I've discussed this many times in this thread, so I'm not going to derail things by explaining it here. If you want me to elaborate, we can do it in the other thread.
*flashes Sereg a thumbs-up*
So, I'm going to come out and say this:
I think Hannz' vote is superior to the one I wrote, because I think te words "saved your life" should come before "burned down your house."
I think the real argument for Narrator's vote is actually disconnected from what's been expressed. People keep saying that the Hannz vote is too terse, or moves too fast. But I think the argument that
should be made against the Hannz vote is "what do we stand to lose by covering events thoroughly
first?"
And, you know, the answer varies. It could be "that costs us nothing and provides extra security." It could be "Sayaka will ask us to cut to the chase which will cost us social points."
But, and I say this while noting my disagreement, I think that if we consider that, we observe that the risks afforded by covering events before the house issue are
considerably less than the risks afforded by not doing so.
That said, again, I disagree on the basis of my belief that the Hannz vote is fine. I feel that giving the two core statements to Sayaka straight up and then listing all the bad things that have happened / been done to Oriko and all the good things she's done since then plus the idea that she should be redeemed will appeal successfully to Sayaka's sense of justice.