Since there are no hard and fast rules on how a person plays the game, then the same logic should apply to jury votes. I don't understand why people get upset when the jury votes emotionally. If it's ok for someone like Dan to backstab, bible swear, and mist his way through the game, taking out people in his own alliance one by one, then it should be equally ok for the jury to vote reactionary to that game play. They got played yes, and Dan was a great strategic player, right up there with Dr. Will. But, if they don't want to reward him for that kind of gameplay then I'm ok with it. If they voted for him to win, I'd have been ok with that too. We are on the outside looking in. The saying "until you walk in someone else's shoes" holds true here. It's easy to say how we would vote from the outside looking in but I bet it's very different when you are actually part of the game and you're the one who gets blindsided.