[AuraTwilight]

And Aura, what about the rule saying ''Intuition that proves to be right cannot be a technique''? That impacts the detectives abilities, implying that they must have an impartial perspective.Some times, people ''get lucky'', yet it is forbidden for that to happen to the detective. Sometimes police, and other investigators get lucky in real life in their searches.

Because it's a convention of the gender. No one wants to hear the detective just strike lucky and guess the culprit anymore than we want to read the hero pull a new superpower out of his ass and beat the villain at the last minute.

Any mystery that follows these commandments is a mystery with fictional elements playing at hand, regardless if the detective knows they are there or not. They are still helping the detective. Also, fantasy does follow rules somtimes, and not all mystery follows rules. If they do not follow these rules, then they are more realistic. There are plenty of times when Fantasy is explained to the core, such as the seven stakes of Purgatory, they clearly had limits and rules drawn to them, and even had origins of existence.

All fiction has fictional elements playing at hand. There is no such thing as a fiction that is entirely correlative to reality.

And you completely misunderstood what I meant by 'rules'. Fantasy has no 'rules' because the reader's ability to predict what is happening and understand the inner workings of a tale are not necessary, or even connected to, the quality of the work. The same could not be said of Mystery, where it is less so a narrative so much as a logic puzzle for the reader. Without some sort of guarantee of solvability (like the rules), then it's a failure as a mystery. You can't do whatever the hell you want with a mystery and expect it to be 'good' because a mystery demands certain criteria that fantasy does not.

Regardless of if the detective knows it or not, following the rules make forces at work make it impossible for the Servant to be the culprit. Meaning if I was a rich person, and had a house full of servants, and one of them hated me, my mansion exploded and erased all evidence, and someone made a mystery out of it. It could be possible that that servant did kill me, but if they followed Van Dines or Knox's, they wouldn't be allowed to be selected, hence that mystery has some fiction in it(well, being that the clues would not all be presented it'd hardly be a mystery but you get my point right?).

You're misunderstanding what the rules mean. The rule isn't an absolute ban against servants being the culprit; it's like the Chinaman rule, the spirit of the rule being a ban against easily scapegoated characters just doing shit for no reason; the rule was made in response to novels just having the butler do it so none of the likable characters had to be guilty.

If Servants could never be culprits whatsoever ever, then the Dine Inquisitors would've never been able to prosecute the Maid in the EP7 prologue, and Will wouldn't of pussyfooted and spent 15 minutes going on about motive before he was forced to drop a Dine rule.

The rules are guidelines, not absolute, supernatural rules.