[Renall]

Originally Posted by Wanderer

• The terminology. "Player", "Game Master", "Game Board" typically indicates a two-way process between the Player and Game Master with the Game Board as a medium. It's very often likened to chess, which is indisputably a two-way process. If the what happens on the Game Board is not a two-way process then RK07 is using deceptive terminology for apparently no reason.
• The basic narrative in EP6 just screams a 2-way process. First there's the whole idea that the Game Master can, and sometimes needs to, change the narrative in the middle of the Game, which makes no sense in a 1-way process as there's nothing for the Game Master to react to. Second, Meta-Erika can't trap BATTER in a logic error unless either: BATTLER unilaterally determines the narrative, in which case he's just fucking around by himself and Meta-Erika is pointless, or Meta-Erika can influence the narrative and it's a 2-way process.
• Battler's narrated thought projection throughout EPs 1-4. Piece-Battler would make assumptions as to what certain people were thinking, which would be narrated. If someone other than Meta-Battler wrote those assumptions into Piece-Battler's mind, shouldn't Meta-Battler find it presumptuous? Wouldn't they get it wrong sometimes and Meta-Battler would go "wait, I wouldn't think that". That never happened in EPs 1-4. It did happen in EP 5 when Meta-Battler found Piece-Battler to seem smarter than he should be, but that was in EP 5 when Meta-Battler wasn't playing.

Okay, except... none of that has anything to do with your theory. Your theory is about Readers, which don't exist in the "game" scenarios. There is no indication that the "distortions" applied by a Reader, even if able to misrepresent the very character of the story to an individual who has supernatural confirmation abilities and a perspective present in the actual story - please stop dodging that, it's getting aggravating, address it - apply in any way to the Game Master/Player dynamic. In fact, one thing we do know is that, while Beatrice often showed Battler fantastical things in her stories, she never once did so while Battler's piece was present and Battler was still actively engaged in playing against her. That suggests to me that she can't because of some property of the player's piece, be it their "reliable perspective" or "detective authority" or whatever. It's a mechanism to make the game fair for the player. Battler had it. Erika has it. And Erika actually has more fair play mechanics than Battler ever got, at least in ep5. As you said, Battler's behavior was different from when he was a player. That suggests the player can't be easily messed with.

If Erika was playing, and Erika was in the parlor, Erika's perspective ought to mean something (i.e. she cannot have seen Shannon and Kanon both unless, as Kealym suggests, there actually were two of them; and if she did see two of them when there weren't two, it needs to be explained). You just handwave this and ignore it. Stop that.

That's the entire crux of the problem with that scene, and your tangent hasn't done much of anything to approach it. We are aware of what Erika ought to have seen, and we don't actually need to have seen the original playthrough to know that. We know what the narration says Erika should have seen, and we know that Erika and Meta-Erika are in some sense connected (although we don't know how or to what extent). We also know how Meta-Erika acts, and from this there is certain information we can infer (e.g. she thinks Shannon and Kanon are different persons). What she should know and what she does know don't add up.

Saying "she assumed they were separate so it was depicted that they are even though her piece would not have seen that" is something which has never happened during a game. Battler made a lot of false assumptions in ep1-4, but they didn't suddenly become true because he did so. We know this because we have independent confirmation.

For example, Battler assumes the chapel is locked in ep2. He never actually confirms that it isn't. By your reasoning, the chapel became locked as a result, or would have actually been locked on a replay of the same events to an observer of the game. Except Will says the answer is "it wasn't locked" (in so many words). And Our Confessions makes clear that Beatrice has intended solutions to each of her tricks. So even though Battler can interact in some way and she can improvise in some way, she can't make the chapel suddenly be locked if the whole trick was "make a big show of giving the key to Maria, then don't actually lock the chapel door." The chapel door will never be locked, Shannon's body will never be in the ep1 shed, and if the adults posted a guard at every room they checked in ep3's First Twilight Kanon would never be found in the chapel. The only difference is whether Battler actually confirms it by being present through his piece and doing something.

If the "trick" of ep5's parlor scene was "Shannon and Kanon swap out a couple times to give Erika the impression that both are in the room," or "Kanon was never actually in Erika's line of sight," we should have seen that. Instead, we get Battler's perspective description and Lambda's instantaneous assurance. These are things Erika ought to have noticed, but she apparently didn't. That is what we must adequately address, if we even can.

If you accuse me of interpreting it only the way that I want to, then you better give me some kind of alternative possible interpretation that I am failing to see. Else you're just being an antagonistic jerk without reason to back it up.

I don't need an explanation of my own to tell you that your idea is malformed and improperly supported. That's a self-evident observation. If I were to propose a theory of my own, it wouldn't suddenly mean that one of us is right. We could both be wrong. So there's really no point to confusing the subject with a new argument when we haven't properly disposed of the current one.