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 > Retired M-Z > Umineko

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2009-11-20, 15:33   Link #3401
Jan-Poo
別にいいけど
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: forever lost inside a logic error
Quote:
Originally Posted by chronotrig View Post
First off, it's not an unfair trial. The exact same rules applied to both sides. The only thing that was unfair was the match-up, with basically 5 people against Battler. But this would have been the same even without the trial. Also, what way does Battler have of abolishing the trial? He doesn't have any control over this world until he becomes the Game Master. At that point in the game, without Beato to help him, he's basically trapped.

Even the witches admit that Battler has pretty much no way of winning at that point.
Why you keep insisting it is not unfair if you then acknowledge that it isn't fair ^^;
Let's make a distinction between "unfair" and "rigged".

"Unfair" is when in a game the conditions are strongly in favor of a single player. This doesn't mean at all that the rules aren't respected. The rules themselves can be unfair.

"Rigged" is when one of the players or both manipulate the game mechanics in a way that goes against the purpose of the game. It works both for written and unwritten rules. It doesn't necessarily entail an "advantage" for a single player. For example a football match where the two teams agree to end the match in a draw is "rigged" 'though no one has really any advantage on the other. You usually do not find in rule manuals that "the players must do their best to win", and there are many other "unwritten rules" in games. Just because it isn't written it doesn't mean it is okay to do anything.


Now the trial was both unfair and rigged.

It was unfair, because there was an overwhelming power on one side and practically nothing on the other.

It was rigged, because the ones that should have been in direct opposition were conniving. Lambda was supposed to take Beatrice's side, instead she let Bern and Erika slaughter her. She was supposed to give to Beatrice the red, instead she gave it to Bern.
__________________

Jan-Poo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-11-20, 16:19   Link #3402
chronotrig
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Buffer overflow
The trial itself is not unfair. However, one side does have all the information. It's perfectly possible to have a fair trial system but an uneven trial. That's the point I was trying to make. To use a stupid example, take Phoenix Wright. At the beginning, at least, he often gets dragged into the case with no information when the opposition has all the info. That doesn't mean the trial was unfair, it just means that he didn't do enough research beforehand. (well, those trials were unfair, but for completely different reasons).

A trial isn't a game. There's no responsibility that both sides have an equal opportunity to win. It's whichever side that can make the best argument that wins.

Also, in the trial, Lambda was not on anyone's side. If you believe that she has already handed Bern's team all the gold text they'd need beforehand, then she was a perfectly impartial judge during the trial. This is all she claimed to be, so there's no misleading going on here (again, at least during the trial itself).

Finally, it's true that Battler wasn't told all the rules beforehand, but he wasn't a player before the trail or during the first part of it. The deck was stacked before the trial, but the trial itself was fair.
__________________
"The only moral it is possible to draw from this story is that one should never throw the letter 'q' into a privet bush. But, unfortunately, there are times when it is unavoidable."
--Hitchhikers


www.witch-hunt.com Theory page
chronotrig is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-11-20, 16:45   Link #3403
LyricalAura
Dea ex Kakera
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Sea of Fragments
The gold pretty much has to be atemporal, I think. It was midnight on October 5th when Battler stated that this corpse is the corpse of Ushiromiya Kinzo. If it has a timestamp on it, then it has exactly the same problem that Bern's statement about the first twilight deaths does: Kinzo could have died at any point during the two days, so Erika's theory isn't denied. The gold only works as a denial if it retroactively applies to the period when Kinzo was supposedly hauling bodies.

@chronotrig: Impartial judge? Bern got so carried away trying to corner Natsuhi that she shot her own foot off and negated Erika's theory herself:
At the stroke of midnight, the only people who exist outside the mansion are Erika, George, Jessica, Maria, Nanjo, Gohda, and Kumasawa. Natsuhi, Krauss, and Genji were in the 2nd floor hallway in the mansion. Everyone else was in the dining room on the 1st floor. Therefore, a living Kinzo could only exist in the dining room. No one in the dining room at midnight left until 1am. However, during that period from midnight to 1am, a living Kinzo did not exist on the first floor, where the dining room is. Therefore, a living Kinzo did not exist anywhere. Kinzo was dead as of midnight.
So there was no effective theory at the time Lambda ended the trial, but she gave the victory to Bern and Erika anyway. What part of that is impartial?
LyricalAura is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-11-20, 16:57   Link #3404
Kaisos Erranon
Homo Ludens
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Canada
Age: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by LyricalAura View Post
What part of that is impartial?
The usual term to describe that kind of trial is "Kangaroo Court"... the entire thing seemed rigged to a) implicate Natsuhi b) kill Beatrice and c) kill Battler, all of which it accomplished.

In fact, since the entirety of Ep5 leads up to the trial, from what I've heard, I'd say the whole game is rigged.

I don't see how anyone can constitute Ep5 as "fair"...
__________________
Kaisos Erranon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-11-20, 17:28   Link #3405
chronotrig
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Buffer overflow
First off, I did slip up on one thing in my gold text theory. When Battler says "I guarantee that this corpse is Ushiromiya Kinzo's", he hasn't yet brought up the time he "saw" Kinzo on the game board. Of course, Battler says in red that he'll "present a corpse which could possibly be identified as Ushiromiya Kinzo's", and there's only one place in all of EP5 where anyone witnesses a corpse that might have been Kinzo's, which he mentions shortly after. So this doesn't really affect my theory, though I'll admit it's a little less conclusive this way. This also means that the alternate theory (gold text is true for all times) does work for this part, though it doesn't explain too much of the rest of the trial.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LyricalAura View Post
@chronotrig: Impartial judge? Bern got so carried away trying to corner Natsuhi that she shot her own foot off and negated Erika's theory herself:
At the stroke of midnight, the only people who exist outside the mansion are Erika, George, Jessica, Maria, Nanjo, Gohda, and Kumasawa. Natsuhi, Krauss, and Genji were in the 2nd floor hallway in the mansion. Everyone else was in the dining room on the 1st floor. Therefore, a living Kinzo could only exist in the dining room. No one in the dining room at midnight left until 1am. However, during that period from midnight to 1am, a living Kinzo did not exist on the first floor, where the dining room is. Therefore, a living Kinzo did not exist anywhere. Kinzo was dead as of midnight.
So there was no effective theory at the time Lambda ended the trial, but she gave the victory to Bern and Erika anyway. What part of that is impartial?
Remember again that this is a trial. If evidence isn't presented and arguments aren't made, it's as if they don't exist. You wrote all of that in red, but it was never said in red during the trial. If Battler had just said that, he should have been able to win. But he didn't ever deny it, which is why Bernkastel won. If you have a bad enough lawyer, you can lose even a solid case. Lambda was impartial in choosing the only claim which hadn't yet been denied in court.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaisos Erranon View Post
I don't see how anyone can constitute Ep5 as "fair"...
No, no one has ever said that, I think. EP5 wasn't fair to Battler, but then again, Battler wasn't a player during the game itself. So while Lambda and Bern really are bullying Battler, it doesn't mean that the game (the entire game as a whole, not just EP5) itself is ever un-winable if you are a player.
__________________
"The only moral it is possible to draw from this story is that one should never throw the letter 'q' into a privet bush. But, unfortunately, there are times when it is unavoidable."
--Hitchhikers


www.witch-hunt.com Theory page

Last edited by chronotrig; 2009-11-20 at 18:07.
chronotrig is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-11-20, 19:41   Link #3406
tastythoughts
僕は紬ビジョンがある !
*Artist
 
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Ohh, okay.
__________________
tastythoughts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-11-20, 20:32   Link #3407
maximilianjenus
[E]
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by tastythoughts View Post
I have a question....

Spoiler for Ending of Umineko:
for fuck's sake, mark your spoilers correctly, at least add an episode 5 tag in there, while I ahd already guessed that event because of the fanart you still put a great spoiler.
maximilianjenus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-11-20, 20:41   Link #3408
Jan-Poo
別にいいけど
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: forever lost inside a logic error
Quote:
Originally Posted by chronotrig View Post
The trial itself is not unfair. However, one side does have all the information. It's perfectly possible to have a fair trial system but an uneven trial. That's the point I was trying to make. To use a stupid example, take Phoenix Wright. At the beginning, at least, he often gets dragged into the case with no information when the opposition has all the info. That doesn't mean the trial was unfair, it just means that he didn't do enough research beforehand. (well, those trials were unfair, but for completely different reasons).

A trial isn't a game. There's no responsibility that both sides have an equal opportunity to win. It's whichever side that can make the best argument that wins.

Also, in the trial, Lambda was not on anyone's side. If you believe that she has already handed Bern's team all the gold text they'd need beforehand, then she was a perfectly impartial judge during the trial. This is all she claimed to be, so there's no misleading going on here (again, at least during the trial itself).

Finally, it's true that Battler wasn't told all the rules beforehand, but he wasn't a player before the trail or during the first part of it. The deck was stacked before the trial, but the trial itself was fair.
I don't think I can follow your reasoning here. In other words you are saying that this is not a game but a trial. If it is a trial your comparison then it is even worse.

First off, a judge is not supposed to provide evidences to either part. If he does you'd expect him to give them to both the attorney and the prosecutor. How can you say that Lambda is impartial by giving Bern the gold (btw you actually meant "red" I hope...) and not giving it to Beatrice?

Second, Beatrice was in the "defendant" role. But that wasn't the real Beatrice, it was piece-Beatrice, and who is manipulating piece-Beatrice? Lambda, in other words the judge! This is a trial where the defendant is the Judge's puppet and yet the defense gets completely owned. How is that not a farce?

Third, the trial's rules state that red needs to be based on evidences, however Bernkastel uses reds with evidences that are blatantly fake. It doesn't matter at all if she's got other evidences that only she knows off, the only thing that matters in a trial is what is shown inside the trial. And the stuffs that Erika says either are impossible or do not really prove anything. The rule therefore is respected only in appearance and not in substance.
__________________

Jan-Poo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-11-20, 20:42   Link #3409
SilverSyko
The Anti-Otaku
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Alberta, Canada
Age: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by maximilianjenus View Post
for fuck's sake, mark your spoilers correctly, at least add an episode 5 tag in there, while I ahd already guessed that event because of the fanart you still put a great spoiler.
Sheesh, get a grip eh?

He/she's a newbie here so lighten up. It's excusable if they follow the rules next time, everyone slips up, ecpecially newbies.
__________________
SilverSyko is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-11-20, 20:49   Link #3410
Marion
The Great Dine
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Spoiler for EP 5:
__________________

Sig by nocco
Marion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-11-20, 20:53   Link #3411
Jan-Poo
別にいいけど
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: forever lost inside a logic error
That's right, but what in Beatrice's nature prevented her from winning the trial or having enough informations to win?
__________________

Jan-Poo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-11-20, 21:00   Link #3412
Kaisos Erranon
Homo Ludens
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Canada
Age: 25
I believe that, unlike in chess, the pieces are capable of acting on their own if not directed.

I think Lambda just wanted Beato to suffer.
__________________
Kaisos Erranon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-11-20, 21:33   Link #3413
LaplaceNoMa
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Russia, Moscow
Age: 26
I was just re-reading first 4 episodes and there's something that caught my attention: the scenery of 'child'-Beatrice meating Virgillia (while she was called 'Beatrice') is exactly the same as of Kuwadorian. Which is actually strange since we 'know' that Beatrice was bound to that place long after she 'became a witch'. I don't have any theories regarding that, but still this is something that shouldn't go overlooked.
LaplaceNoMa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-11-20, 21:55   Link #3414
chronotrig
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Buffer overflow
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jan-Poo View Post
First off, a judge is not supposed to provide evidences to either part. If he does you'd expect him to give them to both the attorney and the prosecutor. How can you say that Lambda is impartial by giving Bern the gold (btw you actually meant "red" I hope...) and not giving it to Beatrice?
Spoiler for size:


Quote:
Originally Posted by Jan-Poo View Post
Second, Beatrice was in the "defendant" role. But that wasn't the real Beatrice, it was piece-Beatrice, and who is manipulating piece-Beatrice? Lambda, in other words the judge! This is a trial where the defendant is the Judge's puppet and yet the defense gets completely owned. How is that not a farce?
Spoiler for size:


Quote:
Originally Posted by Jan-Poo View Post
Third, the trial's rules state that red needs to be based on evidences, however Bernkastel uses reds with evidences that are blatantly fake. It doesn't matter at all if she's got other evidences that only she knows off, the only thing that matters in a trial is what is shown inside the trial. And the stuffs that Erika says either are impossible or do not really prove anything. The rule therefore is respected only in appearance and not in substance.
Spoiler for size:
__________________
"The only moral it is possible to draw from this story is that one should never throw the letter 'q' into a privet bush. But, unfortunately, there are times when it is unavoidable."
--Hitchhikers


www.witch-hunt.com Theory page
chronotrig is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-11-20, 23:22   Link #3415
Jan-Poo
別にいいけど
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: forever lost inside a logic error
Quote:
Originally Posted by chronotrig View Post
Spoiler for size:
I can't find myself agreeing with your concept of cheating. According to this point of view, a quiz game where one contestant has been given all the answers beforehand is not rigged because during the game itself no rule was broken.
The same thing applies to a trial. You might say that a trial is perfectly legal even if the jury has been previously bought or threatened by the defendant party.

I'm quite sure that the average person wouldn't agree with this.


Quote:
Originally Posted by chronotrig View Post
Spoiler for size:
Then let me put it this way:

This is the fifth game. A game where Lambda took Beatrice's place as a substitute. Trial or not, it was her duty to play like Beatrice would at the best of her capabilities. Since Beatrice probably never thought about such a situation she never made any specific rule about that, so there was no problem with Lambda letting Piece-Beatrice lose. However this doesn't change the fact that a game where both adversaries are in an agreement to make the game have a certain outcome is by all definitions a farce
You can take as a reference the WWF wresling matches


Quote:
Originally Posted by chronotrig View Post
Spoiler for size:
I yet again disagree. You should know by now that what I refer to when I talk about the no real evidences and fake evidences I'm mainly referring to Krauss Kinzo and Genji

Absolutely no evidence was shown by Erika about Krauss' and Kinzo's non involvement with the crime.

And the evidence about Genji's innocence is too preposterous to be considered possible in any way. In this case I claim that even the mere attempt to do such a thing was absolutely impossible.
__________________


Last edited by Jan-Poo; 2009-11-20 at 23:37.
Jan-Poo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-11-20, 23:43   Link #3416
Ssol
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jan-Poo View Post
a game where both adversaries are in an agreement to make the game have a certain outcome is by all definitions a farce
I have two questions for you.

1) In your opinion, what was the outcome Bernkastel and Lambdadelta agreed on?
2) In episode 5, would you consider the end result a tie between the players of the game?

__________________
[...]
Ssol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-11-20, 23:48   Link #3417
Kaisos Erranon
Homo Ludens
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Canada
Age: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ssol View Post
1) In your opinion, what was the outcome Bernkastel and Lambdadelta agreed on?
Kill Beatrice and Battler, implicate Natsuhi as the criminal, raise Erika to the level of Game Master, and continue the game for all eternity?

Wouldn't Ep5 make a lot more sense if this was the desired outcome from the very beginning?
__________________
Kaisos Erranon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-11-20, 23:54   Link #3418
Ssol
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaisos Erranon View Post
Kill Beatrice and Battler, implicate Natsuhi as the criminal, raise Erika to the level of Game Master, and continue the game for all eternity?
It sure as hell didn't look like they were playing to continue the game for all eternity to me after Battler was impaled by Dlanor.

Could you quote any part where there was any indication Bern and Lambda had plans to stay?
__________________
[...]
Ssol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-11-21, 00:01   Link #3419
Jan-Poo
別にいいけど
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: forever lost inside a logic error
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ssol View Post
I have two questions for you.

1) In your opinion, what was the outcome Bernkastel and Lambdadelta agreed on?
2) In episode 5, would you consider the end result a tie between the players of the game?

1) We are talking about the trial here, and the trial was planned to see Beatrice losing a lopsided battle and Natsuhi being judged guilty of all the charges.

2) Depends on where you place the end. If you don't include the tea parties then the end saw Erika winning on all the fronts. If you include the tea parties then it was a draw, however Battler's revival wasn't in the plans. At least it wasn't in Bern's and Erika's plans. It is debatable if it was in Lambda's plans. However even assuming it was, then it was part of larger plan that first included the total victory of Erika in the trial and the defeat of Beatrice. The definition of "farce" in the trial case, therefore, still works.

Actually I must say that Lambda's cooperation with bern was only limited to defeating Beatrice (and Battler maybe). Lambda however used as an insurance the "dining room riddle" to prevent Bern and Erika from solving any mystery of the game. As long as a single mystery isn't solved the endless game repetition won't stop. It is hard to understand why Erika became the Game Master, the victory conditions of Beatrice's game keep changing...
__________________

Jan-Poo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-11-21, 00:38   Link #3420
chronotrig
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Buffer overflow
Spoiler for size:


Spoiler for size:


Spoiler for size:
__________________
"The only moral it is possible to draw from this story is that one should never throw the letter 'q' into a privet bush. But, unfortunately, there are times when it is unavoidable."
--Hitchhikers


www.witch-hunt.com Theory page
chronotrig 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 23:04.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
We use Silk.