct 19, 2017 5:58 pm Just to be clear, I misunderstood Jerry's question about Frank, but left the thread last night before I saw my mistake until now. I was well aware of the Frank check, but the question in context was right after Frank had posted an opinion, so I responded as such. Whoopsie.

I don't care about this. Tell me who's bad.

I already did. Yesterday.

Yesterday was a different game. Who's bad now?

Not me. Judging by my last suspicions, and since I was right yesterday about Whatley, going with Frank.

George Steinbrenner wrote: ↑Thu Oct 19, 2017 6:04 pm

J Peterman wrote: ↑Thu Oct 19, 2017 5:58 pm Just to be clear, I misunderstood Jerry's question about Frank, but left the thread last night before I saw my mistake until now. I was well aware of the Frank check, but the question in context was right after Frank had posted an opinion, so I responded as such. Whoopsie.

I don't care about this. Tell me who's bad.

I already did. Yesterday.

Just to be clear, I misunderstood Jerry's question about Frank, but left the thread last night before I saw my mistake until now. I was well aware of the Frank check, but the question in context was right after Frank had posted an opinion, so I responded as such. Whoopsie.

I require sustenance. I think I'll try that new Norwegian restaurant uptown. More conversation later, I hope.

Jerry Seinfeld wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 6:49 pm Thanks, Peterman. Now, tell me, having made your best effort to figure out my nonsense charts and the like, was there anything in my analyses you didn't agree with? I see the one comment you made there in your reads post. What else? Does Frank's civilian ID mean anything to you?

I assume you mean civilian ID for Whatley? Depends on his flip, I suppose. But he doesn't seem terribly sure about the ID, considering his last comment/quote from Whatley about not being sure. So of course it means something to me, but I have yet to see exactly what.

Whatley, then George.

*tents fingers in thought*

I've been working like a dog this past hour! I will do what I do best and give my opinion on everyone here, because I know you like nothing better than to listen to me talk. This is based on what I've been able to eavesdrop on from the hallway (what you've all been saying and doing):

Elaine - Ah, Elaine. So many potential firings, so many reinstatements. Claims to have one job but does another. However, she's at least getting things done, and has shown some of those job claimings to be true. No votes from me today.

Frank - I've agreed with Frank on some occasions. They've been some of the few posts I've actually made! But I agreed on the wrong things, such as his Puddy comment. The vote record isn't great, except that last one getting Jackie. But then again, I suppose I could say that of anyone, considering we've only caught one baddie. Oh, and this little nugget:

Jerry Seinfeld wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 1:48 pm (chart cut)

Note though: Frank, Bania, and Whatley have never said a word to or about one another in this game thread. It's not typical mafia behavior, but I am not sure it'd be surprising in this scenario wherein both player slots have generally been populated by low posters.

I have a friend of a friend of a friend in Czechoslovakia (is that what they're calling it these days?) who has pulled this sort of stunt as a baddie on more than one occasion, so it puts the possibility of Frank being bad a little closer.

George - George's outlier vote last round doesn't look so great. George also keeps saying he'll go back and look at players he's suspicious of, but doesn't. Except Uncle Leo, which honestly, I agree with a suspicion of Leo. But these outlier votes and this new agreement to "do what the town does" but not really doesn't look great. Not a fan.

Steinbrenner - As I said before, I like this fellow - he's got conviction! And although that conviction has been against me much of this little game, I appreciate it as a man. The last vote wasn't the best, considering the flip, but he has been at least consistent, and his contributions to the game have been apt. He's paying attention. Not perfect, given the votes, but certainly not the worst.

Jerry - I said my piece on Jerry before. I voted him with good conscience. I was also quite busy the rest of that day gathering my lost belongings from Burma, but I'm glad his flip-flopping moved to a baddie. So, looks good to me today. Edit: Although, dammit Jerry, make up your mind! You're doing it again! But I have more faith in you this time around, considering the last vote.

Tim Whatley - Good Jackie vote last round. My issue at this point is that he keeps saying he voted me and is voting people for reactions, but I haven't seen much of what intel he's actually garnered from these so-called reactions. It makes me think he's just saying that to say something. Have I missed an explanation?

Uncle Leo - Uncle Leo, why don't you like me? I see you voted me because I haven't said much and I had a bad vote. Haven't we all had a bad vote? But what I do like about Leo is, he's not afraid to go after anyone, no matter how "cleared" they may appear.

It looks like I've pulled the compliment sandwich on all of you fine people, which was...not my intention. But my sherpa says I should try being positive more often. Helps with stress. In the wake of this madness, I'm also trying to understand these charts of role/team possibilities you people have created in the little time and brainpower I have, so I believe I have the gist enough to understand these combinations of possible baddies.

So, from what I've gathered, I'm happiest to vote George, Whatley, or Frank today. And maybe Leo. But less likely Leo.

Boy, the reception from Burma was worse than I thought! Nearly lost my head (and patent leather loafers) yesterday.


Jerry, you did exactly what I said you would, but at least this time you managed to avoid offing a good banana and getting a bad one. Kudos on that job done. My friends, a toast! As the woolly-haired Melanesians of Papua New Guinea once said, "^^!^!^!^^^!!^!^!"

There's a lot to look at with this. What with reinstating myself to my original position and taking back my stock options from Elaine, I do hope I have the chance to look over it all more carefully.

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

And, done.

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

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

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

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

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

That check took longer than I thought. I mean, who among us hasn't snuck into the break room to steal a nibble at the love newton? But my office and brownies are off-limits. I shall answer what I can before I must leave again. I've got a date with a hot banana tonight!

George Steinbrenner wrote: ↑Wed Oct 11, 2017 7:55 pm J Peterman, What can you tell me about this Elaine Benes? My people say she's an employee of yours. Well, I'd like to know what you have to say about her. My head's still spinning from before!

I like this Steinbrenner fellow. Not afraid to say what he thinks, not afraid to let it all hang out, like a kerchief in a fine suit. As for Elaine, she's a tough one, and she's worked for me for years. On the one hand, she's after Jerry pretty consistently, and that's a job...done. On the other hand, she's gone after Puddy, which I didn't expect after those attacks on Jerry. And a claimed vigilante? Such bold words, Elaine! But I wouldn't put it past a woman who doesn't like The English Patient. It's all almost worth firing her over. Almost.

But not today, because I'm not liking the looks of this Puddy fellow, either. I've said my piece on him, however short, for I am a man of few words. Puddy, you're out.

Ah, so agreeing with someone and bringing up a point about their unexplained "suspicion" is now piggybacking, eh? You know what I think, Jerry? I think you're on the wagon, doing the hard stuff. Yamyam. White lotus. Shanghai Sally. And now you're flip-flopping away again because I've agreed with suspicion against the very fellow you were accusing not hours ago? Balderdash, I say.

I need a few moments to check on my brownies (they were at Henry VIII's wedding, can you believe it?) and make sure no one's snuck in my office to steal them. I will return again.

Frank Costanza wrote: ↑Wed Oct 11, 2017 6:59 pm

The Soup Nazi wrote: ↑Wed Oct 11, 2017 5:54 pm You lack an actual tone.

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

David Puddy wrote: ↑Wed Oct 11, 2017 6:45 pm **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, we dine: I was just thinking the same thing here.

David, you're obviously lying - anyone can see that! How is that last post any less suspicious than Soup's other posts? I rather thought he's been consistent with his suspicions. You take back your tales, you vagabond!

I'd still like to hear more from quiet people, although I'm pleased to see most are talking since yesterday. Who was it that made the comment about the Estelle and "villread"? I like it. Has experience, but is not using it. And Bania, where are you? Still on Page 3? I need ideas, both of you!

I won't have them turning my office into a den of iniquity! Say something, or get your fix elsewhere! (Like on the chopping block.)

I'll be blunt - I'm burned out. My mind is as barren as the surface of the moon. I need to catch up. My apologies for being gone - I'm in Burma (you most likely know it as Myanmar, but it'll always be Burma to me), and the reception is no good. Give me a few moments to get some melons from this passing motorbike and I'll be back with ideas.

These votes are everywhere! Oh, my neck is one gargantuan monkey fist.

What else have we got? Bania, Newman, Puddy, Leo - you haven't had a suspicion this whole meeting. For the love of God, just tell me what the suspicions are! I'll go with Newman unless we get some new ideas. You're all too quiet.

*walks out, groaning*

Poisoner - you're out of control. You need help. But I know what you're going through. I, too, once fell under the spell of poison. It was 1979. I was traveling the Yangtze in search of a Mongolian horsehair vest. I had gotten to the market after sundown. All of the clothing traders had gone. But a different sort of trader lurked about. "Just a taste," he said. That was all it took.

The toll road of denial is a long and dangerous one, poisoner. The price? Your soul.














Oh, and by the way, you have 'til the end of the day to clear out your things. You're lynch bait.