[TinyRedLeaf]

As has already been pointed out, we're going in circles because we start from different assumptions. I have already pointed out as clearly as I can the mistaken assumptions that people are taking against Izumi, based on what to me is a biased perspective. If Izumi's accusers cannot accept that their perspectives can be skewed, then there is really nothing worth debating. We can only agree to disagree.

Originally Posted by Skyfall

I don't think said explanation really floats. Are we really going to assume that it's ok for the person to exist sometimes ? That occasional slip-ups are fine, and the phenomenon doesn't register that the nonexistent person actually exists occasionally ? That's a pretty arbitrary assumption, and in fact a rhetoric question on my part - Chibiki's exact words account for these slip-ups when he talks about the success rate of the countermeasure.

Seriously? Are we really going to snipe at each other's assertions on the basis of arbitrariness? Because every naysayer of this show would have a field day pointing out each and every arbitrary circumstance that has to be taken at face value in order for the plot to work.

I could, for example, begin with a query totoum brought up a few pages ago, about why I find the explanation about student numbers vis-a-vis the number of desks in the classroom unsatisfactory. It's because I find the set-up extremely arbitrary. My objection to it is similar to Kanon's initial objection to my theory about "29 students", that it seems retarded that it had to be 29, one less than 30. Why not make it a roster of, say, 26 students, for example, to make four times sure that even if one extra student turns up, it wouldn't trigger the phenomenon?

Conversely, if we have such a thoughtful school, which instructs a janitor to conscientiously move furniture around to make sure that each class has just the right number of desks at the start of the year, then why can't the school simply tell the janitor to stuff 29+6 desks into Class 3-3 of 1998, just to make five times sure that even if an extra student were to turn up, there would be more than enough tables for him or her? Especially given the history of this particular class, which has a nasty habit of coming up short by just one every year, you'd think that a truly conscientious janitor would have more than learnt his lesson by now and move in more tables in advance to save himself the extra legwork at the start of every year.

So you see, it's the same problem, but presented differently, that's all. If the first instance seems arbitrarily stupid, what makes the second instance any less so?

In any case, that's no longer a point I wish to quibble over, because if the author decided to set up his story that way, who am I to gainsay him? If I do, I might as well give up on the plot altogether. What really matters is the extent to which we are willing to suspend disbelief, and I'm sure we would all agree that this is a matter of subjective opinion.

And this is where all my explanations come in, that there is sufficient grounds for me to believe that, yes indeed, the students do make allowance for accidental acknowledgement. There are at least two instances in which students other than Kouichi have accidentally acknowledged a "non-existent" one. The first example is during a test, when we the viewers could clearly see that exam papers had been distributed to the "non-existent" Mei. Wouldn't that count as acknowledgement, and therefore break the counter-measure? Apparently not.

The second example was during Kouichi's daydream of dancing with Mei. He had such a silly grin on his face that Mochizuki and Teshigawara couldn't help but notice him — at a time when Kouichi was supposed to be "non-existent". Wouldn't this count as acknowledgement? Again, apparently not.

The thing about Chibiki's thoughts on the efficacy of the ostracism counter-measure is that even he does not know why it does or does not work. It may be because of all the little cases of accidental acknowledgement that went unnoticed. Then again, maybe not. The truth is, no one knows. The students are just trying their best to make it work.

So, I ask again, if everyone were so deathly afraid that even the slightest eye contact with the "non-existent" one would break the counter-measure, then why would they take the extraodinary risk of letting the "non-existent" fellow stay in the classroom, well within everyone's sight? The simplest explanation to this apparent laxity is that enough of them apparently believe that accidental contact does not count as acknowledgement, that it would not jeopardise the plan.

Therefore, is it really so "arbitrary" for me — along with an apparent majority of the students — to believe that "it's sometimes OK for the person to exist"?

Bear in mind that I am not asking you, the viewer, to accept the plausibility of the explanation. What I am asking, on the other hand, is for you to accept that a good number of the students believe that to be the case. Because that is the crux of my entire case: That in blaming Izumi, we fail utterly to consider the matter from the perspective of the students, who had good reason, in their opinion, to believe that Mei had failed them and, worse, perhaps deliberately.

When viewers completely rule out this possiblity on the simple basis of "arbitrariness" — even after I have presented all the evidence that suggests that it is not — it becomes hard for me to believe that we are being "fair" judges open to the entire range of possible explanations. It suggests to me only that we have been rendered biased by the way the story has been presented, primarily from Mei and Kouichi's points of view.

Originally Posted by Kanon

Izumi is the biased one for only relying on what she saw and never once try to put herself in Mei's place nor even discuss her actions with her (at least not that I recall). Instead, she automatically assumed and went as far as claiming in front of the whole class that she had not done her job properly, and that if she had, her countermeasures would have worked. In doing so, she shifted all of the blame onto Mei. That was just plain wrong. This is the part of her speech that irked me the most and makes me unable to even consider she was acting the benefit of the whole class.

After she said this, her earlier apology appeared to be a simple formality to me, she got that out of the way so that Mei or someone else wouldn't be able to throw it at her face. I find a bit laughable that she chewed Mei out for not apologizing sooner even though she only did it a second earlier herself. That's a bit hypocritical, don't you think? If anyone is not blame (and I don't believe that is the case) for what happened, then she is. The primary reason her countermeasures failed is that she never informed Kouichi of the situation when she had the chance, not that Mei failed to avoid him (if anything, that's only secondary). She does not have any right to blame Mei for something that is the result of her own failure.

All of the above is really no more than a fallacious appeal to emotion. Izumi irks you so therefore she is just plain wrong? How so? You accuse Izumi of never once trying to put herself in Mei's place, yet have you even tried to consider things from Izumi's point of view?

You also choose to interpret Izumi's confrontation as a self-serving accusation. May I ask how do you know it was self-serving? Are you privy to her thoughts? As far as I can tell, she wasn't telegraphing them to the audience, so how did you know? The truth is, you don't yet know. You're basing your judgment on subjective opinion, in which case I have presented another explanation, also based on subjective opinion, to counter yours. It's fine if you won't accept my explanation. What isn't fine is that you insist that only your opinion is correct while all other possibilities are not. Who, then, is being hypocritical here?

Now, things may yet turn out differently in the remaining episodes, especially given the increasing signs that Izumi may in fact be the "Other". But until we have more definitive information to work with, I will categorically insist that none of us has any solid basis to accuse one side or the other for being "wrong".

All we know for certainty, at the moment, is that Mei and Izumi can both be blamed for some things while being blameless on some other matters. We don't yet have conclusive evidence to say so either way. The only thing we can readily agree on is that the phenomenon is bringing out the worse in everyone — and that is what makes this a compelling show.