The Syndicate

I voted for Peterman and the poll's not even up yet.

J Peterman wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 6:43 pm 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.

Hmmmmmmmm? "It puts the possibility of Frank being bad a little closer." What on earth is this? This is a joint accusation against Frank AND Whatley. Jerry's point is that Frank and Whatley TOGETHER could be scum because they've not interacted up to this point. Peterman responds to it by saying that he can foresee this meaning that Frank is scum. Just Frank. Not Whatley. But in order for this theory to even be applicable to Frank, Whatley must also be scum. But Peterman does not mention Whatley. He glosses over him, and moves onto spinning the case against Frank. Is this a simultaneous scum-slip and hand-in-the-cookie-jar catch? Am I seeing this right? Somebody help.

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.

Frank and Tim

Frank Costanza wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 6:35 pm Alright, I'm back, SERENITY NOW'ed, and ready to vote for George now that Jerry has also seen the light. Will look at Whately just to be fair.

He looks to me like a civilian being thrown into the game and wanting to engage with the main posters, make sure they didn't escape suspicion. That both of those main posters have turned out to look eminently civ is just the way the game unfolded.

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.

The thing that looks worst to me is this.

Regarding my Peterman vote without much reason, truth is there was none other than me wanting to gauge reactions. I figured if Peterman was bad, I should pressure vote and see who scrambles. This didn't happen

That's after previously defending the vote with this:

Interesting. What should I say over his 7 posts that hasn't been said already?

That strikes me as a lack of transparency, which isn't a great look at this point in the game, when we're all really scrambling to solve and avoid LYLO. My gut says it's good for him to come clean rather than fabricate a reason, but I realize that's open to interpretation.

In summary, I still think George is a stronger suspect based on what he's said about Estelle and Jackie.

He's looking at Whatley "just to be fair". Odd choice of words, but alright. I mentioned earlier that I have some reason to look favorably on Frank for this post, but I can also say the opposite. Frank continues to push George as his top suspect as he has all game long.

Frank Costanza wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 6:56 pm

Jerry Seinfeld wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 6:38 pm Frank, I don't understand what's happening in that post. Do you trust Whatley or not?

Ah, I realize my quote placement there wasn't clear. My statements apply to the quotes below them. Which means that, in the balance, I trust Whately.

Confirms that he "trusts" Whatley.

I haven't read through all of his material, but I feel like his effort is genuine. His thought process on Whately is similar to my own ("his two claims of reaction baiting don't really address the underlying thought process of his gameplay"), but he ends up on the other side of the coin based on his own gut judgement. He's correct with his ID of me as civilian, and that's a hard claim.

This section of the same post makes less sense to me. Frank, you say that my thought process aligns with your own regarding whatley, but that we ended up on opposite sides. How is this so? If you agree that his claims do not seem to be supported by his actions and words in the thread, how is it that you come out of that feeling GOOD about him?

Frank Costanza wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 8:11 pm

Tim Whatley wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 7:23 pm Regarding this, would you say that this makes sense following my reveal of this being a pressure vote or not? How was my vote supposed to be transparent, when I had no real reason for it other than for observation? I want to know why you are valuing transparency here as it seems to be irrelevant to me.

Your vote would have been transparent if you said up front that it was for pressure, rather than for some unspecified reason about Peterman's 7 posts that had been "said already." I'm valuing transparency because mafia have more reasons to lie in this game.

Response to Whatley. This feels like a much more natural response than Peterman's, though it's hard to look too favorably on it when we now know Whatley's role and it could be said that Frank is holding back on him.

Frank Costanza wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 8:22 pm It looks like nobody else is going on George, so I'll switch to Whatley. I can see the argument for him being bad, even though my gut says he's not. And obviously my gut has been wrong on several different occasions this game.

I don't know how the tally looked at this time, but this looks like a good vote from Frank. Things were very much up in the air all day long, and this looks like a relatively committed move from Frank. If he's bad he'd had an opportunity during this day to join more than one town bandwagon. Instead he's planted his flag in his top suspect (George), but then moved over to the victorious camp to help lynch Whatley. And, to follow that up, he gave us this lovely little post afterward:

Frank Costanza wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 8:35 pm

Jerry Seinfeld wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 8:24 pm

Frank Costanza wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 8:22 pm It looks like nobody else is going on George, so I'll switch to Whatley. I can see the argument for him being bad, even though my gut says he's not. And obviously my gut has been wrong on several different occasions this game.

Is there anyone for whom you cannot see the argument for their being bad? Disregard Elaine, Steinbrenner, and I.

Other than me? I think Peterman is having fun roleplaying and isn't worried enough to be mafia. Anyone else is fair game, particularly Leo for that self-vote nonsense.

Frank does not see Peterman being scum. If Frank is scum, Peterman is the easiest player to get mislynched tomorrow. This is a boneheaded thing to say if that is the case. It would make no sense.
Lynch Peterman tomorrow.

A look at Tim Whatley's treatment of all players still in my POE pool:

Tim Whatley wrote: ↑Sat Oct 14, 2017 1:17 pm

George Steinbrenner wrote: ↑Sat Oct 14, 2017 1:12 pm 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.

For context, prior to this post Whatley had focused pretty much exclusively on players that are currently either confirmed town (Soup Nazi, Estelle) or near-confirmed (Elaine, Jerry). The next player he turned his focus on was George with this generic mafia prod. It's not an accusatory prompt, but it does come from out of left field and seems to be an effort to at least establish basis for suspicion (the middle question). I am more inclined to think that a scum player would be more direct in an accusation against a teammate. A bus is usually a deliberate action, but this setup feels very timid from Whatley, like he didn't want to do anything too abrupt to upset George and draw his suspicion. So I'll chalk this up as a positive for George, but I'm open to other interpretations.

Tim Whatley wrote: ↑Sat Oct 14, 2017 1:24 pm 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.

This is more direct evidence of my theory above. Whatley was almost certainly trying to establish a basis for suspecting George in his previous post, and here he's become bold enough to state it out in the open. This does not feel like a bus, and all of his other targets so far are town. He then does an interesting thing by pledging to take a look at the people who voted for the Mr. Steinbrenner and the Soup Nazi. Which brings us too...

Tim Whatley wrote: ↑Sat Oct 14, 2017 1:43 pm @Uncle Leo, why did you vote Stein day one? Your vote on Puddy, was that you crying "No you?"

Uncle Leo wrote: ↑Thu Oct 12, 2017 10:07 pmpeterman
-why: hasn't said much of anything substantial. voted for Puddy

Arent you in the same boat?

This is a juicy post. At the center of Whatley's accusation are Uncle Leo and Peterman. The accusation is being spun against Leo, but it can also be read as a soft defense of Peterman. If I am assuming George is town, then to this point Whatley has not wavered from pursuing townies exclusively. I'd be playing with fire if I tried to state definitively whether or not his strategy was to only pursue non-teammates and leave his partners alone in the thread, but he has appeared to be trending this way thus far. It would be a rather sharp turn, after pushing so hard against nothing but townie, to suddenly spin his focus onto a relatively unsuspected teammate in Leo (hypothetically speaking). So, if I am rolling with that logic, I am brought to the other player involved in this triangle, J. Peterman. Whatley is using a line of accusation against Leo here that, by its nature and by his own admission, must also apply against Peterman. Yet he singularly targets Leo in this post, and by virtue of this is also deflecting the criticism away from Peterman.
Granted, if we flip the supposed alignments of Peterman and Leo here then we can say that he chose to pursue Leo with this accusation and not Peterman because he was only interested in distancing. Either way, this post strikes me as being deliberately targeted at Leo but not Peterman for one reason or another. Leo's response will be worth looking at once I'm done here.

Tim Whatley wrote: ↑Sat Oct 14, 2017 3:12 pm Sien, what do you think of Uncle Leo's vote for you? What do you want right now?

He asked for my thoughts on Leo's day 1 vote and then seems to be goading me into something unspecific. I should have been more alarmed at that in the moment. That second question is totally directionless. Word vomit is all it is. But the main point here is the continued push against Leo. He's clearly moved on to that angle, and I'm feeling more and more like Whatley's strategy was to incite confusion and town-on-town violence. I do not think scum players tend to bus indirectly like this. He appears to be trying to plant seeds of suspicion against Leo in my brain rather than making an original accusation here. I'm feeling more good vibes toward Leo.

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.

This post came ~20 hours after his previous post, and towards the end of the phase but not quite in End of Day mode yet (ie, prior to Elaine's big news). If memory serves me correct, Peterman was looking like a highly likely lynch at this point. Whatley's only previous involvement with Peterman was the aforementioned soft deflection via accusation against Leo, but here he casts an unapologetic vote against him (and would later claim this was done for the sake of reactions, but that is the second most bogus claim he made all game). A vote for Peterman at this time would not be critical to his lynch, but it would certainly contribute to it; a textbook bandwagon vote. I am torn here. My investigation up to this point has brought me to suspect that Whatley has been actively working to get a townie lynched. All of his suspicions and accusations suggest as much. So if he's voting for Peterman here, there should be some suggestion that Peterman is just another expendable townie.
On the other hand, for all of Whatley's angling prior to this vote, he never once mentioned Peterman and, if anything, appeared to to defend him despite Peterman being public suspect #1 for most of this time. If Whatley wanted to push us towards lynching a townie, here is his easiest target. Instead he kept his distance until a lynch seemed inevitable, or at least immanently likely. I can assume that this vote was cast under the assumption that Peterman was most probably going to be revealed at the end of this day phase. With that in mind, we need to consider how he would have wanted to appear after Peterman's flip. If Peterman is town, then Whatley is hopping on a mislynch, despite having no prior ties to the bandwagon or any observable reason to want to contribute to it. That's the type of move that draws a lot of attention from townies everywhere. If Peterman is bad, then Whatley has a chance to score some townie points by jumping on a successful scum lynch when there was just enough open space for the vote to have some influence on the final outcome, but not so much that he was integral to the lynch. If Whatley's endgame here was his standing in the thread post-lynch, then this looks like a very possible bus vote. If he's angling to get a townie lynched, then this is a scummy as hell vote. But Peterman didn't get lynched, so we can't know for sure yet. It's also worth noting that if Peterman is scum, he's the godfather and I had not yet made my role public, so protecting the godfather as much as possible would have been a priority for the bad guys. Both Jackie and Whatley made no attempts to pursue Peterman at any time in the thread.

Tim Whatley wrote: ↑Sun Oct 15, 2017 6:32 pm

Jerry Seinfeld wrote: ↑Sun Oct 15, 2017 12:55 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.

*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?

Denies responsibility for needing to justify his Peterman vote. Yuck. He's comfortable enough to cast a vote, but not enough to discuss reasons for voting. I don't know if this tells me a whole bunch about Peterman, but it's definitely a bad look for Whatley. Not that that matters anymore. I might say I have a slight indication to read this in Peterman's favor. If they are partners, then it shouldn't be too much of a challenge to look into Peterman's 7 posts and pull out something that smells guilty. But I could say that regardless of Peterman's alignment, so null.

George Costanza wrote: ↑Sun Oct 15, 2017 2:37 pm

Tim Whatley wrote: ↑Sat Oct 14, 2017 1:17 pm

George Steinbrenner wrote: ↑Sat Oct 14, 2017 1:12 pm 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?

Disgusted by George's Day 1 carelessness. This does not look like a teammate interaction to me.

Tim Whatley wrote: ↑Tue Oct 17, 2017 11:53 pm Good evening everyone. I'd like to apologize for my absence today. The office was slammed.

Regarding my Peterman vote without much reason, truth is there was none other than me wanting to gauge reactions. I figured if Peterman was bad, I should pressure vote and see who scrambles. This didn't happen.

I probably would've swapped to Leo or Elaine if it weren't for her hard claim.

I will review my suspects tomorrow. Until then, goodnight.

Now that Peterman is not in the line of fire, Whatley pulls back his suspicion and denies that it ever existed in the first place, and then lets us know that Leo is still on his radar.

Tim Whatley wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 6:25 pm
And my pressure vote on Peterman? Is there anything wrong with that? am I supposed to not hunt and generate information? Also, to go back to the events of my Peterman vote, if I had a reason other than it being a pressure vote, why the hell did I swap to Chiles?

More hard denial that he ever had a reason to suspect Peterman. This is not a good look for the P-man.

Tim Whatley wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 6:37 pm

Jerry Seinfeld wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 6:27 pm Whatley, defending yourself is pointless at this point. Just do that hunting. That hunting is your defense. Who's bad?

Leo, Frank, recent posts makes me want to look at George but I can also see the angle of a frustrated civ taking heat solely based on mafia actions.

George, how do your actions counteract what is being claimed? Can any of your actions hold you accountable or no?

Leo, Frank, and George. This marks the very first time all game that he's mentioned Frank in any capacity, which is certainly worth noting. It's also worth noting that he names every non-inner circle player left in the game except for Peterman. So I really don't know what to make of this post. He is most actively pursuing George here. At this point Whatley was either making one last push to spin a lynch against a townie, or trying to serve us heaps of WIFOM for after his flip. If it's the former (as I'm more inclined to believe, given the volatile nature of yesterday) then George is his strongest "suspect" here, and thus the player who I am most inclined to read favorably in this post. Leo and Frank receive passing mentions and nothing more, but Leo has been a consistent target for Whatley since his entry into this game and I continue to view Leo favorably for it. Frank is a mystery and his placement here was essentially a necessity from Whatley. It could very well be that he made no mention of Frank earlier because they're teammates and he didn't want to accidentally get tangled up in lynching the godfather, or it could be that he simply paid Frank no mind. I don't know.

Tim Whatley wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 6:57 pm

J Peterman wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 6:43 pmTim 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?

Let's talk about how Elaine's hard claim came shortly after, hindering the time I had to judge. The only person I saw a reaction from was Jerry, but Jerry is... Y'know a troublemaker. Unless you are scum Peterman, his reaction meant little.

Tim Whatley wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 6:57 pm

J Peterman wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 6:43 pmTim 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?

Let's talk about how Elaine's hard claim came shortly after, hindering the time I had to judge. The only person I saw a reaction from was Jerry, but Jerry is... Y'know a troublemaker. Unless you are scum Peterman, his reaction meant little.

Ah, here's the first true interaction with either Peterman or Frank. Peterman calls him out for the faux-pressure vote (because duh), but that tacked on question at the end gives the accusation a tentative feel. Whatley's response is sharply defensive and he blames his failing tactics on Elaine's supremacy. His concluding sentence is a head-scratcher. "Unless you are scum Peterman, [Jerry's] reaction meant little." He's only hypothetically acknowledging the possibility of Peterman being scum despite a supposed POE list of 4 players which absolutely should include him, after already naming everyone but him as a suspect. It's possible that Whatley was cultivating this arms-length relationship with Peterman to mislead us, but I can also read this as two teammates whose backs are up against the wall trying to interact with each other without either of them incriminating the other too much. It feels stiff. I don't think this looks good for Peterman.

Tim Whatley wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 7:06 pm

Jerry Seinfeld wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 6:52 pm

Tim Whatley wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 6:37 pm

Jerry Seinfeld wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 6:27 pm Whatley, defending yourself is pointless at this point. Just do that hunting. That hunting is your defense. Who's bad?

Leo, Frank, recent posts makes me want to look at George but I can also see the angle of a frustrated civ taking heat solely based on mafia actions.

George, how do your actions counteract what is being claimed? Can any of your actions hold you accountable or no?

Tell me more about Leo and Frank. I'll give you two options, please address one or both:

1) Why do you suspect Leo and Frank most?

2) Why do you suspect George and Peterman less?

1) Leo's vote day 2 pinged me hard and that ping never went away. Frank because of POE, but I must admit that Peterman and George can be swapped with Frank, but that leads me to...

2) My reads of George are tonal. I just don't read him as mafia, even recent posts I read tonally as civ, but the problem I have is that I know there's some bias. Part of me wants to believe he's civ because I want to be right on that judgment call. The same bias applies to you and Elaine. I don't think we had a tie between two mafia, so I'm excluding Peterman.

Leo is town. Whatley has been weaseling his way toward this suspicion for a long time. It does not feel like a bus attempt. He offers no real comment on either Frank or Peterman, which is a concern. I am growing more and more confident that one of those two is the godfather, but Whatley's entire comment on Frank is "POE" and he dismisses Peterman as a suspect because there's no way town is good enough to have forced a tie between two mafia players yesterday. I like neither of these things, though I suppose I'd be inclined to say that the Peterman comment is the worse look. He's still offering a defense of him, and "Frank is a POE suspect" is a given at this point and also gives him a reason to swing his vote to Frank if the thread dictates it. But I don't get anything strong from this post.

Then he votes for Leo. Leo is town.

Tim Whatley wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 7:09 pm During day 3, no one seemed to hard oppose a Peterman vote. The only person that jumped at my pressure vote was you, and I don't think you had malice while jumping at it.

More defense of Peterman. During Day 4, Tim Whatley seemed to hard oppose a Peterman vote.

Tim Whatley wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 7:23 pm

Frank Costanza wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 6:35 pm Alright, I'm back, SERENITY NOW'ed, and ready to vote for George now that Jerry has also seen the light. Will look at Whately just to be fair.

He looks to me like a civilian being thrown into the game and wanting to engage with the main posters, make sure they didn't escape suspicion. That both of those main posters have turned out to look eminently civ is just the way the game unfolded.

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.

The thing that looks worst to me is this.

Regarding my Peterman vote without much reason, truth is there was none other than me wanting to gauge reactions. I figured if Peterman was bad, I should pressure vote and see who scrambles. This didn't happen

That's after previously defending the vote with this:

Interesting. What should I say over his 7 posts that hasn't been said already?

That strikes me as a lack of transparency, which isn't a great look at this point in the game, when we're all really scrambling to solve and avoid LYLO. My gut says it's good for him to come clean rather than fabricate a reason, but I realize that's open to interpretation.

In summary, I still think George is a stronger suspect based on what he's said about Estelle and Jackie.

Regarding this, would you say that this makes sense following my reveal of this being a pressure vote or not? How was my vote supposed to be transparent, when I had no real reason for it other than for observation? I want to know why you are valuing transparency here as it seems to be irrelevant to me.

Finally, Frank and Whatley are interacting. Frank came in late and shared his two cents on the dentist. He gave him a light town read, but then provided basis for suspicion (the Peterman pressure vote, again duh). I don't think this is a great looking post for Frank. The accusation again feels a bit tentative and reserved, but I do like (at least a little) that he provided a town read but then dug up and shared a reason why he might go against that read. Whatley's response appears more defensive here compared to his response to Peterman's very similar accusation earlier in the phase (above). He asks pointed, borderline accusatory questions for Frank, which might suggest a little bit of panic as well as a knee-jerk reaction to push suspicion back against him. I think this response looks more hostile than his response to Peterman. Good look for Frank.

Tim Whatley wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 7:38 pm @Uncle Leo If I vote Frank, what will you do?

A pledge to vote for Frank instead of Leo after the Leo self-vote fiasco. I dunno. Empty gesture and WIFOM city. I am inclined to think that Whatley wanted a townie to be lynched Day 4 and was conspiring toward that end. If this is the case, then Peterman looks much, much worse than Frank or anyone else. If, on the other hand, he was trying to put some distance between his teammate and himself, Frank looks worse. I am leaning toward the former, so I am leaning toward Peterman.

My gut right now is leaning toward Peterman, but I could easily change my mind. I'll figure this out later. Good work today, y'all. Mr. Steinbrenner is proud of your efforts.

Frank Costanza wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 8:22 pm It looks like nobody else is going on George, so I'll switch to Whatley. I can see the argument for him being bad, even though my gut says he's not. And obviously my gut has been wrong on several different occasions this game.

Is this the kind of thing a teammate would say before contributing to the lynch of their partner?

Tim Whatley wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 7:07 pm I voted Uncle Leo. It's the only vote I feel good about placing right now.

This post makes me feel good about Leo. I don't think mafia where in a position where they wanted to bus each other today. If they're going to push a lynch, they're pushing a mislynch unless a bus can't be avoided. This feels like a desperation heave by the dentist.

George Costanza wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 7:05 pm

Jerry Seinfeld wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 7:01 pm

George Costanza wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 6:57 pm The fact Peterman isn't even aware of the civ read on Frank is as interesting as Whatley not knowing that Steinbrenner is the "cop"

It might be interesting. Tell me why you think it's interesting.

Well, mafia team communicates to each other, this sort of information would have been made clear between them I feel, even if they aren't up to speed in the thread THERE IS A 2-SHOT COP - HE ID'D ESTELLE AND FRANK. It brings them both further down my suspect pile.

kramer and frank

George Costanza wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 6:57 pm The fact Peterman isn't even aware of the civ read on Frank is as interesting as Whatley not knowing that Steinbrenner is the "cop"

I just had this thought as well and I may now be coming into agreement with Elaine. Between the two of them, Peterman and Whatley did not seem to have a complete grasp on the role shenanigans active in the thread right now. Peterman was unclear on what was meant by "Frank's civilian ID": And Whatley did not seem to be aware that I had even claimed cop: If we are still wondering why The Soup Nazi was killed last night, a plausible theory is that the scum team was simply asleep at the wheel and missed some critical information in the thread. We can at least observe this being true in Whatley's case right here, though to assess the impact of this on the team's decision making would be irresponsible at this time. But we do at least have an indication that 1/2 of the remaining scum team was apparently unaware of one of the roleclaims in the thread. Peterman's behavior indicates that he too was unaware of at least a part of my claim.

Frank Costanza wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 6:35 pm Alright, I'm back, SERENITY NOW'ed, and ready to vote for George now that Jerry has also seen the light. Will look at Whately just to be fair.

He looks to me like a civilian being thrown into the game and wanting to engage with the main posters, make sure they didn't escape suspicion. That both of those main posters have turned out to look eminently civ is just the way the game unfolded.

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.

The thing that looks worst to me is this.

Regarding my Peterman vote without much reason, truth is there was none other than me wanting to gauge reactions. I figured if Peterman was bad, I should pressure vote and see who scrambles. This didn't happen

That's after previously defending the vote with this:

Interesting. What should I say over his 7 posts that hasn't been said already?

That strikes me as a lack of transparency, which isn't a great look at this point in the game, when we're all really scrambling to solve and avoid LYLO. My gut says it's good for him to come clean rather than fabricate a reason, but I realize that's open to interpretation.

In summary, I still think George is a stronger suspect based on what he's said about Estelle and Jackie.

This post stinks. Frank is tiptoeing up to the line and just barely casting a little bit of suspicion on Whatley before turning around and running back to his safe and comfortable George vote.

I do not like Frank's game-long tunneling of George, but I have to ask myself whether I think it's something that a scum player would do. He's been calling for George's lynch since Day 1, but has not yet provided any really substantial case for why it should happen. That almost seems too bold to be a scum strategy.

Lynch frank tomorrow

Jerry Seinfeld wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 7:22 pm @Frank Costanza
@Elaine Benes
@George Steinbrenner

Your votes are critical now. I think Leo is the best vote presently. Whatley remains in my 3-player POE, but I do agree with George that his voting behavior in this late phase hasn't been pro-mafia. That's a good thing.

Why Leo? I don't have time to reas a bunch of stuff

Voting whatley. I'm probably not going to be here for EOD, but I'll try my best to make it. If I need to move a vote, I should at least be able to do that. But at this very moment I feel good about where it is.

If we can reach a consensus on Whatley then he'd be my preferred lynch today for the reasons Leo laid out. It's safer to lynch a player who does not have a town ID on them.

[mention]Uncle Leo[/mention], when you return, my most pressing concern about you is your treatment of J. Peterman in this game. You've been a vocal supporter of his bandwagon without actually supplying any of your own input on the player. I'm sure you can understand why this might look bad from my perspective. I want to know what it is that you saw in him, and why you're willing to drop it now? This post in particular does not sit well with me.

Frank/Whatley is currently looking like the most plausible team to me, but I'm not yet at a point where I'm comfortable removing anyone else from my POE.

I could vote for Whatley. What stands out to me most about his posts right now is three similar instances of him giving unsatisfying answers for his questionable behavior: I don't feel he ever adequately explained why Elaine's plea for information was troublesome, and his two claims of reaction baiting don't really address the underlying thought process of his gameplay. His prod of Jerry came out of nowhere and looks bizarre to me, and he waves his hand at the Peterman vote claiming it was done for reactions, but as far as I can tell he disappeared from the thread soon after and didn't return until well after the deadline had passed.

My ID is the one reason I have not to vote for Frank. Even if he does turn out to be the godfather, it would be preferable today to find his teammate. I'd feel a hell of a lot better about lynching Frank if we had two confirmed vanilla mafias.

I've been ignoring Peterman today. I see him now as low hanging fruit and I still can't shake my bad feeling about Leo because f the way he's treated Peterman.

Jerry Seinfeld wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 1:11 pm It's a vote I could support. Lynching a civilian who has been ID'd civilian with a godfather still alive would be a gut punch, but that's only relevant if he's a civilian. I think he looks bad.

A nagging feeling in the back of my mind tells me the two cop IDs were put to the worst possible use, targeting the Night 1 kill victim and the godfather.

Additionallly, I've been reviewing the interactions between George and Jackie just now. I think they reflect favorably on George. In contrast to my most recent point about Jackie/Frank, there seems to have been deliberate pressure applied to George by Jackie for a couple of days, while hanging back on Frank despite proclaiming them as his two most prominent suspects.
George, meanwhile, did an apparent 180 on Jackie and began prodding people about him mid-game. I like George more each time I read his posts, honestly. The bit about one of the four main characters needing to be bad stinks, but I don't think that thought has to have come from a dishonest mind. As a great man once said, it's not a lie if you believe it.

Jackie consistently named Frank as a suspect without ever actually applying pressure to him.

Jackie Chiles wrote: ↑Mon Oct 09, 2017 6:19 pm

Frank Costanza wrote: ↑Mon Oct 09, 2017 5:53 pm ASSMAN! I'LL GIVE HIM ASSMAN!

*votes Kramer*

Now where did this vote come from? You criticize George, Elaine, Estelle... but then vote Kramer with no real explanation! Not to mention that this is a follower vote on someone I'm feeling pretty good about. Highly questionable behavior.

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.

Change vote: Frank

This was the only vote for Frank on Day 1, and it came late in the phase. Uncle Leo accused Elaine and The Soup Nazi of casting meaningless votes on each other for distancing purposes on Day 1. I can level the same accusation against Jackie here.
Frank makes no mention of Jackie until my ISO and Elaine's claim at the end of Day 3, at which point he becomes a cheerleader on the bandwagon.

here, hear. whatever.

Frank Costanza wrote: ↑Sun Oct 15, 2017 5:16 pm 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.

I'd also love to here a follow up to this post. I've asked a few times now what parts of my Jackie ISO had merit, and the bottom comment about Jackie/Estelle seems like something he arbitrarily tacked on. I see a relatively good amount of potential for soft distancing between Jackie and Frank in their respective posts.

Frank hasn't commented on me IDing him at all. Frank hascn't commented on a lot of things and it makes him difficult to read. I am leaning toward voting for him today. I am unlikely to be here for the EOD.

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.

George Costanza wrote: ↑Tue Oct 17, 2017 3:43 pm 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.

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

George Costanza wrote: ↑Tue Oct 17, 2017 3:30 pm

George Steinbrenner wrote: ↑Tue Oct 17, 2017 3:13 pm @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.

George Costanza wrote: ↑Tue Oct 17, 2017 3:27 pm
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?

Jerry Seinfeld wrote: ↑Tue Oct 17, 2017 2:37 pm

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):

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

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

George Costanza

George Costanza wrote: ↑Mon Oct 09, 2017 2:45 pm

Jackie Chiles wrote: ↑Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:09 pm 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.

George Costanza wrote: ↑Tue Oct 10, 2017 5:13 pm

Jerry Seinfeld wrote: ↑Tue Oct 10, 2017 2:41 pm ...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.

George Costanza wrote: ↑Tue Oct 10, 2017 5:31 pm

Jerry Seinfeld wrote: ↑Mon Oct 09, 2017 7:52 pm 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:

George Costanza wrote: ↑Tue Oct 10, 2017 5:46 pm 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.

George Costanza wrote: ↑Thu Oct 12, 2017 2:33 pm

Estelle Costanza wrote: ↑Wed Oct 11, 2017 10:39 pm 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.

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.

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.

Frank Costanza

Frank Costanza wrote: ↑Mon Oct 09, 2017 5:44 pm

George Costanza wrote: ↑Mon Oct 09, 2017 2:19 pm 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.

Elaine Benes wrote: ↑Mon Oct 09, 2017 5:34 pm

The Soup Nazi wrote: ↑Mon Oct 09, 2017 4:39 pm 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.

Frank Costanza wrote: ↑Mon Oct 09, 2017 5:53 pm 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.

Frank Costanza wrote: ↑Wed Oct 11, 2017 5:18 pm

Jerry Seinfeld wrote: ↑Wed Oct 11, 2017 4:21 pm 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.

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

Frank Costanza wrote: ↑Wed Oct 11, 2017 7:18 pm 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.

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.

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.

Frank Costanza wrote: ↑Fri Oct 13, 2017 10:28 pm

George Steinbrenner wrote: ↑Fri Oct 13, 2017 9:14 pm

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.

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.

Frank Costanza wrote: ↑Sat Oct 14, 2017 7:13 pm My son hasn't said a thing today. Maybe he needs to get wrestled?! *votes George Costanza*

Frank Costanza wrote: ↑Sun Oct 15, 2017 5:16 pm

Jerry Seinfeld wrote: ↑Sun Oct 15, 2017 3:48 pm 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.

Frank Costanza wrote: ↑Sun Oct 15, 2017 7:49 pm 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.

Voting Uncle Leo.

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.

Uncle Leo

Uncle Leo wrote: ↑Sun Oct 08, 2017 10:38 pm 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.

Uncle Leo wrote: ↑Tue Oct 10, 2017 1:00 pm 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.

Uncle Leo wrote: ↑Tue Oct 10, 2017 11:24 pm 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?

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

Tim Whatley wrote: ↑Thu Oct 12, 2017 1:12 pm 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.

Uncle Leo wrote: ↑Thu Oct 12, 2017 10:07 pm 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.

Uncle Leo wrote: ↑Fri Oct 13, 2017 4:02 am

George Costanza wrote: ↑Tue Oct 10, 2017 5:46 pm 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.

George Costanza wrote: ↑Thu Oct 12, 2017 4:35 pm <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.

Uncle Leo wrote: ↑Sun Oct 15, 2017 2:24 am

Jerry Seinfeld wrote: ↑Sun Oct 15, 2017 1:16 am 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.

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.

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.

Tim Whatley wrote: ↑Thu Oct 12, 2017 1:12 pm 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.

Tim Whatley wrote: ↑Thu Oct 12, 2017 5:15 pm

Jerry Seinfeld wrote: ↑Thu Oct 12, 2017 3:48 pm

Estelle Costanza wrote: ↑Wed Oct 11, 2017 10:39 pm 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.

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

Tim Whatley wrote: ↑Sat Oct 14, 2017 1:05 pm

George Steinbrenner wrote: ↑Sat Oct 14, 2017 12:54 pm 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:

Tim Whatley wrote: ↑Sat Oct 14, 2017 1:17 pm

George Steinbrenner wrote: ↑Sat Oct 14, 2017 1:12 pm 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.

Tim Whatley wrote: ↑Sat Oct 14, 2017 1:24 pm 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.

Tim Whatley wrote: ↑Sat Oct 14, 2017 1:43 pm @Uncle Leo, why did you vote Stein day one? Your vote on Puddy, was that you crying "No you?"

Uncle Leo wrote: ↑Thu Oct 12, 2017 10:07 pmpeterman
-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.

Tim Whatley wrote: ↑Sat Oct 14, 2017 3:12 pm

George Steinbrenner wrote: ↑Sat Oct 14, 2017 2:41 pm

Tim Whatley wrote: ↑Sat Oct 14, 2017 1:17 pm

George Steinbrenner wrote: ↑Sat Oct 14, 2017 1:12 pm 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.

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.

Tim Whatley wrote: ↑Sun Oct 15, 2017 6:32 pm

Jerry Seinfeld wrote: ↑Sun Oct 15, 2017 12:55 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.

*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?

George Costanza wrote: ↑Sun Oct 15, 2017 2:37 pm

Tim Whatley wrote: ↑Sat Oct 14, 2017 1:17 pm

George Steinbrenner wrote: ↑Sat Oct 14, 2017 1:12 pm 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.

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.

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.

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

Tim Whatley wrote: ↑Sun Oct 15, 2017 8:35 pm 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.

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.

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.

Be the change you want to see in the world, Georgie boy!

Frank Costanza wrote: ↑Sun Oct 15, 2017 5:16 pm
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.

Frank, which parts of my analysis on Jackie had merit?

Mr. Steinbrenner needs to relieve himself from some of the pressures of scum hunting while his beloved Yankees battle for an American League pennant. He's entrusted me, some intern or something, with a portion of his responsibilities here.

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.

Voting for Peterman because we can't all lump our votes in the same place.

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 wanted to do an interactive read between Jackie and Peterman, but in its entirety it amounts to this single post:

Jackie Chiles wrote: ↑Wed Oct 11, 2017 9:41 pm Mr Puddy, I find your comments about me to be slanderous, unsupported, offensive! Seems to me like you were put on the spot by Mr Seinfeld and filled in the gaps by scanning the player list to see whose name you could drop in there.

Furthermore, in regards to this statement:

David Puddy wrote: ↑Wed Oct 11, 2017 6:55 pm I was asked my thoughts on Mr. Soup's most suspicious post. I think they are all suspicious except this one...

The Soup Nazi wrote: ↑Tue Oct 10, 2017 8:14 pm Look at these two goons distancing from each other. Deplorable.

They must be so irritated because they haven't had any soup today.

Ha-ha! Ha! Ha!

I found myself almost agreeing with you, until I realized you were telling us what you find unsuspicious! Personally, I took that as one of the Soup Nazi's more suspicious statements. Can you explain why you think this statement is so very unsuspicious?

Welcome, Mr Whatley! I seem to recognize you from an associate of mine, Saul Goodman... but maybe not. Face seems awfully familiar.

J Peterman wrote: ↑Wed Oct 11, 2017 7:47 pmWho was it that made the comment about the Estelle and "villread"? I like it. Has experience, but is not using it.

Almost forgot about that one - if Mrs Costanza does have extensive Mafia experience, then she is certainly not attempting to use it.

and that's not even a meaningful interaction, just Jackie responding casually to a game observation made by Peterman.

Jerry Seinfeld wrote: ↑Mon Oct 16, 2017 12:39 pm Any reason in particular you didn't claim after your shots had been expended, or prior to now?

Same reason as Elaine. I wanted to see how the day would unfold and if any other claims would pop up. Plus, Frank was not at the center of any bandwagons so I felt no need to speak up on his behalf. I did hint at it earlier in the day though.