Person #7 8 Person #9

>>14975

Person 7's ability is tied to her body, not the room.

>>14976

>>14974
Person 2 or 1 killed person 5. Person 7 could have been anywhere, but either tried to kill person 6 and was killed as a result, was outright killed by 6 without a counterattack, or was killed by 2. Either 2 or 6 then threw the witch into her current position. 3 killed 1, and then 4 and 3 killed each other. 2 and 6 died via suffocation.

Alternatively, 4 and 1 became allies at some point after one of them was already dead.

>>14978

Person 6 killed Person 5 and then suffocated. Person 2 killed Person 7, then threw the witch into her current position, then suffocated.

>>14977
"Person #7 can kill others regardless of their abilities, and can be killed by others regardless of hindering abilities. Person #7 can travel through perfect closed rooms without opening them."

God dammit. Quit stealing my thunder Imposter.

Last edited at 14/05/07(Wed)02:18:55

>>14980

That referred to stuff like Armistice Field or Dualist, of course.

Well, there's still the mystery as to how Person 3 killed Person 1.

>>14979
Does 1's ability really protect her from being killed by others?

>>14982
You still didn't deny my earlier blue.

Person #3 killed Person #1. Then was killed by Person #4.

Last edited at 14/05/07(Wed)02:24:14

>>14983

In a direct manner, at least.

>>14984

No other people can kill others while in a room occupied by Person #1.

If you can explain it past that the rest should be pretty easy.

>>14986
Person #4 ate Person #1.

>>14987

Person 4 ate u

>>14988

>>14985
So it's completely impossible for someone to kill person 1 while in the same room as her?

>>14990

Technically.

Of course, it's entirely possible to cause her to die.

Person 1 killed person 3. She then made and alliance with 4, and killed him. The alliance ceased to be, and person 4's body in some fashion then caused person 1's death. However, person 4, being dead, had ascended to a higher plane. Thus, they could be said to not be in the same room as 1.

>>14991
Person #3 broke up with Person #1 and caused her to die of a broken heart. Person #4 ate #1's body and killed Person #3. He then died because of Person #1's bones shredding his insides.

>>14992

Hinto:

Kill order is 413
Death order is 134

>>14993

Too guro!

Last edited at 14/05/07(Wed)02:44:01

So she was killed, and her death was a killing. And aside from person 5 and suffocation, of which none of the people in the dining room died from, all the killings occurred with the victim and the killer in the same room, and so did all the deaths. And yet she is the only one allowed to kill in her room.

Wasn't it impossible for her to be killed indirectly? Does the definition of "kill" change?

>>14995
Person #4 accidentally scared Person #1 to death, in a rage he killed Person #3 and ended up dying due to blood loss when he noticed how big her oppai were and ended up spouting blood from his nose.

Well, I give up. I didn't come up with most of this anyway. I'll leave it to the real Meta.

>>14998
Even if I somehow got it it'd end up be a pyrrhic victory.

>>14999
I feel the same way.

Person 3 causes the death of Person 1 by tricking her into shooting herself. While the responsibility of the murder belongs to Person 3, Person 1 performed the actual killing, and therefore is not protected by her special ability. Moreover, as the death was not intentional, it isn't considered a suicide, and therefore isn't covered by Person 2's ability.

Following Person 1's death, Person 4 is devoid of allies, and therefore kills Person 3 as her ability no longer functions.

Person 4 then succumbs to poison given to him by Person 1 immediately prior to their alliance earlier that day.

However, this is an insignificant failure in the face of suffocation and witchthrowing! Rejoice in your victory overall!

>>15001
Oi, that contradicts some red.

>>15001
>>15002
To continue.

Everyone was killed!

Person 3 causes the death of Person 1 by tricking her into shooting herself. While the responsibility of the murder belongs to Person 3, Person 1 performed the actual killing, and therefore is not protected by her special ability. Moreover, as the death was not intentional, it isn't considered a suicide, and therefore isn't covered by Person 2's ability.

'Killing' refers to intentionally causing the death of a being.

In other words, either Person #4 intentionally killed Person #1 which goes against his ability or Person #1 intentionally killed herself.

Last edited at 14/05/07(Wed)09:32:51

While it's retarded, technically suicide is "intentionally taking one's own life", and in this case the self-killing wasn't suicide. Killing is just taking an action that will result in death, so #1 took a killing action that targeted the self, without intentionally intending to cause a death.

I'll need to read everything that happened while I was asleep to see if Rat didn't rat in anything fat.

>>15003

While Person 3 intentionally caused the death of Person 1, Person 1 was the one who took the actual killing action. You can think of it as a separation of killing into a two-part process, which isn't forbidden in particular.

>>15004
>>15006
In that case then following the very same logic Person #5 didn't kill anyone as she merely closed the rooms after death, everyone who died due to lack of oxygen died because of natural causes. One can take it a step further and say Person #1 didn't kill anyone, it was the poison that killed Person #4.

You can't have it both ways.

>>15007

The difference is intent, of course. Person #5 intentionally caused a death by taking the action that caused that death, as did Person #1. If nobody intended to kill Person #6 through suffocation, for instance, this would break the red as an accidental death, however.

Last edited at 14/05/07(Wed)10:52:42

>>15007
That lack of oxygen part is what I told Fat as well.

>>15008
>>15009
As long as the intent is there then? Then wouldn't you say that counts as Person #1 killing Person #4 even though they were allies because as she died she was still an ally, and she didn't resign her intention to remain an ally which would mean even while dead Person #1 was still an ally of Person #4 because her intention was to be allied?

After all, Person #1 and Person #4 were allies at the moment one of them died.

Last edited at 14/05/07(Wed)11:01:02

>>15010

Person #1 and Person #4 weren't allies at the moment Person #4 was killed.

Alliances can only exist between living humans.

>>15011
The parents of Persons 1 through 7 are the real killers, as they intended to bring into being these people even knowing they would eventually die.

Face it, following your logic is flawed and there is a grave error. Either intention counts for all cases or counts for none. Making arbitrary definitions is a bit pathetic, right?

>>15012

Persons 1,2,3,4,5,6 and 7 are entirely unknown to all humans with the exception of Persons 1,2,3,4,5,6 and 7.

Intention only matters for killing because of the red:

'Killing' refers to intentionally causing the death of a being.

It's hardly arbitrary if I was asked to define it, right.

>>15013
Looks like I win.

Persons 1,2,3,4,5,6 and 7 are entirely unknown to all humans with the exception of Persons 1,2,3,4,5,6 and 7.

I am a human being.

>>15013
In that case, there's a logic error. Armistice Field can not have killed as she never intended to kill herself, and if she did, then she committed suicide.

>>15015
That's what I was saying earlier. Two logic errors at once ain't that bad right?

>>15001
With reference to the red here, and the red that killing is intentionally causing the death of a being, then we can say that Person #1 never intentionally caused the death of her being! Therefore, person #1 did not kill! If Person #1 didn't kill, then Person #1's death was an accident! Or she was killed by another person, but that is impossible due to her ability.

Also, if Person #1 did kill herself, and killing is the intentional causing the death of a being, then Person #1 would have intentionally killed herself! Let me tell you that the dictionary defines suicide as the intentional taking of one's own life~

But there's more! She shot herself with a sabotaged gun! That means that someone else intentionally caused her death! Thus violating her ability. However way you slice it, there's no way that Person #1 can be considered guilty of intentionally causing the death of her being. Doing so in any way violates the red or any of the MYSTERIOUS POWERS.

If only you stuck to the dictionary definition of killing, Fattie. I invite every observer to form their opinion about the red and take a tally whether this should be considered the challenger or the Fat's victory.

>>15020
It wouldn't be just my victory alone even if I did win.

>>15015

Person 3 intentionally caused Person 1 to cause her death, right. Logically, that fits the definition of Person 3 killing Person 1 while avoiding the issue of people other than Person 1 being able to kill people.

Person 1 took an intentional action that unintentionally caused her own death. However, since Person 3 intended to cause Person 1's death, this was not an accident.

I'd say that it is George's loss. Strictly going by the red.

>Everyone was killed!
>Person 1 performed the actual killing
>'Killing' refers to intentionally causing the death of a being.
>Moreover, as the death was not intentional, it isn't considered a suicide

She 'killed' herself, thus unintentionally causing her death. However killing must be intentional by definition, so by saying in red that her death was not intentional, it contradicts. Otherwise she would have committed suicide, which goes against the power of Person 2.

>>15022
Even if you acceded victory, you lied in red.

>>15024

It only appears to be a lie to logicless plebians.