AnimeSuki Forums

Register Forum Rules FAQ Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   AnimeSuki Forum > Anime Discussion > Older Series > Retired > Umineko

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2010-07-05, 01:49   Link #12821
Judoh
Mystery buff
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Gone Fishin!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smeckledorf View Post
There is not definitive proof that a servant killed one person.
Fair enough, but a lot of times they're the only people who can like in EP2

Quote:
Episode 6 had at least one logic error, who is to say there wasn't more than one?
You can't have more than one detective is another one of the Dine rules

Quote:
There can be co-culprits, and again no proof.
Again Most of the time you have to use more than one person

Quote:
The story isn't over yet, and the 'detective' has never had a love interest
Erika had a boyfriend. Battler had a crush on Shannon

Quote:
What you think does not effect the truth.
whatever idiot

and rule 20 is almost definitely broken

Quote:
20. And (to give my Credo an even score of items) I herewith list a few of the devices which no self-respecting detective story writer will now avail himself of. They have been employed too often, and are familiar to all true lovers of literary crime. To use them is a confession of the author's ineptitude and lack of originality. (a) Determining the identity of the culprit by comparing the butt of a cigarette left at the scene of the crime with the brand smoked by a suspect. broken by Battler in EP 3 (b) The bogus spiritualistic se'ance to frighten the culprit into giving himself away. Natuhi's door (c) Forged fingerprints. Erika kind of did that (d) The dummy-figure alibi. (e) The dog that does not bark and thereby reveals the fact that the intruder is familiar. There are no dogs (f)The final pinning of the crime on a twin, or a relative who looks exactly like the suspected, but innocent, person. Shkanon that's all I have to say about that (g) The hypodermic syringe and the knockout drops. maybe we don't know. Higurashi broke it though(h) The commission of the murder in a locked room after the police have actually broken in. this is our solution to EP3 (i) The word association test for guilt. not sure what this implies(j) The cipher, or code letter, which is eventually unraveled by the sleuth.this is the epitaph so it's broken too
Judoh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-07-05, 01:52   Link #12822
Xoraan14
Junior Member
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: New Zealand
Age: 21
Send a message via MSN to Xoraan14
I wonder though.... Game 5 complied fully with Knox's rules at times....(This might be subject to opinions) But it was never said that Games 1-4 were nor was anything ever bought up from a Game 1-4 riddle(That I can recall) in Game 5.

It could mean that Game 7 will implement Dines rules

Going with the rules that have so far been broken..

Quote:
There is a rule saying no servants can be culprits
:Perhaps the servants aren't the culprits and that would bring the mystery a whole 5 people closer to solving.

Quote:
There must be a detective
:Going with the whole Games 1-6 don't count for Dines rules
Quote:
There must be only one culprit
:I'll conceed that one to you.. It seems highly impossible for there to be only one culprit. However the full rule said something along the lines of "The culprit may, of course, have a minor helper or co-plotter; but the entire onus must rest on one pair of shoulders: the entire indignation of the reader must be permitted to concentrate on a single black nature"
Quote:
The business in hand is to bring a criminal to the bar of justice, not to bring a lovelorn couple to the hymeneal altar'.
:Games1-6 don't count theory yet again

Quote:
there is also the no mafia rule which I'd like to think is sorta broken
:The whole mafia thing happened in 1998 which was after the crime at hand took place
Xoraan14 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-07-05, 02:02   Link #12823
Judoh
Mystery buff
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Gone Fishin!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xoraan14 View Post
The whole mafia thing happened in 1998 which was after the crime at hand took place
Given what the rule says it sound like to me if they said it in colored text it would say 'no character involved in mafias or secret societies may be introduced'. Not 'No character yadda yadda yadda may be the culprit'

Quote:
13. Secret societies, camorras, mafias, et al., have no place in a detective story. A fascinating and truly beautiful murder is irremediably spoiled by any such wholesale culpability. To be sure, the murderer in a detective novel should be given a sporting chance; but it is going too far to grant him a secret society to fall back on. No high-class, self-respecting murderer would want such odds.
emphasis mine

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xoraan14 View Post
:Going with the whole Games 1-6 don't count for Dines rules
That would mean we have to disregard hints in 1-6 to come up with a Dine solution, which I would be reluctant to do. The Van Dine rules are mostly about getting rid of cliches like "the buddy cop", "love interest", "servant" or "the detective culprit" anyway.

Last edited by Judoh; 2010-07-05 at 02:16.
Judoh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-07-05, 02:16   Link #12824
Smeckledorf
Intellectual Rapist
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: 3 12151805142615
Quote:
Originally Posted by Judoh View Post
\You can't have more than one detective is another one of the Dine rules



Again Most of the time you have to use more than one person



Erika had a boyfriend. Battler had a crush on Shannon



whatever idiot

and rule 20 is almost definitely broken
By more than one, I meant logic errors not detectives.
We still can't be sure if there is more than one culprit or not.
Love interest and love at all in life are two different things?
I will give you rule 20 on only on one point, the commission of a murder in a locked room after it was broken. Everything else does not matter because it will not lead to the identity of the culprit.

Calling me an idiot? You are hellbent on pushing your own theories or whatever so you try to call names? Aren't we mature?

And Kylon99, I don't care for terminology. There is proof in works of fiction, so if someone is going to tell me I am wrong, they can cite text that would show it. AKA PROOF.
__________________
Smeckledorf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-07-05, 02:22   Link #12825
Judoh
Mystery buff
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Gone Fishin!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smeckledorf View Post
By more than one, I meant logic errors not detectives.
What does the logic error have to do with anything?

Quote:
We still can't be sure if there is more than one culprit or not.
Yeah we can. It should be an established FACT Given that almost everyone has an alibi for at least one game. Not one person can be a murderer all the time every time.

Quote:
Love interest and love at all in life are two different things?
We have A love trial in Episode 6. And Erika getting married to Battler in the beginning of the episode.

Quote:
I will give you rule 20 on only on one point, the commission of a murder in a locked room after it was broken. Everything else does not matter because it will not lead to the identity of the culprit.
Not all of the rules have to do with the identity of to culprit. your point is moot.


Quote:
Calling me an idiot?
The entire game is based on theories by the fans and confirmed for the fans,and your saying that what I think doesn't affect the story? well yeah...
Judoh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-07-05, 02:30   Link #12826
Smeckledorf
Intellectual Rapist
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: 3 12151805142615
Quote:
Originally Posted by Judoh View Post
What does the logic error have to do with anything?


Yeah we can. It should be an established FACT Given that almost everyone has an alibi for at least one game. Not one person can be a murderer all the time every time.


We have A love trial in Episode 6



Not all of the rules have to do with the identity of to culprit.




The entire game is based on theories by the fans and confirmed for the fans,and your saying that what I think doesn't affect the story? well yeah...
Uh... logic errors have to deal with events in the story not happening as they should, so you connect the dots.

Yet again, there can be co-culprits and it is not an established fact that there is more than one murderer. So, yea I would say you are hellbent on pushing your theories.

Every rule applies directly to the culprit or detective, so the love interest one is the same.

So, if I am to understand your last point correctly you believe that Umineko no Naku Koro Ni is written based on what you think? That is a rhetorical question, save face and don't even answer it.
__________________
Smeckledorf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-07-05, 02:32   Link #12827
Xoraan14
Junior Member
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: New Zealand
Age: 21
Send a message via MSN to Xoraan14
Quote:
Originally Posted by Judoh View Post
That would mean we have to disregard hints in 1-6 to come up with a Dine solution, which I would be reluctant to do. The Van Dine rules are mostly about getting rid of cliches like "the buddy cop", "love interest", "servant" or "the detective culprit" anyway.
Wasn't that kind of what the Knox rules in episode 5 did with some clues in Games 1-4? Restricted our thought patterns and restricted the hints, Or as Battler said gave everyone a guideline to which the solutions can be acceptable and cuts out some of the more far out ones.

The same might be said for Dines rules. In episode 7 They might be used as extra guidelines in place of Knox's rules because Erika bit the big one.
Xoraan14 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-07-05, 02:36   Link #12828
k//eternal
do you know ベアトリーチェ様?
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Age: 26
Guys, please keep it civil; even if you don't agree with each other, no need for name-calling or rudeness.

Anyway, one more piece of circumstantial evidence for the guy being Van Dine: the anchor necklace, implying a ship connection. And the name, S.S. Van Dine.
k//eternal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-07-05, 02:37   Link #12829
Judoh
Mystery buff
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Gone Fishin!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smeckledorf View Post
Yet again, there can be co-culprits and it is not an established fact that there is more than one murderer. So, yea I would say you are hellbent on pushing your theories.
And what is a co culprit exactly? Another person who murders? Or someone who gives a key and ends up being a murderer by helping them? Either way your a murder. Again if you think one person did everything in this story there is no helping you.

Quote:
So, if I am to understand your last point correctly, you believe that Umineko no Naku Koro Ni is written based on what you think? That is a rhetorical question, save face and don't even answer it.
No what I am saying is that fan involvement affects the way the story is written in one way or another. These games are based on speculation by the reader. If nobody made a Natsuhi culprit theory we wouldn't have Bernkastel suggesting Natsuhi had sex with Kinzo or Erika cornering her. We also wouldn't have theories about fake deaths or aspects of a characters personality being confirmed if there was no fan speculation. It's not about what I think it's about what the fans think. Speculation by the readers and how that affects the story is the basis for both of his games.
Judoh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-07-05, 02:37   Link #12830
Smeckledorf
Intellectual Rapist
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: 3 12151805142615
Quote:
Originally Posted by k//eternal View Post
Guys, please keep it civil; even if you don't agree with each other, no need for name-calling or rudeness.

Anyway, one more piece of circumstantial evidence for the guy being Van Dine: the anchor necklace, implying a ship connection. And the name, S.S. Van Dine.
I don't think I was being rude and I was definitely not name-calling, but I apologize if you see it that way.

Edit: I can't be 100% sure but I am pretty sure that co-culprit would be defined as a person who helps the culprit. Or in other words a person who knowingly helps the culprit murder other people.

And I have no doubt about fan involvement effecting how the story is written, but fan in this case refers to more than one person.
__________________
Smeckledorf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-07-05, 02:39   Link #12831
k//eternal
do you know ベアトリーチェ様?
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Age: 26
Not aiming at anyone in particular, I'm just seeing potential for a flamewar and want to head it off.
k//eternal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-07-05, 02:45   Link #12832
Judoh
Mystery buff
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Gone Fishin!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xoraan14 View Post
Wasn't that kind of what the Knox rules in episode 5 did with some clues in Games 1-4? Restricted our thought patterns and restricted the hints, Or as Battler said gave everyone a guideline to which the solutions can be acceptable and cuts out some of the more far out ones.

The same might be said for Dines rules. In episode 7 They might be used as extra guidelines in place of Knox's rules because Erika bit the big one.
Except the Knox rules invited us to go back and reread the story for hints. They didn't restrict us to the most current episode to solve it. That just wouldn't have any point to it.
Judoh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-07-05, 02:53   Link #12833
Xoraan14
Junior Member
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: New Zealand
Age: 21
Send a message via MSN to Xoraan14
Quote:
Originally Posted by Judoh View Post
Except the Knox rules invited us to go back and reread the story for hints. They didn't restrict us to the most current episode to solve it. That just wouldn't have any point to it.
The point to it would be restricting the LOVE.
Apart from some general things like the cigarette and the closed room Dine's rules are basically Knox's rules+Restricting who can be the detective and how they can go about that job and 'The love' which would fit in with Bernkastels agenda of pure blood and guts and screams of terror.. Kind of on par with Episode 1.
Xoraan14 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-07-05, 02:59   Link #12834
Smeckledorf
Intellectual Rapist
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: 3 12151805142615
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xoraan14 View Post
The point to it would be restricting the LOVE.
Apart from some general things like the cigarette and the closed room Dine's rules are basically Knox's rules+Restricting who can be the detective and how they can go about that job and 'The love' which would fit in with Bernkastels agenda of pure blood and guts and screams of terror.. Kind of on par with Episode 1.
I do miss the episode 1 style. So, I'm with Bern on this one.
__________________
Smeckledorf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-07-05, 03:01   Link #12835
Kylon99
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Meta-Meta-Meta-Space
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smeckledorf View Post
And Kylon99, I don't care for terminology. There is proof in works of fiction, so if someone is going to tell me I am wrong, they can cite text that would show it. AKA PROOF.
Smeckledorf, if you can't show proof that the detective status was lost in EP6 then Judoh was right, the Van Dine rules do not hold. I'm not arguing about terminology this time, I want the same kind of proof that you're talking about.
Kylon99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-07-05, 03:01   Link #12836
Dlanor .A. Nox
The Death!
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Purgatorio
I want an episode 1-like scenario too of course that's just me.

On another note how do people find Ryu's interviews? I want to look over them myself.
__________________
http://forums.animesuki.com/images/as.icon/signaturepics/sigpic100082_1.gif
Dlanor .A. Nox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-07-05, 03:05   Link #12837
Smeckledorf
Intellectual Rapist
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: 3 12151805142615
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kylon99 View Post
Smeckledorf, if you can't show proof that the detective status was lost in EP6 then Judoh was right, the Van Dine rules do not hold. I'm not arguing about terminology this time, I want the same kind of proof that you're talking about.
I already gave my answer for this... twice or three times now, the game has rules and following the rules would result in a normal, logical game. However, a logic error results with something is wrong with the game. So, I would say episode 6 had an additional logic error that was not pointed out before.

Edit: Further proof of Van Dine's already applied rules would be episode 5. Knox's Decalogue states nothing about there being only one detective, yet Battler could not be a detective because there already was one.
__________________
Smeckledorf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-07-05, 03:09   Link #12838
Judoh
Mystery buff
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Gone Fishin!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smeckledorf View Post
I already gave my answer for this... twice or three times now, the game has rules and following the rules would result in a normal, logical game. However, a logic error results with something is wrong with the game. So, I would say episode 6 had an additional logic error that was not pointed out before.
Ugh...The problem with that is that both Knox and Dine have the same opinion here. The detective must not be the culprit is in both of these rules.And there must always be a detective is a Dine rule. Your basically saying you have to break another Dine rule to make that particular Dine rule work.

Erika did say she gave her authority up BTW
Judoh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-07-05, 03:11   Link #12839
Smeckledorf
Intellectual Rapist
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: 3 12151805142615
Quote:
Originally Posted by Judoh View Post
Ugh...The problem with that is that both Knox and Dine have the same opinion here. The detective must not be the culprit is in both of these rules.And there must always be a detective is a Dine rule. Your basically saying you have to break another Dine rule to make that particular Dine rule work.

Erika did say she gave her authority up BTW
That is not what I am trying to make you two understand. I'll state it bluntly, if having a detective is a rule and there is no detective, that would be a logic error.

By the way, giving up detective's authority and not being the detective are two different things.
__________________
Smeckledorf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-07-05, 03:12   Link #12840
Kylon99
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Meta-Meta-Meta-Space
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smeckledorf View Post
I already gave my answer for this... twice or three times now, the game has rules and following the rules would result in a normal, logical game. However, a logic error results with something is wrong with the game. So, I would say episode 6 had an additional logic error that was not pointed out before.

Edit: Further proof of Van Dine's already applied rules would be episode 5. Knox's Decalogue states nothing about there being only one detective, yet Battler could not be a detective because there already was one.
Sorry no, you can't prove that all the rules are being followed by showing that one rule has been followe in once instance. That's not a logical statement. You need to show that all of the rules haven't been broken. We'll leave that as an exercise for the other posters.

But, I'm not sure what you mean by a 'logical error.' That has nothing to do with the number of detectives unless you're trying to say that yes, Episode 6 is broken and does not follow the Van Dine rules.
Kylon99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 23:56.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
We use Silk.