"And player No. 7 must be a good person. If he and No. 6 were teammates of the Wolves, he would have already rushed to set the pace with his speech in the first half."

"But there is a problem with the logic of player No. 7 playing 6 again. I think the game was very good and won my heart, so 7 must be a good person. Even if I am on the wrong side, 6 is a prophet, and 7 must be a good person.

."

"As long as his trump card is wolf, he will not spend half of his time wondering why player No. 6 is so powerful."

"Okay, that's all I'll talk about when the police comes. I have a good trump card. Player No. 2 on the side. 6 and 8 should be two wolves. There are still two wolves. I'll click on the police again. That's it. That's it."

[Player No. 11 please speak]

"I just like the prophets who kill each other. This is interesting. The gold water is too boring."

"Just listening to what the police officer No. 5 said, I thought he was being dishonest because I didn't agree with what he said."

"When a policeman stands aside, he or she does not simply state his position and attitude. This is just the most basic thing. In addition to these, he also needs to help the prophet in his mind count votes."

"Otherwise, why bother commenting on the prophets? Isn't the fundamental purpose just to make good people who are outsiders agree with your logic and then follow your side?"

"Player No. 3 wants to side with 2. He thinks 2 is a prophet. In this case, it is normal for him to vote for 2 in dialogue 4."

"Anyway, I don't feel there's anything wrong with it. I'm definitely not pretending to be standing by the police. There's nothing wrong with helping the prophet in my mind to get votes."

"Player No. 5 thinks that 3 is a wolf just because 3 canvassed 2 for votes, and even wants to label 3 as a public wolf pit. His behavior and mentality are not good in my opinion."

Player No. 11 seems to be on the side of 6. According to what he means, he wants to side with the prophet who loses the killing. Or in his mentality, he is more inclined to the prophet who loses the killing.

In addition, player No. 5's speech was not good in the first place, and 6's killing was thrown to 5, and his butt naturally sat on 6's side.

"Player No. 10 just said that there is a problem with the logic of 6, and there is a problem with the police badge flow. He should not play 1 and 2 double wolves."

"I'm confused, why can't the game be played? Player No. 2 throws gold to 1. The correct logic must be that 1 and 2 don't meet. Player 1 is a good person, and 2 throws gold to 1 to canvass votes."

This chapter is not over yet, please click on the next page to continue reading!

"But what if player No. 2 takes a different approach and wants to lose gold and water to his Wolves teammates as an identity? This kind of routine seems not uncommon, right?"

"And from the perspective of player No. 6, 2 and 5 are two wolves, and 3 and 5 don't seem to be meeting each other. He can't tell whether he is a wolf or a good person from the speech of player No. 1. What happened to the police badge stream?"<

/p>

"I don't think there is anything wrong with the police badge flow of player 6 at all. Let alone testing player 3, 3 and 5 pairs of wolves are said to break the sky with a small probability, and 5 with the crow's claw is also a small probability event.

Why does player No. 6 have to go to catch up with 3 and 5 double wolves when he is on the police? Is 5 the wrong 3 for Wolf Crow Claw? It makes no sense at all."

"It's normal for player No. 6 to recognize 3. It's only when he hits 3 with his police badge that it opens his eyes. At least that's what I think."

"Player No. 3 cannot enter the Police Badge Stream. Players behind the police can listen to the speech. Player No. 9 under the Police has entered the first Police Badge Stream. In this case, is there a better choice than Test 1? Obviously it is.

No more."

"As for player No. 6 not recognizing that No. 4 is a good person, I feel outrageous. Why should he recognize No. 4 as a good person?"

"I didn't see the ticket type, and I didn't hear the speech. Why did he want to recognize player No. 4 from a distance? Some people think that No. 4 can be recognized directly, but some people are more cautious. After all, this is

Listen game."

"If the co-author does not recognize Player 4, then there will be no prophetic perspective? What kind of logic is this?"

"What's more, there are two people, 4 and 9, on the police. If he recognizes player 4, what will 9 think? He is still counting on 9 to vote for him."

"If player No. 9 goes to vote for 2 because he recognized 4, wouldn't 6 be a big loss?"

"Having said so much, I just want to tell good people that the so-called 6 logic problems are not actually a problem at all."

"But player No. 6 is very aggressive in killing 5 players. No one can deny it."

"Player No. 10 said that 6 means fighting for strength. 2 and 5 cannot be two wolves. I listened to his speech and throughout the whole article he was playing 6. This is not a good person's mentality. It is more like a werewolf charging with rhythm."

"I think 2, 5, and 10 may be the three wolves, and there is a high probability that one wolf is under the police. If the four wolves are under the police, player No. 12 will have to fall into the wolf pit."

"I think 1, 3, and 7 are all good people. As far as the current situation is concerned, there is no way to compare 1 and 2 as wolves, but it is absolutely no problem for 6 police badges to hit 1."

"Similarly, you can't play 3 or 5 pairs of wolves until you're sure that player No. 5 is the Crow's Claw."

"Although player No. 7 is on side 2, he spoke well, especially the strong logic of 6 in the first half of the game. I particularly agree with it. A wolf would not talk about this."
Chapter completed!