The Syndicate

I think Chiles and Whatley were trying to hide Peterson's Godfatherly role, but were mistakenly hoping Peterson would show up to change his vote.

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.

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.

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

Decide how you feel about Leo and George and the game is solved.

Frank or Peterman.

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.

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?

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.

Elaine Benes wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 8:18 pm The "mention" feature is awful. Please stop using it.

[mention]Elaine Benes[/mention]

I'm going to be quite busy today. Audrey's taking me out to her father's restaurant later. I still don't understand why she wouldn't take a bite of my pie. What's the deal?

But don't hesitate to get that legacy work in, because someone's about to die.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

My face when people wanted to lynch Big Stein on Day 1. Imagine where we'd be now.

Steinbrenner's "juicy post" was closely related to another post I called juicy (or spicy?) in my Leo/Whatley team check:

Uncle Leo wrote: ↑Sun Oct 15, 2017 1:05 am

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?

Am I in the same boat? No. Why would you think i am? I’m pretty sure you know that I don’t believe I am in the same boat. Did you mean to say “you’re in the same boat.” ?

I believe I explained my vote for Stein earlier in the thread. If not, it’s because it was Day 1 and what did I have to go by? Not much. So his quickness to suspect me aroused suspicion in me.

I read the juiciness here to be the indignant reply offered by Leo to that also juicy assertion by Whatley. I read this in Leo's favor.

Assertion:

Big Stein has observed that neither Jackie nor Whatley paid much attention to Peterman in this thread apart from late votes, and that this might represent protectiveness of the godfather role.

It can also be supposed that Peterman's own low post count is in part driven by the importance of his role (and his hesitance to get into trouble). Mafia power roles can lay low just like civilian power roles.

Jerry Seinfeld wrote: ↑Tue Oct 17, 2017 9:41 pm

Spoiler: show

Tim Whatley wrote: ↑Sun Oct 15, 2017 6:32 pm I'm noticing a trend of people who just didn't give a damn about their day one vote. How is this acceptable?

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

This was my initial take on Whatley's beef with George's Day 1 vote. Reading it again, in-lieu of Steinbrenner's takes, I find myself agreeing with him and disagreeing with myself.

That's a smear. It also represents another indirect attack by Whatley upon George -- he may have quoted George, but he still referenced some undefined collective "trend of people".

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

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

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

One of my favorite Mafia posts of all time.

George Steinbrenner wrote: ↑Thu Oct 19, 2017 6:03 pmFrank 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.

I'm sold. Suspects:

1) Peterman
2) Frank
3) Leo
4) George

George Steinbrenner wrote: ↑Thu Oct 19, 2017 6:12 pm

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.

What about this post? Am I missing something or is this an obvious slip up?

I don't know if I'd call it a "slip", like revealed his hand. It could be evidence that his attempt to understand my team paradigms wasn't genuinely motivated though.

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

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

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

I already did. Yesterday.

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

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

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

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

I already did. Yesterday.

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

It is now Day 5.

You have 48 hours to lynch someone.

Great game, Epiglaine. We'll give the scum the final death blow for you.

So uh, voting Peterman. Anyone want to talk about that?

Jerry Seinfeld wrote: ↑Thu Oct 19, 2017 6:41 pm

George Steinbrenner wrote: ↑Thu Oct 19, 2017 6:03 pmFrank 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.

I'm sold. Suspects:

1) Peterman
2) Frank
3) Leo
4) George

Think of all the time we'd have to catch real mafia members if we all agreed to see the clear evidence and accept that Leo is INNOCENT!

Uncle Leo wrote: ↑Sun Oct 15, 2017 1:05 am

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?

Am I in the same boat? No. Why would you think i am? I’m pretty sure you know that I don’t believe I am in the same boat. Did you mean to say “you’re in the same boat.” ?

I believe I explained my vote for Stein earlier in the thread. If not, it’s because it was Day 1 and what did I have to go by? Not much. So his quickness to suspect me aroused suspicion in me.

I'm okay with voting Peterman right now. I have been okay with it in the past when he voted Puddy. And in the above, Whatley (obviously has been proven bad) was willing to challenge my thoughts on Peterman despite knowing that I am innocent/civilian. Not a rock solid foundation but will do for me for now. He also voted Newman Day 1... which.. doesn't mean anything exactly, except it was an easy opportunity to go along with the group and blend in.

Leo, what are your thoughts on Frank?

Uncle Leo wrote: ↑Thu Oct 19, 2017 9:56 pm Think of all the time we'd have to catch real mafia members if we all agreed to see the clear evidence and accept that Leo is INNOCENT!

I mean, George's D4 fire and your self-wagon shenanigans do move me more than anything Frank or Peterman have to offer. I also think Whatley kind of spewed you as a civilian. I'd be remiss though to completely eliminate you from the POE pool. I'd like to see how you order your suspects.

I'm going to start at unvote and give Peterman whatever air he needs to speak up. That's where my vote is in spirit though barring special inspiration.

I'll reassess the remaining candidates against Whatley's content to see if my feelings change. In my prior effort I labeled Whatley/Peterman as "not feeling it"; I'll also determine why that was and whether I still care.

I didn't have strong feelings about Whatley/Peterman and forced myself to take a stance -- I'm not at all married to it. There's nothing significant preventing them from being teammates. Also I see this in a different light now:

J Peterman wrote: ↑Wed Oct 11, 2017 7:47 pmI'd still like to hear more from quiet people, although I'm pleased to see most are talking since yesterday. Who was it that made the comment about the Estelle and "villread"? I like it. Has experience, but is not using it. And Bania, where are you? Still on Page 3? I need ideas, both of you!

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

The focused teammate prod is something I've done as a mafioso many times.

What's the deal with Tim Whatley and Frank Costanza? Day 5 Edition

Tim's comments


First mentions of Frank in the game come on Day 4, after I specifically asked for suspects. That he relegated his Frank read to "POE" and naught else might be a nice thing for Frank. This is the opposite of distancing, there's no Frank-specific reason offered or spark in the notion. POE suspicion independent of specific accusations amounts to "whatever, that's who's left", and coming from a mafioso that strikes me as more likely to reflect treatment of a civilian.


This is interesting in that Whatley responded to this from a purely defensive standpoint despite Frank having decided that overall he looked like a civilian. Frank's reads were two-sided, and that it was this important to Whatley to talk about the negative side of that may be suggestive that he had a real desire to solidify Frank's civilian read on him. That'd be good for Frank.


I think this one might say more about Leo than it says about Frank. I don't really struggle to believe Whalgy specifically, of all people, would do this to his teammate (referring to Frank). The circumstances don't prevent it, particularly given that on Day 4 a few people expressed agreement that Whatley/Frank was a good possibility. Earning credit by late-lynching a teammate might be his only possible way to survive the game in his eyes. It's not indicative that Frank is a teammate, but I won't say it works in Frank's favor either.

==========

Frank's comments not already covered


This doesn't move me either way really. It's an easy answer to Whatley's question.


I think I disagree with Steinbrenner on this one. I don't struggle to imagine a mafioso saying this about/doing this to a teammate. It'd be a pretty typical trash can vote on top of the wagon to try to salvage whatever credit is still there for the taking. It'd be a poor move, but it's plausible enough.

==========

Conclusion

I'd say that overall this helps Frank more than it hurts him. He remains in the POE.

What's the deal with Tim Whatley and George Costanza? Day 5 Edition

Tim's comments


On the surface this looks like a generic idle prod, which wouldn't be inspiring. There is some direction to it though, because there is suspicion implied in the question about the Soup Nazi vote (and the question itself is quite bunk, because who cares whether someone votes consistently on the first two days?). Whatley seemed to be looking for something to be critical of here that he could mold into a barely-south-of-neutral interrogative. That'd be decent for George.


I suggested earlier that I have re-interpreted this as more of a smear than a distance. Distancing tends to be direct and assertive, while this is just implied shade at George and some other undefined set of players.


I don't understand this question really. It seems quite idle and pointless. I might call it a softball question (not ideal for George) in that in comes with nearly no actual pressure, but I also have no idea how George was supposed to answer it (which would be better for him). Call it null on balance.


This post kind of makes me sad that my civilianhood is so obvious, because that last bit would pretty much clear me.

Anyway, regarding George, these exchanges don't mean much to me. Whatley's bizarre take on Steinbrenner might have been a precursor to that cop claim at the very end. George's question is kind of obvious, and if my mafia teammate pulled a Whatley here I'd probably ask him that question. I'd ask it as a civilian too.


This kind of looks like Whatley responding begrudgingly to George's D4 explosion the only way he believably could -- by acknowledging that it's a good look for him. He left a little room for a turn with that "bias" comment which may have developed into stronger fake suspicion in an eventual LyLo. Decent look for George.


I am hesitant to read deeply into this given its brevity, but I am going to do it anyway. George's support for Whatley here was built on his willingness to vote off-wagon when his own neck was in danger. Whatley's response was to further promote that attitude of "whatever, I'm going to vote for a suspect because the other options are bad ones", as if to reaffirm George's feelings. It sort of reads to me as "Yes, George, that's exactly right. What you just said is perfectly correct. Here, let me show you."

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

George's comments not already covered


Generic prod specifically upon Bania. Not my favorite thing.


George explained his voting behavior at Whatley's request. This is purely explanatory and in terms of attitude or language does not move the needle in either direction for me.


George's read here was obviously incorrect. I don't really care about that. Civilians are incorrect more often than they are correct. If anything here troubles me it's the highlighted bit. Those three descriptors (balanced, calm, and not impulsive) are things I would definitely associate more with a mafioso than with a civilian. I'm not sure why that earned Whatley credit from George.

Conversely, the "only post that stuck out" for George is a point that I appreciate. He chose a good moment of Whatley's post history to challenge, because that Peterman vote of his was one of his worst moments at face value. That George forced him to expand on this after he'd already addressed it is good thing.


I threw a little poop at George for this in the moment, but I was really just invoking a frenzied thread environment and don't have a problem with it. Indeed, with Whatley flipping mafia it's a little harder to see this as a credit grab. George's language is the opposite of a credit grab; it's an acquiescence to the majority on dissenting read.


I don't like George's answer here at face value, because I feel it sorely misrepresents and undersells the value of interactive analysis. It's the most important tool a vanilla civilian can employ to hunt for the mafia team. Literally, I cannot understand this mindset at all unless it's just clouded by the bias of being the target. I've also seen multiple mafia members in prior games belittle the same effort for the same reason:

"It's not even about me! It's about the dead mafioso!" That's irrelevant. The dead mafioso said a lot of things and those things are relevant. They're critical. To discount that is nonsense.

However, that point does not relate to Tim Whatley. On that front, this post means less given its neutrality and explanatory nature.


Independent of Whatley's responses, this is not ideal. George was looking for reasons to get that wagon off of Whatley and onto someone else. I presented a counter to the first point (that the mafia aren't paying attention and don't know what's going on) and the response was this:

George Costanza wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 7:09 pm I didnt consider that angle. Good point. Let me think it over some.

That's probably my least favorite George moment in this review.


I like this little thing though. I feel like I am getting the narrow eyes in this exchange, which would suggest George was actually invested in the civilian read on Whatley and not just making it up for strategic purposes.


Tiny point, but I kind of think most mafia teammates wouldn't bother responding to Whatley's fake cop claim at the end. What's the point?

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

Conclusion

I had more positive to say than negative. However, there's that portion toward the end of Day 4 which does give me legitimate pause. Overall George remains in the POE.

What's the deal with Tim Whatley and J Peterman? Day 5 Edition

Tim's comments


This is incidentally supportive of Peterman, but not in a way that I care about much. I think this says more about Leo.


This was crappy at face value because he'd said nothing directly about Peterman prior. At the time Peterman looked like the odds-on lynch, and it probably would have happened without Elaine's tracker reveal on Jackie. This vote came later in the wagon, and the language doesn't make me feel good for Peterman.

This can be contrasted with George's D4 Whatley vote, for example. George decided to work with the majority for the sake of teamwork, and even aired his grievance about the decision while doing so. In this case, Whatley didn't qualify the vote that way, or any way really, beyond the highlighed "I don't feel bad about it". It isn't hard to view that as a forecast, and the same goes for "let's see where this goes". This one looks more like a low-effort credit grab, which wouldn't be good for Peterman.


I immediately shit on his head for his Peterman vote, and in response he shrugged it off and turned the table against me instead. This is a pretty literal and blatant redirecting of thread attention away from a Whatley/Peterman connection.


This is technically supportive of Elaine, meaning it only has bearing on Peterman if Elaine is mafia -- which she obviously wasn't. So it means nothing on Peterman's front.


Snore. At the least I could say that Whatley is very timid in his handling of Peterman in general, and that'd be pretty novice handling of a teammate I think. Why not just take a stance? That doesn't mean Peterman is a civilian though. Soup Nazi was killed before Elaine after all.


Whatley is visibly uncomfortable with talking about his Peterman vote.


I don't understand what's happening here. Was this some forward-looking attempt to shed a bad light on me in the event of an eventual Peterman lynch? If so, that's a bad look.


I don't know what this answer has to do with a tied vote. I wish I'd pressed on it when Whatley was alive.

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

Peterman's comments not already covered


Bania is in the player salad. Player salad is bad at face value, and I'd expect a mafioso doing it to include a teammate in the mix.


I suggested earlier that I don't struggle to see this as a typical mafioso prod of a lurking teammate.


Peterman started with a nice comment about the vote, and then proceeded to gripes about Whatley's treatment of him. That's waffle-esque. This culminated in another terrible example of player salad, wherein Whatley was included as a possible vote among four players, literally the entire POE pool other than him. Gross.

I gave him shit for the player salad and he responded:


"Credit" for the right answer I guess, though he still felt the need to name two. At this point though I think the Whatley wagon had blown up, so I don't care much.

Also, consider the full reads list. The George read is considerably more negative than the Whatley read, but he selects Whatley as the first to go instead. Not ideal.

lol huh

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

Conclusion:

What's the deal with Tim Whatley and Uncle Leo? Day 5 Edition

Tim's comments


Accusations of hypocrisy by mafia members are probably more likely to be leveled upon civilians. I cannot prove that, but it's my hunch. It's just weak sauce shit.


Pointless prompts for Steinbrenner. If I use my entire tinfoil roll I might call this an attempt to build a false link (between teammate Leo and civilian Steinbrenner). That's a big reach though.


Okay, but why? There's not much more in this post history to justify a Leo vote than there was to justify a Peterman vote. Meh. I'm going to call this a bit of a negative for Leo.


He seems to have no better reason to suspect Leo than Peterman, but he opted to go after the former and support the latter. Okay then. This alone might make them the two players most worth sticking in a POE. I'll stay calm though.


Leo's D2 vote was within the Puddy wagon. It was a bad wagon. I made it clear that I hated that wagon. Perhaps in this instance Whatley is trying to feed into that narrative.


Whatley certainly worked to make this a vote he could justify. It also became his premier counter-wagon. Did Whatley try to make D4 a mafia-mafia lynch, or did he try to rescue himself and set up a 4 vs. 2 LyLo? The latter would be strategically superior, at least, and that'd be good for Leo -- if we think this mafia team has actually been strategic.


I'm not sure why Leo is supposed to care about this question. In that regard I wonder if Whatley is speaking more to me than to Leo.


Important moment.

Leo's antics at the end of D4 created a very real opportunity for Whatley to be rescued. In that regard, if they're teammates, that makes Leo the godfather. Lynching Leo the godfather would clear Frank, and it'd leave Whatley surrounded by people who will still find him suspicious after the fact.

Do I think Leo put himself on the chopping block as the godfather, with a very real potential of clearing Frank and leaving his teammate in a huge hole? No, I don't. This is probably the most conclusive point in any of these analyses I've done today.


WIFOM sandwich, don't care either way.

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

Leo's comments


This is rather idle musing over reads and does not generate pressure on either side of the exchange. It doesn't move me either way.


I still think this looks like a civilian responding to a bullshit accusation.


Leo thinks Whatley/Frank is most likely and wants to lynch Whatley first because of Frank's civilian ID.

I think this is a nice look. It doesn't change my life, but it's nice.


Well that's fun. I actually could see teammates forking each other like this to create late-phase distance though.


Moved his vote back to Whatley when he realized the rules

Only sensible option he had available given thread content, so whatever.


I'm a tiny bit moved by the use of the word "pathetic" here. That's a nice touch for a guy being red checked at the last second by a bullshitter.

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

There's some good stuff. There's some questionable stuff. However, that point I highlighted in pink speaks to me more than anything else does. At this point I feel comfortable just removing Leo from the POE.

New POE:

1) Peterman
2) George
3) Frank

Who I can eliminate from being mafia:

Me, Uncle Leo. It’s just not the case, guys. If I wanted to continue with antics, I would have moved my vote elsewhere instead of back to Whatley.

Who I can eliminate from being mafia PROBABLY:

Big Stein
-why? He claimed a role. If someone else had that role, I am pretty sure that person would come out and call BS, or at least someone (mafioso) would do so to cause confusion.

Jerry
-why? If Jerry is mafia I never had a chance. I am/was naturally suspicious of someone so “vocal and commanding” (to use the phrase I have used earlier in the game) but Jerry as mafia never really took hold and my experience tells me “vocal and commanding” might be inherently suspicious to me, but it does not translate to mafia.

Mafia MAYBE, probably not:

George Costanza:

Seems like he is genuinely trying. He called out Jackie multiple times and for some reason this post sticks with me:

George Costanza wrote: ↑Sun Oct 15, 2017 2:14 pm

George Steinbrenner wrote: ↑Fri Oct 13, 2017 11:49 pm Jerry Seinfeld
The Soup Nazi
Jackie Chiles
Uncle Leo
George Costanza
Tim Whatley
Frank Costanza
Elaine Benes
J. Peterman

I'd like to know what Jackie did to earn him a high spot on your list.

I'm not jealous or anything. Why would I be jealous?

It doesn’t seem like he would draw so much attention to Jackie being high on the list as a PROBLEM if he was Jackie’s teammate. There was so much going on and that could have easily passed on by unnoticed (for lack of a better word).

I am not sure not sure about George saying Whatley’s vote for me screams Townie — obviously that wasn’t true and that’s most of the reason he is in this category.

George Costanza wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2017 8:29 pm Frank and Peterman if Whatley is innocent.

Leo's meltdown was too dramatic and extreme to be scum I think.

I really don’t think 1) it was a meltdown and 2) it was “too” dramatic. I certainly wasn’t feeling “meltdown” as I was typing all of those “antics.” I stated my intentions multiple times.

At this point, do you feel you can trust me as civ?

Probably Mafia:

Frank or Peterman — thoughts on them to come. I have suspected both at one time or another. I need to read more thoroughly.

It looks like there's agreement on Peterman, but not on the #2 suspect. We should definitely dedicate some time to talking through the matters of Frank and George, because if it's not Peterman we're going to be in a tough spot. Let's ensure we're prepared for it.

I don't have time for an in depth analysis right now, but with a gun to my head based off of what I did last night, I'd say George is more likely than Frank at this point. That last post of Frank's where he said he doesn't see Peterman being scum strikes me as backwards scum play and I do not see it being the case. I feel plenty good about George as well at this point too, but if Peterman flips town then there's a lot of things that need to be re-evaluated.

[mention]Frank Costanza[/mention] who is bad?
[mention]J Peterman[/mention] who is bad?

@ everyone else, what reason is there to town read those two?

George Steinbrenner wrote: ↑Fri Oct 20, 2017 1:22 pm I don't have time for an in depth analysis right now, but with a gun to my head based off of what I did last night, I'd say George is more likely than Frank at this point. That last post of Frank's where he said he doesn't see Peterman being scum strikes me as backwards scum play and I do not see it being the case. I feel plenty good about George as well at this point too, but if Peterman flips town then there's a lot of things that need to be re-evaluated.

Agreed re: Frank's D4 Peterman read. I think Geroge had a pretty bad EOD4, and some of the effort rubs me wrong from early D4.

I recommend we do the necessary re-evaluation ahead of the lynch, because someone will die before LyLo (possibly two if there's a 3v1 no lynch). Voices are at premium value presently.

Yes, I did not mean to imply waiting til after the lynch to re-evaluate those things. Just that him being town demands re-evaluation. It should be done now while we're all here.

Of the four names in the "pool" entering today, I think the strongest case for each being civilian is as follows:

Frank Constanza
~ His chosen strategy of tunneling George all game long hasn't helped him to earn trust, but he hasn't abandoned it. This may evidence sincerity.
~ He didn't interact with Whatley or Bania even a single time prior to D4.
~ I think his D4 interactions with Whatley help him more than hurt him.
~ At the end of D4, he named Peterman as the most likely civilian in the POE pool -- the same guy who should logically be his mislynch teddy if he's mafia.

How compelling is this? Decently compelling.

George Costanza
~ He's been the most active and engaged player among the four.
~ It's plausible enough to consider that Jackie may have left him dangling as a low-hanging fruit in his post history.
~ Whatley's early reception of George's D4 burst of activity looks resigned rather than supportive.

How compelling is this? Barely compelling.

J Peterman
~ He has the lowest post count of the four, and hasn't seemed to care all that much about the pressure he's faced all game.
~ He left his vote alone on me (instead of a more viable counterwagon) throughout D3 when he ought to have been expecting his own demise, before Elaine's tracker reveal.

How compelling is this? Not very compelling.

Uncle Leo
~ At face value, I think his contributions have appeared the most genuine of the four.
~ His self-vote maneuver on D4 significantly increased his likelihood of being lynched (even after he moved his vote back to Whatley). If he's mafia, he must be the godfather, and this would mean he was putting his own critical role at serious risk to save/distance from Whatley -- with the potential of clearing Frank. There's questionable strategy and there's nonsense.

How compelling is this? Quite compelling.

I encourage anyone else to provide additional reasons, or to contest the reasons I provided, as you see fit.