Another - Episode 10 Discussion / Poll

[Lord of Fire]

Originally Posted by PreSage

Actually, the curse started well before Kouichi met or even talked to Mei. Remember that he first met Mei in the elevator hospital either the night of the day he met the student council/countermeasure students (April 26th), but Mei's twin died the day before; so technically the curse started well before their chance encounter. Thus, the countermeasure failed, perhaps even before it started.

I'm fully aware of that. However, Izumi doesn't know that, as Mei never revealed the true identity of her sister. All Izumi knows is that it's Mei's cousin who died, and should therefor be unrelated to the curse, when she probably was. Because of that, it's likely that she thinks it started when Kouichi first started talking to Mei after the countermeasure was in effect.

Thinking back to Izumi's dream of meeting with Kouichi, one thing I find odd is that if they met back in 1993 (...the year her brother died, correct me of the year if I'm wong), then why do they look the same as they do now? I'd imagine they would look much younger, no?

They met in 1996, not 1993, 18 months prior to when Kouichi came back to Yomiyama. The series takes place in 1998.

[Dengar]

Originally Posted by sikvod00

Technically, it's not killing because the person is already dead, right? What makes it difficult to pull off is that the person is a classmate or potentially someone close to you and they also act, look, and feel as though they're a living human being. So from their and everyone else's POV, you are murdering them in cold blood. But the question of whether it's ok to kill them, at least to me, is a no-brainer: it's not an immoral act. It's a question of resolve.

The problem is, would you be able to kill the extra, provided you are their classmate and have known them for a long time, or at least feel like you've known them for a long time?

By 'you', I mean anyone reading this.

[Goggen]

Originally Posted by PreSage

Thinking back to Izumi's dream of meeting with Kouichi, one thing I find odd is that if they met back in (...snip...)

That better not be a spoiler.

[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.

[PreSage]

Originally Posted by Goggen

That better not be a spoiler.

No spoiler - at least, I don't think so. I don't read the manga or novel, so I couldn't spoil even if I wanted to. I don't really know if her brother died or whether he's in 199x class, I'm just guessing from what people already posted in the threads and she was obviously crying about her brother in her dream.

Though I see pieces of info in supposedly non-spoiler threads that I sometimes am not sure if it's already mentioned in the anime or not - I simply assume it'll be a non-spoiler detail since it's not under tag or deleted (...I don't remember every detail I watch =_=; ).

[don_Durandal]

Originally Posted by Goggen

That better not be a spoiler.

I think we assume her brother died due to episode 06. Kouichi looks at the class roster for 1996 and a boy with the same family name (Akazawa) and address as Izumi is noted as having died (it’s at about 18:00 in the episode). The rest is just various confirmations from the novel/manga readers. I didn’t read the novel myself, so I assume it’s not a spoiler at this point.

[Skyfall]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

All of the above is really no more than a fallacious appeal to emotion. Izumi irks you so therefore she is just plain wrong?

No, Izumi irks me because she is plain wrong, and I find arguments in her favor mostly stemming from empathy towards her/their stressful situation, with the follow-up logic being tailored to suit that particular goal (which would exactly be an appeal to emotion). Which is why I allowed myself to call some of those assumptions arbitrary (like the "acknowledgment" one) - because I honestly feel that instead of a neutral examination of the facts and naturally following them to their conclusions, supporting Izumi's position can only be achieved the other way around - choosing a goal to reach, and then interpreting all clues in a manner that's tailored towards said goal.

So indeed, I can understand emphasizing with Izumi and her position as head of countermeasures during a time when fecal matter is hitting the rotor, but I simply reject the notion that her accusation of Mei holds ground on detached logical basis. Understanding where someone is coming from and actually validating said position are two different things.

Which is where I suppose our differences might be well be coming from - I am indeed looking at the situation from an outsider's "god's view" perspective, and judging based on that, while your position seems to be more of that her situation and actions are emotionally understandable. That I can agree with, and I certainly wouldn't want to find myself in her shoes, but at the same time I don't believe the relevant information available to her for an objective assessment of the situation is all that different from us. Which is why I see her actions as influenced by her emotion (her seemingly general dislike of Mei + overall stress of the situation + general human need to have a tangible outlet for their frustration) more than they should be, which is why can't see her actions as "correct", even if they are "understandable"

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.

Thing is, Koichi's experiences as "nonexistent one" aren't really indicative of anything. Since we don't know whether the phenomenon can actually be stopped once started (in fact I seem to remember someone saying they can't be, though I don't remember if it was Chibiki, Mei or someone else), they were shooting in the dark to start with there. It was a desperate move because they have no other, so I don't know how high they believed to be their chances of success - not high, I'd wager.

Technically Teshigawara already broke it when he apologized to Koichi, but then he has always been reluctant about keeping Koichi in the dark, even when it concerned only Mei, and Mochizki is largely in a similar boat. Coupled with the questionable usefulness of ignoring Koichi to start with, I don't find it too weird they couldn't help it at times. Especially Teshigawara was prone to making "accidents" in this regard from the start, even when their countermeasure was supposedly working, so he has established himself as someone who was lax about it from the start. And it's not like anyone actually saw him/them doing any of that, so there is no one to accuse them of anything in the first place.

Besides that, I highly doubt simply looking at the person would do the trick - if that were the case, the countermeasure would have never worked at all, because it's literally impossible for all students to keep the person out of your sight for the whole school year as long as he actually attends the same class. That would essentially be the same as merely thinking about said person being enough to break the spell (It's brain that processes optical input after all), which can't be the case for obvious reasons.

No, it can only work if it requires an actual interaction related to said person, something that acknowledges his existence to the outside world beyond the confines of your own mind. Interacting with said person directly is a given cause for failure ... I guess even mentioning him in a conversation is. But someone simply catching a glance of him being a cause for failure would have prevented the countermeasure from being discovered in the first place.

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.

Simply putting down a sheet of paper on all desks in a class doesn't necessarily mean a case of interaction with the "ignored one" though - it's not like the papers are labeled with names, or that someone came up and gave it to her. Back in school it was a fairly standard practice to have sheets of paper distributed on all desks in a class before a test, irregardless of how many people were actually present or even in the class to start with, so this one didn't seem particularly odd to me.

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.

No one knows indeed, and while I am obviously speculating here (and perhaps some 'undiscovered' cases of someone failing to uphold the countermeasure indeed fall in the "no one knows" category), fact still remains that such cases are generally being accounted for, implying that they -do- happen, are acknowledged (it's not like anything else besides an acknowledgment of the "nonexistent one" can be a cause), and thus aren't unheard of.

What I believe the 50% unknown hint at, which I believe is the overriding purpose of this information piece, which is something I have been saying since episode 5, is the potential for "Another" to be someone outside the class, within the same two degrees of bloodline separation that the curse effects. In which case ignoring someone in class wouldn't be of much use, but Chibiki has been so focused on class 3 specifically that he may have missed the potential for that possibility, which is why he doesn't even mention it, and instead can only shrug in defeat at the unknown causes for failure. It can't be arbitrary, there has to be a method to the madness, and I very much doubt half the times it doesn't work solely because a failure to ignore wasn't found out.

Originally Posted by Dengar

The problem is, would you be able to kill the extra, provided you are their classmate and have known them for a long time, or at least feel like you've known them for a long time?

By 'you', I mean anyone reading this.

Hm, an interesting question, and I doubt it's something people can truly answer with certainly without having experienced such a situation. That said, it wouldn't have been the first time when people kill in perceived self-defense, or those close to them. Thing is, simply the moral question of killing someone who is technically alive (for the moment) isn't the only thing balancing the decision here - on the other side you have your own potential life, and the lives of your family members. Of course, there is a chance you and your own family might get out just fine. But they might also not. Your best friend could die. Your lover, if he/she happens to be from the same class could die. Someone will die.

For an added "temptation", there is also the fact you won't have to answer for, or explain your actions to anyone. Everyone will forget the "Another" existed. You won't be accused of anything, held responsible for anything. You can do it and get away scot-free. The only limiting factor is your conscience/morality, but it gets soothed by the fact you can tell yourselves you are actually saving lives by doing so. And it's not even a "real" sacrifice - the "Another" can't be saved, it's an existence that will cease to exist at the end of the year anyway, and won't be remembered by almost anyone. The "death" of Another is assured in either case. The lives hanging in the balance can still be saved.

That said, for me personally, I think it would largely depend on the circumstances of who the Another is. If it turned out to be my lover ... no, I'd imagine I couldn't do it. I know I don't really care for "greater good" to the extent I would sacrifice something dear to me for it. Even if the "greater good" consists of lives of actual humans here. Though this again depends on whether I have close friends in the class - that could make the situation murky again.

If the Another turned out to be a random classmate though, one which I have never really been all that close with - indeed, I imagine I could be able to do it. Not for the "greater good" (though it would turn out like that anyway, so I get the props for that either way!), but to secure my own life, that of my family and that of my friends. It wouldn't be pretty, but I would do it, and I imagine would be able to get over it reasonably well.

Now the more interesting question is: could you do it if you had a way to know, for sure, that you and your family, along with your friends/potential lover in the class won't be struck by the calamity. Could you do it solely for the sake of classmates you sort-of know but never really interact with ? Especially if the Another turns out to be someone close to you? That I do not know.

[totoum]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

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.

1)I still personaly would debate that it happens every year
2)If you start adding desks you have no way to tell if there's an extra student that appeared or not,so I really don't think it's a good idea.

[AC-Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Skyfall

[...]
If the Another turned out to be a random classmate though, one which I have never really been all that close with - indeed, I imagine I could be able to do it. Not for the "greater good" (though it would turn out like that anyway, so I get the props for that either way!), but to secure my own life, that of my family and that of my friends. It wouldn't be pretty, but I would do it, and I imagine would be able to get over it reasonably well.

Now the more interesting question is: could you do it if you had a way to know, for sure, that you and your family, along with your friends/potential lover in the class won't be struck by the calamity. Could you do it solely for the sake of classmates you sort-of know but never really interact with ? Especially if the Another turns out to be someone close to you? That I do not know.

Purely in relation to another:
A pretty good question. And a hard one too.
I think the problem here is that even if you could say it with 100% accuracy, people would still be too selfish to kill their family or lovers, for the greater good.

The closer you are the less likely it would be.
Even if the extra person being here is a lie, the time you would spend with them and the memories you create would still be reality.
Its like asking people what is more improtant to them:
A chance to spend some time with deceased close to you or the lives of some strangers.
And I doubt that I', wrong if I claim that most people would rather choose the convenient lie than the cold truth.

The funny thing is: Even if memories would not be erased and the whole world would know about it - no one could actually condamn that person without being a hypocrite.
Actually killing the another would be considered a crime.
Justiefied self defense would not apply here either, as it requires immediate threats or present dangers to live, health, [...]

You see it really is an interesting question no matter from what angle you look at it.

[totoum]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

, 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?

Ok,I've had my share of frustrations about some things not being very clear but if there's one thing that's been made clear is that the trigger is an "extra" student showing up,not being a desk short,that's just a way to notice it,not the trigger itself,so making the roster 26 students doesn't prevent the Another showing up making the roster 27 and setting off the curse even if there's still two extra desks.

[VDZ]

Originally Posted by Skyfall

For an added "temptation", there is also the fact you won't have to answer for, or explain your actions to anyone. Everyone will forget the "Another" existed. You won't be accused of anything, held responsible for anything. You can do it and get away scot-free. The only limiting factor is your conscience/morality, but it gets soothed by the fact you can tell yourselves you are actually saving lives by doing so. And it's not even a "real" sacrifice - the "Another" can't be saved, it's an existence that will cease to exist at the end of the year anyway, and won't be remembered by almost anyone. The "death" of Another is assured in either case. The lives hanging in the balance can still be saved.

That's only if you assume your assumption that the victim is the Another is correct - if you get it wrong, you will be a murderer, you will have to forever live with the guilt that you unnecessarily took someone's life, and you will be royally fucked (people are immediately going to jump on you and you'll likely spent a significant part of your life in jail), which also ironically enough will
1) Make it impossible to still murder the Another (you will be stopped from murdering other people); and
2) Make it impossible to convince someone to murder the Another (a 'carefully considered' suggestion to murder someone coming from someone who murdered an innocent isn't likely to be taken well).

For added fun, consider that there's only one known instance of memories of the Another being directly erased after 'death'. It might've been a fluke, perhaps caused by something unrelated, and you'd still be considered a murderer for saving everybody. Or, perhaps, you might get the Another, but don't stop the phenomenon - again, that could've been just a fluke, mere coincidence.

I don't know if I could take it morally, but I don't think I'd be confident enough to murder the Another considering the very limited and fragile evidence you have as support that everything will work out fine.

Originally Posted by AC-Phoenix

Even if the extra person being here is a lie, the time you would spend with them and the memories you create would still be reality.

No, not really. Your memories are erased at the end of the year. Events that nobody remembers might as well just not have happened.

[Cosmic Eagle]

I wonder for the dead one what's it like being here though....is it like time away from some horrible fate or something...when you kill them or when they are banished back at graduation do they go back to some utter horror or something...

[Gohan78]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

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?

The phenomenon is triggered when X+1 students appear at the beginning of the year. It doesn't matter what number X is.

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

This will only result in making it impossible for the class to know if the Extra student is present or not.
BTW there is no way to know how many students will enroll in your school in any given year. That depends on the natality and the parents' choice (since there are two middle schools in Yomiyama) Even if you start with exactly 150 students (5 classes of 30 each), there is always the possibility of getting repeating students or transfer students.

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.

I agree with you that accidental acknowedgement isn't supposed to trigger the curse, however Izumi had no way to know that Mei wasn't respecting the rules because all of the conversations between Mei and Koichi happened when they were alone.

Even if she had suspicions, the method she used is plain wrong. She should have talked with Mei privately before accusing her in front of the whole class.

[Kanon]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

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.

What Skyfall said: she irked me because she is wrong, not the opposite. And yes, I have already considered matters from her perspective and have already said multiple times I understand why she would feel that way and that I don't even blame her for it. However, understanding her actions does not mean I have to approve them.

I'm only exposing my interpretation of the scene based on what I've observed in this episode and the previous ones and asking you what you think of it. I thought I had added enough "To me", "I find", "I believe", etc... to make it clear I wasn't pretending to possess the one and objective truth (who doesn't even exist at the moment). I'm not trying to force my view on anybody, I'm trying to understand yours and make you understand mine. Personally, I find it interesting to read other people's point of view, even more so when they are drastically different from mine since that could mean my interpretation is wrong.

Of course, you're right, neither of us can know for sure who is correct at the moment. That doesn't mean we can't confront our point of views. Since it's getting heated, I'm just going to drop it though. There's no much more I can add anyway. I believe I understand where you're coming from, and I can only hope I've made you understand my reasoning just a little bit. We just can't agree, that tends to happen when there is no objective answer to a debate. I hope the answer will be given in the last two episodes, I'd like to know if I was totally wrong about Izumi.

Edit: That said, even if it is revealed she had nothing but good intentions (I'm not dismissing the possibility at all), I will still find the method she used plain wrong (it's the method that irked me). She had no right to claim Mei was the primary person responsible for everything in front of everybody without even trying to discuss with her first. That was the first logical step for a reconciliation.

[AC-Phoenix]

Originally Posted by VDZ

No, not really. Your memories are erased at the end of the year. Events that nobody remembers might as well just not have happened.

The fact that memories would be erased afterwards doesn't make any event or time you would spend with them unreal.
Plus, we have already seen that the memories are still there, just surpressed.

We do also have a lot of evidence that the ones knowing who the another is will remember them afterwards too.
I would even go far enough to say that the guy who made the tape does till know it at the point where we see him, his memories are just surpressed for the time being. (until this years calamity ends)
him not remembering anything is essential for the phenomenon. while it shows its effects.

[TinyRedLeaf]

Originally Posted by Kanon

What Skyfall said: she irked me because she is wrong, not the opposite. And yes, I have already considered matters from her perspective and have already said multiple times I understand why she would feel that way and that I don't even blame her for it. However, understanding her actions does not mean I have to approve them.

I'm only exposing my interpretation of the scene based on what I've observed in this episode and the previous ones and asking you what you think of it. I thought I had added enough "To me", "I find", "I believe", etc... to make it clear I wasn't pretending to possess the one and objective truth (who doesn't even exist at the moment). I'm not trying to force my view on anybody, I'm trying to understand yours and make you understand mine. Personally, I find it interesting to read other people's point of view, even more so when they are drastically different from mine since that could mean my interpretation is wrong...

...Of course, you're right, neither of us can know for sure who is correct at the moment. That doesn't mean we can't confront our point of views. Since it's getting heated, I'm just going to drop it though.

I was in the middle of composing my reply to Skyfall and Gohan78 when you replied, and it's a good thing you* did because it saves me from having to rehash myself. Thank you. The above is exactly what I wanted to see and, yes, I agree on some points.

TL;DR…

For the aborted reply

Sorry; dynamic content not loaded. Reload?

I feel that we've had a great discussion, with both sides attacking the arguments instead of the people presenting them. Naturally, I'm passionate about what I believe and, if in making my arguments, I have offended people, I apologise. That was never my intent.

And since we have met each other halfway, I'm more than glad to move on.

[Skyfall]

Putting everything else aside (for good this time! ), a thought struck me while I was enjoying the shameless fun of Higschool DxD in a state of deep meditation - was there really no way to explain the situation to Koichi at start of the school year, in a roundabout way of sorts ? Tell him to sit down and listen to a story they want to share.

"Once upon a time there was a class. After a classmate who was loved by all died, they kept acting as if he was still there, thus making the mistake of inviting the dead in the class. Each following year a formerly deceased person would "revive" and enter the class, causing death to befall upon students and their families.

All forms of exorcism failed and bodies continued to pile up, until eventually they stumbled upon a solution - doing the opposite of what had invited the dead in the first place. They selected a classmate to be treated as non-existent, thus returning the number of exiting classmates to their original balance. And behold - when they did that, no one died from the "curse" that year. <Insert relevant details that I'm too lazy to type out>. Cool story bro, eh?"

Voila. Wouldn't this essentially accomplish the "cluing Koichi in" part ? Mei's name wouldn't even come up in the story. Neither an explicit statement that they are talking about class 3-3. Neither the fact that they are actually doing the same. Nothing of that actually needs to be mentioned, and should be more than enough for Koichi to understand those parts himself. That should sate his desire to chase down Mei and figure whether she's real or he's having illusions, clue him in that he shouldn't try to interact with her, and should be largely enough to sate his desire to understand what the heck is going on.

All without mentioning Mei's existence, or even the fact their class actually has such "non-existent" person. He would piece together that on his own easy enough. Sounds like a pretty safe roundabout way to explain the situation without actually invoking the sensitive information to me.

Yeah, we now know that Koichi not talking to Mei probably wouldn't have had any effect, because the phenomenon had already started, but still - seems like a fairly obvious way to get the message across while routing around the "must not mention/acknowledge Mei" rule.

[AC-Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Skyfall

Putting everything else aside (for good this time! ), a thought struck me while I was enjoying the shameless fun of Higschool DxD in a state of deep meditation - was there really no way to explain the situation to Koichi at start of the school year, in a roundabout way of sorts ? Tell him to sit down and listen to a story they want to share.

"Once upon a time there was a class. After a classmate who was loved by all died, they kept acting as if he was still there, thus making the mistake of inviting the dead in the class. Each following year a formerly deceased person would "revive" and enter the class, causing death to befall upon students and their families.

All forms of exorcism failed and bodies continued to pile up, until eventually they stumbled upon a solution - doing the opposite of what had invited the dead in the first place. They selected a classmate to be treated as non-existent, thus returning the number of exiting classmates to their original balance. And behold - when they did that, no one died from the "curse" that year. <Insert relevant details that I'm too lazy to type out>. Cool story bro, eh?"

Voila. Wouldn't this essentially accomplish the "cluing Koichi in" part ? Mei's name wouldn't even come up in the story. Neither an explicit statement that they are talking about class 3-3. Neither the fact that they are actually doing the same. Nothing of that actually needs to be mentioned, and should be more than enough for Koichi to understand those parts himself. That should sate his desire to chase down Mei and figure whether she's real or he's having illusions, clue him in that he shouldn't try to interact with her, and should be largely enough to sate his desire to understand what the heck is going on.

All without mentioning Mei's existence, or even the fact their class actually has such "non-existent" person. He would piece together that on his own easy enough. Sounds like a pretty safe roundabout way to explain the situation without actually invoking the sensitive information to me.

Yeah, we now know that Koichi not talking to Mei probably wouldn't have had any effect, because the phenomenon had already started, but still - seems like a fairly obvious way to get the message across while routing around the "must not mention/acknowledge Mei" rule.

Its actually even easier:
Let Chibaki do it, as he can aknowledge Mei as much as he likes.

[TinyRedLeaf]

Originally Posted by Skyfall

All forms of exorcism failed and bodies continued to pile up, until eventually they stumbled upon a solution - doing the opposite of what had invited the dead in the first place. They selected a classmate to be treated as non-existent, thus returning the number of exiting classmates to their original balance. And behold - when they did that, no one died from the "curse" that year.

At the risk of starting yet another dispute — but this time over the counter-measure itself — I don't know whether to believe any more that "returning the number of existing classmates to its original balance" is the solution. Rather, it seems that reestablishing the "balance" isn't the solution. It's the act of pseudo-murder that is.

The "balanced" solution has been my assumption since the beginning because it made perfect thematic sense. The Class of 72 started it all by believing so hard that their dead friend is not gone that they literally brought back the dead. Subsequently, all classes that followed would have do the exact opposite to make up for that "original sin". This, in turn, ties in very well with the revelation about Mei and Misaki, twins who looked the same but suffered opposite fates.

But then...

Originally Posted by totoum

Ok,I've had my share of frustrations about some things not being very clear but if there's one thing that's been made clear is that the trigger is an "extra" student showing up,not being a desk short,that's just a way to notice it,not the trigger itself,so making the roster 26 students doesn't prevent the Another showing up making the roster 27 and setting off the curse even if there's still two extra desks.

Originally Posted by Gohan78

The phenomenon is triggered when X+1 students appear at the beginning of the year. It doesn't matter what number X is.

Yes, I'm fully aware of that (though it doesn't help that we need to refer to an external source to confirm it; it indicates that the anime cannot hold water on its own). But now I'm made to wonder about the years in which nothing apparently happened. We know this to be true for at least the Class of 95. Unfortunately, the anime doesn't make clear whether this was because the counter-measure was implemented and "worked", or whether it was because the number of students in the class was "just right".

Meaning to say: I find that it is no longer clear if it's the presence of the extra itself that causes the deaths, or the fact that the students are "aware" of its presence that triggers the phenomenon. I've been working with the latter assumption all this time because, like I said above, it makes thematic sense: The original Misaki was brought back into existence by students who believed he did, without being aware of his ghost until the very last moment; so, to erase that "original sin", the students must believe into "non-existence" a person that they are fully aware of.

It's the kind of diabolical cosmic joke that the Old Ones would be proud of.

If the Other isn't even believed to be in the class — because they somehow got the numbers just right, for once — what's the problem? It doesn't "exist", as far as the students are concerned, and there is therefore no need for them to go through the stress of implementing the counter-measure.

The arbitrariness of the phenomenon and its counter-measure is, to me, a source of great frustration. I thus hope the remaining episodes will clear these doubts, because they have been a definite weak point in the anime adaptation.

[Skyfall]

Originally Posted by AC-Phoenix

Its actually even easier:
Let Chibaki do it, as he can aknowledge Mei as much as he likes.

Well, perhaps in this case he can't really come out and spell it directly to Koichi - because Koichi actually is a member of class 3, so chances are acknowledging Mei's existence to him, even though the person doing the acknowledging himself isn't, could also be seen as treading dangerous ground. Better safe than sorry, in a way.

My proposed method avoids mentioning Mei altogether (while stil being more than clear about what they are actually talking about), so one way or another - there were options indeed.

At the risk of starting yet another dispute — but this time over the counter-measure itself — I don't know whether to believe any more that "returning the number of existing classmates to its original balance" is the solution. Rather, it seems that reestablishing the "balance" isn't the solution. It's the act of pseudo-murder that is.

This is one of the things I believe we will never find out, though I guess since in terms of outcome they function the same, the "why" wouldn't really be all that important. Certainly not in terms of explaining what's going on to Koichi - the main point of said 'story' would be getting the point across not to interact with Mei after all.

If the Other isn't even believed to be in the class — because they somehow got the numbers just right, for once — what's the problem? It doesn't "exist", as far as the students are concerned, and there is therefore no need for them to go through the stress of implementing the counter-measure.

The one issue I see with this though is the very first case when this happened - it's not like anyone would have suddenly assumed they have a dead person in the class, with no prior incident, yet that didn't stop the phenomenon from firing itself up anyway.