@user: I don't think we need to assign direct blame. I just remember several people I talked to being very grumbly about a certain arbiter who loudly proclaimed they were targeting the spy specifically to help the killer. This was what the GM after that moment decided would be the best way to counteract that ever happening again.
However, on both an intention level and a mechanical level this line of ruling fails. The arbiter needs to have consequences if they happen to target a beneficial role. And since we are using the entwined actively, we need to account for that fact. I sincerely do not believe the entwined were even considered when that sentence was written.
I would honestly take it out entirely. And frankly, I will fight tooth and nail to have that clause removed from both this round and all future rounds. It defeats the spirit and the risks of the arbiter and was only a short sighted measure to a relatively unique case.