Quote:
Originally Posted by KWhit
Oh and one more point. I'm using it as a way to base my vote because at this point it's something. It's better than nothing which is pretty much the only other thing we can really base a vote on at this point.
Given any shred of other evidence against someone else, I'd gladly take that as opposed to my thinking on voting for a pro-lynch advocate at this point.
|
But you see, it's the certainty some have displayed about the suspicious wolfishness of pro-lynchers that makes it odd.
What you're saying here is that in the absence of much information, we must apply what we do know, no matter how little, to come up with the best decision (and I agree with this), the essence of a Day One style vote, really.
So when so little information is available, doesn't it seem over the top for someone to say with conviction that another person must be a wolf or is likely a wolf, just based on one strategy discussion early in the game?