[T] [CE] Inboubarashi-hen ☆

Find and discuss trials made by other members and showcase your own trials.

Moderators: EN - Forum Moderators, EN - Trial Reviewers

User avatar
Enthalpy
Community Manager
Posts: 5170
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 4:40 am
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: English, limited Spanish

Re: [T] [CE] Inboubarashi-hen ☆

Post by Enthalpy »

My own thoughts:
Spoiler : :
For those who weren't there for the stream: this was one of the most frustrating games that I've played in quite some time. Most of the contradictions and puzzles were unfair. Now, they're fixably unfair, but still need to be fixed. I will only comment on the narrative parts minimally, as the insanity of the case took all my attention, leaving none for me to care about any of the narrative bits.

First Cross-Examination:
Every single thing Keiichi does in this testimony is unmotivated. "Why did he kill his friends" is a valid question, but so are all of the following:
* Why in his room?
* Why did he run to a phone booth?
* Why did he call the police?
* Why did he commit suicide in the middle of the conversation?
* Why did he choose to commit suicide by clawing at his own throat? That sounds needlessly painful.

You try to explain the first three in press conversations, but only for the first one does the detective give us a plausible enough explanation. The other two are so just too unbelievable. He wanted to call his parents, and he did the next logical step of going to the booth, but spontaneously decided not to. He wanted to turn himself in to the police, and he did the next logical step of calling them so he could turn himself in, but spontaneously decided not to. I'm still calling the second and third items on this list equally suspicious. With this many unnatural things, most people wouldn't pick out the motive as the unnatural thing without prodding, especially when it isn't actually a contradiction, and nothing in the cocounsel hint says we need to find something suspicious, but not necessarily contradictory. If, in my playthrough, calvinball hadn't hinted that I was on the right track in looking for suspicious things, I would have thought we were just supposed to go with these oddities.

Also, there are some unintended timeline contradictions. The autopsy says Keiichi died that night, but Ooichi says he didn’t survive the morning. The police transcript should say he fell unconscious during that conversation, not that he died. (Credit to Evo for finding the unintended contradictions.)

Second Cross-Examination:
The Satoshi bat contradiction is good.

For the next contradiction… As-is, the prosecution is not selective enough about Keiichi's insanity. He says Keiichi believed in this conspiracy, but he also says "maybe Keiichi was insane and delusional" for why he thought Oyashiro-sama was after him. It also is the most logical way to explain all these other oddities from cross-ex 1. Given the general tone, and the statement of "paranoid ramblings," it paints a picture of somebody who has lost touch with reality. This is open season on "lolInsanity." Add in the implications that he has bashed his own doorway to make threats... Add in fit of madness from searching the house... Add in that Ooishi used insanity to justify Keiichi's behavior in some of his press conversations... Add in that the prosecutor explicitly says he gave the trash a patdown, which he calls insane. The prosecution is doing general-purpose insanity arguments! So it’s too much of a stretch to make the torn out note a contradiction. lolInsanity means he can do a lot that might not make sense. For example, why couldn’t he have written the second page, thought it made too much sense or that he was wrong, and then decided to rip it to shreds? An insane person might do that. Even if he wasn’t insane, what if he just wrote the original second page too fast, had horrible rewriting, and decided to rewrite it with better handwriting? That’s another plausible alternative that doesn’t require insanity. Clarifying the bounds of Keiichi’s insanity and saying that we don’t need a rock-solid contradiction would both go a long way.

Now for some minutiae:
You should catch the present of Satoshi’s bat at things pointing to another suspect. It certainly does point that way. You just want us to find the second contradiction first.
Also, why wouldn’t the conspiracy destroy the note in its entirety, if this was the work of a third person? Simply not leaving any note would work much better.

Cross-Examination Three:
The third cross-ex is a decent segment, though I second Bad Player's thinking there are multiple options here.

I wouldn't have known to accuse 34 if not for xat spoilers. Why not any of the other people from Serial Death Report?
You should clarify that "demoned away" just means vanish.

The rest is all fair enough, if VERY conspiratorial.

Cross-Examination Four:
Next... Good catching the Maebara note in the evidence calling for a group, though I agree with BP that the note should also be accepted. If our theory assumes that Keiichi wasn't insane, then we should be able to use "Keiich wasn't insane" if it helps explain a motive.

As for the contradictions you are looking for...
* It isn't clear how the trash searching points to a group. How does that point to a group any more than an individual? Either/or could go through the trash, and I don't see it being substnatially more likely that a group would do this than an individual.
* The motive you're looking for isn't clear. I thought you were asking about the group's motive to kill Rena and Shion, not their motive to their strange things in general. (Come to think of it, what would be their motive to commit non-Watanagashi murders?)
* The "hole in the theory that ours better explains" doesn't make any sense to me. Are you seriously saying that the Conspiracy Four manipulated Keiichi into calling the police and talking about Oyashiro-sama when they wouldn't have otherwise? I don't see how that is a better explanation, but that's what you appear to be looking for.

Cross-Examination Five:
I thought this was completely unfair in the beginning, but couldn't quite vocalize why. Now,the issue is much clearer. The whole point of this cross-examination is that the player loses the case against their expectations, which is not always going to work. This can work for a player with a "guesstective" style of presenting everything, or any hazy idea they have in their head, but for somebody who is actually going to be looking for contradictions, and filtering the ideas to have to see if they are contradictions...

They could get stuck here for quite a long time, possibly even indefinitely. In essence, this excuse for a puzzle rewards presents=-spamming and punishes careful consideration of the evidence. If somebody does perfectly carefully consider the evidence, then either there should be nothing for them to present, or you've slipped up. (In this case, it's more that there isn't anything for them to present. The only way I discovered this the first time is that I was too quick to try an impeachment by omission.) If I had my usual amount of patience by this point, instead of being worn down by the madness that was the rest of the trial, I would probably have wasted at least half an hour on this one.

I'm well aware that enigma thinks "it's inevitable to get penalized if you as the game tells you," and that the game has been telling you to accept failure the whole time, but I'm not seeing either of those.

Narrative Concerns:
Lastly, there are two things that strike me as troubled with the ending. First, I have to echo BP about the ending with Ooishi. As for the ending sequence, "whether the true ending is good or bad depends on whether Misae approves" isn't a standard I can accept. Letting your happiness and sense of morality be wrapped up completely in what somebody else thinks is terrible, and it's not something I would have thought of coming into that segment.

It's also not entirely clear after Kuroshima's monologue that he thinks the standard for his conduct is Misae. He says that he's been "sacrificing everything he cares about," and it isn't clear why he'd need to change his conduct, if his standard has been Misae. Has he known that Misae wouldn't want him to give up all along, and just hasn't been fighting it? If so, that hasn't been well-communicated.
__________________________________________________________________________________
I wanted to like this case, but as it is right now, I can't. There are things to like here, but there are very real problems that clouded them all out for me. Good luck getting them resolved.
[D]isordered speech is not so much injury to the lips that give it forth, as to the disproportion and incoherence of things in themselves, so negligently expressed. ~ Ben Jonson
User avatar
NihilisticNinja
Posts: 1012
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2011 9:23 am
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: English, Latin

Re: [T] [CE] Inboubarashi-hen ☆

Post by NihilisticNinja »

Typically I'd let the maker defend their own case, but as a sometime-beta I feel the need to chime in on a few aspects.
Enthalpy wrote:My own thoughts:
Spoiler : Ino :
First Cross-Examination:
Every single thing Keiichi does in this testimony is unmotivated. "Why did he kill his friends" is a valid question, but so are all of the following:
* Why in his room?
* Why did he run to a phone booth?
* Why did he call the police?
* Why did he commit suicide in the middle of the conversation?
* Why did he choose to commit suicide by clawing at his own throat? That sounds needlessly painful.
Spoiler : Ino :
Except by itself, those are just curiosities. They don't actually add up to an affirmative case for a defense attorney, whereas "Why did this guy randomly decide to kill his friends?" absolutely does. I feel like following this line of reasoning takes us down a dangerous road where we priorities looking for the tiny details that could potentially make for a contradiction over contradictions/pseudo-contradictions based upon common sense.
Enthalpy wrote:
Spoiler : Ino :
For the next contradiction… As-is, the prosecution is not selective enough about Keiichi's insanity. He says Keiichi believed in this conspiracy, but he also says "maybe Keiichi was insane and delusional" for why he thought Oyashiro-sama was after him. It also is the most logical way to explain all these other oddities from cross-ex 1. Given the general tone, and the statement of "paranoid ramblings," it paints a picture of somebody who has lost touch with reality. This is open season on "lolInsanity." Add in the implications that he has bashed his own doorway to make threats... Add in fit of madness from searching the house... Add in that Ooishi used insanity to justify Keiichi's behavior in some of his press conversations... Add in that the prosecutor explicitly says he gave the trash a patdown, which he calls insane. The prosecution is doing general-purpose insanity arguments! So it’s too much of a stretch to make the torn out note a contradiction. lolInsanity means he can do a lot that might not make sense. For example, why couldn’t he have written the second page, thought it made too much sense or that he was wrong, and then decided to rip it to shreds? An insane person might do that. Even if he wasn’t insane, what if he just wrote the original second page too fast, had horrible rewriting, and decided to rewrite it with better handwriting? That’s another plausible alternative that doesn’t require insanity. Clarifying the bounds of Keiichi’s insanity and saying that we don’t need a rock-solid contradiction would both go a long way.
Spoiler : Ino :
Well, the non-insanity explanation is actually contradicted by the fact that we find the paper nowhere in the house or in the phone booth- enigma could actually add that to the case for it not being Keiichi. Insane people typically operate by some kind of logic, even if it seems strange to us. We know for a FACT that Keiichi touched all the garbage- this is something we know Keiichi did, so the fact that we don't know why he did it can be chocked up to us not knowing what was going on in his insane mind.

However, there's a difference between that, and coming up with theoretical suggestions that Keiichi DID do something. In that case you do still need to provide some reason. Otherwise you could literally make any argument ever and it would be totally valid, and surely you agree that that is nonsensical? Even if arguing "Well he was insane" is theoretically a valid argument, it's an incredibly weak one by itself, without the prosecutor providing some case as to how this would play into his insane mindset.
Enthalpy wrote:
Spoiler : Ino :
I wouldn't have known to accuse 34 if not for xat spoilers. Why not any of the other people from Serial Death Report?
Spoiler : Ino :
Well, this is admittedly a sketchier contradiction, it does still seem logical to me to assume that the person who just suddenly vanished right before another murder is more suspicious than people that vanished at least a year before. The only possible other party would be Satoshi, and it's been made clear that arguing in that direction is a dead-end, at least for the moment.


Enthalpy wrote:
Spoiler : Ino :
You should clarify that "demoned away" just means vanish.
Spoiler : Ino :
Kuroshima and the prosecutor have an exchange that confirms just that. I can't recall exactly how it went, but it was when he was initially explaining the curse, as I recall.
Enthalpy wrote:
Spoiler : Ino :
Are you seriously saying that the Conspiracy Four manipulated Keiichi into calling the police and talking about Oyashiro-sama when they wouldn't have otherwise? I don't see how that is a better explanation, but that's what you appear to be looking for.
Spoiler : Ino :
Group wants people to believe in the power of Oyashiro-sama, so they cause somebody who has recently killed multiple people to declare that Oyashiro-sama exists, and then die inexplicably. Makes a degree of sense to me- it'll likely further the legend and increase fear of Oyashiro-sama among the public when it gets out that this occurred (which it inevitably will).
Not commenting on the rest because either I want to focus on contradictions or I can, at a minimum, see where you're coming from.
"With good friends by your side, anything is possible. If you really care for each other, it makes everyone stronger! Then you'll have the will to succeed! The world is filled with painful things, it's sad sometimes, and you won't be able to handle it by yourself. But just know: If there's someone that you love, you'll stay on the right path. And you won't ever give in! As long as you keep that person in your heart, you'll keep getting back up. Understand? That's why a Hero never loses!"
Image
Miki by Hershey's Chocolate Bars.
nikekut456
Posts: 34
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2014 3:39 pm
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: English

Re: [T] [CE] Inboubarashi-hen ☆

Post by nikekut456 »

Spoiler : :
So... eh... anybody get to the final testimony with Rika? I didnt get to that since the "give up" part, it just go to the ending right away
User avatar
enigma
Posts: 3421
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2011 11:05 am
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: miaou
Location: dancecat's heaven
Contact:

Re: [T] [CE] Inboubarashi-hen ☆

Post by enigma »

Spoiler : nikekut :
It doesn't exist. That's just a silly invisicule.
nikekut456
Posts: 34
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2014 3:39 pm
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: English

Re: [T] [CE] Inboubarashi-hen ☆

Post by nikekut456 »

Spoiler : :
And I just thought that I'm about to see Rika's breakdown... lol
User avatar
Enthalpy
Community Manager
Posts: 5170
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 4:40 am
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: English, limited Spanish

Re: [T] [CE] Inboubarashi-hen ☆

Post by Enthalpy »

I've been meaning to respond to this for a while now. If you don't mind, I'll take the luxury of reformatting.
Spoiler : Ino :
First Cross-Examination:
Every single thing Keiichi does in this testimony is unmotivated. "Why did he kill his friends" is a valid question, but so are all of the following:
* Why in his room?
* Why did he run to a phone booth?
* Why did he call the police?
* Why did he commit suicide in the middle of the conversation?
* Why did he choose to commit suicide by clawing at his own throat? That sounds needlessly painful.

Except by itself, those are just curiosities. They don't actually add up to an affirmative case for a defense attorney, whereas "Why did this guy randomly decide to kill his friends?" absolutely does. I feel like following this line of reasoning takes us down a dangerous road where we priorities looking for the tiny details that could potentially make for a contradiction over contradictions/pseudo-contradictions based upon common sense.

Respond to all reasonable answers, and never demand unreasonable answers. It ought be reasonable for players to know the relevant information and connect it to the situation.

To be clearer, your argument is that "Why did he kill his friends" is a contradiction, and the others are not. Because all of these are psychological contradictions, your argument is that "A person kills his friends" is not psychologically plausible, but "A man fears for his life, so he kills people in a location that will ensure the murder is traced back to him, putting him on death row. He then decides to call his parents, but promptly changes his mind and calls the police to confess but then decides to blame a local deity until he suddenly decides to commit suicide in one of the most painful ways possible in the middle of the conversation" is?

You can argue, of course, that when you take these issues one-by-one, they all are psychologically plausible and so are not contradictory. (I would accept that for the choice of crime scene or the phone booth as contradictions, but not the others.) But taken all together, they lose any sense of plausibility. You are taking a problem that permeates the entire testimony and cannot be readily tied to any one sentence, and expecting the player to know which of the 6 different things contributing to that problem is the one to point out. That is not reasonable.

Of course, this would be entirely different if you could convince me that the "why kill his friends" problem is far less plausible by orders of magnitude, but I doubt that'll be happening. And the fact that not all players will agree that this ought to be the contradiction is a massive problem if the solution to the puzzle is "obviously, this is the most suspicious thing here!" Evolina had the same problem that I did when she played through this, but because her stream audience was less generous with hints, she was tripped up for much longer.
Spoiler : Ino :
For the next contradiction… As-is, the prosecution is not selective enough about Keiichi's insanity. He says Keiichi believed in this conspiracy, but he also says "maybe Keiichi was insane and delusional" for why he thought Oyashiro-sama was after him. It also is the most logical way to explain all these other oddities from cross-ex 1. Given the general tone, and the statement of "paranoid ramblings," it paints a picture of somebody who has lost touch with reality. This is open season on "lolInsanity." Add in the implications that he has bashed his own doorway to make threats... Add in fit of madness from searching the house... Add in that Ooishi used insanity to justify Keiichi's behavior in some of his press conversations... Add in that the prosecutor explicitly says he gave the trash a patdown, which he calls insane. The prosecution is doing general-purpose insanity arguments! So it’s too much of a stretch to make the torn out note a contradiction. lolInsanity means he can do a lot that might not make sense. For example, why couldn’t he have written the second page, thought it made too much sense or that he was wrong, and then decided to rip it to shreds? An insane person might do that. Even if he wasn’t insane, what if he just wrote the original second page too fast, had horrible rewriting, and decided to rewrite it with better handwriting? That’s another plausible alternative that doesn’t require insanity. Clarifying the bounds of Keiichi’s insanity and saying that we don’t need a rock-solid contradiction would both go a long way.

Well, the non-insanity explanation is actually contradicted by the fact that we find the paper nowhere in the house or in the phone booth- enigma could actually add that to the case for it not being Keiichi.

Respond to all reasonable answers, and never demand unreasonable ones.

Granted that we're not using reds in quite this sense, buuuut...
Keiichi had the remaining note fragment in his pocket. It fell out while running to the phone booth.
Keiichi destroyed the note in a method that would not leave it behind in a recognizable form. He flushed the note down the toilet, burned it, ate it, shredded it or some other possibility.
Keiichi tore the paper in two to create a second note, which he stored as a backup outside of the house, in case the first one was destroyed.
The police simply missed a hiding place.


With all those alternate explanations, this is not a contradiction. It is too large of a leap from "part of the note is missing" to "it was taken by a third party!" You might be able to skate by here if the statement was worded "nothing to suggest a third party" rather than "nothing to imply a third party." Remember, we don't need to show or even believe any of these alternative explanations. For this contradiction to work, all you need is a reasonable alternative.

Insane people typically operate by some kind of logic, even if it seems strange to us. We know for a FACT that Keiichi touched all the garbage- this is something we know Keiichi did, so the fact that we don't know why he did it can be chocked up to us not knowing what was going on in his insane mind.

However, there's a difference between that, and coming up with theoretical suggestions that Keiichi DID do something. In that case you do still need to provide some reason. Otherwise you could literally make any argument ever and it would be totally valid, and surely you agree that that is nonsensical?


Be clearly consistent with the rest of the case. Keep your facts, characterization, and tone straight.

This is a court where objecting to the victim's mother being on the jury gets you booed, they believe the reincarnation of the village deity is also on the jury, the prosecutor invokes mob rule in his opening statement, and the prosecutor can go on the record as saying the defendant was cursed. All of this is established by this cross-examination. It's inconsistent to believe they would do all that, but they wouldn't be lenient with lolInsanity.

I further point you to the first cross-examination. If none of those obvious psychological contradictions are even worth mentioning, then this questionable psychological contradiction isn't worth mentioning either.

Even if arguing "Well he was insane" is theoretically a valid argument, it's an incredibly weak one by itself, without the prosecutor providing some case as to how this would play into his insane mindset.

Respond to all reasonable answers, and never demand unreasonable ones.

We're not making this argument, we're just saying that this isn't necessarily a contradiction - lolInsanity is on the table, and there are other reasons why he might want to tear part of the note. Maybe the penmanship thing I raised before. If you don't want a bona fide contradiction, say so. You could argue (as enigma has tried to) that lolInsanity is off the table because the only proof of lolInsanity presented is about the conspiracy, but...

It ought be reasonable for players to know the relevant information and connect it with the situation.

...then you need to tell players that specifically by having the prosecution limit the scope of his insanity, rather than just saying he was insane.

Really, all you need to do here is change from "imply a third party" to "suggest a third party," and clarify how far lolInsanity goes. Fix up the first cross-examination as well, and this becomes much clearer.
Spoiler : Ino :
I wouldn't have known to accuse 34 if not for xat spoilers. Why not any of the other people from Serial Death Report?

Well, this is admittedly a sketchier contradiction, it does still seem logical to me to assume that the person who just suddenly vanished right before another murder is more suspicious than people that vanished at least a year before. The only possible other party would be Satoshi, and it's been made clear that arguing in that direction is a dead-end, at least for the moment.

Respond to all reasonable answers, and never demand unreasonable ones.

Yutori Houjou is still possible. Sayaka Furude is still possible (unless there is a very good reason to believe she drowned, which hasn't been established). Also, please tell me why Satoshi is off-limits, but 34 isn't. All the game has made clear is that Satoshi is missing, and accusing him with no proof will end badly. This somehow justifies us accusing 34 with no proof...?
Spoiler : Ino :
You should clarify that "demoned away" just means vanish.

Kuroshima and the prosecutor have an exchange that confirms just that. I can't recall exactly how it went, but it was when he was initially explaining the curse, as I recall.

It ought be reasonable for players to know the relevant information and connect it with the situation.

On double-checking the record, yes, he said it, but it was forgettable. It would be better to include this directly in the case, or have the term be used in a context other than defining it. The first time he defines it, it isn't clear that he's only talking about those vanished and not those killed. The second time, we forget it under the deluge of new information that actually seems important, like the long report. At the time, "we use the term demoned away" does not sound important.
Spoiler : Ino :
Are you seriously saying that the Conspiracy Four manipulated Keiichi into calling the police and talking about Oyashiro-sama when they wouldn't have otherwise? I don't see how that is a better explanation, but that's what you appear to be looking for.

Group wants people to believe in the power of Oyashiro-sama, so they cause somebody who has recently killed multiple people to declare that Oyashiro-sama exists, and then die inexplicably. Makes a degree of sense to me- it'll likely further the legend and increase fear of Oyashiro-sama among the public when it gets out that this occurred (which it inevitably will).

Contradictions should be understandable both when they are presented and in hindsight.

First, this needs to actually be explained. At no point does Kuroshima say "the conspiracy forced Keiichi to call the police and blame Oyashiro-sama." All he says is that this would benefit said conspiracy.

Respond to all reasonable answers, and never demand unreasonable ones.

As insane as lolInsanity may be, it still seems more likely than this group I've been talking about told him to tell the police that Oyashiro did it, or else they'd kill him, so he proceeded to tell the police, then he killed himself anyways, in one of the most painful way possible. The group then framed Keiichi so that people will think that Keiichi was cursed the whole time, rather than making this obviously supernatural and mysterious like all the other deahs! Oh yeah, and ignore the person who witnessed Keiichi being insane.

It ought be reasonable for the player character to announce the deduction.

And even then, the question calls for a hole. This has never been treated as a hole in the prosecution's case... because to this court, "Oyashiro cursed him" isn't a hole at all, but is much more likely than village conspiracies. One of the most annoying parts about this "contradiction" is that although it calls for a hole, we have not actually presented any holes. Everything we've presented has been explained by the prosecution in a way that makes sense to the jury - no actual holes.

EDIT: I forgot to mention the fact that this hasn't been established as a hole also violates
It ought be reasonable for players to know the relevant information and connect it with the situation. Why would players think "why blame Oyashiro to the police" counts as a hole? Cursed by Oyashiro seems to cover that up, as far as this court is concerned.
[D]isordered speech is not so much injury to the lips that give it forth, as to the disproportion and incoherence of things in themselves, so negligently expressed. ~ Ben Jonson
User avatar
NihilisticNinja
Posts: 1012
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2011 9:23 am
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: English, Latin

Re: [T] [CE] Inboubarashi-hen ☆

Post by NihilisticNinja »

*crackles knuckles* Let's do this.

I'm going to prioritize your main arguments, because I don't want to get caught in the minutiae and lose focus. To avoid a quote-war I'm also not going to be doing copy+pasting quotes, and instead either assuming that the reader is aware of what you said, or summarizing. If you believe at any point I unfairly represent one of your arguments, let me know.
Spoiler : Inbo Spoilers :

Argument #1- The Motive Contradiction

Admittedly, I don't find your point here particularly clear. Either you are arguing that we should be able to present those curiosities as a unit, or you are arguing that independently these are stronger/of equal strength to the motive contradiction. Let's look at both claims.

The first is rather impractical to present in terms of evidence, so honestly we can essentially dismiss it offhand. But even if we didn't, most of these can be termed as strange actions or minor curiosities, not things that are necessarily worthy of being addressed by the prosecution- at least not without evidentiary support. The fact that there are a lot of curiosities would merely indicate that this is a strange case- and isn't the fact that the suspect appears to have committed suicide be an indicator enough that the suspect might make strange decisions? So even without citing insanity per se, the prosecution could easily hand-wave pretty much any of those objections. The fact that he killed his best friends for no apparent reason is far less easy to dismiss offhand.

Now let's look at the other angle you could strike from. Sadly I don't think that this has much grounding either. Killers often choose places convenient to them, so the crime taking place in his room isn't all that strange. Would it have been more logical to choose a place not connected to him? Sure, but somebody who would commit suicide by scratching out their own throat might not be making the most logical decisions. He ran to the phone booth because he wanted to inform the police (I'm not sure where you got parents from, I assume it's a typo?) about what he told them. Whether he believed it or was forced to is irrelevant, in all honesty. Your last two points are the ones that really have any strength, and by themselves they don't actually contradict anything- they just are incredibly strange, and this is already an incredibly strange case.

You could theoretically argue that my argument applies to the motive contradiction as well, but that's a whole different beast. "Why" is a key aspect of the case of a prosecutor/defense attorney- without a motive, there isn't any particular reason to believe that the culprit would do anything as extreme as killing two of his own friends. Heck, you could also make the argument that the motive for the murder of his friends is more relevant than his suicide because the murder of his friends is what he's actually on trial for- his suicide is, at the moment, more of a side-issue. So if you want an alternate contradiction, I would argue that you would be fixating on more minor details, and that is a less effective contradiction, I'm sure you'd agree.

The fact that Evo got tripped up on it is a concern, but I'm honestly more inclined to blame AAO culture for this than enigma's contradiction- we tend to put emphasis on the minor details in cases so much that that's what we look for, instead of the obvious. However, that's speculation, particularly given that I did not view the stream, and rest assured that I mean no slight on Evo for it- I just feel like that's the common mindset of an AAO user after so many cases that rely on such a thing.

Argument #2- On Insanity

Your suggestions don't make that much sense to me. Let's go through them:

1. "He tore out the page because it made too much sense or he was wrong and ripped it to shreds". If it made too much sense to him, then he'd have no reason to tear it out. And surely even if he just perceived it as making sense to others, then he'd still want to have it, given that this letter was a communication to others about his fears. Insane people don't do things just because. And I might be willing to grant your second suggestion, but we'd expect to find those shreds somewhere in his room and we don't. (If you're going to go the lolinsanity-means-he'll-perform-totally-irrationally approach, would he truly be rational enough to throw them in the garbage, or even see the need to?)

2. Regarding handwriting, also possible, but then why don't we find either of those pages anywhere? Either the rewritten version or the original.

Another concern about both of these is why on Earth in either explanation it's torn through the middle. If you were sane and had the hand writing concern, you would scrap the whole thing, and if you were crazy and just did it because, why would you pain-stakingly tear it through the middle instead of ripping out the entire page?

There are possible explanations for both of these, of course, but they are incredibly speculative and a third party makes just as much sense as any of them, to my thinking. You make a lot of suggestions, but I don't see much evidence for any of them in the Court Record. We're moving from "prosecution has a lot of wiggle-room due to lolinsanity" to "prosecution can say whatever it wants and be believed". Which I don't think you'd want from a case any more than I would.

Regarding your point that given all the "crazy" things that the court believes/does, that they wouldn't be that lenient with lolinsanity- just because something is possible doesn't mean it will happen. I would be willing to accept that they would be that lenient, but they weren't. And unless you can demonstrate that otherwise that is an objective problem, I don't see any issue here.
Spoiler : Inbo Part 2 :

2.5: The Takano Suggestion


I think it's worth noting that the game itself states, as I recall, that you don't have to actually come up with somebody whom you have an airtight case for, just a reasonable culprit given what you now know, regarding Tomitake's death.

While it would be theoretically possible for the other two parties to be the culprit, given their advanced age at the time of the crime in question, is it really believable that either of them would actually be able to pull the crime off? You'd need evidence to support that assertion, of which you have none.

Satoshi is possible, but has been proven to be a dead-end. The court believes that he was spirited away a year ago and without further evidence linking him to the crime- which this report did not provide- you aren't going to get anywhere accusing him. Meanwhile you have Takano, the only possible suspect- as far as you know- in the Tomitake murder, who has mysteriously vanished and could easily be responsible for the crimes. I would say that logically speaking, that is the better form of inquiry in this case.

3. Demoned Away Clarification


I don't really see the point in doing a direct rebuttal, because enigma was kind enough to provide me with the two examples in the game where the term "demoned away" is used. Although not strictly necessary, I will bold the important bits.

Onimura: the Satoshi in question has been missing for just over a year!
Kuroshima: What.
Kuroshima: Wait! WHAT!?
Onimura: It's Oyashiro-sama's will, he was cursed and spirited away.
Onimura: Or, as we say in this village, "demoned away".


Onimura: One always disappears, and another dies. That is how Oyashiro-sama wills it.
Onimura: We call those who have disappeared, "demoned away".

In the former case, the topic was Satoshi, an individual that vanished a year ago. While theoretically it COULD be unclear, the implication that it's those that vanished who are called "demoned away" seems pretty clear to me- he equated it to "spirited away", which indicates a disappearance. In the second case, "those who disappeared" immediately proceeds the line "demoned away", and it is even noted that "demoned away" is the title for these people. I'm not sure how much clearer enigma could make it in that case- it's basically as close to a definition as you can get.

Unless you can provide an example of it being used prior that enigma missed Enth, I don't see how you can make the argument that this was unclear.

4. On the Phone Booth contradiction


Regarding to it needing to be explained that the Conspiracy forced Keiichi to do this, I guess you could theoretically argue that it was otherwise, but the implication is pretty clear. Keiichi would hardly do this voluntarily, would he? He'd have no reason to.

If we're going the conspiracy route, it seems pretty clear to me that the implication isn't that Keiichi simply went "Well, I'm going to commit suicide now" but was either forced to do it somehow, murdered in some way, etc. So your hypothetical explanation is pretty strawman-y. Also I'm not sure what person you have in mind. Ootsuki hadn't taken the stand yet, so the only person you could have in mind is Chie, and at most she demonstrates that he was getting paranoid, which is far from "insane", particularly if a group of people was actually after him.

That said, you're looking at this all wrong. The hole isn't that he called the police at all, but why would he? In his insanity he believes there was a conspiracy of people after him, right? Or at least, that is the prosecution's argument. So why would he suddenly believe that it was due to a curse? You could argue that he spontaneously shifted beliefs entirely because of lolinsanity, but I hardly find that a compelling argument, and we've set the precedent that lolinsanity can't get you absolutely anywhere when there is another, logical, explanation available- that in this case being that a conspiracy that wants to spread word of Oyashiro-sama forced him to do it.

Also, not to fixate on minor points, but "Keiichi being cursed" is exactly the kind of thing the Conspiracy would want. Who would do the cursing aside from Oyashiro-sama, after all? Particularly when the boy himself is talking about how Oyashiro-sama is real and seemingly after him.
"With good friends by your side, anything is possible. If you really care for each other, it makes everyone stronger! Then you'll have the will to succeed! The world is filled with painful things, it's sad sometimes, and you won't be able to handle it by yourself. But just know: If there's someone that you love, you'll stay on the right path. And you won't ever give in! As long as you keep that person in your heart, you'll keep getting back up. Understand? That's why a Hero never loses!"
Image
Miki by Hershey's Chocolate Bars.
User avatar
enigma
Posts: 3421
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2011 11:05 am
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: miaou
Location: dancecat's heaven
Contact:

Re: [T] [CE] Inboubarashi-hen ☆

Post by enigma »

Personally, I don't see any urgent need to fix these "issues", so this argument is sort of moot, in my opinion. Also, I kinda don't want to see this argument go on for pages, so as the case author, I'm just going to request it end here.
User avatar
Tiir
Posts: 5
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2015 6:22 am
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: English

Re: [T] [CE] Inboubarashi-hen ☆

Post by Tiir »

Um...so...at the end(?)
Spoiler : :
Are we just supposed to fail when we get to Ootori's testimony? For the sake of a good fan case, I really hope there's something I'm simply missing. I've been trying to figure out what to do for his testimony for over an hour now. If we're supposed to lose, then I'm pretty pissed off with the way you made it. Having to purposely lose by presenting evidence is extremely disappointing and ruins this case. For someone like me who doesn't like lol-presenting when I'm stuck, it will lead to a huge amount of time wasted. After almost 2 hours of trying to logically piece together what to do, I have given up. Nothing else makes any possible sense to me.

Can I get someone to confirm for me that you are indeed supposed to lose? If there is an actual contradiction, then please spare me a hint. I outright refuse to spam evidence till I get the right answer. It doesn't make me feel like I 'won'. To be honest, it feels like I can't do anything. So I'm really hoping that this isn't the case. Because this case was actually pretty good. Would be a damn shame if it copped out at this point in time.

-Not to mention that if this REALLY is how it's supposed to end, then there are better ways to end it rather than just forcing someone to lose. Leaves a horrible aftertaste and kills the whole game, IMO.
User avatar
NihilisticNinja
Posts: 1012
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2011 9:23 am
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: English, Latin

Re: [T] [CE] Inboubarashi-hen ☆

Post by NihilisticNinja »

Tiir wrote:Um...so...at the end(?)
Spoiler : :
Are we just supposed to fail when we get to Ootori's testimony? For the sake of a good fan case, I really hope there's something I'm simply missing. I've been trying to figure out what to do for his testimony for over an hour now. If we're supposed to lose, then I'm pretty pissed off with the way you made it. Having to purposely lose by presenting evidence is extremely disappointing and ruins this case. For someone like me who doesn't like lol-presenting when I'm stuck, it will lead to a huge amount of time wasted. After almost 2 hours of trying to logically piece together what to do, I have given up. Nothing else makes any possible sense to me.

Can I get someone to confirm for me that you are indeed supposed to lose? If there is an actual contradiction, then please spare me a hint. I outright refuse to spam evidence till I get the right answer. It doesn't make me feel like I 'won'. To be honest, it feels like I can't do anything. So I'm really hoping that this isn't the case. Because this case was actually pretty good. Would be a damn shame if it copped out at this point in time.

-Not to mention that if this REALLY is how it's supposed to end, then there are better ways to end it rather than just forcing someone to lose. Leaves a horrible aftertaste and kills the whole game, IMO.
Spoiler : Inbou :
The Ootori testimony is indeed unwinnable. Just have to burn through all your health.

I won't comment on case philosophy or whether such a choice was an intelligent one, especially given that it in part requires Higu spoilers. Enigma can defend his choice if he wants. If it helps, the Ootori portion isn't the VERY end, there's one final segment afterwards. If you'll find it satisfying still? I can't say.
Last edited by NihilisticNinja on Sat Feb 06, 2016 10:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"With good friends by your side, anything is possible. If you really care for each other, it makes everyone stronger! Then you'll have the will to succeed! The world is filled with painful things, it's sad sometimes, and you won't be able to handle it by yourself. But just know: If there's someone that you love, you'll stay on the right path. And you won't ever give in! As long as you keep that person in your heart, you'll keep getting back up. Understand? That's why a Hero never loses!"
Image
Miki by Hershey's Chocolate Bars.
User avatar
Enthalpy
Community Manager
Posts: 5170
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 4:40 am
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: English, limited Spanish

Re: [T] [CE] Inboubarashi-hen ☆

Post by Enthalpy »

Spoiler : To NN :
The only way is to lose. All that pressing a statement does is increase the penalty.
[D]isordered speech is not so much injury to the lips that give it forth, as to the disproportion and incoherence of things in themselves, so negligently expressed. ~ Ben Jonson
User avatar
NihilisticNinja
Posts: 1012
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2011 9:23 am
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: English, Latin

Re: [T] [CE] Inboubarashi-hen ☆

Post by NihilisticNinja »

Enthalpy wrote:
Spoiler : To NN :
The only way is to lose. All that pressing a statement does is increase the penalty.
Spoiler : To Enth :
Ah, ok. Thanks. Edited accordingly.
"With good friends by your side, anything is possible. If you really care for each other, it makes everyone stronger! Then you'll have the will to succeed! The world is filled with painful things, it's sad sometimes, and you won't be able to handle it by yourself. But just know: If there's someone that you love, you'll stay on the right path. And you won't ever give in! As long as you keep that person in your heart, you'll keep getting back up. Understand? That's why a Hero never loses!"
Image
Miki by Hershey's Chocolate Bars.
User avatar
Tiir
Posts: 5
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2015 6:22 am
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: English

Re: [T] [CE] Inboubarashi-hen ☆

Post by Tiir »

NihilisticNinja wrote:
Tiir wrote:Um...so...at the end(?)
Spoiler : :
Are we just supposed to fail when we get to Ootori's testimony? For the sake of a good fan case, I really hope there's something I'm simply missing. I've been trying to figure out what to do for his testimony for over an hour now. If we're supposed to lose, then I'm pretty pissed off with the way you made it. Having to purposely lose by presenting evidence is extremely disappointing and ruins this case. For someone like me who doesn't like lol-presenting when I'm stuck, it will lead to a huge amount of time wasted. After almost 2 hours of trying to logically piece together what to do, I have given up. Nothing else makes any possible sense to me.

Can I get someone to confirm for me that you are indeed supposed to lose? If there is an actual contradiction, then please spare me a hint. I outright refuse to spam evidence till I get the right answer. It doesn't make me feel like I 'won'. To be honest, it feels like I can't do anything. So I'm really hoping that this isn't the case. Because this case was actually pretty good. Would be a damn shame if it copped out at this point in time.

-Not to mention that if this REALLY is how it's supposed to end, then there are better ways to end it rather than just forcing someone to lose. Leaves a horrible aftertaste and kills the whole game, IMO.
Spoiler : Inbou :
The Ootori testimony is indeed unwinnable. Just have to burn through all your health.

I won't comment on case philosophy or whether such a choice was an intelligent one, especially given that it in part requires Higu spoilers. Enigma can defend his choice if he wants. If it helps, the Ootori portion isn't the VERY end, there's one final segment afterwards. If you'll find it satisfying still? I can't say.
Spoiler : :
Welp, that's just disappointing. There's so many things that make it feel like there's a correct answer in the last testimony. Not to mention how badly flawed it is. Regret the 2hours ish I've spent on this game. Sigh. Maybe I'll take a look at the ending another time then. Really disappointed with this one.
User avatar
NihilisticNinja
Posts: 1012
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2011 9:23 am
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: English, Latin

Re: [T] [CE] Inboubarashi-hen ☆

Post by NihilisticNinja »

Tiir wrote:
Spoiler : :
Welp, that's just disappointing. There's so many things that make it feel like there's a correct answer in the last testimony. Not to mention how badly flawed it is. Regret the 2hours ish I've spent on this game. Sigh. Maybe I'll take a look at the ending another time then. Really disappointed with this one.
Spoiler : Inbou :
Well, I mean I am curious as to what flaws you see in the testimony. I won't get into a debate about the point with you, but as somebody who doesn't see any holes- that you can prove at least- I'd be interested in an alternate point of view.

I will say, to try and present an alternate perspective, that I get where you're coming from; when a testimony is presented there is the implicit assumption that a testimony is winnable, and it's frustrating when it isn't. On the other hand, that's just the way it is sometimes. Sometimes, in the real world, there ARE testimonies that simply are flawless. Or perhaps not flawless, but you can't prove are wrong. Happens quite a bit, really.

You could theoretically argue that perhaps it would be better to allow the player the option to challenge the testimony or not do so because by not giving the player the option there is the implicit assumption that victory is possible, but I would argue that it would, in this case, hurt the case in a narrative sense- the general theme of Kuroshima making a last stand in Misae's name, I feel, would get hurt a bit if the game then went "Hey do you want to do this at all?"

Finally, this is totally your choice, I would say that if you spent two hours on a fancase, it might be worth seeing it through to the end. I understand that this is something that you deeply object to on a personal level and find really frustrating, but if you've invested so much time in it, isn't it worth at least seeing where the story was headed, if that's something you were interested in? (Which is really what Inbou is about anyway- it's a character-and-story driven case). And maybe the ending will make that aspect of the gameplay understandable to you, or at least forgivable (not likely, I know). Maybe just give it a chance.

If anybody objects to my arguments feel free to interject, I won't respond- don't want to drag the thread into a debate- but I felt like bringing up a different perspective that might help Tiir understand where enigma was coming from, at least.
"With good friends by your side, anything is possible. If you really care for each other, it makes everyone stronger! Then you'll have the will to succeed! The world is filled with painful things, it's sad sometimes, and you won't be able to handle it by yourself. But just know: If there's someone that you love, you'll stay on the right path. And you won't ever give in! As long as you keep that person in your heart, you'll keep getting back up. Understand? That's why a Hero never loses!"
Image
Miki by Hershey's Chocolate Bars.
Averia
Posts: 9
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 9:40 pm
Spoken languages: French English

Re: [T] [CE] Inboubarashi-hen ☆

Post by Averia »

Time for an old lurker to finally post !
Spoiler : Final Testimony :
I like this case quite a lot. I also didn't have any issues with the final testimony as I usually try to see the failure convos and game overs.
But I do understand how it could be frustrating for people who actually spent a lot of time thinking about the final testimony only to later find out it was unbeatable. (speaking of which, the two who complained about it both wasted a lot of time trying to figure it out).
And on that point, I think the narration is misleading. I get what it means from a story point, that Kuroshima thinks he can find a flaw while there isn't, but every present seems to insist "There is a flaw" and even the failure convos rub it in.
Furthermore, when a game has a "perfect" testimony, usually it ends with the judge interrupting it after pressing everything.

Once again, I get it works better with how the story flow, but try saying that to someone who spent one hour or more trying to figure it out.
Post Reply