This is Person #1! She may reek of culprit, but as she's a 「DIFFERENT CHARACTER」 be sure not to be misled!

Special Ability: Armistice Field: No other people can kill others while in a room occupied by Person #1.

See, she's clearly very peaceful! Probably a saint!

This is Person #2! Very moemoe! However, as a 「DIFFERENT CHARACTER」, she's regrettably devoid of any oniichans!

Special Ability: Hotline Uplink: No people can commit suicide in a room Person #2 ever visited.

Her cuteness probably lingers in the room and raises spirits!

Here's Person #3! Were those oppai always so large?

Special Ability: Soloist: Person #3 has no allies and can't be killed by people with allies.

How lonely! Can they not see past the tsundere twintails?

This is Person #4! A dashing and handsome gentleman! Since he's a 「DIFFERENT CHARACTER」, though, maybe not?

Special Ability: Dualist: Person #4 can't be killed by allies and can't kill allies.

Both kind and well-loved! Perhaps he's similar to the original after all!

Here's Person #5! A super perfect little girl! I bet she has some kind of endearing speech trait!

Special Ability: Perfect Territory: All rooms ever visited become perfect closed rooms at the moment Person #5 dies.

Some kind of ultimate detective aid! Super Watson!

This is Person #6! Since she has no relation to the original character, there's no reason to doubt her oppai or sanity!

Special Ability: Reactive Reflex: Person #6 kills any person who tries to kill her first, and cannot be killed during this counterkilling. This effect does not work against multiple people attempting to kill her at the same time.

That's a pretty scary power, however! Perhaps she was in the Spetsnaz!

And finally, Person #7! Despite being a totally 「DIFFERENT CHARACTER」, I guess she wound up in this role after all!

Magic Ability: Witchery: 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.

What a sinister power! Although, she seems almost like a normalizing factor compared to the rest! Just to be formally clear, Person #7 is the witch!

Now, for the setting! This map is an accurate depiction of the building the game takes place in.

Color Coding
Light Gray: Rooms.
Dark Gray: Walls.
Dark Blue: Doors.
Light Blue: Windows.
Tan: Hallways.
Green: Inner courtyard.
White: Outside house.

Rooms
1: Bathroom.
2: Bedroom.
3: Lounge.
4: Kitchen.
5: Dining Room.

Who would design a house where the door opens into the dining room? It must also be the work of the witch!

Prepare yourself, Metapon!

Persons #1-#6 were alive at the start of the day, and are dead at the stroke of midnight, at which point their bodies are positioned as the map depicts! Person #7 is also in her depicted position!

You may attempt to explain any given death to start, but know that all must be uncovered by the end!

If you choose to take up this gameboard, I can at least act to make sure Fat won't be lying in his reds.

>>14822
Hold on. Is person #7 dead or not?

>>14822
>>14823
Then let's start off with something easy shall we?

By saying their bodies were set up and positioned, you really mean Person #7 set up the bodies in completely different positions in order to confuse any would-be challengers which of course include myself, the detective.

Also imposters.

Last edited at 14/05/06(Tue)19:43:28

>>14824

If the witch were dead, my job would be a lot harder!

>>14825

The witch has no reason to rearrange corpses in order to confuse challengers. I'm the one being challenged, after all.

>>14826
So she's dead?

Next question. Since person #4 isn't depicted on the map, are we to assume that person #4's body was completely disintegrated? Or that his body is now too far from the building?

>>14826
Every room is a perfect closed room except the lounge.

Person #7 went to the kitchen to make food for everyone.

>>14827

Person 4 is the second southmost person on the map. North is at the top center of the image on the map. Clearly the shrinking process affected the image somehow.

>>14829
Person 4 and Person #4 are completely different people.

>>14828

If it doesn't indicate a murder, it'd be silly to confirm or deny it!

>>14830

Names following the pattern Person X and Person #X, with X being a number from 1 to 7, are interchangeable in all instances.

>>14832
How confusing.

>>14833

Don't worry, there's surprisingly no such tricks maybe.

>>14832
>>14833
Nice try, but Person 4 and Person #4 changed their roles in this scenario. Person #4 became Person 4 and Person 4 became Person #4.

Last edited at 14/05/06(Tue)20:14:02

>>14835

Anybody with a 4 in their name refers to the same individual who possesses the special ability Dualist. My previous red was just to ensure the validity of the other reds, you see.

>>14836
And for extra measure, there is only one person in the entire existence of the universe with the special ability Dualist.

Last edited at 14/05/06(Tue)20:19:34

>>14837

There's only one human in the entire universe with the special ability Dualist.

>>14838
There is only one PERSON in the entire existence of the universe with the special ability Dualist.

You can't trick me hotdog guy.

>>14839

Well, I can't speak for witches.

If the special ability Dualist is possessed by someone other than Person #4, the other person who possesses it must be an inhuman witch.

Only one witch exists in the game, and she does not possess the special ability Dualist.

Last edited at 14/05/06(Tue)20:27:13

>>14840
I'll drop it for now.

Person #3 is not a 「DIFFERENT CHARACTER」like the rest of the cast.

Side note, am I going to learn the conditions of the bodies or am I gonna have to wing it and come up with my own unique fun ways they all died?

>>14841

If you recall, The cast are「DIFFERENT CHARACTERS」! That is, they're unrelated to Rokkenjimans!

Naturally, you'll have to one-wing eagle it.

>>14842
Person #3 has always been unrelated to Rokkenjima.

Person #5 died last.

There are only 7 people and 7 humans in this tale.

>>14843

Shouldn't you give an explanation for the murders before more blues?

>>14844
Is there a rule that I have to? After all I wasn't claiming anybody was murdered just yet.

>>14845

Isn't it your winning condition? Person #3's relation or the order of deaths aren't relevant quite yet.

>>14846
Well to begin explaining the murders I'd need to know some things now wouldn't I?

There are no weapons inside the house aside from the people themselves.

>>14847

Various weapons exist in the house.

>>14848
Among these various weapons, some were used to kill all the victims.

>>14849

Perhaps the witch simply struck them down with bolts of lightning!

>>14850
The types of weapons aren't important to how the victims died.

Alternatively.

If I were standing in the dining room right now I would not see two people laying on top of each other.

>>14851

There's no reason why someone laying over someone else in the dining room could not occur given the causes of death.

>>14852
There is someone laying underneath Person #4.

Or, there is someone laying underneath Person 4.

Both just in case.

>>14853

There are only three humans in the dining room. If someone is laying over or under someone else, that person is a witch.

>>14854
Person #3 is lewd and died in a lewd way.

>>14855

Person 3 is lewd and died in a non-lewd way.

>>14856
So you're telling me a foreign object was not used or played any sort of role in the demise of Person #3?

Such as a foreign object was inserted in Person #3's body or Person #3's body was not beaten by a foreign object anywhere on her body?

>>14856
... Oi. Be careful there, you. Don't lie in red.

>>14858
Oh? A logic error already? Is there?

>>14859
Obviously Person #3 isn't lewd, but a pure person.

>>14857

Not a lewd foreign object, clearly. That is,if Person #3 were killed through physical trauma, it was the result of a standard weapon or combat technique. Although it was lightning, of course.

>>14858

You didn't see those ridiculous oppai?!

>>14860
Say that in red.

>>14861
Oh, but you just proved yourself wrong. As a lightning bolt would still be considered physical trauma as it would damage the skin, it would mean that Person #3 was killed by a knife or strangled to death.

>>14863

Magical lightning would not be considered physical trauma.

>>14863
I save my red for worthwhile causes.

>>14862
I hate you.

>>14865

Ski dess.

>>14864
I'm getting closer to solving this case bit by bit.

Person #4 was attempting to peak in on Person #6 in the bathroom, yet was found out by Person #3 who had coincidentally walked in from the kitchen with food in hand. In shock of this peculiar case of sexual assault, Person #4 grabbed a knife off the plate in Person #3's hand and stabbed her in the neck with it!

Ouch.

Person #3 fell down and the food fell off the plate and rolled around on the ground. Noticing this, Person #4's gravitational pull from his fatness pulled the burger in reach and ate it whole. Sadly, while his gut might be big his throat isn't and thus choked to death. Falling down he shook the nearby rooms causing Person #6 to attempt to kill Person #4 in mid death, yet at the same try tripping due to the shockwaves. This causes Person #6 to hit their head on the toilet causing them to also die.

That about sums up a few particular cases right?

>>14865
I see, how admirable of you.

>>14867


Person #6 didn't die accidentally.

>>14868
That's okay, that last bit was for fun. Person #6 feeling violated and being ruined for marraige proceeded to kill herself by slamming her beautiful face into the sink until she died.

>>14869

Person #6 didn't commit suicide. I wonder if Hotline-chan was involved?

>>14870
How dirty, you're going to tell me Person #1 and Person #6 were taking a shower together, and Person #1 being jealous of Person #6's oppai attempted to slay her?! In addition! Person #6 being so flabbergasted at Person #1's sudden eroge-sparked bloodlust couldn't defend herself?!

>>14871

Person #6's Reactive Reflex ability will activate regardless of surprised states.

I do suppose that 1-chan's ability would prevent her from getting counterkilled, though.

>>14872
So Person #6 was killed in the bathroom by Person #1. Person #1 was wounded and retreated back to the dining room in time to see Person #4 standing over Person #3's corpse.

>>14873

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

>>14874
Hmm I see.

Realizing they were kindred spirits, Person #1 and Person #4 joined forces and split up to find more people to kill.

This is where things get tricky.

Person #4 went into the kitchen and left to head toward Person #2 while Person #1 attempted to get into Person #5's room. Seeing that the door was locked she continued to knock on the door to draw out Person #5.

And finally, Person #2 sees Person #4 and kills him the second he walks into her room. Person #1 comes around after being unable to gain access to Person #5's room.

>>14875

Are you misunderstanding Person #5's ability?

When Person #2 died, the room she was in was a perfect closed room.

Last edited at 14/05/06(Tue)22:41:50

>>14876
W-wait what?

"All rooms ever visited become perfect closed rooms at the moment Person #5 dies."

Are you trying to say Person #2 was killed after Person #5!?

>>14877

Yes! Kono hannou!

Although I haven't confirmed that perfect closed rooms can only be formed through Person #5's ability yet. I wonder if that assumption is safe?

>>14878
When Person #2 died there was someone else in the room with her!

And When Person #2 died, the room did NOT remain a perfectly closed room between the time Person #5 died and Person #4 died!

>>14879

After Person #5's death, all rooms that became perfectly closed rooms due to her ability remain as such until the end of time.

Person #2 was alone in her room at the end of the game, however. Are you suggesting the witch used her ability to kill her?

>>14880
Take my blue truth!

WHEN PERSON #2 DIED HER WINDOW WAS OPEN BUT THERE WERE METAL BARS ON HER WINDOW!

>>14881

All windows in perfectly closed rooms are both closed and entirely impassible.

>>14882
Uoooooh!

Person #2 was killed by poison!

>>14883

Person #2 wasn't killed by poison.

>>14884
Arrrrgh!

Person #2 was killed indirectly!

>>14885

Magical lightning is a superior indirect murder option.

Since you appear to be troubled somewhat, I'll help you out a bit.

Person #5 was the first person to die.
Person #5 visited every room.

>>14886
?!

>>14887

You could take that to mean that the final positions are also the starting positions.

Except for the witch, of course.

>>14888
UOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOH!!!

THERE ARE NO ROOFS IN THIS BUILDING! THE KILLERS USED CATAPULTS FROM OUTSIDE THE BUILDING AND THEN LAUNCHED THE BODIES INSIDE THEIR RESPECTIVE ROOMS!

WHEN THEY WERE DONE THEY THOUGHT IT LOOKED FUN SO ONE BY ONE THEY LAUNCHED THEMSELVES IN TO BUT ENDED UP DYING UPON IMPACT!

Last edited at 14/05/06(Tue)23:17:06

>>14889

All perfectly closed rooms have perfectly closed roofs!

>>14890
I refuse to believe in witches!

Everyone ended up falling asleep and dying in their sleep!

>>14891

Witches are known to cause nightmares. Perhaps terrifying enough to cause heart attacks!

Aside from persons 1-6 and any witches, no other people figure into the game, right?

>>14892
Everyone died of OLD AGE!

>>14893

All entities involved in the game are depicted on the map. Including the spooky ghosts that scared the humans to death.

>>14894

Everyone was killed!

>>14896
Gotcha!

Person #7 was killed!

>>14896
But someone can be "killed" by old age, or "killed" by a disease. What do you mean by killed? Murdered by another person?

>>14898
I would not accept a game that allows "kills" to happen by old age! Any death in this game was caused by one of the seven people involved in this game.

>>14897

The witch killing herself would still lead to my victory condition.

>>14898

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

Last edited at 14/05/06(Tue)23:31:43

>>14900
Deaths can be delayed. Someone could "kill" someone else, as in create the circumstance that directly leads to their death, but their victim might not die until later. Say, by bleeding out.

>>14900
This case is just about solved.

Person #5 has a key to every room!

>>14901

Tashikani sou da ne.

>>14902

None of the rooms have accompanying keys, or locks for that matter.

>>14903
Just like the victims, you've locked out any sort of victory you might've had.

Everyone died due to lack of oxygen. Every room is completely impassable.

Person #7 was last to die.

>>14904

Everyone didn't die from lack of oxygen.

After Person #5's death, every room became completely impassible for humans.

If Person #7 died, she was not the last one to die.

>>14903
What about the spaces that aren't "rooms", like the hallways, outside and the courtyard? Do those not count as "rooms" for abilities?

Also, if someone is on the threshold between two rooms, what does that mean for any "room" rules?

>>14905

>>14905
Someone at least died due to lack of oxygen!

Person #7 was dead long before the day started!

>>14906

Any area not expressly described as a room is not a room.

A person's body belongs to the room which contains the greatest part of that person's body. If a person were to be in the middle of a hallway, for instance, they would not belong to a room, however.

Perfect Territory causes people to be contained in whatever room they belong to when it becomes a closed room.

Armistice Field and Hotline Uplink both function by regarding room belongingship only.

>>14905
>>14907
>>14908
Wait a second...oh god dammit. Double posting and all but I've realized I have been tricked in a dirty way.

And now not double posting. I call out Fatty's mistake of the word impassible in red.

Perfectly closed rooms are still passable by humans!

Last edited at 14/05/06(Tue)23:55:53

Person #5 killed herself, and since all the rest were trapped inside perfectly closed rooms afterward, they all died from lack of oxygen.

>>14907
>>14910

>>14908

But whom, I wonder!

All people involved in this game started the day alive.

>>14912
I'll repeat it again!

Perfectly closed rooms are still passable by humans!

>>14910

Perfectly closed rooms are completely impassable for all people, with the exception of those who possess the Witchery ability.

>>14911

Person 2 visited every room.

Last edited at 14/05/07(Wed)00:03:23

Regardless of his choice of words, let me say that I would not accept any of his reds if a "perfectly closed room" could not be considered "perfectly closed". That is to say, humans cannot move into or out of a perfectly closed room.

>>14914
>>14915
Person #7 and Person #3 are the same person.

>>14914
It doesn't have to have been suicide. Person 5 could have been attacked by anyone and later died in her room, trapping everyone else.

>>14916

Persons 1,2,3,4,5,6 and 7 are all unique individuals.

>>14917

Person 5 died instantly.

>>14918
I call shenanigans! Your red is contradictory! The only possible answer is that

Person #7 isn't a real breathing person at the time Persons #1 though #6 were alive and or dead!

Meaning Person #7 is a portrait!

>>14918
How do you define dying "instantly"? Also, person 5 could have been killed by a remote method, with the killer not needing to be in the same room.

>>14919

Person 7 is a human witch!

>>14920

I suppose so!

An instant death is a death that coincides with the time of being killed.

Last edited at 14/05/07(Wed)00:18:30

>>14921
Witches don't exiiiiiiiiiist!

Person #7 wasn't involved in this game at all! She was dead before the game even started!

>>14923


Person 7 was involved in this game!

>>14922
That would solve it, right? Of course I don't want to go into a guessing game over what that remote method could be. We'll call it method X. She was killed in that manner, and all the rest died from lack of oxygen.

As an impartial observer who simply ensures the game is fair and no red shall ever tell a lie, I can't give any hints to you, but...

1. The player must prove that a human culprit was possible for each of a series of deaths!

Person 7 is a human witch!

Therefore, unless a mystery person 8 exists, all murders were carried out by a human. Person 7, to be exact.

You lose, Fat.

>>14925

Person 5 was killed remotely through some method X.

People other than Person 5 were killed in ways that did not involve suffocation.

>>14924
Hey seriously isn't there a logic error around here? Some of the red doesn't add up.

If Person #7 didn't die last, and didn't die first, how can the red

"Persons #1-#6 were alive at the start of the day, and are dead at the stroke of midnight, at which point their bodies are positioned as the map depicts! Person #7 is also in her depicted position!"

Exist?

>>14929

Person 7 died somewhere between the first death and the last death, right.

>>14927

pls

>>14928
Those would be the ones who had access to someone else to kill them. Let's say person 1 died from a lack of oxygen, leaving person 4 with no allies. Person 4 then killed person 3, and person 4 died just like person 1. Or, they could have killed each other.

The humans each possess a「MYSTERIOUS TECHNOLOGY」, or perhaps a 「PSYCHIC POWER」! That is, something different from magic!

Considering Person 7 is a human, she must possess a「MYSTERIOUS TECHNOLOGY」 or 「PSYCHIC POWER」! That is, something different from magic!

So what's her power different from magic, Fat~?

Anyway, leaving aside the small bullying there.

>>14929
I've spotted no errors in logic aside from where I've poked at. You should interpret that red as meaning that at the stroke of midnight, their bodies are in the depicted positions, and they're all dead. Their death and their positions could have occurred anywhere between the start of the day and the stroke of midnight.

>>14931

I suppose I'd have to tell you that none of the three found in the dining room died of suffocation, then.

>>14932

stop bully pls

>>14930
Ah actually I think I messed up logically. Apologies, I must've misread that red. Anyway I've solved it.

Person #5 and Person #6 died to Person #2 via a trap, Person #2 died to Person #6's incredible military experience which is most likely a gunshot that ricocheted around the halls and under the doors. Person #1 killed Person #3 to save on oxygen and became allies with Person #4 after realizing she couldn't stand killing anyone else. Person #7 died before Persons #4 and #1 due to being in a smaller room.

>>14935

Person 2 took no actions towards Person 6.

Out of Persons 2, 6, and 7, at least one did not die of suffocation.

Last edited at 14/05/07(Wed)00:43:21

>>14934
No person can kill others while in a room occupied by 1. However, that doesn't mean a killer couldn't "kill" someone while not in the same room as 1, but later be in the same room as 1 when their victim dies. After all, you already separated "killing" from death. For example, person 3 attacks person 1 while not in a room, and then runs into the room. Person 4 attacks person 3, and is attacked back. All three sustained mortal injuries. Person 1 enters the room, and allies with person 4. After this, they can die in any order, since they were "killed" in conditions that their abilities allowed for. How they actually "die" isn't important.

>>14936
Person #2 and Person #6 died due to suffocation. Person #1 had suffered a previous injury from Person #3 and attacked Person #7 as well as giving her a fatal injury. Person #7 walked/ran to the kitchen to escape and Person #1 bled out. Person #7 died due to her injury and or complications while Person #4 died due to starvation.

Last edited at 14/05/07(Wed)00:47:53

>>14937

Actually, 1-chan is allowed to kill under her ability. Hence 'other'.

However, all actions resulting in the deaths of Persons 1, 3, and 4 occurred after they were trapped in the perfectly closed room.

>>14938

No previous injuries or starvation played any part in any deaths in this game.

Last edited at 14/05/07(Wed)00:53:17

>>14939
Out of 2, 6 and 7, at least one sustained injuries that led to their death before being trapped in their respective rooms. Either that, or they were killed by a remote method.

Also, who is responsible for the deaths caused by being trapped after 5's death? Would it be the killer of 5? If so, 1 could have killed 5, and consequently been killed by 6 before she suffocated.

>>14939

Person #5 died to a trap, she was first to die.
Person #6 died second due to lack of oxygen.
Person #2 died third due to lack of oxygen.

At one point, the dining room had 4 people in there after the lockdown.

>>14939
What does "no previous injuries" mean? Injuries sustained before the game? Or does it mean every death was instant?

>>14940

In addition to the red from my previous post,
besides Person 5's death and any suffocation deaths, all killings occurred with the killer and victim in the same room.

>>14940

Person 5 is responsible for one suffocation death, having used suffocation as an intended kill technique in revenge after her death.

Person 5's killer is responsible for another suffocation death, having killed 5 in part to provoke this. This death was not Person 6.

>>14941

The dining room never held four people at one time.


>>14942

'Previous injuries' refer to sustained wounds at any point before or during the game. All wounds in the game were instantly fatal.

>>14944
But what if someone was killed and not "wounded"?

Repeat it. "Aside from any suffocation deaths, all deaths occurred with the killer and the victim in the same room."

>>14944
Person #3 killed Person #1 while Person #4 stood by and watched.

>>14945
Make that "aside from person 5's death and any suffocation deaths, all deaths occurred with the killer and the victim in the same room."

>>14946

Perhaps Person #3 was enchanted by the witch so as to ignore Person #1's ability. And brainwashed.

>>14947

Aside from Person 5's death and any suffocation deaths, all deaths occurred with the killer and the victim in the same room.

>>14948
Person #1's ability. "No other people can kill others while in a room occupied by Person #1."

Person #3 killed Person #1. Person #4 killed Person #6. Person #5 killed person #7 and in turn killed #2.

>>14949

Person 4 didn't kill Person 6.

>>14950
Person #3 killed Person #1.

Person #3 died to Person #6's ability.

>>14951

Persons 3 and 6 had no interaction whatsoever.

Last edited at 14/05/07(Wed)01:32:17

>>14952
Person #4 died to Person #6's ability. Person #3 died to Person #4.

Let me clarify something. If person 7 killed anyone, you win, right? As in we can't say person 7 killed anyone and still win.

>>14953

Persons 4 and 6 had no interaction whatsoever.

>>14954

Correct.

Last edited at 14/05/07(Wed)01:37:54

>>14955
You know what I'm going to ask next.

Person #1 died to Person #6's ability.

>>14957

Persons 1 and 6 had no interaction whatsoever.

>>14958
So what I said earlier still stands.

Person #6 died to suffocation, she was second to die. Person #2 died as a result of Person #5 dying to a trap.

Person #7 died from being shot at by Person #1 from the dining room window.

>>14959

Person 7 was not killed remotely.

Does "the three found in the dining room" refer to person 1, 3 and 4 in all cases?

>>14960
Person #6 died to suffocation, she was second to die. Person #2 died as a result of Person #5 dying to a trap.

>>14961

Yes, it refers to Persons 1, 3, and 4, who were found dead in the dining room after the game.

>>14962

In that case, who killed the witch? Remember:

Out of Persons 2, 6, and 7, at least one did not die of suffocation.

What exactly is the nature of person 6's ability? If someone attempts to kill her remotely, how does she counteract if locked in her room? What is the cause of death of the people she kills? Can it be anything?

>>14964

The cause of death with Person 6's ability is instant fatal wounding through the mechanics of a 「MYSTERIOUS TECHNOLOGY」, or a「PSYCHIC POWER」.

>>14965
Are the bathroom and the dining room completely closed off from one another by 5's ability, even though they're side by side?

>>14965
I killed Person #7.

>>14966

Correct.

>>14967

Incorrect.

>>14968
You killed Person #7?

>>14968
Person 7's ability is magic. That means if the ability was used at all, even if she didn't kill anyone, we lose, right? We can't use that ability to explain anything and win.

>>14969

Nope!

>>14970

>If the witch is the only possible culprit, I win and the player loses! If a death is the result of magic, it's my victory!

As long as the use of magic does not result in a death, it's permissable.

>>14971
You're telling me magic could be part of the solution as long as the witch didn't kill anyone?

>>14971
Um....Person #4 killed Person #7.

>>14972

Precisely!

>>14973

Person 4 and Person 7 had no interaction whatsoever.

>>14974
I-it doesn't matter who killed Person #7, because anyone could've just walked in and killed Player #7 due to her ability!

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.