I definitely support a guided proposal.
And I think Fishy's approach is a good way to go. We had established enough theory by voting time for the first proposal to determine that there is no plan that is really neutral in the eyes of the scum; they have no incentive (other than WIFOM) to vote for a proposal that is not 1-scum, so I think we definitely stand to benefit by drawing today's proposal entirely from either the pros or the cons of yesterday's proposal.
I'm going to abstract away WIFOM just for now so I can work things out; feel free to add it in later to the detriment of all of my conclusions.
-Scenario 1: Scum favored proposal. This would mean that only one of myself, ABR, and Crazy were scum. However, this fails to hold up because
both
ABR and Crazy supported the prosposal. If they are both scummy for supporting, than the proposal has two scum. This scenario contradicts itself.
-Scenario 2: Scum did not favor proposal.
--2A: Proposal had two scum: Unlikely. Both ABR and Crazy would have to be scum, and they would have had to have voted for a proposal that did not favor them. This is the other end of Scenario 1's contradiction.
--2B: Proposal had no scum: The most likely scenario in my eyes.
Therefore, a town centric proposal should either be the three who voted for yesterday's proposal OR yesterday's proposal itself, and a scum centric-poposal calls for selection from yesterday's rejectors (KOC, veerus, FL?)
The one issue I have with this reasoning is that it goes quite against my gut. I have misgivings about Rampage, Crazy, and Psycho, so I am apprehensive about assuming they are town based on a contradiction in a model.