The remaining posts are not easing the suspicion on xyzzy in any way. Concern among the population rose, so Six had to react, the tone is generally like this:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Six
Gaaah! I was wrong! NOO! Actually I was wrong twice, because Gil-Galad was an innocent too. Curse Werewolf! Curse them, we hates them! (for a few minutes the Sixth Wizard rambles and mutters to calm his nerves)
|
Concerning
Lommy there was this remark, in his last post, today:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Six
Now I can see why I wasn't eaten, because I was unfortunately a staunch supporter of Lommy. And the ranger's gone, guys, I have to say I'm doomed.
|
I hope he's right in the last sentence, if he's a wolf. Only for explanation, if anyone doesn't know, he was mistaking ranger for hunter. I don't think this would signify anything, either if he was doing that trying to feign newbieness.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Six
So, 1 more wolf left, no ranger or cobbler. Seer? That leaves five innocents. I think that there would be at least one more role filled. A likely explanation is lovers, in which case we have the advantage, because if we lynch one, we get the other, obviously.
|
For the first sentence, it might be an unintentional slip that there is only one wolf (him) and not, for example, two. When I'm already in it, I will stop at the "one more role filled" thing. I think there might not be lovers at all, according to what Six said, because he started about it himself. On the other hand, there might be lovers for a very good reason, and that's because the wolves were so eager to vote for each other (though there were surely more important reasons, it might have been like a supporting idea of why to make a sacrifice of a mate. The non-lover wolves probably also wouldn't know if lovers exist, as much as us).
EDIT: X-ed since my last post