George Costanza wrote: ↑Sat Oct 21, 2017 7:05 pm
I don't care if I'm wrong about Peterman and he is the godfather. There is genuinely not enough content or even context through other mafiaers to warrant my total suspicion of him. He's going to be second or third on my list, following my look into Jerry (a brief one since I don't have much time, fuck a Saturday evening).
Do you think it makes sense for a suspect to be relegated to the bottom of the pile simply because they have the fewest posts (and thus the fewest opportunities to raise suspicion)?
Why Peterman and not you?
Re: [NIGHT 5] Seinfeld Mafia
Posted: Sat Oct 21, 2017 9:26 pm
by November
Re: [DAY 5] Seinfeld Mafia
Posted: Sat Oct 21, 2017 9:27 pm
by Spooky Ghost
George Costanza wrote: ↑Sat Oct 21, 2017 8:20 pm
I'd like to know what the argument for Peterman and not Frank is from Big Stein.
I'd like a bullet point list of why Peterman from anyone. 3 reasons.
George Costanza wrote: ↑Sat Oct 21, 2017 8:20 pm
I'd like to know what the argument for Peterman and not Frank is from Big Stein.
I'd like a bullet point list of why Peterman from anyone. 3 reasons.
Frank's tunneling of you was not believable as a scum tactic, and his last post on Day 4 was to proclaim Peterman as the least likely scum player among the non-confirmed. If he was scum, Peterman would have been the first person he'd be pushing for.
George Costanza wrote: ↑Sat Oct 21, 2017 7:05 pm
I don't care if I'm wrong about Peterman and he is the godfather. There is genuinely not enough content or even context through other mafiaers to warrant my total suspicion of him. He's going to be second or third on my list, following my look into Jerry (a brief one since I don't have much time, fuck a Saturday evening).
Do you think it makes sense for a suspect to be relegated to the bottom of the pile simply because they have the fewest posts (and thus the fewest opportunities to raise suspicion)?
Why Peterman and not you?
I can make the same assertion as prior, and it can be drawn as parallels from your own posts:
The Soup Nazi kill is made by a player who doesn't know what's going on. I know what's going on. I have had tabs on this thread at all times. To accuse me of making that kill is to accuse me of some elaborate scheme to solidify my "town credit" despite the fact that I already had a huge pile of town credit. This is a classic example of "but but you could have been... [insert tinfoil]. "Could" should mean much less than "would" or "should".
If I'm mafia, Elaine and Steinbrenner are both dead before Soup Nazi. Anything else is a poor decision.
Peterman hasn't known what's going on at any juncture of this game.
Re: [NIGHT 5] Seinfeld Mafia
Posted: Sat Oct 21, 2017 9:34 pm
by Spooky Ghost
Your second point is accurate but I took into consideration his absence from the thread and being out of touch on who is scummy according to the rest of us (like when he claimed everyone suspected the Soup Nazi then retracted it) so I didn't take it for granted that it cleared him.
George Costanza wrote: ↑Sat Oct 21, 2017 7:05 pm
I don't care if I'm wrong about Peterman and he is the godfather. There is genuinely not enough content or even context through other mafiaers to warrant my total suspicion of him. He's going to be second or third on my list, following my look into Jerry (a brief one since I don't have much time, fuck a Saturday evening).
Do you think it makes sense for a suspect to be relegated to the bottom of the pile simply because they have the fewest posts (and thus the fewest opportunities to raise suspicion)?
Why Peterman and not you?
I can make the same assertion as prior, and it can be drawn as parallels from your own posts:
The Soup Nazi kill is made by a player who doesn't know what's going on. I know what's going on. I have had tabs on this thread at all times. To accuse me of making that kill is to accuse me of some elaborate scheme to solidify my "town credit" despite the fact that I already had a huge pile of town credit. This is a classic example of "but but you could have been... [insert tinfoil]. "Could" should mean much less than "would" or "should".
If I'm mafia, Elaine and Steinbrenner are both dead before Soup Nazi. Anything else is a poor decision.
Peterman hasn't known what's going on at any juncture of this game.
Following this reasoning, why would I have killed The Soup Nazi?
Re: [NIGHT 5] Seinfeld Mafia
Posted: Sat Oct 21, 2017 9:37 pm
by November
This massive post is a comprehensive account of my thoughts RE: all of you. I came out of it believing firmly that Peterman is scum. Nothing has changed my mind, but doubts about George have become more prevalent. I'll have more to say after I've read this EOD phase.
Re: [DAY 5] Seinfeld Mafia
Posted: Sat Oct 21, 2017 9:38 pm
by Julinook
George Costanza wrote: ↑Sat Oct 21, 2017 9:36 pm
Following this reasoning, why would I have killed The Soup Nazi?
Prior to Day 4, your involvement in this game was sporadic and inconsistent (which facilitates a lesser-developed understanding of events in the game). The kill occurred on Night 3.
Re: [NIGHT 5] Seinfeld Mafia
Posted: Sat Oct 21, 2017 9:41 pm
by Spooky Ghost
Up until a couple of hours ago, I had 4 votes against me as the last scum, yours included, Jerry. You didn't discredit me because of The Soup Nazi target. I like to think I'm an active participant here, though not in the several hundred posts category yet. Telling me you can't be scum because you wouldn't have killed Soup Nazi, because it's insulting to assume you would--well it's insulting to me too.
Re: [NIGHT 5] Seinfeld Mafia
Posted: Sat Oct 21, 2017 9:42 pm
by Spooky Ghost
Sporadic? I've followed up and contributed every day. At which point in my posts did I come across misinformed?
Re: [NIGHT 5] Seinfeld Mafia
Posted: Sat Oct 21, 2017 9:43 pm
by Spooky Ghost
Yes I could have been more active, but I certainly read every single post in here before contributing.
Re: [NIGHT 5] Seinfeld Mafia
Posted: Sat Oct 21, 2017 9:45 pm
by Julinook
George Costanza wrote: ↑Sat Oct 21, 2017 9:41 pm
Up until a couple of hours ago, I had 4 votes against me as the last scum, yours included, Jerry. You didn't discredit me because of The Soup Nazi target. I like to think I'm an active participant here, though not in the several hundred posts category yet. Telling me you can't be scum because you wouldn't have killed Soup Nazi, because it's insulting to assume you would--well it's insulting to me too.
I don't think the Soup Nazi kill directly implicates you. I haven't had a reason to eliminate you from being capable of it though -- not because I think you're a bad player (I don't), but because anyone who hasn't maintained a constant presence in this thread is capable of oversight.
Let's consider this though: if you agree that the kill is such a bad one that you'd be insulted by the accusation of having been a part of it, then very well. That means that when you accuse me of being mafia, regardless of the specific nature of your accusation, you are asserting that I was a part of that kill.
With that in mind, can I be mafia? Does it make any sense?
Re: [NIGHT 5] Seinfeld Mafia
Posted: Sat Oct 21, 2017 9:48 pm
by Spooky Ghost
If I'm alive, I'll be voting Peterman.
no doubt about it Jerry's "Also important" post reads very sincere. If he is lying to me, I'll retire mafia.
I just wanted to wind him up right now to give him a taste of his own medicne. SEE WHAT YOU PUT ME THROUGH EVERY DAY OF MY SEINFELD MAFIA LIFE JERRY?! George is petty. You know that.
Re: [NIGHT 5] Seinfeld Mafia
Posted: Sat Oct 21, 2017 9:50 pm
by November
My most confident read in the game right now is that Jerry is town.
Re: [NIGHT 5] Seinfeld Mafia
Posted: Sat Oct 21, 2017 9:53 pm
by Julinook
George Costanza wrote: ↑Sat Oct 21, 2017 9:48 pm
If I'm alive, I'll be voting Peterman.
no doubt about it Jerry's "Also important" post reads very sincere. If he is lying to me, I'll retire mafia.
I just wanted to wind him up right now to give him a taste of his own medicne. SEE WHAT YOU PUT ME THROUGH EVERY DAY OF MY SEINFELD MAFIA LIFE JERRY?! George is petty. You know that.
I do what an analyst must do. I haven't the intuitive superpowers that some boast. I need data, data, and more data -- and sometimes people have to be annoyed to make that happen.
If you're lying, then I'm already a world-class boob and deserve a dunce cap for blowing the game at the end of Day 5. It'd be one of my worst moments as a player.
Re: [NIGHT 5] Seinfeld Mafia
Posted: Sat Oct 21, 2017 9:59 pm
by Julinook
I'm going to attempt to describe what went through my mind as I 14%ed my way through EOD5, specifically relating to George.
Re: [NIGHT 5] Seinfeld Mafia
Posted: Sat Oct 21, 2017 10:09 pm
by Julinook
As I read through the things George was throwing into the thread toward the end, I was asking myself two questions over and over:
1) Does this post have legitimate legacy value and does it look like an attempt to leave a legacy, or is it a no-quit mafioso doing what it takes to survive under dire circumstances?
2) Does this post represent negative utility for a mafioso?
The vote is 4-George and 2-Frank. Jerry has spiritual control over the lynch, as Leo has pledged to vote with the majority for team cohesion, and Steinbrenner is away. George is aware that if he is to survive, he has to move my vote and/or Leo's vote.
So he called me scum. Or at least he called me second-most scummy.
To me, this looks like a distinct "yes" answer to question #2. Tinfoiling on me in that moment isn't the best way to move my vote (barring a very accurate crystal ball in George's possession). In theory it should be a sure way to leave my vote where it is, which suggests to me that it might imply the answer to question #1 is "this is a legacy read".
This spoke to me more loudly than Frank's vouch for Peterman did.
That's what I think, yes. However, if you read the George material he posted or I posted about him and don't agree with my conclusion, feel free to say so. Feel free to tell me I am a poop head too.
Re: [NIGHT 5] Seinfeld Mafia
Posted: Sat Oct 21, 2017 10:50 pm
by November
I'll review things later. Mr. Steinbrenner insists that I remain focused on Game 7 right now though. Our dear Yankees are in a hole right now, it's just dreadful.
Re: [NIGHT 5] Seinfeld Mafia
Posted: Sat Oct 21, 2017 10:51 pm
by Tangrowth
George Steinbrenner wrote: ↑Sat Oct 21, 2017 10:50 pm
I'll review things later. Mr. Steinbrenner insists that I remain focused on Game 7 right now though. Our dear Yankees are in a hole right now, it's just dreadful.
I'm quite fine with it myself.
Re: [NIGHT 5] Seinfeld Mafia
Posted: Sat Oct 21, 2017 11:04 pm
by November
Big Stein is inconsolable.
Re: [NIGHT 5] Seinfeld Mafia
Posted: Sat Oct 21, 2017 11:21 pm
by November
That game was a real heartbreaker, love-taker, shoemaker.
Re: [NIGHT 5] Seinfeld Mafia
Posted: Sun Oct 22, 2017 1:18 am
by DrWilgy
Lets go 'stros!!!
Re: [DAY 5] Seinfeld Mafia
Posted: Sun Oct 22, 2017 2:38 pm
by November
George Costanza wrote: ↑Sat Oct 21, 2017 7:05 pmSome reasons that make me question my vote:
1. He was there when Elaine self-proclaimed vigilante on Day 2. So following my line of thought in #1 above, despite her claim being bogus, it was suspicious. If I was scum, and I saw it, I would have most likely targeted her on Night 2, unless I was attempting to frame her but even then I would have targeted her Night 3 instead of Night 4 - especially when she claimed she wasn't out of shots.
I do not think this point should be applied to Peterman, but George's application of it makes me feel a bit better about them. The mafia team knows that there is no vigilante in this game from the start. They have a godfather, and according to the matrix, this means the town power roles must be a 2-shot tracker and a 2-shot cop. The entire mafia team (presumably) would have known Elaine's vig claim was bogus from the start. I think this contributed to her survival in the game.
On the flip side, George is making this observation, and the thought process appears genuine to me. This feels like an earnest assessment of George's reasons for and against a Peterman vote yesterday. That this thought existed in his mind tells me that he had not considered the point, and thus was not aware of the falseness of Elaine's first roleclaim at the time it happened.
That's what I think, yes. However, if you read the George material he posted or I posted about him and don't agree with my conclusion, feel free to say so. Feel free to tell me I am a poop head too.
As of right now, I agree with your conclusion. I'd like to know how everyone else is feeling as well.
Re: [NIGHT 5] Seinfeld Mafia
Posted: Sun Oct 22, 2017 2:51 pm
by November
The George vs. Peterman argument for me hinges on how each of them was treated by the other two mafia. Jackie and Whatley both avoided Peterman completely until he was looking like a slam dunk lynch, for the most part. But they also both started to "suspect" George at around the same time, in a game in which George has professed to being stretched thing on time and energy. I could potentially see that as a behind the scenes agreement to bus their struggling teammate for credit.
The second point feels like more of a stretch, and I don't think the Whatley/Bania pairing was much better off than George at the start of the game, so for the team to agree to bus a player who was far from their least active member seems to be lacking in a bit in strategy.
Also the simple fact that George's contributions have been much stronger in this game. If it comes down to a coin flip, I'd rather lose to George's 100+ posts than Peterman's 17. I don't think we'll need a coinflip.
Re: [NIGHT 5] Seinfeld Mafia
Posted: Sun Oct 22, 2017 2:53 pm
by November
Jerry Leo George Peterman
Re: [NIGHT 5] Seinfeld Mafia
Posted: Sun Oct 22, 2017 2:54 pm
by Julinook
Another point to discuss while we're all still here:
To no lynch or not to no lynch?
Mathematically speaking, it should be an easy choice. Do it and reduce the pool with the ensuing kill. However, this is only meaningful if the suspect pool is still expansive (i.e. it still includes everyone among Jerry, Leo, George, and Peterman). In that case, removing one has real value. If it's not the case, then what's being removed is a voice, not a suspect. That might be a problem.
Re: [NIGHT 5] Seinfeld Mafia
Posted: Sun Oct 22, 2017 3:00 pm
by November
Jerry Seinfeld wrote: ↑Sun Oct 22, 2017 2:54 pm
Another point to discuss while we're all still here:
To no lynch or not to no lynch?
Mathematically speaking, it should be an easy choice. Do it and reduce the pool with the ensuing kill. However, this is only meaningful if the suspect pool is still expansive (i.e. it still includes everyone among Jerry, Leo, George, and Peterman). In that case, removing one has real value. If it's not the case, then what's being removed is a voice, not a suspect. That might be a problem.
I think it's pointless. They'll just kill you and me, and (I think) no one is considering voting for either of us. The suspect pool is not being reduced.
Re: [NIGHT 5] Seinfeld Mafia
Posted: Sun Oct 22, 2017 3:08 pm
by Julinook
I think I agree. I'm not sure they'd kill me as a tinfoil magnet, but a Leo kill has a similar effect anyway.
Re: [NIGHT 5] Seinfeld Mafia
Posted: Sun Oct 22, 2017 3:10 pm
by November
It's between Peterman and George for me and an extra 72 hours doesn't add much.
Re: [NIGHT 5] Seinfeld Mafia
Posted: Sun Oct 22, 2017 3:17 pm
by Julinook
It adds time and sacrifices a voice. Given the circumstances, I'd rather have the voice.
Re: [NIGHT 5] Seinfeld Mafia
Posted: Sun Oct 22, 2017 3:31 pm
by November
I'm nearly confident enough to vote for Peterman now.
George Steinbrenner wrote: ↑Sun Oct 22, 2017 3:31 pm
I'm nearly confident enough to vote for Peterman now.
also agreed
Re: [NIGHT 5] Seinfeld Mafia
Posted: Sun Oct 22, 2017 5:09 pm
by Principal Skinner
I guess I should say why -- because of the Soup kill. Anyone paying attention would not have made that choice IMO. That is the primary reason I am comfortable going from "no JP" to "agreed."
Re: [NIGHT 5] Seinfeld Mafia
Posted: Sun Oct 22, 2017 6:24 pm
by November
I obviously want everyone who's still alive to continue talking everything other. If the consensus is that we should take an extra day, do that. But I am confident enough to vote for Peterman right now, and I have been for a couple of days. I've been swayed off of wanting to vote for everyone else multiple times.
Re: [NIGHT 5] Seinfeld Mafia
Posted: Sun Oct 22, 2017 7:18 pm
by Spooky Ghost
I'll be voting Peterman. Logically he's the last scum. I'm sure Steinbrenner is town, Leo and Jerry too. It's Peterman for sure.
Re: [NIGHT 5] Seinfeld Mafia
Posted: Sun Oct 22, 2017 7:39 pm
by November
I expect to die tonight. I've shared everything I can think to say at this point, so I don't have any new legacy reads to add. I'll just leave this post again for any questions about why I'm confident it's Peterman. Good game, win or lose y'all. Be the Astros, not the Yankees.
NOTE: It is now MYLO. Votes are still changeable. The deadline will end once a hammer of 3 votes has been placed on any poll option.
Re: [DAY 6] Seinfeld Mafia
Posted: Sun Oct 22, 2017 9:19 pm
by Julinook
[mention]MovingPictures07[/mention]
If the mafia team doesn't submit a kill, is there no kill at all or a randomized kill?
Re: [DAY 6] Seinfeld Mafia
Posted: Sun Oct 22, 2017 9:47 pm
by Tangrowth
Jerry Seinfeld wrote: ↑Sun Oct 22, 2017 9:19 pm
@MovingPictures07
If the mafia team doesn't submit a kill, is there no kill at all or a randomized kill?
No kill.
Just as I would treat any power role (i.e., if a standard cop was in this game and did not submit a check Day 1, I wouldn't randomize one for them).
Re: [DAY 6] Seinfeld Mafia
Posted: Sun Oct 22, 2017 9:48 pm
by Julinook
[mention]George Costanza[/mention], what do you think of that?
Re: [DAY 6] Seinfeld Mafia
Posted: Sun Oct 22, 2017 9:53 pm
by Spacedaisy
So I know that I'm a mod and I should be in the know, but I still don't get the difference between LYLO and MYLO. Can someone please explain these concepts for me?
Re: [DAY 6] Seinfeld Mafia
Posted: Sun Oct 22, 2017 9:57 pm
by Julinook
Spacedaisy wrote: ↑Sun Oct 22, 2017 9:53 pm
So I know that I'm a mod and I should be in the know, but I still don't get the difference between LYLO and MYLO. Can someone please explain these concepts for me?
I like to divide these into three categories:
MYLO -- "mislynch and lose" -- if a civilian is lynched, the civilians lose. It's still possible to no lynch instead (e.g. 3 versus 1, 4 versus 2, etc).
LYLO -- "lynch or lose" -- if a civilian is lynched OR there is no lynch, the civilians lose (e.g. 3 versus 2, 4 versus 3, etc).
True LYLO -- sudden death -- the result of the lynch dictates who wins the game either way (e.g. 2 versus 1).
