I've never been a fan of this argument, so we're likely never to see eye to eye. First of all, there are a bunch of assassins who are "obviously" assassins but who are not the bomb. Should we not lynch any of them because of their potential roles? I've seen it where an "obvious" assassin ended up being the dark knight. If the vigilante hadn't been paying attention that night, and we'd waited on her lynching, she could have converted someone. We didn't wait, we lynched her, and it worked to our benefit.
Plus, yes, conceivably the person has the option to defend themselves against a lynching vote, but how often does that happen? Sara couldn't. Today, if I'd spearheaded an attack against Steve, I don't think he was around to defend himself. Actually, pretty much no one was around tonight. So, do we either lynch someone who showed up/was there at the end, just because there is the possibility that they could defend themselves, and lose an active person? Or do we lynch someone who is not around and thus who could potentially be a seer or some other good role? Neither option sounds so appealing to me at the moment.
I am well aware that many other people disagree with me.
Plus, yes, conceivably the person has the option to defend themselves against a lynching vote, but how often does that happen? Sara couldn't. Today, if I'd spearheaded an attack against Steve, I don't think he was around to defend himself. Actually, pretty much no one was around tonight. So, do we either lynch someone who showed up/was there at the end, just because there is the possibility that they could defend themselves, and lose an active person? Or do we lynch someone who is not around and thus who could potentially be a seer or some other good role? Neither option sounds so appealing to me at the moment.
I am well aware that many other people disagree with me.
~ Vicki
Reply
Leave a comment