IMO, I saw several people spontaneously agree that the plan was a good idea.
I figured since I came up with the idea, I’d be the best person to implement it for, let’s say, the very first round it ever gets used.
After that I’m quite certain someone else can handle it. I didn’t expect people to pick up on the idea so quickly nor do I plan to make it a habit of directing traffic. People get enough pizza face-time as it is.
Or pizzaface time. Whichever you prefer.
I’m willing to go along with Pizza’s plan because why the hell not?
I find the basic principles to be sound, but incomplete. The biggest flaw I’ve found is that I believe some judicious lurking at various phases of various Days will be beneficial to scum.
Oh, scum doesn’t want to get caught up in the whole nomination process, especially when Detectives will come in with results in phase 2? Simply log off for a couple of days. Now there’s no messy contradictions to worry about. What are you going to do? Compel everyone to be at their computers once a 24 hour period?
Maybe this resolves itself later on in pattern detection? Maybe the whole system will need tweaking after the game. Maybe it’s all crap.
Only one way to find out. As I said, what the hell, right?
As a player who as townie, traditionally has pulled vote records and noted the cases that people have made over the course of the game, and attempted to derive from that which players have been playing against town, in other words an analytical player-
Yes. The point is to encourage everyone to leave footprints. I forgot my magnifying glass and I’m hardly sherlock holmes, so I need people to really dig in their footprints a bit. Thanks very much for wearing heavy shoes.
I don’t think I’m misrepresenting you. I’m not even voting for you.
That should mean it would be a good idea for townies to make every effort to be on record. Then the scums who want to avoid being on record stick out more. And while we’re nominating folks, why not vote someone who seems reluctant to vote? Good way of placing them closer to the spotlight for trying to avoid it.
Things that scum do to counteract the good that can come about from the plan can be easily thwarted by an alert town.
That’s really more important than the traffic direction. If people aren’t paying attention or steering their cars, having someone directing traffic doesn’t matter.
I just think competent drivers plus traffic signs leads to smoother commutes.
I never accused you of voting for me.
You’re suggesting that I wield power. I’d be very interested to know what power I wield that I didn’t wield before.
The power to vote for people? Had that.
The power to suggest courses of action? Had that.
The power to suggest we should discuss who is scummiest?
I have no additional powers. Suggesting that I do is smearing me.
I don’t think you’ll be able to find any point where I suggested that you currently wield power. I did say that if we were to implement your plan (which seems very unlikely, so it’s moot), then that would make you more influential, even if only a subtle way.
I’m referring to this usage of the word “powerful”.
Again, I ask. What powers?
Let’s just get this on record.
Vote: Johnny Bravo.
I think you’re someone worth discussing. Especially since you seem not to remember the things you’ve said.
I find this viewpoint somewhat inconsistent with your previous comments. You said I was “obvious scum or bad townie” for unvoting LightFoot when my whiff of a ping dissolved. You said you would “find scummy, and vote” for me if I failed to lynch LightFoot in the event of a tie. You expect me to bet it all on a Day 1 day 1 ping, but it’s bad play to do so, and you won’t be doing the same?
It’s possible to find inconsistencies if you cherry pick and avoid context.
Here’s the context you’re either mistakenly or deliberately missing:
I said people were obvious scum or bad townie if, in a situation near the end of day, their original nominee was about to be lynched, they suddenly decided hey, they don’t like their nomination as the lynchee anymore.
That would be scummy or oddly coincidental townie behavior without explanation. Or don’t you agree with that?
Deciding to unvote someone is not in and of itself bad. The point is when, and why. You were on record as to why you unvoted.
If I wished to hold it against you, then I would vote for you. But because these are a bunch of “shoulds” and not rules, I don’t have to. I have free will. And in my judgment that specific instance wasn’t scummy enough to warrant a vote. In another hypothetical instance a move might be scummy. Depends on when, where, whom, etc.
I don’t ask people to bet everything on their first vote of the day, just that I’d find it very suspect if their nominee is about to swing and they suddenly lose their nerve. That indicates something is amiss.
One very common explanation for such a move is scum deciding that their vote on their scum partner is about to backfire. I don’t want them to back off without being hit with suspicion.
“Powerful” does not imply specific “powers.” Jesus. But ok, I see now what I get for feeling out possible ideas, even without intending to actually vote. I clearly would have been better off staying quiet.
Either way, you’ve spent time making a lot of very concrete statements with little or no data to back it up and you obviously have a lot of interest in redirecting (not just deflecting) any comments about you, even to the point of voting retributively.
Since you’ve decided to answer my weather balloon with an air rifle, I’m going to join with the other folks who think you’re pinging scummish.
Vote: Askthepizzaguy.
That isn’t even close to the context, and you’ve once again accused me of being dumb or scum.
I’m not talking about hypothetical strategies. I’m talking about your specific comments about my unvote of LightFoot. You are clearly talking about that action and implying I’m scum or bad townie. You expect me to see my vote of LightFoot through without wavering for the entire round, regardless of how my feelings may change.
There is a clear disconnect between that and your current viewpoint.
What concrete statements have I spent a lot of time making?
I have a lot of interest in addressing every comment that is directed at me or involves finding me suspicious for gaining some vague powers that I have no business wielding, which of course I’m still curious as to what they are, so I can begin wielding them properly. After all, powers unused aren’t really powers now are they.
Yes, I might indeed vote for someone who accuses me of things that they don’t really believe I am doing. If you really believed I was attempting to seize power in some way you could articulate why, because then your suspicions however misguided would come from an honest part of your brain, and you’d remember what you were basing that off of.
If called on it and you can’t think of a single thing I’ve done to justify being characterized that way, then your characterization is dishonest and therefore scummy.
I’ve been voted by several people. I have not voted for everyone that has voted for me. And I voted for you before you voted for me. The one voting “retributively” is you.
A scummy banana is you!
NETA: I do want to be clear, I don’t object to the wording of being accused of “being dumb or scum.” It’s been true entirely too often. I just don’t think it’s the case today. 
Just clearing that up. I think I came across as personally hurt, which isn’t the case at all.
I didn’t accuse you of being dumb, but feel free to put words in my posts that aren’t there. I didn’t accuse you of being scum either.
That was a continuation of my comments directed at Lightfoot in the previous post, number 259.
Which was itself a post directed at addressing someone who had accused me of inconsistency.
Look, you’re going to get a lot of posts from me addressing supposed inconsistencies if you continue making such posts accusing me of inconsistency.
I am not setting out to be deliberately pugnacious but if you smear or accuse me of things, I will respond. I always have. This is how I play.
It’s not even particularly defensive of me. I always address people who address or accuse me, with very rare exception.
If you ignore context of my posts and misconstrue my words, I have to set the record straight or it will look like you have a point when you never did.
I didn’t accuse you of attempting to seize power. I did draw a parallel between this game (which I haven’t played) and another game (which I’ve played a lot of), and made a comment about what I thought would be the result of your plan being accepted. I also agreed with another poster (who you have not voted for) that your overall “take-chargey” attitude (her words, not mine) pings scummy, even if it may not be.
You then proceeded to simultaneously jump down my throat AND up my ass about it, and while that’s a neat trick it doesn’t really make me comfortable about you having our best interests at heart.
If the next five people post things that do not accurately portray things I’ve said, you’re going to find me responding to all five.
This is predictable behavior.
If you suggest that implementing a “hey people, let’s vote in a mafia game” plan makes me somehow a “powerful” (your word) person then I would like to know why.
When you immediately seemed to forget your own words, that didn’t really make me comfortable about you having our best interests at heart.
If your vote is based off of the fact that I, a newbie, can’t tell that your multi-phase, 700-word idea boils down to “hey people, let’s vote in a mafia game,” then I guess I’ll just have to own that.