And, given that I’ve remembered that factoid, a Pizza slip seems marginally less unlikely to me.
God, you’re right. Ignore what I said. Didn’t read it properly.
These two posts led to the initial start of the jump on Ryjae
Collected me some votes, silly being on a phone so not expanding on the first sentence led to votes.
This is my explanation expansion on the first post which led to no removal of votes.
I then posted a few more times with no helpful thought process or information since it was a waste. Scum are liable to be shitting themselves with joy at how easy town is being led. I voted for the lurker and for Pizza because Pizza seems to be doing one of the better leading jobs I have encountered. The downside is, even IF Pizza is town he is leading town to lynch a town so if I should perish new leadership must stand in.
I’m also not voting for **Pizza **because of the Plan per se, I’m voting for him for his wildly anti-town ideas. Namely voting early but not being willing to change except under extreme circumstances and for essentially saying that there does not need to be any kind of case made for a vote in Day 1.
Also, Chucura, to address one of your questions above regarding why **Pizza **would so adamantly defend you if he was scum. Look at the effect it had on you! You are convinced he’s Town because of it. This is called Townie Cred and is a well established Scum technique. It can be difficult to distinguish from real Town behavior except to say that a Town player (other than Mason or Investigator) should rarely be so sure of another player’s alignment to defend them so aggressively. Have I explained that so that it makes sense?
RyJae, why do we need new leadership at all? This game doesn’t require leaders. If there are players who seem to be leading the Town then it is because the Town is allowing it. I, for one, haven’t followed Pizza and don’t plan to.
USCDriver: I understand the concept - I simply do not believe this is what he is doing.
In regards to his idea: He suggested it not during this game, but after the last game on the giraffe. At that point, he did not know whether or not he would wind up scum in this game. I have to believe that Pizza believes his plan will help town.
I did warn him that getting town to follow this plan would be similar to herding cats, and now he’s getting getting pushed towards the noose for it.
Maybe I’m simply not getting why town is heading where we are heading right now. Glod, I don’t even think RyJae is particularly scummy.
Meh. This is Day One, anything goes, I suppose.
I agree, town should be throwing information out not accusations at this stage. I have been lynched before as town as most have I am sure, this just seems like the most coordinated effort and it is horrible for town. I can say this with perfect information since I am one of them being guided and I know I am town if that makes sense.
Right, so the idea itself isn’t Scummy. In fact he wasn’t the first to suggest we use the Plan in this game, but him using it doesn’t preclude him from being Scum in this game either and I think his behavior has been Scummy independent of the Plan.
[OOG]I’m gonna be admitted Wednesday morning for a procedure. I will hopefully be hanging out in a hospital room by the time end of Day comes around, but there’s a chance I won’t be able to read or post after Tuesday Night. [OOG]
I’m content with my vote on Ryjae. While I agree that Chucara came across as a bit of a hypocrite with ‘pancakes’ coming out of one side of his mouth and then accusations that people were making lazy votes against him coming out of the other side of his mouth, flagrant joke votes combined with flagrant hypocrisy really doesn’t seem like a strategy that scum would employ. I also think that there just isn’t enough information available to determine if Pizza is just getting beat up for having a different idea and being a dangerous player no matter what team he’s on.
Sorry for not being all that verbal, guys. I really don’t do verbosity until it gets later in the game and I can make more informed posts rather than wild flailing stabs in the dark, which can do more harm than good (I think so, anyway). I know that it’s a truism that we can’t get more info unless people post more, but I just don’t see how my posts will help; I’m just not knowledgable enough or able to cut through all the WIFOM at this stage to offer much of use.
But I will use this post and show off my mad verbal skillz by explaining my votes.
MY VOTE ON ASKTHEPIZZAGUY:
This one isn’t all that well-reasoned, I admit. I’m not a fan of the pizzaPlan 
– I just get the feeling it constrains people rather than organizes things – and I’m almost clinically suspicious of anyone who ends up in a leadership position, even under “unaccustomed as I am to leading I guess I will by default” circumstances such as these where the plan was brought over by Guiri (not coincidentally, the only person on whom I have a vague scum reading from his actual posts rather than Spidey Sense), I’m sticking on ATPG, votewise. I’m gonna feel like crap if he’s Town, of course, but since he’s claiming vanilla, it’s not the worst thing in the world. Way better to lynch a werewolf, obviously, but like many of us, vanillas are likely D1 hits and are the most expendable.
MY VOTE ON GuiriEnEspaña:
…But I’d sure feel better if it were Guiri who was being led up to the gallows. And here’s why: because he has made two inconsistent, seemingly contradictory reasons for smudging other players. That kinda sloppiness ain’t the Guiri I know from past games, where he’s always been Town; he is way too smart a Town player for that. Never having seen him be Scum, I don’t know if this makes him a werewolf, or if he’s just having an off game, but honestly if we’re supposed to be on the lookout for Scum slips, as rare as they may be, I really feel I’ve found two of them from Guiri.
The funny thing is that the slips are from two identical posts.
Error #1, or “Skimming or smudging without evidence, you make the call”
First, in 160, he smears me by calling me out as apparently the only person who hasn’t checked in, and adds some info from a past game (probably as a joke… or not?) where I was the Big Bad.
This I pretty much took as a joke at first, and as it happened to coincide with my reading the board an hour later, I responded to it by mentioning that I’d checked in by PM.
In post 220, Guiri then upgrades his smudge into a vote by claiming that my posting in response to my name and admitting I don’t post that often despite enjoying reading new posts, now proved I was scum.
Okay, fine. However, here’s the inconsistent part.
In post 325, he casually mentions a whole bunch of nonparticipatory people, including ValSalva who, as he says, has not confirmed yet.
So which is it? Was I the only one not to confirm and thus possibly scum, as he mentioned in his smudge of me from his earlier post, or was ValSalva still out there? And why does s/he get a pass and not me?
Of course, his first post was likely a joke referencing info from a previous game. But… well, that leads us to the second error.
Error #2: “Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it,” or as I prefer to say, “Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it”
Guiri starts his Sam Waterston / prosecuting attorney impression against Chucara by asking, allegedly innocently, in 325 again:
Hmm. A fair question. Except… let’s take a look at that first post smudging me again:
Here he referenced a past game, where I was scum (indeed, sole scum, where I trounced him by killing him off, resurrecting him, and then killed him off again). Now Silver Jan commented at one point, does Guiri perhaps hold a bit of a grudge because of our last game together? Personally I figured probably not, because I’d imagine he’s played in way too many games to waste time on grudges. Nevertheless, he clearly does know enough about me and remembers my history and is using that to semi-smudge me, albeit in a jokey way.
So again, which is it? Is Guiri someone who (despite being the veteran of approximately 3847027450 Mafia games and who should know exactly what does and doesn’t influence people’s votes) can’t comprehend why or how people might be swayed by knowing more about others’ playstyles from having played with them before? Or is he someone who smudges and eventually votes at least partially due to having played with someone before?
I’m not sure. But either way, both of these inconsistencies smell fishy to me, and they add up to me questioning his Towniness. Because as I said, I know Guiri’s play as Town, and he is unbelievably consistent and sharp and doesn’t miss a beat. Not for nothing did I insist on killing him off in that last game, and then resurrect him because I believed doing so would prove my Towniness. He’s a dangerous Townie, that’s for sure. As Scum? I have no idea. But I’ve never seen him be this inconsistent, so it makes me anxious. Hence my vote.
Okay, it’s hardly a slam-dunk, and there are certainly innocent explanations of both these seemingly contradictory slips. But for Day 1, it’s the best I’ve got, and quite frankly I think that it’s the best reason anyone’s got for voting anyone else that I’ve seen in the game so far. Because for everyone else, the rationale for their votes is basically, well, pancakes. 
Whew! And there you go, that’s my reasoning. Now aren’t y’all glad I posted my profound logic? Not. (And this is why I don’t post that much!)
Choie, I’d rather see your thoughts on the current lynch leaders.
NETA: actually, that came out wrong, and doesn’t sound how I meant it. I appreciate you explaining your votes. I’d additionally like to see your thoughts on the lynch leaders.
Lynch me, I’m a townie.
Mafia typically have a nightkill.
Seriously, this is your idea of a slip?
Laughable. I really don’t mind being lynched if this is the thinking quality I’ll have to endure.
I did answer. You just didn’t like my answer.
I am not obligated to give you answers you prefer.
Snark aside, your question was answered before you ever asked it. One of the reasons I gave you a snarky answer.
Here’s the post from whence the sentiment came.
It would appear you read this quote:
“I recommend lynching someone with either 2 or 3 votes on them presently, except Cookies.”
Without reading the previous thing which explained why.
“I have a good handle (I think) on their personalities and none are screaming scum at me.”
And since neither choie nor Val were part of that group which had been nominated/voted more than once, they were excluded from the line:
“I recommend lynching someone with either 2 or 3 votes on them presently, except Cookies.”
All of this will be readily apparent if people are reading my posts and not skimming them.
When asked about why, I gave my snarky answer because I am annoyed that you are skimming my posts. Either read them or don’t. I won’t be offended if you don’t read them. Just please don’t pretend to read them and ask questions that would be answered by reading them.
So anyway. That vote like so many of the others is predicated on wrong thinking or wrong information.
One of the reasons I like to vote without reasons when there are no reasons is I don’t have to invent bullshit reasoning like the type you’re seeing here.
Making up wrongness to justify bad votes is typical of Day One and it’s also silliness. If we’re going to be silly I’ll actually go all the way with it and vote based on what the midichlorians are telling me.
Anyway. The primary reason I’m being voted is because I’m advocating for things, talking, and saying things people don’t agree with.
This will be my completely ordinary behavior, so you might as well vote me for being named Askthepizzaguy. It would be more honest of you.
Your derision is unfounded. You specifically said if we didn’t lynch anyone, there would be two dead townies tomorrow.
You may have misspoke, but acting like Pleonast is an idiot is uncalled for.
Let me ask you a frank question.
At the start of the game, when no one has voted yet, but the game has begun, what do you base the first vote of the game on?
Could it be astrology, perhaps? Reading tea leaves? Perhaps you just prefer to vote people alphabetically. Whatever the case may be, inventing reasons at that stage is horse dooky.
So my question is, at what point do we accept that votes don’t need to have bullshit reasoning on day one, and at what point do we stop twisting the words of those who have the balls to state this OBVIOUS FACT to people who are looking for any excuse to vote for someone. And it is an excuse, let’s be clear.
I disagree with your premise, therefore VOTE YOU.
A *player *might not choose to vote to lynch someone, but if it’s not unanimous there will still be a lynch. A no lynch day only works if absolutely no one votes. Therefore what do we discuss for a week? There’s no voting history. There are no deaths. Short of mass claiming I don’t see the point.
I see however your point. The derision was uncalled for in this case. Probably this case alone, but in this case, yes.
I’m going to be lynched anyway, so I’m not at a point where I’m attempting to change minds. Most minds won’t change.
I’m just pointing out the errors so they might not be repeated.
Why does there need to be a vote at the start of the game? You seem to think that there MUST be an unsubstantiated vote to start the game; as if we can’t have any worthwhile discussion without a vote hanging over someone’s head. We accept that votes don’t need to have bullshit reasoning when they no longer do! (Bullshit Vote 1 = unacceptable, Bullshit Vote 2 = unacceptable, Reasoned Vote 3 = Acceptable, yea!!) Why do we accept any vote with bullshit reasoning in the first place? There’s no rule that says we can’t have 1-2 days of discussion before a vote is placed (except for the ‘guidelines’ of your Plan).
Before one votes why can’t we just discuss some new strategy (like the Plan) or a new mechanic (like the Barn) while trying to find some abnormal behavior in the discussion? This isn’t necessarily going to be high yield for catching Scum but at least it makes people talk and come up with some reason for their votes. And it gives those who have been voted for a chance to defend themselves. How can you defend against a Bullshit Vote? (Oh you voted for me because ‘Pancakes’? Well I say ‘Waffles!!’) When we go back and review after Today and Tonight’s reveals, what are we supposed to do with that information if everyone makes Bullshit Votes all Day? Can we still make Bullshit Votes on Day 2 since we won’t know any more at that point than we did before? Who knows why the Dead players did what they did since they weren’t expected to come up with any reasons for their votes?
My point being, you (meaning everyone) should at least have SOME reason for making your vote. If you like to make ‘pressure’ votes, then say it is a pressure vote. If you think a player is acting different than they have in previous games then that is a fine reason too. If you don’t like the way two players are interacting, then that’s even better! But saying ‘pancakes’ or explicitly voting for no reason whatsoever is frankly poor play and detrimental to those of us who hope to still be playing on Days 2-10 (or whatever).
TL&DR
It isn’t just the Votes that matter in the long run, it’s also the Reasons!