Another - Episode 10 Discussion / Poll

[TinyRedLeaf]

Originally Posted by Skyfall

The boded part simply doesn't make logical sense, and thus is a complete fallacy based on emotional response and stress to the happenings, not rationality. The very notion that Mei can "fail" at keeping someone else from walking up to her and talking to her is absurd, it's completely beyond her control whether someone chooses to approach her or not.

That's not completely true. You've ignored something important that I brought up, that while Mei could not prevent Kouichi from approaching her, she could on the other hand have worked harder to discourage him from doing it again. It's not that hard to see how that ought to have worked: Just look at how the rest of the class behaved around Kouichi the moment he was branded non-existent; they simply refused to talk to him and walked away, including Teshigawara.

That is what Izumi, and many in the class, feel: that Mei could have and should have done more. It should be remembered that the ostracism counter-measure was absurd and deeply unpleasant to begin with. At least one other person had cracked under the pressure in the past. In the eyes of many in the class, Mei seemed hardly perturbed by it, so it's not hard to understand why some would naturally feel that Mei simply wasn't bothered to try hard enough, as though their well-being didn't matter to her.

What's worse is that Mei had in effect admitted as much several times previously, that she didn't really care if she was carrying out her duty properly, because she already suspected that the phenomenon had been triggered. Even if one does not blame her for not carrying out her role of being "non-existent" to the letter, Mei still carries some blame for not informing the class, or Izumi at least, that it was her sister who died in April, not her cousin.

She withheld important information that could have made a difference and instead carried on half-heartedly with a plan that others believed would work. That was dishonest of her. So, on that account alone, Mei does indeed owe her classmates an apology.

[Skyfall]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

That's not completely true. You've ignored something important that I brought up, that while Mei could not prevent Kouichi from approaching her, she could on the other hand have worked harder to discourage him from doing it again. It's not that hard to see how that ought to have worked: Just look at how the rest of the class behaved around Kouichi the moment he was branded non-existent; they simply refused to talk to him and walked away, including Teshigawara.

That's missing the main thing really - there is no point to try and "discourage the next time" - He talked to her / tried talking to her -> Game Over. In all honesty they might as well have dropped the act altogether at that point, it's not like it works on a "Three strikes, you're out!" basis ... either do or don't, and Koichi broke the spell by approaching her. >It ends here<. It's already over. Next times don't matter, one should be all it takes. It's the first time that must be avoided, there shouldn't be any time at all ... how can she "try harder" to avoid said first time, lower her opacity setting ?

And the situation is actually inverse (quite literally) from what you describe in your second part of the quote, thus doesn't really apply to Mei's situation - Koichi's situation was a "nonexistent one (Koichi) trying to interact with classmates, so they ignore him" <- so far so good, the "nonexistent" person isn't being acknowledged.

Mei's situation was the opposite - an "existing" classmate trying to interact with the "nonexistent" one. Which is where it has already fallen apart - the "nonexistent" person has been acknowledged. The very act of him (existent) trying to interact with her (nonexistent) is where the equation ends, whatever her response, it doesn't change the fact that her existence has been acknowledged, and thus her reactions wouldn't be relevant any more.

The acknowledgement of her existence doesn't depend on whether she responds to it or not, or in what manner - it depends solely on whether an "existing" person treats her as if she is there. The very act of trying to start a conversation is already an acknowledgement of her existence, which Koichi did the first day he got to school.

[Kanon]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

That's not completely true. You've ignored something important that I brought up, that while Mei could not prevent Kouichi from approaching her, she could on the other hand have worked harder to discourage him from doing it again. It's not that hard to see how that ought to have worked: Just look at how the rest of the class behaved around Kouichi the moment he was branded non-existent; they simply refused to talk to him and walked away, including Teshigawara.

That is what Izumi, and many in the class, feel: that Mei could have and should have done more. It should be remembered that the ostracism counter-measure was absurd and deeply unpleasant to begin with. At least one other person had cracked under the pressure in the past. In the eyes of many in the class, Mei seemed hardly perturbed by it, so it's not hard to understand why some would naturally feel that Mei simply wasn't bothered to try hard enough, as though their well-being didn't matter to her.

That is wrong. Even though Mei thought the calamity might have already started, she still took her role seriously and tried to discourage Kouichi from talking to her using a number of different methods: outright telling him not to associate with her in the first episode, scare him off by playing on his belief she was a ghost, try to make him believe she did not exist, not come to school, etc... It's not her fault Kouichi was so persistent. What should she have done? Ignore him as well? It's not like putting him on her ignore list would have made him magically disappear (wouldn't that be convenient if that worked just like on the internet?). That wouldn't have stopped him from acknowledging Mei's existence, and it would have likely only increased his curiosity further. I truly think she did the best she could to keep him away.

Even from Izumi's point of view who didn't know the content of their conversations, it's still preposterous to blame Mei. Even Teshigawara and Mochizuki realized that. Keeping Kouichi away from the non-existent student was Izumi's job as the head of countermeasures, not Mei's. In order for the ignored student to be able to uphold his role properly, two conditions need to be met: the ignored student must not try to force others to acknowledge him, and the other students must ignore him. Both parties must ignore the others. As soon as one refuses too, it's all over.

[TinyRedLeaf]

How is it different for an existing person to interact with a non-existent person and vice versa? In either case, the "spell" would still be broken, because clearly the non-existent person must exist, or who would the existing person be talking to?

So, it comes back to the same quandry: In case it isn't immediately clear, everyone in the class actually had a part to play in the ruse. Both the students and the non-existent person are meant to actively avoid one another. In Kouichi's case, unfortunately, no one could explain things to him without actively breaking the spell, so he wasn't aware of how he was meant to behave, which is why I presume Izumi doesn't blame him for breaking the counter-measure.

I fully understand the point you're bringing up, of course, that the counter-measure had failed the moment Kouichi met Mei, by accident, in the hospital lift. But that's what we, the audience, would think. And we, the audience, are privy to a lot more information than the students. As far as some of the students are concerned, not only did Mei not try hard enough to be "invisible", but she also seemed to completely not care that her actions could jeopardise all of them.

That's why Izumi felt Mei needed to accept partial responsibility. Note partial responsibility. Izumi accepted blame first. She didn't say: Oh, it's not my fault, it's Mei's. Given the context, and looking at the situation from her perspective, it's not hard to see why she felt aggrieved. It wasn't mean of her at all, but rather quite courageous of her, to bring up a subject matter that many of the students were already thinking but were too cowardly to admit openly. By bringing things to the open, Izumi likely wanted to put things behind them and then focus on what else could be done to salvage the situation.

Contrast her example with that of, say, the reaction of Tepco officials in the aftermath of the Fukushima disaster. They had to be prodded repeatedly before the chief executive finally decided to step down and, even then, he didn't actually say he was sorry. The way it was handled left a hugely unpleasant taste in everyone's mouths.

It was better to confront the truth instead of tip-toeing around the matter and pretend that everything was fine and dandy. So, even though it may be hard to see it, Izumi actually did right by everyone, including Mei. By forcing an apology, she would in turn force the rest of the class to accept it and move on from their suspicions about Mei.

[Skyfall]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

How is it different for an existing person to interact with a non-existent person and vice versa? In either case, the "spell" would still be broken, because clearly the non-existent person must exist, or who would the existing person be talking to?

It makes all the difference in the world! O_o

For a person to be nonexistent, no one else must acknowledge his existence. It doesn't matter if the "nonexistent" person (in Koichi's case, Koichi) would try to interact with someone else, so long as no one reacts to his presence. The acknowledgment depends on a "existing" person treating the "nonexistent" one as if said person was actually there.

Which is the world-splitting difference between Koichi's brief case and Mei's. No one acknowledged Koichi. (the proper treatment of the student if the illusion is to be maintained). But someone acknowledged Mei.

The "ignored" person doesn't really even enter in the equation (besides being the person to ignore, obviously), he can't validate his own existence, what matters is whether the others are capable of holding up their end of the bargain. So long as the person didn't do anything to provoke people in positions where they would be forced to acknowledge his/her presence (which is what Koichi did), he/she has done his/her job.

Though this is more of a side-discussion that doesn't really impact the fact that Koichi acknowledged Mei, and this isn't something Mei can be hold accountable for. Even the elevator incident aside (which she wouldn't know about), Izumi witnessed Koichi chasing after Mei. That already should have been the "game over" signal for her, one not of Mei's making.

Which is the whole point really - there is nothing Mei can objectively do about any of this, which is why I reject the notion of "trying harder" can even be applied to this situation - it's either all or nothing, no in-between that is "hard enough" or "not hard enough", and whether the scale tips in direction of "all" or "nothing" is out of Mei's hands.

Which is why I disagree with Izumi's actions and find her accusation unreasonable and lacking logic, and certainly not commendable in any way.

That's not to say I can't understand the emotion that brought her to say this - people tend to not think straight under great emotional stress, and I think we can all agree that everyone there is under great emotional strain, pent up fear and anxiety. Seeking an outlet for those emotions is a natural reaction, perhaps necessary even, thus it isn't surprising one would jump on the first object they reason as appropriate target to focus all those emotions on.

And that's where my being displeased with her actions comes in - her trying to select a line of reasoning that would allow her to justify a faulty premise. Even with her limited information, Izumi can't objectively blame Mei, if she would stop and follow the lines of reasoning through to their neutral conclusions, not emotion fueled ones. And I have never been a big fan of irrational accusations, even if I can understand the underlying emotions that would lead the person to expressing them.

[TinyRedLeaf]

In which case we can only agree to disagree, because we differ on how we believe the class should have executed the counter-measure. I am on the side of the students, including Izumi, who believed that being the "non-existent" isn't just a passive responsibility but also an active role. Because if it were just a matter of making sure no one would ever interact with the "non-existent" student, the simplest and safest thing to do would be to just confine the student at home and keep him or her away from all contact.

The fact that the "non-existent" student remained in everyone's midst entailed a duty on everyone's part, including the "non-existent", to keep out of one another's way. And, as everyone here can see, that is incredibly difficult to do. Yet it was the only counter-measure the student body had come up with that was known to work, even if it did only 50% of the time.

It's important to remember that Mei could have rejected the role. It wasn't just forced upon her. The fact that she took on the responsibility even when she knew it was probably hopeless was wrong of her. It meant that, from the outset, she wasn't prepared to put everything on the line, unlike Izumi. It can also be said that Mei made things worse by giving her classmates a false sense of security.

While I don't blame Mei for not revealing what she could "see", I do on the other hand feel that she hadn't been honest when accepting to do something she already knew was futile. So, on that count, it can be argued that she really didn't try "hard enough" and therefore does need to apologise. She could have just refused the job, instead of taking it on half-heartedly.

[Liddo-kun]

Originally Posted by Dark Wing

My personal theory is that Mei's adopted mother might have had it blessed by a priest or priestess to help Mei avoid death. After all if she's as obsessed with Mei as Mei herself says she is it wouldn't be to out of place to this she would go that fare to insure Mei's safety.

I vaguely recall from one of the earlier episodes (probably the one where Mei and Kouchi started talking more to each other) on Mei saying that she's safe from the phenomenon - can't remember how exactly she said it though.

[totoum]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

How is it different for an existing person to interact with a non-existent person and vice versa? In either case, the "spell" would still be broken, because clearly the non-existent person must exist, or who would the existing person be talking to?

It's not the same at all.

If a non existing person tries to get the attention of an existing person,the existing person can still choose to ignore the non existing person and everything will be alright.

If an existing person tries to get the attention of a non existing person, even if the non existing person ignores the existing person it's already too late.

Mei could have not said a word to Kouichi and not even looked at him it wouldn't have changed a thing.

[Skyfall]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

In which case we can only agree to disagree

Probably how it's going to end indeed

It's important to remember that Mei could have rejected the role. It wasn't just forced upon her. The fact that she took on the responsibility even when she knew it was probably hopeless was wrong of her. It meant that, from the outset, she wasn't prepared to put everything on the line, unlike Izumi. It can also be said that Mei made things worse by giving her classmates a false sense of security.

While I don't blame Mei for not revealing what she could "see", I do on the other hand feel that she hadn't been honest when accepting to do something she already knew was futile. So, on that count, it can be argued that she really didn't try "hard enough" and therefore does need to apologise. She could have just refused the job, instead of taking it on half-heartedly.

All this is information that Izumi isn't aware of though, which wouldn't have been part of her decision making, thus it can't be used to justify her actions. I suppose one could argue whether Mei not being truthful about Misaki being her twin is something worth condemning, but this and Izumi's actions being justified based on what she knows are two separate issues.

On that note, Mei actually not revealing about the curse possibly having started doesn't influence anything - it's not like they have a Plan B to enact when Plan A of ignoring someone fails, so it doesn't actually change anything. Much like with her knowing who Another is, at the time it's information that doesn't actually help anyone involved, as there is nothing anyone can do about it.

If anything, her not telling could have actually been the correct decision depending on how things played out. Let's look at Misaki's death at the time of it happening and the potential implications; there are three things to consider:
1) It is caused by the phenomenon, implying it has already begun.
2) She died from some other cause, unrelated to the phenomenon.
3) Mei has no way of being 100% sure which is the case.

Now let's follow those two options through. In the first case, Mei playing the "nonexistent" person is useless, but it isn't actually harmful either. Their situation doesn't get any worse, they are all screwed anyway. False emotional security for a month aside, this doesn't have any actual negative bearing on their situation of being screwed. It's not like revealing that their sole countermeasure is useless, and they are about to start dying anyway because they are late applying it has any positives attached to it. A month of peace instead of an additional month of panic may well be preferable.

However, here is where the second possibility comes in. What if Misaki's death was indeed unrelated to the phenomenon ? What if it wasn't too late to enact the countermeasure ? In this case, Mei coming forth and convincing people that it has begun is actually a negative - they wouldn't try the countermeasure deeming it already useless, when in fact that wouldn't have necessarily been the case! What if it would have worked ... but they never even tried, because of Misaki's would-be revelation ?

In other words, there was literally no harm in trying. At worst, nothing would have changed anyway (which is the situation we have now). At best, the countermeasure would have worked. Misaki proclaiming it as useless (even though she can't be absolutely, indisputably sure ) would have prevented it from even being tried though, thus defaulting to the "worst" case scenario. At worst, they would have exactly what they have now (with an added month of feeling miserable). At best, the situation would have been avoided altogether (Until Koichi would have eventually screwed it up anyway by interacting with Mei )

I'm looking at the situation pragmatically here, whereas I feel accusations like "didn't try hard enough", "Should have told", "suspected as being hopeless" are largely ones based on emotional "gut feeling" grounds and actions that are usually deemed "right" by default (Telling the truth, not withholding information, etc), but in this case don't actually impact the situation they are in, nor how it would have unfolded (except for making it potentially worse, which is what emotional decisions tend to do in the long run).

[TinyRedLeaf]

Originally Posted by totoum

If a non existing person tries to get the attention of an existing person,the existing person can still choose to ignore the non existing person and everything will be alright.

If an existing person tries to get the attention of a non existing person, even if the non existing person ignores the existing person it's already too late.

Mei could have not said a word to Kouichi and not even looked at him it wouldn't have changed a thing.

Originally Posted by Skyfall

All this is information that Izumi isn't aware of though, which wouldn't have been part of her decision making, thus it can't be used to justify her actions. I suppose one could argue whether Mei not being truthful about Misaki being her twin is something worth condemning, but this and Izumi's actions being justified based on what she knows are two separate issues.

A simple question would illustrate why I believe that it is the same: If the world treats you as non-existent, what does that in effect make the world to you?

The ugly truth is that the counter-measure works both ways. It is not just a matter of students ignoring the "non-existent", but also a case of the "non-existent" playing an active role not to draw attention.

Recall at the beginning how many of us speculated about the things we'd do if we were made "invisible", the pranks we'd pull just to annoy the people who chose to ignore us. We have all unwittingly assumed that being "non-existent" is a passive responsibility but, if you think carefully about it, in practice, it isn't as simple as we'd think. The one who is ignored does indeed have a responsibility to not make a nuisance of himself or herself, for example, or do things to draw attention.

It's interesting to consider why Mei, of all the people in the class, was asked to take on the responsibility. Why not Teshigawara, for example? It's very likely because people noticed that Mei, of everyone in the class, was the least social, and therefore presented the smallest risk of being a complete oaf like Teshigawara, who might inadvertently do something that would force people to acknowledge him.

Now, here's where the bold part of the above quotes comes into play, because it makes a very reasonable point: the assumption that the counter-measure fails the moment the students acknowledge the "non-existent".

It is an assumption that this is the condition for failure. I call it an assumption because of a point I already brought up: If everyone is so afraid of acknowledging the "non-existent", even by accident, then the simplest and safest thing to do would be to quarantine the individual at home. Why put up with the risk of even accidental acknowledgement by letting the "non-existent" student stay in the classroom?

It would seem, therefore, that the students, some of them at least, believe that accidental acknowledgement would not break the counter-measure. It's more likely, though, that everyone just tries as hard as they can to make it work — the occasional blooper is expected, but so long as everyone actively keeps with the programme, no harm is done. That, at least, is what they seem to believe.

In practice, it is very difficult to imagine how a student can go the whole year without at least one or two instances of someone accidentally acknowledging him or her. Even in Kouichi's case, for example, Teshigawara had technically flouted the rule by curtly apologising to him before walking away. Yet the other students didn't consider him to be at fault.

So, to come back to Mei's responsibility as the "non-existent", while she couldn't prevent Kouichi from approaching her, and is indeed not to blame that he does so, she could have simply ignored his advances and given him the cold shoulder. Imagine this: There is this cute girl in class that you try to hit on, but she keeps ignoring you. What would you eventually do? You'd most probably give up and move on.

That, at least, seems to be what Izumi and some students think, leading them to believe that Mei does indeed have partial responsibility for letting the counter-measure fail. I strongly disagree with the suggestion that Izumi is acting emotionally instead of thinking straight, because based on what we have seen of her personality and character, she isn't one who is prone to being emotional.

Rather, there are reasonable extenuating circumstances, such as those I've illustrated above, that explain how Izumi reached her conclusions in this episode. I'm not saying that she is above criticism and, admirably, neither does she. I do, on the other hand, have massive beef with those who feel that Izumi was acting irrationally in this episode when there are, in fact, sufficient grounds for her to do what she did.

[Skyfall]

Indeed, I think it's best that we just agreed to disagree at this point, it's obvious we approach the situation with very different philosophies and reasoning and aren't about to convince each other anytime soon. It's just going in circles at this point, so let's leave it at the fact that you find Akazawa's actions justified, I find them illogical (I would even heavily disagree with the notion that she isn't an emotional person - she is very expressively emotional in almost everything she does, so we don't even agree on what her actual character is like ), and agree on the point that the phenomenon has put people in a tough spot that brings out the worst in them

[DragoZERO]

She's just jealous. She should propose a harem end with the teacher (who should have more screen time, for the record).

I kid, I kid. The fact that this is so debatable is a testament to how great this series is.

[Lord of Fire]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

A simple question would illustrate why I believe that it is the same: If the world treats you as non-existent, what does that in effect make the world to you?

The ugly truth is that the counter-measure works both ways. It is not just a matter of students ignoring the "non-existent", but also a case of the "non-existent" playing an active role not to draw attention.

Recall at the beginning how many of us speculated about the things we'd do if we were made "invisible", the pranks we'd pull just to annoy the people who chose to ignore us. We have all unwittingly assumed that being "non-existent" is a passive responsibility but, if you think carefully about it, in practice, it isn't as simple as we'd think. The one who is ignored does indeed have a responsibility to not make a nuisance of himself or herself, for example, or do things to draw attention.

It's interesting to consider why Mei, of all the people in the class, was asked to take on the responsibility. Why not Teshigawara, for example? It's very likely because people noticed that Mei, of everyone in the class, was the least social, and therefore presented the smallest risk of being a complete oaf like Teshigawara, who might inadvertently do something that would force people to acknowledge him.

Now, here's where the bold part of the above quotes comes into play, because it makes a very reasonable point: the assumption that the counter-measure fails the moment the students acknowledge the "non-existent".

It is an assumption that this is the condition for failure. I call it an assumption because of a point I already brought up: If everyone is so afraid of acknowledging the "non-existent", even by accident, then the simplest and safest thing to do would be to quarantine the individual at home. Why put up with the risk of even accidental acknowledgement by letting the "non-existent" student stay in the classroom?

It would seem, therefore, that the students, some of them at least, believe that accidental acknowledgement would not break the counter-measure. It's more likely, though, that everyone just tries as hard as they can to make it work — the occasional blooper is expected, but so long as everyone actively keeps with the programme, no harm is done. That, at least, is what they seem to believe.

In practice, it is very difficult to imagine how a student can go the whole year without at least one or two instances of someone accidentally acknowledging him or her. Even in Kouichi's case, for example, Teshigawara had technically flouted the rule by curtly apologising to him before walking away. Yet the other students didn't consider him to be at fault.

So, to come back to Mei's responsibility as the "non-existent", while she couldn't prevent Kouichi from approaching her, and is indeed not to blame that he does so, she could have simply ignored his advances and given him the cold shoulder. Imagine this: There is this cute girl in class that you try to hit on, but she keeps ignoring you. What would you eventually do? You'd most probably give up and move on.

That, at least, seems to be what Izumi and some students think, leading them to believe that Mei does indeed have partial responsibility for letting the counter-measure fail. I strongly disagree with the suggestion that Izumi is acting emotionally instead of thinking straight, because based on what we have seen of her personality and character, she isn't one who is prone to being emotional.

Rather, there are reasonable extenuating circumstances, such as those I've illustrated above, that explain how Izumi reached her conclusions in this episode. I'm not saying that she is above criticism and, admirably, neither does she. I do, on the other hand, have massive beef with those who feel that Izumi was acting irrationally in this episode when there are, in fact, sufficient grounds for her to do what she did.

The whole plan had already fallen apart when Kouichi and Mei started talking in that hospital elevator. I assume that, back then, neither of them knew that they were to be in the same class, so even if both parties tried their best to ignore each other from the time he transferred in, it would already have been too late, as he had already acknowledged her existence by then.

True, Izumi didn't know they had already met before, so in that regard, her outburst is justifiable, but at the same time, it's Izumi's fault for not making it perfectly clear what Kouichi was supposed to do, either by herself or through the other Countermeasure guys. She knows no one bothered to tell him when they had the chance, and as head of said club, she is the main person responsible.

[Hakuromatsu]

Originally Posted by Lord of Fire

The whole plan had already fallen apart when Kouichi and Mei started talking in that hospital elevator.

Don't be so quick to assume that. Remember, the phenomenon doesn't act 100% consistently, and just one isolated slip-up probably isn't enough to break the charm permanently or, perhaps, even temporarily.

Consider the years in which the nonexistence countermeasure worked. Do you believe that in all of these years, each of ~29 "existent" students went twelve months without ever slipping up and acknowledging the nonexistent student's existence? Bumping into them in the hallway and saying "sorry" without thinking, making eye contact with them some length of time, giving them a test paper as you distribute them to the class's students -- anything could happen. And we're seeing a year where the nonexistent student is an introverted person without many friends. What if the nonexistent person were the opposite of that?

[Arya]

Originally Posted by haguruma

Well I think the anime left out or forgot to underline one important term in context of how the phenomenon functions. That word is coherency.

Spoiler:

There is no real thought process behind the phenomenon and the ensuing calamity, it is basically only an event in which elements of our conscious world are altered in order to make everything coherent. But like most events it is not omnipotent as it's effective area and overall power are limited.
In order for the "one person more" to be a believable part of class it's past records have to be altered so far that it creates a coherent picture of a student of the 3rd year of middle school. There are 2 possible examples for this:

• Someone who was previously a student of the 3-3 like Asakura Mami. She was 14 (became 15) in 1993 making her born in 1978, but in order for her to be in the 3-3 in 1996 she had to be born in 1981 and can not have previously visited any class 3 of middle school (especially in a country like Japan where repeating courses is simply not done).
  For this picture to be coherent there is a great deal of changes to be done.
• Someone who was not a student of the 3-3 like Yomiyama Misaki's younger brother. He was the first "one person more" and was simply a new face in school...maybe he even was 13 in 1972 making him a possible student of a third class in 1973 and thus only his death had to be hidden in order to make his appearance in Yomi North's 3-3 coherent.

Elements like families not living together or people actively moving in and out of town seems to be something that is not entirely covered by the phenomenon. You could say that it is partly because of how the circumstances were when the curse started and how life changed.
Then we can return to the metaphor of the "supernatural natural disaster". The event in itself only changes slightly if the sorroundings affect it, but otherwise it's rather the lifes of people that change around a consistent phenomenon. Like an annual flood doesn't change only our reactions toward it, as well as possible countermeassures.

The same applies to the tape. The person that returned in that year went back to being dead which is a state that started in any year before 1983. But it is a fact that something happened which made people die in 1983 as well. People being able to record their experiences is outside the range of the phenomenon's influence. It is merely natural coherency that the dead person's name in the context of him being alive would vanish from 1983.

Thanks haguruma your explanation fits perfectly the dots I had in mind but was unable to connect

[Eisdrache]

I am much more intrigued in how Teshigawara came storming into Mei's room and the first thing he says is "Sakaki!"

[TinyRedLeaf]

Originally Posted by Skyfall

I would even heavily disagree with the notion that she isn't an emotional person - she is very expressively emotional in almost everything she does, so we don't even agree on what her actual character is like.

Aren't all human beings, including us, emotional? The difference lies in how well we handle our emotions and this is where Izumi shines. At a time when most students were afraid to act, she overcame her own fear to volunteer to be head of counter-measures, a role that comes with enormous responsibility because, like she said, it effectively puts her in charge of protecting everyone's lives. Is that a responsibility that an emotionally insecure person would willingly take on? I don't think so.

Originally Posted by Skyfall

I agree on the point that the phenomenon has put people in a tough spot that brings out the worst in them.

Indeed, on that we can all agree.

Originally Posted by Lord of Fire

The whole plan had already fallen apart when Kouichi and Mei started talking in that hospital elevator. I assume that, back then, neither of them knew that they were to be in the same class, so even if both parties tried their best to ignore each other from the time he transferred in, it would already have been too late, as he had already acknowledged her existence by then.

True, Izumi didn't know they had already met before, so in that regard, her outburst is justifiable, but at the same time, it's Izumi's fault for not making it perfectly clear what Kouichi was supposed to do, either by herself or through the other Countermeasure guys. She knows no one bothered to tell him when they had the chance, and as head of said club, she is the main person responsible.

True on both counts and, in both instances, Izumi didn't try to avoid blame and was in fact the first to take responsibility. In the latter case, she accepted her fault as early as Ep4 (at around 17:00), in front of Sugiura and Nakao.

The take-home point is that Izumi is someone who takes her duties very seriously. She is also fully aware of the unpleasant aspects of the counter-measures but accepts that, though it's a tough job, someone has to do it. These are admirable traits and not signs of someone who cracks easily under pressure. Which is why I find it very unfair that viewers automatically think she is acting "irrationally" just because she was being apparently mean to the moe Mei. That would be just as unfair as people automatically labelling Mei a "cow" for not revealing the truth about what she could see. In doing so, we are judging them from our point of view as omniscient viewers. The circumstances become very different when we examine their predicaments from their perspectives, when we consider the limited information that both girls had to work with.

[Skyfall]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

Is that a responsibility that an emotionally insecure person would willingly take on?

I didn't say she is emotionally insecure - on that front, she might be closer to the opposite end of the spectrum. What I am disputing is that she is a calm/non-emotional person. She is not, and I don't think she has ever been portrayed as such. She is pretty willful and has a bit of a temper. When she's angry, you can tell by simply looking at her. She constantly over-reacts to Teshigawara.

She projects a strong front, a display of confidence, that of someone who doesn't doubt herself and her actions. But this doesn't preclude her judgment from being overly influenced by her emotions. She isn't really a calm person, she is a stern one. A somewhat snappy one. Perhaps a bit bull-headed even. She has confidence in her own actions, but confidence isn't the same as having grasp over ones own emotions, especially to a point where those wouldn't influence her actions in an overriding manner to some degree.

Which is why I find it very unfair that viewers automatically think she is acting "irrationally" just because she was being apparently mean to the moe Mei.

And I find it pretty unfair that someone would support Izumi in her unjust accusation over Mei simply because they have a thing for hot readheads in overknee socks that make twintails look good.

I believe we now have established why "assertions" such as above aren't very productive ?

[Eisdrache]

Originally Posted by Lord of Fire

True, Izumi didn't know they had already met before, so in that regard, her outburst is justifiable, but at the same time, it's Izumi's fault for not making it perfectly clear what Kouichi was supposed to do, either by herself or through the other Countermeasure guys. She knows no one bothered to tell him when they had the chance, and as head of said club, she is the main person responsible.

We went over this argument more than enough times and why they couldn't tell him exactly what was going on.

[AC-Phoenix]

Originally Posted by DragoZERO

She's just jealous. She should propose a harem end with the teacher (who should have more screen time, for the record).

I kid, I kid. The fact that this is so debatable is a testament to how great this series is.

ROFL.
She I'm sure a certain devil-alike character from another series would help her with that.

Regarding the whole Izumi vs Mei fight I can just agree with DragoZero, she is just jealous.
there is no other reason she would bite her lips after Kouichi shows signs of being on Mei's side. If she was biting her lips because she honestly believes it was his fault too she would have noted it and told him to apologize as well. Yet she just bit her lips and gulped her anger down.
it is notable that she didn't react like that when other characters, notably people she really believed to be on her side, jumped in for Mei. Only when the Kouichi did it.
She tried to make Mei loose her face in front of Kouichi and failed, moreover she even lost her own face when mei obediently apologized even though everyone knew that it was their own fault for not telling kouichi about it in the first place.

Lets put the fact that Mei was already recognized by Kouichi befor ehe oficially entered the class.
No one really bothered telling him the rules. While it is obvious why the other people could not, telling Chibaki to explain the rules to him would have solved all their problems without admitting that Mei exists.

I also partly agree with Skyfall.
Mei was accepted as being existant by Kouichi, and there was no way she could have avoided it.
She even tried being like a ghost by suddenly vanishing behind a curtain.
Which brings us to the point why I'm unable to fully agree:

I think it would have still worked als long as Kouichi was unsure whether she was real or not. Thats probably why no one bothered telling him .

And yes someone else already said it: I doubt a short walkby 'sorry' would break the spell already. I even go futher and say that it will only work if the additional person is the one being ignored. (thats just a theory though. No confrmation about this anywhere atm)