AnimeSuki Forums

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

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

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2010-07-05, 03:13   Link #12841
Judoh
Mystery buff
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Gone Fishin!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smeckledorf View Post
That is not what I am trying to make you two understand. I'll state it bluntly, if having a detective is a rule and there is no detective, that would be a logic error.
No it would mean the rule does not apply to the game and if it doesn't apply then there is no logic error. In other words the rule would be debunked the moment it was said in EP7 and we wouldn't even be talking about this.
Judoh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-07-05, 03:16   Link #12842
Smeckledorf
Intellectual Rapist
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: 3 12151805142615
OK, Kylon99 tell me why there can be only one detective then? Also, proving something happened and proving something did not happen are two different things. You want me to quote an entire 6 visual novels when I only ask for a small passage.

I am trying to say episode 6 was broken and because of that did not follow all of the rules of the game and that would be why there is not a detective.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Judoh View Post
No it would mean the rule does not apply to the game and if it doesn't apply then there is no logic error. In other words the rule would be debunked the moment it was said in EP7 and we wouldn't even be talking about this.
That is your interpretation. If you are so sure that you are right, then why even debate the point with me?
__________________
Smeckledorf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-07-05, 03:24   Link #12843
Kylon99
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Meta-Meta-Meta-Space
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smeckledorf View Post
OK, Kylon99 tell me why there can be only one detective then? Also, proving something happened and proving something did not happen are two different things. You want me to quote an entire 6 visual novels when I only ask for a small passage.
I don't know about the number of detectives. I have no opinion on that as of yet. I'm just concerned about whether Van Dine rules hold for all episodes or not. I believe this is an important point... actually, even if in the case where they *almost* hold.

Proving something happened or didn't happen is irrelevant. You did show that clearly Battler ended up not being the detective in EP5 so that's fine. But it doesn't show that the rule is being followed over all the episodes.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Smeckledorf View Post
I am trying to say episode 6 was broken and because of that did not follow all of the rules of the game and that would be why there is not a detective.
This, is what I was trying to sort out. 8) Just say it first next time. When you said 'logic error' that conjured up images of the specific logic error event; that is Battler being stuck/not stuck in the guest room.
Kylon99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-07-05, 03:27   Link #12844
Judoh
Mystery buff
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Gone Fishin!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smeckledorf View Post
OK, Kylon99 tell me why there can be only one detective then? Also, proving something happened and proving something did not happen are two different things. You want me to quote an entire 6 visual novels when I only ask for a small passage.
Look I'll state all three rules for you

4. The detective must not be the culprit


6. A Detective novel must have a detective in it


9. There must be but one detective — that is, but one protagonist of deduction —
one deus ex machina.


To fix your crummy rule 6 in EP6 you must break either rule 4 or rule 9. And this doesn't cause a logic error it just breaks your own rules.
Judoh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-07-05, 03:30   Link #12845
Smeckledorf
Intellectual Rapist
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: 3 12151805142615
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kylon99 View Post
I don't know about the number of detectives. I have no opinion on that as of yet. I'm just concerned about whether Van Dine rules hold for all episodes or not. I believe this is an important point... actually, even if in the case where they *almost* hold.

Proving something happened or didn't happen is irrelevant. You did show that clearly Battler ended up not being the detective in EP5 so that's fine. But it doesn't show that the rule is being followed over all the episodes.




This, is what I was trying to sort out. 8) Just say it first next time. When you said 'logic error' that conjured up images of the specific logic error event; that is Battler being stuck/not stuck in the guest room.
I'm not sure either. If I was sure then I wouldn't be debating the point.
Apparently, I am just really bad at typing what I am thinking. That is what I meant the first time I posted it but I couldn't think of a clearer way at the time to present it. Likely, Ryukishi wouldn't hold the rules to verbatim anyways. The Knox rules were changed, after all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Judoh View Post
To fix your crummy rule 6 in EP6 you must break either rule 4 or rule 9. And this doesn't cause a logic error it just breaks your own rules.
I am not breaking any rules. Let me put it this way, you aren't going to use a 3-legged monkey as an example of what monkeys are. Why would you use the broken episode as an example of what an episode should be?
__________________
Smeckledorf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-07-05, 03:34   Link #12846
Kaisos Erranon
Homo Ludens
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Canada
Age: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Judoh View Post
*snip*
I may actually have a solution to this dilemma.

Ep6 is not a detective novel.

Wouldn't that clear up a few inconsistencies?
__________________
Kaisos Erranon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-07-05, 03:36   Link #12847
Smeckledorf
Intellectual Rapist
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: 3 12151805142615
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaisos Erranon View Post
I may actually have a solution to this dilemma.

Ep6 is not a detective novel.

Wouldn't that clear up a few inconsistencies?
Lol, I am not sure why people do that 'snip' thing. However, that would make sense.
__________________
Smeckledorf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-07-05, 03:46   Link #12848
Renall
BUY MY BOOK!!!
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
Of course it's not a detective novel. It's a romance!
__________________
Redaction of the Golden Witch
I submit that a murder was committed in 1996.
This murder was a "copycat" crime inspired by our tales of 1986.
This story is a redacted confession.

Blog (VN DL) - YouTube Playlists
Battler Solves The Logic Error
Renall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-07-05, 03:50   Link #12849
Judoh
Mystery buff
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Gone Fishin!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renall View Post
Of course it's not a detective novel. It's a romance!
Bah you and your silly romance theories. <DINE THE DEATH!! SENTENCE TO DEATH!!> lol

Now that I think about it that would be something Dine would exist for. We get an argument in red and blue and Dine comes along and.. *whistle* All right break it up people! There's no love to see here! break it up!

Last edited by Judoh; 2010-07-05 at 04:03.
Judoh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-07-05, 04:01   Link #12850
Oliver
Back off, I'm a scientist
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: In a badly written story.
...No, Mr. Bond, I expect you to Dine....
__________________
"The only principle that does not inhibit progress is: anything goes."
Paul K. Feyerabend, "Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge"

This link has been determined hazardous for the spoiler averse
by the Department of Education.
(updated 2010-08-24)
Oliver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-07-05, 04:12   Link #12851
Judoh
Mystery buff
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Gone Fishin!
In all seriousness I hope the Dine Rules get a mention, but I don't think they'll be in red since very few of them are 100% certain. Most of them are on shaky ground. I'd like them to be in blue or gold if they do get a mention though. Probably gold because it has good comedic value and I want to see more of the golden truth. Even if it's just doomed to fail...
Judoh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-07-05, 04:15   Link #12852
Oliver
Back off, I'm a scientist
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: In a badly written story.
I think it's high time for another colour. Pink has always been a fan favourite...
__________________
"The only principle that does not inhibit progress is: anything goes."
Paul K. Feyerabend, "Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge"

This link has been determined hazardous for the spoiler averse
by the Department of Education.
(updated 2010-08-24)
Oliver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-07-05, 04:17   Link #12853
Horse
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
I'm not a fan of Umineko. I was only in for Akiko Shikata and occasional (really occasional) BGMs from Luck Ganriki...

The new Luck Ganriki/dai OP with Ganrikis regular singers is wonderful. Just wanted to say that, thanks.
Horse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-07-05, 05:27   Link #12854
DgBarca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
I have another theory for the mystery woman from the portrait....
It's maybe the master of the Fukuin house ? And maybe Shannon and Kanon mother/father...(Why all my theories are "s/he X mother/father")
And maybe she is Kinzo's illegitimate child with Human-Beato.
DgBarca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-07-05, 05:56   Link #12855
Racheya-sama
Witch of Ambition
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Manchester, England
Send a message via MSN to Racheya-sama Send a message via Skype™ to Racheya-sama
It is entirely plausible that Dine has nothing to do with Ep 7, so I don't know why everyone is getting so het up about it XD
__________________

Am I the only one that thinks saying
'Red only tells the truth', to prove that it does, is a bit redundant?

I am Racheya-Beatrice, the Emerald Witch of Ambition
Racheya-sama is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-07-05, 05:56   Link #12856
cmos
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Judoh View Post

4. The detective must not be the culprit

What about Erika cannot be the culprit, because it is forbidden for the culprit to be anyone not mentioned in the early part of the story. A person first introduced in the 5th game cannot be named as the CULPRIT, stated Dlanor in the 5th game. She may be a murderer, but not 'the culprit'.
cmos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-07-05, 06:10   Link #12857
Oliver
Back off, I'm a scientist
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: In a badly written story.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmos View Post
What about Erika cannot be the culprit, because it is forbidden for the culprit to be anyone not mentioned in the early part of the story. A person first introduced in the 5th game cannot be named as the CULPRIT, stated Dlanor in the 5th game. She may be a murderer, but not 'the culprit'.
Depends on what exactly an "early part of the story" constitutes and whether an Episode is a distinct story when taken by itself.

It's obvious Erika cannot be "the culprit" for any episodes she doesn't feature in, but that can also be because she doesn't exist there, which is said in red during her introduction. But in Episode 5, it is also said that Furudo Erika is not the culprit. and it's not clear how far does this excuse apply.

So what exactly a culprit is in this series?...

EDIT: Although, Furudo Erika may be the detective, and that wouldn't stop a Piece-Known-As-Erika-In-Red distinct from Furudo Erika from being the culprit...
__________________
"The only principle that does not inhibit progress is: anything goes."
Paul K. Feyerabend, "Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge"

This link has been determined hazardous for the spoiler averse
by the Department of Education.
(updated 2010-08-24)

Last edited by Oliver; 2010-07-05 at 06:22.
Oliver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-07-05, 06:22   Link #12858
Linkin Battler
Member
 
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Italy :D
Send a message via MSN to Linkin Battler Send a message via Skype™ to Linkin Battler
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renall View Post
Of course it's not a detective novel. It's a romance!
I also think it is a romance, after reading the ten commandments for romance novel I had no doubts...!


However, summing up, he can be:

- S. S. Van Dine (the most likely, considering the pendant that could be SSVD simbol, the hints in EP2 OP and EP5, the yellow eyes, the blue coat and the absence of one-winged eagle at all)
- young Kinzo
- young Rudolph
- The boy from nineteen years ago
- The other Battler
- adult Kanon
- Maria's father
- Pendragon
- adult George (???)
- one of the servants cited in the various episodes (Reinon, Runon, Manon, Renon)
- a never cited new character

While she can be:

- the real form of Beatrice (one of the most likely, considering she is probably a new character, the double eagle, the roses, the ring, the portrait of Beatrice and the butterfly brooch. And then would be Dine probably)
- Jessica (one of the most likely, considering the hair, the clothes that resembles Krauss, the Natsuhi's neckerchief, the ring of the headship, etc. butwithstanding, she has no breast and a different eye-style, furthermore because of the presence of Beatrice's portrait it should be 1986. If she is Jessica, he could be Kanon/George/Dine)
- Rosa (a very similar hairstyle, but a completely different color and eye-style. Then he would be Maria's father)
- Asumu (probably not, since she should not wear the eagle)
- ShKannon / ShKannontrice (this option gives me the shivers, however... look at the position of the eagle, in the collar as Kanon and in the leg as Shannon. Furthermore there is the brooch...!)
- Kinzo's wife (probably not, since she had black hair)
- Kinzo's lover, the one she met in the war period (one of the most likely, even though the presence of the portrait hints they're in 1986. Then he would be Kinzo)
- The Beatrice Rosa met (she had very bad memories of the period)
- one of the servants cited in the various episodes (Reinon, Runon, Manon, Renon)
- one of the new heads in one future (EP5 future?)
- a never cited new character

I tend to think they are the real form of Beatrice (that could be the human Beatrice committing the homicides in my theory) and Dine
However, I think that this portrait is the fullest thing of fake hints ever seen. There probably are more fake hints in that portrait than in the whole novel. Ryu07 is trolling us again.
__________________
Credit to censoredgrace for the avatar!
Linkin Battler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-07-05, 07:53   Link #12859
Pinguma
Member
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: UK
Age: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by Horse View Post
I'm not a fan of Umineko. I was only in for Akiko Shikata and occasional (really occasional) BGMs from Luck Ganriki...

The new Luck Ganriki/dai OP with Ganrikis regular singers is wonderful. Just wanted to say that, thanks.
Good man.

When I first saw the image I did kinda think the girl was a future Maria or a more likely Jessica. Then I noticed the lack of chest, which caused memories of Jessica singing 'Tsurupettan~' come flooding back, making me bury my hands in my face at the very thought I had considered. Would be nice of Ryu to not just add another character into the fray of 1986...again, so I really hope the girl is the likely either future or past character to help uncover the mystery. Similarly with the guy, but he seems a likely meta anyway.

Still haven't had the time to go through EP6 but I've been spoiled for the majority/maybe all of it anyway, so I'm honestly looking forward to this episode, the idea of 'the cold harsh truth', the opening, it all just seems amazing. Should be a good one.
Pinguma is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-07-05, 08:13   Link #12860
Jan-Poo
別にいいけど
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: forever lost inside a logic error
Quote:
Originally Posted by Judoh View Post
Bah you and your silly romance theories. <DINE THE DEATH!! SENTENCE TO DEATH!!> lol

Now that I think about it that would be something Dine would exist for. We get an argument in red and blue and Dine comes along and.. *whistle* All right break it up people! There's no love to see here! break it up!
No no no it will be like this:

After midnight we'll all DINE in hell!!! In the shades...

THIS IS ROKKENJIMAAAAAA!


anyway sorry to bring this up but I need to specify what a true scientific method would adress this issue:

Quote:
I am not breaking any rules. Let me put it this way, you aren't going to use a 3-legged monkey as an example of what monkeys are. Why would you use the broken episode as an example of what an episode should be?
This example assumes you already know what monkeys are which however is the very thing you must determine.

To make this comparison work you need to think of a completely unknown animal species or assume the scientist has never seen a monkey before.

So the 3-legged monkey is the only one you have, you absolutely know nothing about any other 2-legged monkey. And because of that you have no way to determine that this 3-legged monkey is abnormal in any way, since "abnormality" is defined as a deviance from a norm found in the total population.

considering the data in their possession the scientists should conclude that "monkeys have 3 legs" because that's the facts they have.

Consider this fact. In most cases we only have but one fossil of certain dinosaurs species. Not once a paleontologist dared to say "I believe this species was slightly different from this, because I believe this specimen was abnormal". The whole scientific community would laugh at that.
__________________

Jan-Poo 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 03:43.


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