-
Greetings, Ladies and Gentlemen,
I am honored that you have followed my invitation.
I see before my eyes right now some of the finest detectives this world has to offer.
Now I am sure you wonder for what reason I might have called you.
Tonight, I shall present to you riddles, cases and mysteries that yearn for solution.
It shall be your task to take what I give you and work your way towards the truth.
So take a seat, have a tea and sharpen your minds, for our game shall begin now.
In this thread I want to invite all of you to play the game 'Black Stories', which I'm sure many of you know by a lot of different names.
I don't know if it'll be able to pick much interest, but there's no knowing without trying, right?
The game is simple: I will give you a short description of a case, only a bare minimum of facts.
Your goal is to resolve the case and find the truth behind the events there.
To reach that goal, you will ask me questions that I will answer, but I will only answer with 'Yes' or 'No'
So, here are the rules:
> Every question you give me must be answerable with 'Yes' or 'No'
> I will answer with 'Yes, 'No' or 'Irrelevant/ Unknown'
> To solve a case, simply state the truth of what happened
> There might be situations in which I may provide a little more information than just Y/N (i.e. if you're horribly stuck), but I will ask beforehand if you want me to reveal anything
> At points, it might be helpful for you to try and sum up the information you have gathered. I will then state whether your summary/ conclusion is correct
> Everyone may post as often and with as much questions as he/she wants to, even if I have not answered their previous question yet, but please don't overdo it (No 20 questions in one post, for example)
> I will try to answer as often as possible, but due to time zones I might not be around during the most active times. Please bear with me there.
>The riddles all consist of events that are possible, however often improbable, in the real world. Riddles where this the use of supernatural explanations is allowed will be specified as such.
> If you have a theory you want me to evaluate, you can state it in aqua. I will then answer if your theory is correct in red or tell you which parts are correct and which are wrong.
I will not force anyone to do it that way though, as not everyone likes Umineko references.
Some more meta information:
A number of those riddles might be widely known around the world, maybe with slight variations.
I won't be angry with anyone that asks questions but only realizes that they know the riddle already a bit later, but please don't post if you are sure you know the answer from the start.
If you are not sure if the riddle you know is the same one I'm asking, simply PM me.
If anyone knows a riddle he/she wants to let people solve, simply say so in the thread or PM me and I'll let you be the gamemaster once the current riddle is solved.
Alright, Ladies and Gentlemen,
excuse my lenghtly introduction, I must have bored you.
Now, let us begin the fun, shall we?
There are a large number of riddles I have ready for you.
Detective's Record:
Case 1 - The Man at the Window (http://www.shrinemaiden.org/forum/index.php?topic=4702.msg225980#msg225980) - SOLVED (http://www.shrinemaiden.org/forum/index.php?topic=4702.msg227793#msg227793)
Case 2 - Dead in the Desert (http://www.shrinemaiden.org/forum/index.php?topic=4702.msg228004#msg228004) - SOLVED (http://www.shrinemaiden.org/forum/index.php?topic=4702.msg229166#msg229166)
Case 3 - The Radio (http://www.shrinemaiden.org/forum/index.php?topic=4702.msg229610#msg229610) - SOLVED (http://www.shrinemaiden.org/forum/index.php?topic=4702.msg229687#msg229687)
Case 4 - Exotic Meal (http://www.shrinemaiden.org/forum/index.php?topic=4702.msg229687#msg229687) - SOLVED (http://www.shrinemaiden.org/forum/index.php?topic=4702.msg233555#msg233555)
Case 5 - Elevator and Stairs (http://www.shrinemaiden.org/forum/index.php?topic=4702.msg233817#msg233817) - SOLVED (http://www.shrinemaiden.org/forum/index.php?topic=4702.msg233863#msg233863)
Case 6 - The Sauna (http://www.shrinemaiden.org/forum/index.php?topic=4702.msg233863#msg233863) - SOLVED (http://www.shrinemaiden.org/forum/index.php?topic=4702.msg234681#msg234681)
Case 7 - A Strange Corpse (http://www.shrinemaiden.org/forum/index.php?topic=4702.msg234685#msg234685) - SOLVED (http://www.shrinemaiden.org/forum/index.php?topic=4702.msg234749#msg234749)
Case 8 - Murder Without Consequences (http://www.shrinemaiden.org/forum/index.php?topic=4702.msg234777#msg234777) - SOLVED (http://www.shrinemaiden.org/forum/index.php?topic=4702.msg235959#msg235959)
Case 9 - Thank You (http://www.shrinemaiden.org/forum/index.php?topic=4702.msg236011#msg236011) - SOLVED (http://www.shrinemaiden.org/forum/index.php?topic=4702.msg236072#msg236072)
Case 10 - The Mayor (http://www.shrinemaiden.org/forum/index.php?topic=4702.msg236072#msg236072) - SOLVED (http://www.shrinemaiden.org/forum/index.php?topic=4702.msg236666#msg236666)
Case 11 - Mother's Funeral (http://www.shrinemaiden.org/forum/index.php?topic=4702.msg236666#msg236666) - SOLVED (http://www.shrinemaiden.org/forum/index.php?topic=4702.msg236877#msg236877)
Case 12 - Simple Murder (http://www.shrinemaiden.org/forum/index.php?topic=4702.msg237358#msg237358) - SOLVED (http://www.shrinemaiden.org/forum/index.php?topic=4702.msg237946#msg237946)
Case 13 - Tram of Death (http://www.shrinemaiden.org/forum/index.php?topic=4702.msg237946#msg237946) - SOLVED (http://www.shrinemaiden.org/forum/index.php?topic=4702.msg238231#msg238231)
Case 14 - The Morning (http://www.shrinemaiden.org/forum/index.php?topic=4702.msg238295#msg238295) - SOLVED (http://www.shrinemaiden.org/forum/index.php?topic=4702.msg240791#msg240791)
Case 15 - Dangerous Call (http://www.shrinemaiden.org/forum/index.php?topic=4702.msg242487#msg242487) - SOLVED (http://www.shrinemaiden.org/forum/index.php?topic=4702.msg242725#msg242725)
Case 16 - Special Photo-Answer Round ~ Two Dead Men (http://www.shrinemaiden.org/forum/index.php?topic=4702.msg242901#msg242901) - SOLVED (http://www.shrinemaiden.org/forum/index.php?topic=4702.msg247877#msg247877)
Case 17 - Deadly Silence (http://www.shrinemaiden.org/forum/index.php?topic=4702.msg248926#msg248926) - SOLVED (http://www.shrinemaiden.org/forum/index.php?topic=4702.msg249929#msg249929)
Case 18 - Deadly Jump (http://www.shrinemaiden.org/forum/index.php?topic=4702.msg249975#msg249975) - SOLVED (http://www.shrinemaiden.org/forum/index.php?topic=4702.msg250758#msg250758)
Case 19 - Busy (http://www.shrinemaiden.org/forum/index.php?topic=4702.msg251853#msg251853) - SOLVED (http://www.shrinemaiden.org/forum/index.php?topic=4702.msg256897#msg256897)
~Create a Touhou Black Story Challenge~ (http://www.shrinemaiden.org/forum/index.php?topic=4702.msg257381#msg257381)
Case 20 - Touhou ~ Down to the bottom of Misty Lake (by Thaws) (http://www.shrinemaiden.org/forum/index.php?topic=4702.msg263383#msg263383) - SOLVED (http://www.shrinemaiden.org/forum/index.php?topic=4702.msg269620#msg269620)
Case 21 - Touhou ~ Suika (by Pesco) (http://www.shrinemaiden.org/forum/index.php?topic=5228.msg269680#msg269680) - SOLVED (http://www.shrinemaiden.org/forum/index.php?topic=5228.msg274446#msg274446)
Case 22 - Touhou ~ Cat (http://www.shrinemaiden.org/forum/index.php?topic=5228.msg274951#msg274951) - SOLVED (http://www.shrinemaiden.org/forum/index.php?topic=5228.msg276357#msg276357)
Case 23 - Touhou ~ Intruder (http://www.shrinemaiden.org/forum/index.php?topic=5228.msg276362#msg276362) - SOLVED (http://www.shrinemaiden.org/forum/index.php?topic=5228.msg277378#msg277378)
Case 24 - Touhou ~ Suwako (http://www.shrinemaiden.org/forum/index.php?topic=5228.msg277433#msg277433) - SOLVED (http://www.shrinemaiden.org/forum/index.php?topic=5228.msg279740#msg279740)
Case 25 - Touhou ~ Killer Unveiled (http://www.shrinemaiden.org/forum/index.php?topic=5228.msg279740#msg279740) - SOLVED (http://www.shrinemaiden.org/forum/index.php?topic=5228.msg282448#msg282448)
Case 26 - New Shoes (http://www.shrinemaiden.org/forum/index.php?topic=5228.msg284820#msg284820) - SOLVED (http://www.shrinemaiden.org/forum/index.php?topic=5228.msg286311#msg286311)
Case 27 - The One-Armed Men (http://www.shrinemaiden.org/forum/index.php?topic=5228.msg286311#msg286311) - SOLVED (http://www.shrinemaiden.org/forum/index.php?topic=5228.msg289628#msg289628)
Case 28 - Flickering (http://www.shrinemaiden.org/forum/index.php?topic=5228.msg289628#msg289628) - SOLVED (http://www.shrinemaiden.org/forum/index.php?topic=5228.msg290438#msg290438)
Case 29 - Overslept (http://www.shrinemaiden.org/forum/index.php?topic=5228.msg290438#msg290438) - SOLVED (http://www.shrinemaiden.org/forum/index.php?topic=5228.msg293801#msg293801)
Case 30 - The High-Rise Building (http://www.shrinemaiden.org/forum/index.php?topic=5228.msg295174#msg295174) - SOLVED (http://www.shrinemaiden.org/forum/index.php?topic=5228.msg297976#msg297976)
Case 31 - The Bank (http://www.shrinemaiden.org/forum/index.php?topic=5228.msg298186#msg298186) - SOLVED (http://www.shrinemaiden.org/forum/index.php?topic=5228.msg307448#msg307448)
Case 32 - A Spoonful of Grandma (http://www.shrinemaiden.org/forum/index.php?topic=5228.msg310476#msg310476) - SOLVED (http://www.shrinemaiden.org/forum/index.php?topic=5228.msg314058#msg314058)
Case 33 - Cursed Vacation (http://www.shrinemaiden.org/forum/index.php?topic=5228.msg315916#msg315916) - SOLVED (http://www.shrinemaiden.org/forum/index.php?topic=5228.msg334580#msg334580)
-
Welcome back, my dear players, to the second opening of our Black Stories.
Continuing where the last thread ended, it is now the time for the next Touhou riddle.
This one is presented by the master of mindhax, Pesco.
Have fun, everyone.
Twentyfirst Case: Suika
One Suika went to Eientei and asked for eight rooms
-
FIRST!
shot
Was it the Suika we all know and love?
-
Is the particular Suika of a huge size?
Is she a leader of a group of Suikas?
EDIT: Are the rooms real?
-
Oh right, something I forgot:
Since Pesco is phone-posting, he will not make a separate post with all the questions quoted.
He will instead edit the posts with the questions and add the answers in there.
-
I'll try make separate posts where I can, but if I'm phoneposting, I'll edit the answer into your question post.
Was it the Suika we all know and love?
Yes
Is the particular Suika of a huge size?
No
Is she a leader of a group of Suikas?
No
Are the rooms real?
Yes
-
Hooray a new one!
Did Suika intend on using all eight rooms?
If so, did she plan on using all eight only for herself?
Was Suika intoxicated during this scenario?
Also, question about the process of this. If another person hasn't posted yet, and you have more questions after he edited the post with the questions, do you simply edit your own post again?
-
Did Suika intend on using all eight rooms?
Yes
If so, did she plan on using all eight only for herself?
Yes
Was Suika intoxicated during this scenario?
Irrelevant
Also, question about the process of this. If another person hasn't posted yet, and you have more questions after he edited the post with the questions, do you simply edit your own post again?
Make a new post. If I edit your post to put answers, I'll make a placeholder post to separate all the answers out later.
-
Does she plan on using her ability to clone herself?
Does she plan on using all the rooms at the same time?
-
Does she plan on using her ability to clone herself?
Not exactly
Does she plan on using all the rooms at the same time?
Yes
-
Does she plan on there being more than one of her?
Is there a reason she chose Eientei over any other option?
-
Does she plan on there being more than one of her?
No
Is there a reason she chose Eientei over any other option?
I live in Eientei. If she went to SDM, I wouldn't have seen this. Irrelvant :D
-
Ah, I see!
Well then, is if the request was denied or not relevant?
Did she plan on having these rooms for a long duration of time?
-
Well then, is if the request was denied or not relevant?
Irrelevant
Did she plan on having these rooms for a long duration of time?
Irrelevant
-
Did she plan on using the rooms to live in them?
Did she plan on using the rooms to store things within them?
-
Did she plan on using the rooms to live in them?
No
Did she plan on using the rooms to store things within them?
No
-
Are all eight rooms to be used for the same purpose?
Is the number eight relevant? (As in can it be 7 or 9 instead?)
-
Did she care what eight rooms they were, as in, did they have to be certain specific rooms?
-
Was this Suika part of many?
Is Tewi involved?
Is Kaguya involved?
Is Eirin involved?
Is Reisen involved?
-
Are all eight rooms to be used for the same purpose?
Yes
Is the number eight relevant?
Yes
As in can it be 7 or 9 instead?
No
Did she care what eight rooms they were, as in,did they have to be certain specific rooms?
No
Was this Suika part of many?
No
Is Tewi involved?
No
Is Kaguya involved?
No
Is Eirin involved?
No
Is Reisen involved?
No
-
I know you already answered this in a different form of words, but I just wanted to confirm for sure.
Is there only one Suika in the entire case?
And she intends to do an action in all eight rooms all at the same time?
-
Is the ability of Suika (controlling density) playing a role in this case?
Is the personality of Suika playing a role in this case (As in this is something that only a person like Suika would do)?
Did you choose Suika for any specific reasons other than personal preferences?
Are the rooms used for holding a PARTY?
Is there anyone else other than Suika involved? (Can't believe we forgot to ask this!)
-
Is anybody else besides Suika and the residents of Eientei involved?
Was the person she was asking rooms from important?
-
Is there only one Suika in the entire case?
Yes
And she intends to do an action in all eight rooms all at the same time?
Irrelevant
Is the ability of Suika (controlling density) playing a role in this case?
For that specific ability, No
Did you choose Suika for any specific reasons other than personal preferences?
Yes, because it makes more sense when you see the answer
Is the personality of Suika playing a role in this case (As in this is something that only a person like Suika would do)?
No
Are the rooms used for holding a PARTY?
Irrelevant
Is there anyone else other than Suika involved? (Can't believe we forgot to ask this!)
Yes, Tewi is feeding you lies No
Is anybody else besides Suika and the residents of Eientei involved?
Nobody else involved
Was the person she was asking rooms from important?
No
-
So, what she's going to do in the rooms is relevant, correct?
Does the number of rooms she chose have some type of relation to her?
Shot in the dark here, but does it have anything to do with the point her first appearance happened to be the 8th Touhou game to be released?
-
Did Suika have some sort of plan?
Is Suika performing an experiment?
Did Suika intend to involve anybody else later?
-
Not that specific ability, huh?
Is her ability to clone herself playing a role in this case?
Is her ability to gather others playing a role in this case?
Is her ability to enlarge/shrink herself playing a role in this case?
Is there any relation to any canon events?
-
So, what she's going to do in the rooms is relevant, correct?
Yes but not of any importance
Does the number of rooms she chose have some type of relation to her?
Yes
Shot in the dark here, but does it have anything to do with the point her first appearance happened to be the 8th Touhou game to be released?
No
Did Suika have some sort of plan?
Irrelevent
Is Suika performing an experiment?
No
Did Suika intend to involve anybody else later?
No
Is her ability to clone herself playing a role in this case?
Yes but not exactly so
Is her ability to gather others playing a role in this case?
No
Is her ability to enlarge/shrink herself playing a role in this case?
Irrelevant
Is there any relation to any canon events?
No
-
Was Suika intending to enter the rooms?
Yes
Was Suika intending to stay in the rooms?
Irrelevant
-
is it alcohol related?
No
-
Did something happen to Suika that lead her asking for eight rooms?
No
-
Answers are in your posts.
Was Suika intending to enter the rooms?
Yes
Was Suika intending to stay in the rooms?
Irrelevant
is it alcohol related?
No
Did something happen to Suika that lead her asking for eight rooms?
No
-
Would she invoked the ability to clone herself afterward?
Did Suika want to get something done by asking for eight rooms?
-
I don't understand your first question.
Second one: Irrelevant
-
As in, after she rented the eight rooms, would she clone herself to do something?
-
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't 8 the "ya" portion in names? Like Yakumo meaning 8 clouds? Doesn't the number 8 also mean something like Divine in japanese?
These questions aren't intended as part of the case, but could be treated as such. I asked out of curiosity.
-
As in, after she rented the eight rooms, would she clone herself to do something?
She uses the cloning ability but this is not important to the case. It's a difficult one to answer.
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't 8 the "ya" portion in names? Like Yakumo meaning 8 clouds? Doesn't the number 8 also mean something like Divine in japanese?
These questions aren't intended as part of the case, but could be treated as such. I asked out of curiosity.
If the riddle was about the Yakumo or Yasaka, that might be a factor but not this time.
-
because it makes more sense when you see the answer
T_T
So Suika wants 8 rooms in Eientei all to herself?
Is she planning to start an illegal brewery with her own help? >_>
-
So Suika wants 8 rooms in Eientei all to herself?
Yes
Is she planning to start an illegal brewery with her own help?
More likely than you think, but No
-
Will she be using more than one of these rooms at any given time?
Will she be using them for more than 24 hours?
-
Will she be using more than one of these rooms at any given time?
Yes
Will she be using them for more than 24 hours?
Irrelevant
-
Is the spacing of these 8 rooms relevant?
Are all 8 rooms in a line?
-
Is the spacing of these 8 rooms relevant?
Irrelevant
Are all 8 rooms in a line?
Irrelevant
-
Right, guess we should try and find another focus.
Does the time of day matter?
No
Are the days closing in on an upcoming event?
No
-
Did she need to do something that requires the 8 rooms?
Sort of
-
Did she leave something in the rooms?
Yes
If yes, in every room?
Yes
Are all the items left in there the same thing?
Yes
Does eight rooms corresponse to eight things to do in each room?
Yes, if you mean one thing in each room
-
Answers editted
Does the time of day matter?
No
Are the days closing in on an upcoming event?
No
Did she need to do something that requires the 8 rooms?
Sort of
Did she leave something in the rooms?
Yes
If yes, in every room?
Yes
Are all the items left in there the same thing?
Yes
Does eight rooms corresponse to eight things to do in each room?
Yes, if you mean one thing in each room
-
Did she leave sake in the rooms?
-
or Was she making sake in the rooms?
-
Did she leave sake in the rooms?
No
making sake?
No
-
Is sake involved?
Are there exactly eight items?
Are the items unique? (As in not more than one of the same item)
-
Is sake involved?
No
Are there exactly eight items?
Yes
Are the items unique? (As in not more than one of the same item)
It just so happens they are all different from each other
-
Does she need only eight back of her item?
Does she care about what happens to the other items in the other rooms she's not given?
-
Does she need only eight back of her item?
Irrelevant
Does she care about what happens to the other items in the other rooms she's not given?
Irrelevant
-
Did she leave one item in every room?
Yes
Are the items similar in one way or another?
Yes
Are the items lifeless?
Yes
-
Did she want to leave these items in the rooms in the first place?
Yes
Are these items common?
Yes but one of them might not be so common
-
Does she intend to take them back?
Irrelevant
Did any changes happen to the items while they're in the rooms?
No
Is the origin of the items relevant?
No
Does she hope to obtain something by putting the items in the rooms?
Irrelevant
Are the items magical?
No
-
Answers in your posts. I'm having such fun, are you? :D
Did she leave one item in every room?
Yes
Are the items similar in one way or another?
Yes
Are the items lifeless?
Yes
Did she want to leave these items in the rooms in the first place?
Yes
Are these items common?
Yes but one of them might not be so common
Does she intend to take them back?
Irrelevant
Did any changes happen to the items while they're in the rooms?
No
Is the origin of the items relevant?
No
Does she hope to obtain something by putting the items in the rooms?
Irrelevant
Are the items magical?
No
-
Do the items belong to Suika?
Do the items belong to another person?
-
Do the items belong to Suika?
These things can't exactly be owned
Do the items belong to another person?
See above
-
Are the items corpses?
Are the items liquid?
Are the items gas?
-
Are the items corpses?
No
Are the items liquid?
No
Are the items gas?
No
-
Do the items make up a set?
Yes
Suika asked for the eight rooms with the intention to store the items?
Yes
-
Did she have these items already when she asked for rooms?
Yes
Are these items huge? (Alternatively, is the size of the items relevant?)
Irrelevant
Do the items have to be kept indoors?
No
Are the items not placed in the same room because there may be undesirable results if they're placed together?
No
Or is it because one room won't fit all of them?
Yes
-
Are the items solid?
No
Are the items physical?
No
Are the items the same?
Of the same kind, Yes
Is it possible for one of the items to be missing from the eight?
No
-
:V
Do the items make up a set?
Yes
Suika asked for the eight rooms with the intention to store the items?
Yes
Did she have these items already when she asked for rooms?
Yes
Are these items huge? (Alternatively, is the size of the items relevant?)
Irrelevant
Do the items have to be kept indoors?
No
Are the items not placed in the same room because there may be undesirable results if they're placed together?
No
Or is it because one room won't fit all of them?
Yes
Are the items solid?
No
Are the items physical?
No
Are the items the same?
Of the same kind, Yes
Is it possible for one of the items to be missing from the eight?
No
-
Hmm... Not magical, neither solid, liquid or air... comes in eight... and can't exactly be owned.
Was Suika planning to place each item in each of the rooms?
Was it for storage purposes?
Are the items related to light?
Are the items related to shadow?
-
Was Suika planning to place each item in each of the rooms?
Yes
Was it for storage purposes?
The rooms, Yes
Are the items related to light?
No
Are the items related to shadow?
No
-
Is she placing these items their for herself?
Are the items perhaps for someone else?
-
Is she placing these items their for herself?
Irrelevant
Are the items perhaps for someone else?
Irrelevant
-
Are any of the items related to an element?
Did Suika know why she placed the items in the 8 rooms?
-
Are any of the items related to an element?
No
Did Suika know why she placed the items in the 8 rooms?
Irrelevant
-
Are the items knicknacks?
Can Suika use the items for some sort of purpose?
-
Are the items knicknacks?
No
Can Suika use the items for some sort of purpose?
Yes
-
Can a potential use for the items be as weapons? This would mean like a big stick could be used as a sword,
Are any of the items actually weapons?
Are any of the items other types of equipment?
Does it even matter what the items are?
Does it even matter what the items can do?
-
Can a potential use for the items be as weapons? This would mean like a big stick could be used as a sword,
No
Are any of the items actually weapons?
No
Are any of the items other types of equipment?
No
Does it even matter what the items are?
Yes
Does it even matter what the items can do?
No
Let's throw around some hints.
I'm sure you guys have made some assumptions based on the answers so far. Learning from the last case, NEVER assume anything. If there's any room for a different interpretation, question it.
And think outside the box a bit for this one :V
-
Are the items alcohol?
-
Are the items alcohol?
No
-
Is every room exactly the same?
-
Are the items colours?
Did Suika know what the items were?
-
Were the item's gases?
-
Stop repeating questions, Thundr!
-
Suika had to get several large things from one place to another, and decided to stop at eintei for the night, and need 8 rooms to fit all her stuff. She carried these items useing her mini-suika army.
Was a ritual of some kind involved?
Was Suika getting these items from one place to another, and stopping at eintei for a while?
Did she leave them at eintei?
-
Is every room exactly the same?
Irrelevant
Are the items colours?
No
Did Suika know what the items were?
Irrelevant
Were the item's gases?
No
Suika had to get several large things from one place to another, and decided to stop at eintei for the night, and need 8 rooms to fit all her stuff. She carried these items useing her mini-suika army.
No
Was a ritual of some kind involved?
No
Was Suika getting these items from one place to another, and stopping at eintei for a while?
No
Did she leave them at eintei?
Irrelevant
-
Are the items objects?
Are black holes involved?
Was Suika going to take them out later?
-
Are the "items" ghosts?
-
Are the items alive?
-
Are the items objects?
No
Are black holes involved?
No
Was Suika going to take them out later?
Irrelevant
Are the "items" ghosts?
No
Are the items alive?
No
-
Are these items normally not found elsewhere?
Is any form of sound involved?
-
Are these items normally not found elsewhere?
They *can* be found almost anywhere
Is any form of sound involved?
Not today
-
Are these items some sort of tool?
-
Are these items some sort of tool?
Yes
I suggest you guys make a summary and sift through what is relevant or not. Some of the clues may seem impossible but that's why I told you to think out the box.
-
Quick summary:
Suika
-Suika intend to use all eight rooms by herself, which means no others are involved.
-Suika didn't use any of her abilities except she"not exactly" used the ability to clone herself (Apparently notimportant to the case). There won't be more of her though. <--doesn't make any sense to me. :(
The items
-There's an item left by Suika in each of the eight rooms, these items can't all fit in a room, yet they're not physical.
-The items are some sort of tool, they're similar yet different from each other.
-They come in a set of eight and one can't be missing from the rest.
-All are common except one, but they can be found almost anywhere
-Can't be owned
What I can see from this summary is lots of unanswered questions. ???
Is Suika cloning something other than herself?
Did Suika know she had these "items"?
Did Suika knowingly place one item in each room?
-
Suika
-Suika intend to use all eight rooms by herself, which means no others are involved.
-Suika didn't use any of her abilities except she"not exactly" used the ability to clone herself (Apparently notimportant to the case). There won't be more of her though. <--doesn't make any sense to me. :(
Think about what her cloning ability does from a different perspective
The items
-There's an item left by Suika in each of the eight rooms, these items can't all fit in a room, yet they're not physical.
-The items are some sort of tool, they're similar yet different from each other.
-They come in a set of eight and one can't be missing from the rest.
-All are common except one, but they can be found almost anywhere
-Can't be owned
What I can see from this summary is lots of unanswered questions. ???
Ask yourself what assumptions were made and which details are confirmed facts. The underlined one is a big one. Also, the details do not all carry the same importance value.
Is Suika cloning something other than herself?
Cloning as in making a copy, No
Did Suika know she had these "items"?
She is not conscious of them, so No
Did Suika knowingly place one item in each room?
If Suika is seeing things from where I am, Yes
-
Are the items... information?
-
Are the rooms physical?
Does this "set" of items consist of more than eight of them?
Suika only had eight?
-
Are the items... information?
They very well can be
Are the rooms physical?
No
Does this "set" of items consist of more than eight of them?
Yes
Suika only had eight?
Yes, she's only using 8
-
room for a different interpretation
Heh, was this a hint on that rooms can be not physical? It surely led me to thinking that.
Were they... room for memory?
ohlol
Suika went to ask someone at Eientei at that time how she could have more room for memory because she needed to remember eight things. She was told if she cloned herself, there'd be more grey matter hence better memory!
-
Are the contents of the information relevant to the case?
-
Were they... room for memory?
No
Suika went to ask someone at Eientei at that time how she could have more room for memory because she needed to remember eight things. She was told if she cloned herself, there'd be more grey matter hence better memory!
No
Are the contents of the information relevant to the case?
Not really
-
Do the items represent the locations of gensokyo?
Would she have managed to store them?
-
Were they rooms for improvement?
Were the items skills?
Were the items abilities?
-
Do the items represent the locations of gensokyo?
No
Would she have managed to store them?
Irrelevant
Were they rooms for improvement?
No
Were the items skills?
No
Were the items abilities?
No
-
Can this set of items only be found in Gensokyo?
-
Suika did this for her own sake?
Suika did this for someone else's sake?
Are the rooms...information holders?...of some sort?
-
Do the items and rooms involve the mind?
-
Can this set of items only be found in Gensokyo?
No
Suika did this for her own sake?
Suika did this for someone else's sake?
Irrelevant
Are the rooms...information holders?...of some sort?
In this case Yes because they will hold the answer to the riddle. That's info don't you think?
Do the items and rooms involve the mind?
Yes
-
Is Suika's ability to vaporize herself relevant?
Are the items physical? Are they "things" in the sense that they exist in the physical universe?
-
Is Suika's ability to vaporize herself relevant?
No
Are the items physical?
No
Are they "things" in the sense that they exist in the physical universe?
No
-
Mind...Are the items some kind of supernatural thing like a spirit or a ghost? Or soul?
-
Mind...Are the items some kind of supernatural thing like a spirit or a ghost? Or soul?
No to all that
-
Do these items have to do with feelings?
Time?
Beliefs?
Characteristics?
-
Do these items have to do with feelings?
Time?
Beliefs?
Characteristics?
No to all
-
Is mindhax involved?
Is the brain involved?
Are the items something in Suika's mind?
Do they have to do with thoughts? Knowledge?
-
Is mindhax involved?
No
Is the brain involved?
According to Chomsky, Yes
Are the items something in Suika's mind?
No
Do they have to do with thoughts?
No
Knowledge?
By themselves, No
-
Do the items or rooms have to do with speech?
Are the items words?
-
Do the items or rooms have to do with speech?
Yes
Are the items words?
No and Yes
-
By room, is she asking for room in a sentence to fit the words in?
-
By room, is she asking for room in a sentence to fit the words in?
No
Rereading would be pretty hawt right about now :D
-
It's established the items aren't physical, but are the rooms physical?
EDIT: And are the items something built by words, such as a phrase, sentence, etc?
-
Some items are words and some aren't?
-
Are the items voices? sounds?
-
Rooms are not physical
The items are not built by words
Some can be words and some can not
Not voices and not sounds
-
Are the eight rooms part of Eintei?
-
Are the items written?
Did Suika want some paper to write on?
-
Are the eight rooms part of Eintei?
No
Are the items written?
Yes
Did Suika want some paper to write on?
No, she asked for rooms remember?
-
Are the items English?
Are the items Japanese?
Was the uncommon one ゐ?
Aaaaaarrrrrggggggggggggwhaaaaatrooooooooms ???
-
Are the items English?
Yes
Are the items Japanese?
No
Was the uncommon one ゐ?
No
Aaaaaarrrrrggggggggggggwhaaaaatrooooooooms ???
Yes
-
She was setting out letters to specify the cardinal directions - N, NE, E, SE, etc.
EDIT: Was each item a single letter?
A word?
A sentence?
-
She was setting out letters to specify the cardinal directions - N, NE, E, SE, etc.
No
Was each item a single letter?
Yes
A word?
A sentence?
No
-
Do these 8 letters spell something out?
Is the order in which they're placed important?
-
Do these 8 letters spell something out?
Yes
Is the order in which they're placed important?
Yes but not really
-
Yes but not really
T_T
Are there multiple copies of the same letter?
Is the word palindromic?
Is it a commonly used English word?
Is the word relevant to why Suika rented 8 rooms?
-
Are there multiple copies of the same letter?
No
Is the word palindromic?
No
Is it a commonly used English word?
Yes and No
Is the word relevant to why Suika rented 8 rooms?
Yes
-
Yes and No
T_T
Is the word a number?
Is Suika placing these letters around as a joke, or a pun?
If neither of these work I may resort to Hangman. T_T
-
Is the word a number?
Yes and No
Is Suika placing these letters around as a joke, or a pun?
I don't think so
If neither of these work I may resort to Hangman. T_T
No and Yes :V
-
Yes and No
Are you just not answering honestly any more?
Is the number between 1 and 50?
-
Are you just not answering honestly any more?
No
Is the number between 1 and 50?
Yes
-
Is the number forty-two?
Is the number fourteen?
Is the number thirteen?
Is the number eighteen? (If so, is she celebrating her 18th birthday?)
Is the number forty-one?
I can't think of any other 8-letter numbers off the top of my head right now.
-
Is the number forty-two?
Is the number fourteen?
Is the number thirteen?
Is the number eighteen? (If so, is she celebrating her 18th birthday?)
Is the number forty-one?
I can't think of any other 8-letter numbers off the top of my head right now.
....No
-
Was it a two-digit number?
Are the rooms anything magical?
Is this whole case a word riddle!?
-
Was it a two-digit number?
No
Are the rooms anything magical?
No
Is this whole case a word riddle!?
Yes :D
-
Will be solve this riddle within this Millenium?
Will this riddle be solved before the end of time? :V
-
Will be solve this riddle within this Millenium?
Will this riddle be solved before the end of time? :V
Before the end of the weekend to be exact
-
By no and yes, you mean there's both numbers and english letters in the 8-letter word?
-
By no and yes, you mean there's both numbers and english letters in the 8-letter word?
If you mean numericals, No
-
Does the word include a number, along with a noun?
The room don't happen to be just someone's memory, are they?
-
Does the word include a number, along with a noun?
Yes, that would make it two words wouldn't it?
The room don't happen to be just someone's memory, are they?
No
-
Are the rooms not physical as in they're just empty space?
You answered before the Suika "entered" the rooms, did physically she entered some kind of place?
Is it just a 8-letter word that just happen to have a number within it?
Is it a number smaller than eleven?
-
Are the rooms not physical as in they're just empty space?
Yes, you can put it that way
You answered before the Suika "entered" the rooms, did physically she entered some kind of place?
No
Is it just a 8-letter word that just happen to have a number within it?
Yes
Is it a number smaller than eleven?
Yes
-
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
________
| |
|
|
|
|_______
>Insert E. Is there any?
Is it a Japanese word spelt in English?
Is it someone's name?
Is it more important to find out what the word is rather than what the rooms exactly were?
(For people with 30 posts per page) Oh man, 6th page and we still haven't figured this out. :(
-
Insert E. Is there any?
Yes
Is it a Japanese word spelt in English?
Yes
Is it someone's name?
Yes
Is it more important to find out what the word is rather than what the rooms exactly were?
No and Yes
-
Is this person a resident of Gensokyo?
-
Is this person a resident of Gensokyo?
Yes
-
Gah. Gensokyo resident, eight letters, with a number in it.
Is the word Yagokoro?
-
Gah. Gensokyo resident, eight letters, with a number in it.
Is the word Yagokoro?
うふふふふ
No
[/i]
-
Yeah, I remembered that there are no duplicate letters.
Is it a first name?
A surname?
Two names?
-
Is it a first name?
Yes
A surname?
No
Two names?
No
-
Is the number hidden in the name in English (One, Two, Three) or Japanese (Ichi, Ni, San)?
-
Is the number hidden in the name in English (One, Two, Three) or Japanese (Ichi, Ni, San)?
No and No
-
Is it a kanji within the name?
Is it from obscure language I've never heard of?
-
I've been told to rephrase.
Is the number hidden within the name in a well-known language?
Is the language European?
Is it African?
-
Is the number hidden within the name in a well-known language?
Wrong assumption
Is the language European?
Yes
Is it African?
No
-
But you said we were spelling out a name and a number!
...Fine. Time for language guessing time.
Is the language French? Italian? German? Spanish? Latin?
-
But you said we were spelling out a name and a number!
... (http://www.shrinemaiden.org/forum/index.php?topic=5228.msg273791#msg273791)
Is the language French? Italian? German? Spanish? Latin?
No to all of them
-
Does this riddle expect us to understand a European language that isn't English?
Is knowledge of the language this number is in necessary to solve the riddle?
-
Does this riddle expect us to understand a European language that isn't English?
No
Is knowledge of the language this number is in necessary to solve the riddle?
Not really
-
So basically the number lead is useless, and we're back to 'a word consisting of a Touhou character + a number in a language no-one here knows'?
-
So basically the number lead is useless, and we're back to 'a word consisting of a Touhou character + a number in a language no-one here knows'?
No
-
You mentioned earlier that the letter E was present. Was it in the number segment?
-
You mentioned earlier that the letter E was present. Was it in the number segment?
Yes
-
Is the number less than six?
Does the number have exactly four letters when spelt?
-
Is the number less than six?
Yes
Does the number have exactly four letters when spelt?
No
-
Therefore the number is one.
So am I right in thinking we're looking for an 8-letter word consisting of a Touhou character's name followed by the letters 'one'? Or is it an anagram?
-
Therefore the number is one.
Yes so far but the answer is more than just that alone
So am I right in thinking we're looking for an 8-letter word consisting of a Touhou character's name followed by the letters 'one'?
Yes
Or is it an anagram?
No
-
Does this combination proceed to spell a full English word?
Is the character in question from the Windows games?
-
Does this combination proceed to spell a full English word?
No
Is the character in question from the Windows games?
Yes
-
So wait, it's going to be a jumbled mess? Like RUMIAONE? (If that's a horribly misspelt attempt to write Room I Own I will shoot you myself.)
-
So wait, it's going to be a jumbled mess? Like RUMIAONE? (If that's a horribly misspelt attempt to write Room I Own I will shoot you myself.)
No
-
Will it spell a Japanese word in romaji?
-
Will it spell a Japanese word in romaji?
No
-
Is the final term SUIKAONE, then? It's the only other thing I can think of. >_>
-
Is the final term SUIKAONE, then? It's the only other thing I can think of. >_>
No and Yes :D
-
Is this case related to Mah-jong
-
Suika Won? She was hanging up the letters to rub in she'd won something?
-
Suika Won? She was hanging up the letters to rub in she'd won something?
No. Won isn't a number
-
She wasn't filling in a crossword, was she? Or playing Scrabble?
-
She wasn't filling in a crossword, was she? Or playing Scrabble?
Nice thinking but No to both
-
She was giving a signature/writing her name, where there are 8 spaces. She was a Suika clone - the first, to be exact, so she wrote her name down as SUIKA ONE...?
-
She was giving a signature/writing her name, where there are 8 spaces. She was a Suika clone - the first, to be exact, so she wrote her name down as SUIKA ONE...?
Underlined is wrong. The rest is the right line of thought but not exactly the answer
-
Then it was to show she was the original? Or she was trying to sound witty and call herself Suika The First, but because there wasn't enough space she went for Suika One instead.
-
Then it was to show she was the original? Or she was trying to sound witty and call herself Suika The First, but because there wasn't enough space she went for Suika One instead.
No
-
Did she fill in ONE right after SUIKA in the same segment? Did she write it when asked to give a name, or a password?
-
Did she fill in ONE right after SUIKA in the same segment? Did she write it when asked to give a name, or a password?
No to all
-
Is she inventing a new chemical and calling it SUIKAONE?
-
Is she inventing a new chemical and calling it SUIKAONE?
No
-
Name: SUIKA
Number of Residents: ONE?
I have no idea what I'm doing. >_>
-
Name: SUIKA
Number of Residents: ONE?
I have no idea what I'm doing. >_>
No
-
Her actual name is One Suika, as it's specified that One Suika asked for 8 rooms. Then because Japanese names are surname-first, she signed as SUIKA ONE.
-
Her actual name is One Suika, as it's specified that One Suika asked for 8 rooms. Then because Japanese names are surname-first, she signed as SUIKA ONE.
Yes for the underlined
-
Did she mispell oni as one?
-
Did she mispell oni as one?
No
-
Was the name written in uppercase? Lower case? Correct capitalisation?
-
Was the name written in uppercase? Lower case? Correct capitalisation?
Irrelevant
-
Did she write it as SUIKA ONE? Or SUIKAONE? (i.e. was there a space?)
-
Did she write it as SUIKA ONE? Or SUIKAONE? (i.e. was there a space?)
Wrong assumption
-
So she wrote Suika on one line, then One on the next?
-
So suika was not signing her name?
is her handrighting really huge?
Was Splitting involved?
-
She was entering her name and initially entered SUIKA. When she realised there were 8 spaces, she threw in ONE afterwards.
This theory direct from my sister who I'm trying to get to post in RPG. :|
-
So she wrote Suika on one line, then One on the next?
No
So suika was not signing her name?
She was not signing her name
is her handrighting really huge?
No
Was Splitting involved?
Yes
She was entering her name and initially entered SUIKA. When she realised there were 8 spaces, she threw in ONE afterwards.
No
-
So Suika split herself up?
But there was still only ever one Suika?
-
So Suika split herself up?
Yes and No
But there was still only ever one Suika?
Yes
-
That's the 5th 'Yes and No' answer I've had here. >_>
She just separated into different parts rather than different Suikas?
-
She just separated into different parts rather than different Suikas?
Yes, in a sense that's what happened
-
Did she split her hands up and they both tried to write at the same time?
EDIT: Was she signing herself up as an organ donor?
-
Did she split her hands up and they both tried to write at the same time?
EDIT: Was she signing herself up as an organ donor?
No to both
-
Okay, I'm just about out of ideas.
Was she filing for divorce? As in, a split?
-
Okay, I'm just about out of ideas.
Was she filing for divorce? As in, a split?
Lolwut?!?!?! From who? No
-
I feel physically ill from how stupid I must be to not have solved this by now. It's probably fucking obvious and I've just missed it.
Did she split herself up in order to write? Or did she have to write to be allowed to split up?
Did she buy something that cost her an arm and a leg and split them off so she could pay?
-
Did she split herself up in order to write?
No
Or did she have to write to be allowed to split up?
Not quite so
Did she buy something that cost her an arm and a leg and split them off so she could pay?
No
-
Did she physically split herself up?
-
Were there eight words?
-
Did she write on the ground?
Did she write on herself?
Did she write it as ONE SUIKA? Or ONESUIKA? (i.e. was there a space?)
-
When i said splitting I meant Suika's power to Split herself into many little suikas WICH IS NOT CLONING BECAUSE CLONING IS MAKEING AN EXACT COPY WICH IS NOT WHAT SUIKA DOES Is this the "Splitting" we are talking about?
-
Did she physically split herself up?
No
Were there eight words?
No
Did she write on the ground?
Irrelevant
Did she write on herself?
Irrelevant
Did she write it as ONE SUIKA? Or ONESUIKA? (i.e. was there a space?)
No space
When i said splitting I meant Suika's power to Split herself into many little suikas WICH IS NOT CLONING BECAUSE CLONING IS MAKEING AN EXACT COPY WICH IS NOT WHAT SUIKA DOES Is this the "Splitting" we are talking about?
Yes, in a way
-
Is the person she asked for the "Rooms" from relevent?
-
Is the person she asked for the "Rooms" from relevent?
No
-
Is this question solvable?
Is it absolutely ridiculous?
-
Is this question solvable?
Yes
Is it absolutely ridiculous?
Headdesking guaranteed or your money back
-
So she did split herself up, but not physically.
Yes
Did she... split herself up mentally?
No
Is the manner of her way of splitting up relevant?
It would help you see the exact answer
-
Can the word be seen?
By Sukia, No. In the answer, Yes
Is the word written?
For the answer, Yes
Will there be a TWOSUIKA?
No, but there can be
-
Good questions were asked. It's like you guys have found the key and the hole. Take the next step of putting the key in and unlocking. There is a specific detail I'll need before I declare it solved. Got to think a little extraordinary to get it.
-
Was the fact that she went to Eientei (or any other household) relevant to the case at all, as in can Suika really do this in just anywhere? (except that it allowed you to see it happening)
No
Was Suika playing some kind of game with herself?
No
Did she split her conscious?
No
There's no new posts so I suppose I should just edit in my questions:
Are the rooms....... mushrooms? :V
Are the rooms part of Suika?
Are the rooms in Suika's mind?
Do the rooms exist in reality?
Is Suika using a computer? (Eientei, Fanon Kaguya, NEET, chatrooms, computers there)
Better confirm what I think happened really happened.
Suika went to Eientei to ask for eight "rooms". She somehow (not physically) "entered" and "left" one letter in each room, the letters are A, E, I, K, N, O, S, U, because they spells out her name, ONESUIKA.
-
Case solved!
One Suika asked for 8 rooms. But how would she make use of all of them?
/O/N/E/S/U/I/K/A/
The original riddle went so:
Ten men check into a hotel but there are only 6 rooms. How will you fit ten men in 6 rooms without making them gay?
/T/E/N/M/E/N/
The flavour of the riddle suggests that one Suika split herself up into those letter parts to go into the rooms.
Let's all headdesk now :D
-
(http://filesmelt.com/dl/123724675475.jpg)
-
...
What.
ARRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGheaddesk
mindhax
:o
This riddle's so difficult because we're trying to make sense since that's what we expected we have to do after 20 riddles of the same kind.
-
Now I can finally do it:
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA :D
Oh god, I had so much fun watching this. You were dancing so close around the answer so often.
Nice work everyone, really. You must have been close to despair pretty often.
That was one mean riddle, but that was to be expected from Pesco, wasn't it? >:3
I'll post the next riddle later tonight, until then I'll let you rage about this solution a bit more ;)
And btw, you already used up one fifth of this new topic for one riddle only :V
-
And btw, you already used up one fifth of this new topic for one riddle only :V
And here I was feeling weird about taking up over 150 posts from the last thread for my riddle.
Also:
(http://img707.imageshack.us/img707/8820/argm.gif)
ARGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
-
dahahhaehaheeoeoheo
-
brb suicide
-
The flavour of the riddle suggests that one Suika split herself up into those letter parts to go into the rooms.
I
you
what
how
FFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
-
...*fights to avoid headdesking* *fails miserably* *headdesks so hard that head goes through desk, through floor, through the core of the earth, and all the way out into space*
-
Probably wasn't a good thing that my desk is made of glass. Off to the emergency room I go!
-
Now then my dear players,
now that your your desks have felt your wrath
and the resulting wounds on your heads have hopefully been treated,
let us continue on our path.
The next riddle you will have to solve was created by Sir Prody.
You know the procedures, so gather your mind and start the guessing.
This one should not be as mindhaxing as the last one, but we'll see.
Twentysecond case: Cat
A girl glanced at her pet cat.
She immediately declared a spellcard and chased her out
You know the drill Prody, I'll leave answering up to you.
-
Are the girls Satori and Orin?
Are the girls Ran and Chen?
-
Is the identity of the girl relevant?
Is the identity of the cat relevant?
-
Is the spell card that was declared relevent.
-
Satori saw Orin entering. She read her mind. Orin was thinking of stealing the
sakanafish in the kitchen to eat, so Satori was like >:(NO GO OUT if you eat him who'd provide us with more riddles THE FISH IS FOR TONIGHT'S DINNER, so she chased her out with a spellcard.
:V :V :V
Was it something the cat was thinking of doing that made the girl chase her out?
-
Was only the cat and the owner of the cat involved?
-
Are the girls Satori and Orin?
Are the girls Ran and Chen?
Yes to Satori and Orin.
Is the identity of the girl relevant?
Is the identity of the cat relevant?
No and yes.
Is the spell card that was declared relevent.
No
Satori saw Orin entering. She read her mind. Orin was thinking of stealing the sakanafish in the kitchen to eat, so Satori was like >:(NO GO OUT if you eat him who'd provide us with more riddles THE FISH IS FOR TONIGHT'S DINNER, so she chased her out with a spellcard.
:V :V :V
I love this theory, but no.
Was it something the cat was thinking of doing that made the girl chase her out?
Yes.
Was only the cat and the owner of the cat involved?
No.
-
Is the use of a spellcard relevant?
Is Orin's shapechanging relevant?
-
Was the spellcard called in the intent of only scaring away Orin?
Was the third person involved in the case in Subterranean Animism?
-
Is the use of a spellcard relevant?
No
Is Orin's shapechanging relevant?
No
Was the spellcard called in the intent of only scaring away Orin?
Yes
Was the third person involved in the case in Subterranean Animism?
No
-
Well I fear we're gonna get into one of these again...
Is the third person relevant to the case?
Is the third person a youkai?
Is the third person a human?
Is the third person a fairy?
-
This is how I think it should be done.
Is the third person a boss from stage:
1?
2?
3?
4?
5?
6?
Ex?
:D
-
Well I fear we're gonna get into one of these again...
Is the third person relevant to the case?
Is the third person a youkai?
Is the third person a human?
Is the third person a fairy?
Yes to the first two, no to the second two.
This is how I think it should be done.
Is the third person a boss from stage:
1?
2?
3?
4?
5?
6?
Ex?
:D
Ex
-
Is this person a midboss?
Is this person in the windows games?
-
Is this person a midboss?
Is this person in the windows games?
Yes to both.
And there you have it: Probably the shortest riddle out of the 5.
-
... Actually, embarrassingly enough, my question made me even more confused, unless said person was Ran.
... Was she Ran?
-
... Actually, embarrassingly enough, my question made me even more confused, unless said person was Ran.
... Was she Ran?
No
-
Are there three people present for this chasing off?
More than three?
Is Nue's shapechanging ability relevant? :V
-
Are there three people present for this chasing off?
No
More than three?
No
Is Nue's shapechanging ability relevant? :V
Yeeeeeeessssss
-
So then, the third person is Nue?
Did Satori believe Orin did something that in fact, Nue was responsible for?
-
Satori saw Nue masquerading as her pet cat, and attacked to chase off the impostor.
Or maybe "She immediately declared a spellcard and chased her out" is intentionally ambiguous grammar and it isn't Satori using the spellcard at all!
-
So then, the third person is Nue?
Yes
Did Satori believe Orin did something that in fact, Nue was responsible for?
No
Satori saw Nue masquerading as her pet cat, and attacked to chase off the impostor.
Yes, but there's a detail missing here.
Or maybe "She immediately declared a spellcard and chased her out" is intentionally ambiguous grammar and it isn't Satori using the spellcard at all!
Satori used a spellcard and you can't change that fact!
-
I could have worded that better as "it isn't Satori using the spellcard at all!" since those "she" could be either party.
Well, either we need why Satori realized it was an impostor (with mindreading not being an option due to it being her not being relevant so not a very good question), or what Nue was planning to do.
Was Nue in cat or catgirl form?
Was Nue interacting with Satori's property at all?
-
Did Orin do something during this scenario other than have someone impose as them?
EDIT: Irrelevant detail. Theory debunked.
-
Was Nue's intent violent?
Was Nue's intent non-violent?
-
And there you have it: Probably the shortest riddle out of the 5.[/i]
I thought there'll be six, and one of mine will probably be just as short. :V
Was Nue's identity unveiled by mindreading?
Nue imposed Orin in order to go in and steal the sakan(ry
-
Did Satori assume Nue did something to Orin?
-
Was Satori Not clothed?
-
Was Nue in cat or catgirl form?
Irrelevant
Was Nue interacting with Satori's property at all?
Irrelevant, assume yes
Did Orin do something during this scenario other than have someone impose as them?
No
Was Nue's intent violent?
Was Nue's intent non-violent?
Irrelevant, but assume non-violent
Was Nue's identity unveiled by mindreading?
No
Did Satori assume Nue did something to Orin?
Unknown
Was Satori Not clothed?
No :V
ALSO, I need to change my answers on a previous theory a bit
Satori saw Nue masquerading as her pet cat, and attacked to chase off the impostor.
Underlined is yes, the rest is no. I feel this is more accurate...sorry for any misconceptions.
-
Do we have to discover how Satori unveiled Nue's identity?
Do we have to discover Nue's intents?
Do we have to discover Satori's reasons for chasing off Nue?
Was the reason simply "Nue is imposing Orin"?
-
Do we have to discover how Satori unveiled Nue's identity?
No
Do we have to discover Nue's intents?
No. Assume burglary
Do we have to discover Satori's reasons for chasing off Nue?
No. Assume the case of an unwanted guest.
Was the reason simply "Nue is imposing Orin"?
See above
-
The declaring of the spellcard was not the direct way of chasing Nue out, right?
Was the target of the spellcard attack Nue?
Was Orin there?
-
Only oriNue and Satori were there.
Was Nue trying to steal anything?
-
The declaring of the spellcard was not the direct way of chasing Nue out, right?
Satori thought it would be the quickiest.
Was the target of the spellcard attack Nue?
Is this from Satori's perspective?
Was Orin there?
Yes
Only oriNue and Satori were there.
There are three people involved in this case.
Was Nue trying to steal anything?
Yes
-
Did Satori see both Nue disguised as Orin and Orin at the same time?
-
Did Satori see both Nue disguised as Orin and Orin at the same time?
No
Hmm...This will be longer than I thought.
-
Was Orin there?
Yes
Only oriNue and Satori were there.
There are three people involved in this case.
Are there three people present for this chasing off?
No
More than three?
No
:(
Did Nue and Orin fuse bodies?
Was Nue trying to steal something physical?
Was Nue trying to steal something that belonged to Orin?
-
Did Nue and Orin fuse bodies?
No, different time frames. Three people involved in this case.
Was Nue trying to steal something physical?
Irrelevant, but assume yes.
Was Nue trying to steal something that belonged to Orin?
Irrelevant
-
In the sentence "A girl glanced at her pet cat," the pet cat is not Nue disguised as Orin, but the actual Orin?
Did Satori call the spellcard to chase out Nue?
To go further in my question from the last post, did Satori see both Orin and Nue disguised as Orin at different times?
-
In the sentence "A girl glanced at her pet cat," the pet cat is not Nue disguised as Orin, but the actual Orin?
Yes
Did Satori call the spellcard to chase out Nue?
Yes, from her perspective
To go further in my question from the last post, did Satori see both Orin and Nue disguised as Orin at different times?
Yes
-
Did Satori attack Orin by accident believing that she was actually Nue?
-
Did Satori attack Orin by accident believing that she was actually Nue?
Yes
-
When Satori first saw the disguised Nue, did she not know that was actually Nue?
Did Nue reveal her identity by stealing the item?
-
Satori saw Nue, thought she was Orin. Then she saw Orin, thought she was an imposer, and chased her out with a spellcard.
-
When Satori first saw the disguised Nue, did she not know that was actually Nue?
No, she knew
Did Nue reveal her identity by stealing the item?
No
Satori saw Nue, thought she was Orin. Then she saw Orin, thought she was an imposer, and chased her out with a spellcard.
Underlined is correct. Why would Satori think Nue was Orin!?
-
Did Satori try to shoo away Nue when she first saw her?
Did she only attempt to shoo away Nue once it became clear what her intent was?
-
Did Satori try to shoo away Nue when she first saw her?
No
Did she only attempt to shoo away Nue once it became clear what her intent was?
Unknown
-
So, Nue came in, disguised as Orin, Satori did nothing to attempt to chase her off, then eventually Orin came in and Satori called in a spellcard thinking that Orin was Nue?
Did Orin do or have something that Satori thought only Nue would do?
Was Nue seen again between the first sighting of her and after Satori declared her spell card?
-
So, Nue came in, disguised as Orin, Satori did nothing to attempt to chase her off, then eventually Orin came in and Satori called in a spellcard thinking that Orin was Nue?
Yes for the underlined. Just one more detail and this is solved.
Did Orin do or have something that Satori thought only Nue would do?
No
Was Nue seen again between the first sighting of her and after Satori declared her spell card?
No
-
So, Satori did do something about Nue instead of simply ignoring her?
Did Satori tell Nue to leave?
Did Satori warn her not to do something?
Did Satori want her to get out of her disguise?
-
Oh so you mean like
Satori saw Nue imposing Orin attempting to steal something, she told Nue if she tried that again she'd definitely attack her with a spellcard, Nue left. Later, Orin entered and Satori declared spellcard thinking it's Nue and chased Orin off.
Orrrriiiinnn :(
-
Satori saw Nue imposing Orin attempting to steal something, she told Nue if she tried that again she'd definitely attack her with a spellcard, Nue left. Later, Orin entered and Satori declared spellcard thinking it's Nue and chased Orin off.
This theory is good enough.
Case solved!
Actually, I think Thaw's theory summarizes this case pretty well. That's all for my performance!
-
Ah! Nice job Thaws!
I'm always too afraid to pass off any theories until I have a definite answer on everything I'm about to say. It's quite odd.
-
I'm always too afraid to pass off any theories until I have a definite answer on everything I'm about to say. It's quite odd.
Just shoot out any theories you have in mind, no matter how silly they sound. It makes the game more fun ^^
I dunno if you've had the time to read the past riddles yet, but there were always some really intereting, yet absolutely hilarious, theories made by people.
Anyway, back to business...
Short and clean.
This was a nice riddle and an equally nice job solving it by you, my dear players.
So without further ado, let us continue.
Half of the Touhou riddles are solved, half are yet to be revealed.
Next up is once again Sir Thaws.
Have fun~
Twentythird Case: Intruder
It was nighttime.
A girl barged into the Moriya Shrine through a window without permission.
Kanako later thanked her.
-
Is the intruder anyone who lives in or near the shrine?
Was the girl trying to help Kanako?
Is the girl in any way related to the night?
Was there anyone else involved in this scenario aside from Kanako and the intruder?
-
Is the intruder anyone who lives in or near the shrine?
UNKNOWN, there are many touhous where you have no idea where they live. :/
Was the girl trying to help Kanako?
NO
Is the girl in any way related to the night?
If you mean any single way, then I can think of a not significant connection, so YES.
Was there anyone else involved in this scenario aside from Kanako and the intruder?
YES
This one should be short and easy. :P
And yeah, your questions were really nice, it's what lead me to the answer, you probably had the answer already judging from your questions, you just weren't sure as you said. There's no penalty for wrong theories so feel free to throw out theories really :P.
-
Would Suwako or Sanae have thanked the girl?
-
Would Suwako or Sanae have thanked the girl?
YES
-
Did the girl do something between the period of entering the shrine and Kanako thanking her?
Did anything that happen before the girl's entrance relevant to the case?
-
Did the girl do something between the period of entering the shrine and Kanako thanking her?
YES
Did anything that happen before the girl's entrance relevant to the case?
YES
Uhh...I noticed that no one is asking about the identity of the girl. If it's due to my rant last time, I want to say that was me being ignorant/selfish and I've no problem with questions about identities really...if that's not the problem then, arg I'm overthinking/overreacting to stuff again. :ohdear: I really need to change this habit.
-
Uhh...I noticed that no one is asking about the identity of the girl. If it's due to my rant last time, I want to say that was me being ignorant/selfish and I've no problem with questions about identities really...if that's not the problem then, arg I'm overthinking/overreacting to stuff again. :ohdear: I really need to change this habit.
I don't think it's a problem.
In fact, if the players find out the events first, that can make it easier to find out which character it was afterwards. I'm rather interested if this approach will lead to results faster~
-
Well then, let's confirm if the identity of that girl is relevant? (But I mean, obviously it is).
Has Kanako canonically met the girl, as in the text of the official games support them having met each other.
-
Well then, let's confirm if the identity of that girl is relevant? (But I mean, obviously it is).
NOt really, as in it's not something that others can't do. YES in the sense that everything makes more sense.
Has Kanako canonically met the girl, as in the text of the official games support them having met each other.
NO
-
Was the intruder trying to steal something?
Did the intruder stop something from happening?
Was the third person an intruder as well?
-
Is the girl that Kanako would later thank a Boss in 1 of the Windows Touhou games?
Is she a Mid-boss in 1 of the Windows Touhou games?
Is she from a PC-98 Touhou game?
-
Was the intruder trying to steal something?
Intruder in riddle : NO
"The third person" Intruder : YES
Did the intruder stop something from happening?
Intruder in riddle : YES
"The third person" Intruder : NO
Was the third person an intruder as well?
YES
Is the girl that Kanako would later thank a Boss in 1 of the Windows Touhou games?
YES
Is she a Mid-boss in 1 of the Windows Touhou games?
YES
Is she from a PC-98 Touhou game?
NO
Wow, with clues from this post, this riddle can almost be solved already!
-
Is the girl Kanako would thank from Stage 4?
-
Is the girl Kanako would thank from Stage 4?
NO
-
Is the girl Kanako would thank from Stage 3?
Is she the Boss and Mid-boss of the same stage? Or Different Stages?
I'm naming off stages I know that you fight the same person as a Mid-boss and as the Boss, am I on the right track with this?
-
Was the third person:
Momizi?
Nitori?
Was the girl in the riddle a stage 2 boss?
Was the girl in the riddle a stage 5 boss?
Was the girl in the riddle an extra stage boss?
-
Was the girl Rumia?
Was the girl donating any faith?
-
Did the intruder of the riddle come with the intention in stopping the third person?
Does the third person have some type of relationship with the intruder of the riddle?
-
Is the girl Kanako would thank from Stage 3?
NO
Is she the Boss and Mid-boss of the same stage? Or Different Stages?
YES, YES
I'm naming off stages I know that you fight the same person as a Mid-boss and as the Boss, am I on the right track with this?
Probably
Was the third person:
Momizi?
Nitori?
NO
NO
Was the girl in the riddle a stage 2 boss?
YES
Was the girl in the riddle a stage 5 boss?
NO
Was the girl in the riddle an extra stage boss?
NO, she's the mid-boss.
Was the girl Rumia?
NO
Was the girl donating any faith?
NO
Did the intruder of the riddle come with the intention in stopping the third person?
NO
Does the third person have some type of relationship with the intruder of the riddle?
NO, but the two have met before.
-
Did the first intruder intentionally stop the second intruder?
Does the second intruder have a history of stealing?
-
The intruder in the riddle is Chen.
Does the 'third person' intruder have animal features, as part of identification?
-
Are the intruder or the 3rd person playable in a touhou shooter?
Are either of the two partners of playables in a touhou shooter?
-
Did the first intruder intentionally stop the second intruder?
Please specify "first intruder" and "second intruder".
Does the second intruder have a history of stealing?
See above.
First as in first who intruded? First as in first to be mentioned in the riddle?
The intruder in the riddle is Chen.
NO :D Hah, I knew this would happen.
Does the 'third person' intruder have animal features, as part of identification?
NO
Are the intruder or the 3rd person playable in a touhou shooter?
NO, YES
Are either of the two partners of playables in a touhou shooter?
None of them have been a partner of playables.
-
Was the third person not in the riddle Kogasa?
Was the intruder in the riddle Kogasa?
-
Was the third person not in the riddle Kogasa?
YES, she was not Kogasa.
Was the intruder in the riddle Kogasa?
YES, she was Kogasa.
-
Here, revised the questions. Sorry about that.
>Did the intruder of the riddle stop the third person?
>Does the third person have a history of stealing?
>Is the third person blonde?
-
So...Kogasa was the person who was thanked by Kanako?
Was the third person:
Sanae?
Cirno?
Tewi?
Mystia?
-
>Did the intruder of the riddle stop the third person?
YES
>Does the third person have a history of stealing?
YES
>Is the third person blonde?
YES
Did you notice you just used > in this to enter "commands"? :P
So...Kogasa was the person who was thanked by Kanako?
YES
Was the third person:
Sanae?
Cirno?
Tewi?
Mystia?
NO to all
-
... My God I've been playing too many text games.
Is the third person Marisa?
Did the intruder of the riddle intentionally stop the third person upon seeing her?
-
Was the third person Lunasa?
Was the third person Medicine?
-
... My God I've been playing too many text games.
YES :D.
Don't worry I've done this once before too and said almost the same thing, Sakana then answered with a YES.
Is the third person Marisa?
YES
Did the intruder of the riddle intentionally stop the third person upon seeing her?
NO, it was not her intent to stop Marisa.
Was the third person Lunasa?
NO
Was the third person Medicine?
NO
-
Was Marisa trying to steal Sanae's precious thing?
Was Kogasa only stopping by to try and surprise people?
Is what Marisa tried to steal relevant?
-
Kogasa was looking for people to surprise during the nighttime. She entered the Moriya Shrine, looking for sleeping people. She ran into Marisa, whose intention is theft. Somehow, Kogasa managed to chase her off. Kanako later thanked Kogasa for getting rid of the intruder.
-
Did Kagosa want to scare the first person she sees, who happened to be Marisa?
-
Was Marisa trying to steal Sanae's precious thing?
YES
Was Kogasa only stopping by to try and surprise people?
YES
Is what Marisa tried to steal relevant?
NO
Kogasa was looking for people to surprise during the nighttime. She entered the Moriya Shrine, looking for sleeping people. She ran into Marisa, whose intention is theft. Somehow, Kogasa managed to chase her off. Kanako later thanked Kogasa for getting rid of the intruder.
YES except for the underlined statement which is NO, I'm almost tempted to declare this as solved already, but there is something obvious missing.
Did Kogasa want to scare the first person she sees, who happened to be Marisa?
Pretty much YES.
-
Did Kogasa wake up the rest of the house with her surprise attempt, leading to Marisa's theft failing?
-
Kagosa came into the Moriya shrine so she could surprise the first person she saw. She saw Marisa who was stealing from this shrine. Kagosa surprised Marisa, scaring her off. The event woke up Kanako who saw Marisa being chased off, so she thus thanked Kagosa for scaring off the thief.
EDIT: Oh typos how I spite thee.
-
CASE SOLVED!
Enough details have been uncovered and brought into connection to declare this case as solved. Please wait a bit for
post-game summary.
Kagosa came into the Moriya shrine so she could surprise the first person she saw. She saw Marisa who was stealing from this shrine. Kagosa surprised Marisa, scaring her off. The event woke up Kanako who saw Marisa being chased off, so she thus welcomed Kagosa for scaring off the thief.
NO, her name is not Kagosa! YES
Kogasa was flying through the fly aimlessly when she noticed Marisa nervously doing something in that shrine at the top of the mountain. Marisa was actually stealing
precious things stuff since she realised the goddesses and Sanae was out at the moment.
Wanting to surprise Marisa, Kogasa flew near the window of the shrine to watch Marisa. When she saw that Marisa was concentrated on rummaging through the drawers for treasure, she took the chance to jump through the window and shout "Urameshiya" at the top of her lungs! Surprisingly, Marisa was actually surprised by Kogasa, probably because she was worrying that the goddesses would return at any moment. The shocked Marisa Master Sparked the poor karakasa almost by reflex.
She quickly realised who it really was, but the spark has broken a huge hole through the shrine and quite possibly attracted the attention of Kanako, who was probably having a party with the Tengu or something, considering how bright the spark was.
She flew back to the shrine and caught Marisa recovering from firing a Master Spark
then put her through the wringer
(Spoiler of SA Extra Marisa/Alice dialogue, don't know if anyone cares that they're spoilered of Extra stage dialogues though...), seeing a badly burnt karakasa in the debris of the shrine wall, she thought the girl tried to stop Marisa and got assaulted. Naturally, she thanked her.[/color]
Yes, I chose Kanako simply to put that SA Extra dialogue reference there. :P
I feel bad for leading Kogasa to a BAD END,
though she seems to always get into BAD ENDs with her surprising people habit...
I expected this one to be quickly solved,
and it was. Good job everyone. :)
-
And another one done.
Nice work on a nice riddle.
Now, let us get to the darker side of Gensokyo with the next riddle, created by my humble self.
I expect this one to be solved pretty fast as well.
Twentyfourth Case: Suwako
As the seasons changed, Suwako went missing.
Lily White later found her body floating in a lake.
-
Is Suwako dead in this scenario?
Was Suwako's apparent death before spring?
-
Was someone responsible for Suwako's condition?
If so: Was the responsible party Cirno?
-
Yep, this really will be a fast one. I will press you for every last detail in my solution however ;)
Is Suwako dead in this scenario?
YES
Was Suwako's apparent death before spring?
YES
Was someone responsible for Suwako's condition?
YES
If so: Was the responsible party Cirno?
YES
-
Suwako croaked and went belly up? :V
-
Did Suwako vanish at the start of winter? The start of spring?
Was she frozen to death?
Stabbed (with an icicle)?
-
So we've figured out who is involved. Now all that remains is how and why this happened...
Did Cirno think Suwako was a frog?
Did Cirno freeze Suwako?
Did Suwako insult Cirno?
-
Was anyone outside of Suwako, Cirno, and Lily White involved?
-
Suwako croaked and went belly up? :V
I guess you could say that. It's not really nice to the deceased though :V
Did Suwako vanish at the start of winter?
YES
The start of spring?
NO
Was she frozen to death?
Stabbed (with an icicle)?
IRRELEVANT. Assume whatever method sounds the most humorous to you.
Did Cirno think Suwako was a frog?
NO. She was pretty well aware of who Suwako was.
Did Suwako insult Cirno?
She may have, but it's IRRELEVANT.
Was anyone outside of Suwako, Cirno, and Lily White involved?
That person did not take any actions relevant for the riddle, but indirectly YES.
-
Kanako hired Cirno to make Suwako sleep with the
sakanafishes? :V
-
Was Letty involved?
-
Kanako hired Cirno to make Suwako sleep with the sakanafishes? :V
I wouldn't mind to sleep with Suw-*shot* NO. Though the mental image of Kanako giving Cirno an assassination order in some dark back-alley, wearing sunglasses and all to be conspicious, is hilarious.
Was Letty involved?
Indirectly, YES
-
Hmm, feels like we're lacking some specific data.
Did Cirno have some type of motive to want to kill Suwako?
Did Cirno intentionally kill Suwako?
-
Was Cirno just following instructions?
-
Is Lily White's identity relevant to the case?
-
Did Cirno have some type of motive to want to kill Suwako?
YES
Did Cirno intentionally kill Suwako?
YES
Was Cirno just following instructions?
NO, she was acting on her own
Is Lily White's identity relevant to the case?
YES. No words in the original riddle were chosen without care, that much I can assure you of.
-
Did Cirno think that killing Suwako would help winter last longer?
Or that it would upset Lily, as the bringer of spring?
-
Have the details of this case come up in any of the fanfics in PSL?
-
Did Cirno think that killing Suwako would help winter last longer?
NO
Or that it would upset Lily, as the bringer of spring?
NO
Have the details of this case come up in any of the fanfics in PSL?
NO, at least not the ones I have read. It would be a funny conicidence though.
-
Is there any relationship, outside of this discovery, between Suwako and Lily White? Suwako and Letty?
Where is Sarah Conner?
-
Did Suwako went hibernation?
Was Suwako discovered at the start of spring?
-
Is there any relationship, outside of this discovery, between Suwako and Lily White? Suwako and Letty?
NO to both
Where is Sarah Conner?
Probably got killed by Mystia and the Prismrivers. I heard they're serving her nicely cooked at the shrine festival tonight. Wanna go together?
Did Suwako went hibernation?
NO
Was Suwako discovered at the start of spring?
YES
-
Did Suwako do anything prior to her "death" to make Cirno want her dead? Or did Cirno go overboard on something?
Was Suwako in poor/less then prefered physical condition when Cirno killed her? Hungry, thirsty, tired, or is this all Irrelevant?
Did Suwako notice that Cirno was coming to kill her before it was to late? Or was she unaware of Cirno until she already attacked.
-
Was Suwako killed at the beginning of the winter?
Was Suwako's disappearance related to Cirno?
Was Suwako's body buried under snow?
If yes, did Lily White discover Suwako's corpse when the snow thawed?
-
Did Suwako do anything prior to her "death" to make Cirno want her dead?
I would say YES
Or did Cirno go overboard on something?
From Suwako's perspective, YES
Was Suwako in poor/less then prefered physical condition when Cirno killed her? Hungry, thirsty, tired, or is this all Irrelevant?
IRRELEVANT. Cirno managed it, that's all that counts.
Did Suwako notice that Cirno was coming to kill her before it was to late? Or was she unaware of Cirno until she already attacked.
See above. IRRELEVANT, in the end she was dead.
Was Suwako killed at the beginning of the winter?
YES
Was Suwako's disappearance related to Cirno?
YES
Was Suwako's body buried under snow?
If yes, did Lily White discover Suwako's corpse when the snow thawed?
NO. Look at the riddle again, exchange one word in both questions and ask again ;)
-
Was Suwako Perfect Frozen?
-
Was Suwako Perfect Frozen?
You could probably say that, YES
-
Was Suwako's body buried under the lake?
If yes, did Lily White discover Suwako's corpse when the frozen lake thawed?
Cirno pushed Suwako into the lake, then froze the lake. Suwako was not found until Lily White came to herald the beginning of spring when the frozen lake melted and Suwako's body floated to the surface?
Was the motive of Cirno's actions required to be discovered?
Did she do it due to Letty?
-
Was Suwako's body buried under the lake?
If yes, did Lily White discover Suwako's corpse when the frozen lake thawed?
YES to both
Cirno pushed Suwako into the lake, then froze the lake. Suwako was not found until Lily White came to herald the beginning of spring when the frozen lake melted and Suwako's body floated to the surface?
That's a full YES. Well, my version is that the lake froze over by itself, but that can be ignored, however...
Was the motive of Cirno's actions required to be discovered?
YES
Did she do it due to Letty?
Kind of, YES
...there's still a bit more to go before I let you all off the hook.
-
Does this have to do with Cirno's habit of freezing (normal) frogs?
-
Does this have to do with Cirno's habit of freezing (normal) frogs?
YES
-
Is there anything noteworthy about the lake Suwako's body was found in, aside from her body being found there?
Are frog eggs or tadpoles involved...?
-
Did Cirno believe whacking Suwako would increase winters length?
Is Suwako truly dead? Forever?
-
Did Suwako attack Cirno?
Did Suwako otherwise provoke Cirno?
-
Did Suwako attempt to stop Cirno from freezing frogs?
-
Is there anything noteworthy about the lake Suwako's body was found in, aside from her body being found there?
NO
Are frog eggs or tadpoles involved...?
Uh...NO
Did Cirno believe whacking Suwako would increase winters length?
Why do I feel like we had this question already? NO again. :V
Is Suwako truly dead? Forever?
What do I know. I never killed a god, so I dunno if they stay dead. But let's assume YES for this riddle. Even if she could be revived, her body must be in a horrible shape after spending a whole season under the ice.
Did Suwako attack Cirno?
NO
Did Suwako otherwise provoke Cirno?
NOt during the events in the riddle. She kinda provoked her being murdered by past actions though...
Did Suwako attempt to stop Cirno from freezing frogs?
...this would be those actions, YES.
You actually have pretty much all the information you need, as far as I can see. Try working from that, you're really close to the truth.
-
So basically...
Cirno was fed up with the many times Suwako defeated her for freezing random frogs, so she pushed Suwako into the lake when she wasn't expecting it, and then lake froze over. Then when it unfroze in the spring, Lily discovered the corpse of Suwako?
Or was she freezing frogs again in this scenario?
If so, did she lure her toward the lake, then throw her in the lake?
Are there more details to this that we're missing?
-
Cirno was fed up with the many times Suwako defeated her for freezing random frogs, so she pushed Suwako into the lake when she wasn't expecting it, and then lake froze over. Then when it unfroze in the spring, Lily discovered the corpse of Suwako?
YES, though it doesn't matter if she pushed her in or killed her another way and then put her in the lake.
What I still want is, however, the answer to: why the timing? Why did she do it at the time she did? If Cirno was only fed up with Suwako she could have tried to kill her at any other time.
It's not that hard really, you all should be able to solve it fast ^^
Or was she freezing frogs again in this scenario?
NO. But she was planning to.
If so, did she lure her toward the lake, then throw her in the lake?
Killing method is IRRELEVANT
Are there more details to this that we're missing?
See first answer. Remember you discovered that another character was relevant? I haven't seen her name in any solution yet, so how about you combine this with my answers above and see what you get?
I actually think I've almost given away the answer now. Let's see :V
-
There was this hugely convoluted plot to gather spring and make it eternally winter. The gathered spring would have to go to Saigyou Ayakashi to make it bloom. But when it blooms, the person buried beneath it would be revived and the youkai cherry blossom would also be unsealed. To keep the tree from getting free, a powerful sacrifice was needed. What better than a goddess? Yukari, Yuyuko and Kanako plotted all of this and sent Cirno to handle the sacrifice while Youmu went to gather spring. Unfortunately, Youmu didn't do the job well enough and took too long. Spring rolled around and shit hit the fan!
:V
-
I'm tempted to say that Suwako called Letty fat. No idea why.
Did Suwako insult or harm Letty in some sort of way?
-
I'm tempted to say that Suwako called Letty fat. No idea why.
NO
Did Suwako insult or harm Letty in some sort of way?
NO
I'll say, it's a really stupid reason, fitting for a Cirno. Letty will probably hit her for it if she finds out.
There was this hugely convoluted plot to gather spring and make it eternally winter. The gathered spring would have to go to Saigyou Ayakashi to make it bloom. But when it blooms, the person buried beneath it would be revived and the youkai cherry blossom would also be unsealed. To keep the tree from getting free, a powerful sacrifice was needed. What better than a goddess? Yukari, Yuyuko and Kanako plotted all of this and sent Cirno to handle the sacrifice while Youmu went to gather spring. Unfortunately, Youmu didn't do the job well enough and took too long. Spring rolled around and shit hit the fan!
NO It has already been answered that it was not a conspiracy by Kanako, so your theory fails on that little detail alone. Ah, you were so~o close :V
-
Did Suwako do anything that may have been related to Letty?
Did Cirno think that Suwako did something related to Letty?
-
Did Suwako do anything that may have been related to Letty?
Did Cirno think that Suwako did something related to Letty?
YES. If you combine the two to 'Suwako did something of which Cirno thought it is (indirectly) related to Letty/ might (very indirectly) affect Letty'
And that 'something' has already been discovered before.
-
Did Letty appear?
Did Letty say anything?
Did Letty do anything?
Did Cirno thought Suwako did something to Letty?
Did Suwako make any threats to Cirno regarding Letty?
-
Did Letty appear?
She did appear in winter just as usual, YES
Did Letty say anything?
Did Letty do anything?
Nothing that would be relevant to the case, so IRRELEVANT
Did Cirno thought Suwako did something to Letty?
NO
Did Suwako make any threats to Cirno regarding Letty?
NO. Suwako was never referencing Letty directly or indirectly. It was all Cirno's interpretation of things.
I'll allow a bit more questions, but sometime today I'll solve it myself, since it seems to be dragging. I expect at least a small bit of headdesking when I do :V
-
Did Suwako say something about winter?
Actually, was it somthing Suwako said that made Cirno think of Letty?
-
Did Suwako say something about winter?
NO
Actually, was it somthing Suwako said that made Cirno think of Letty?
YES. Hint time: You already know what Suwako said, she was angry at Cirno for freezing frogs. And she probably even threatened to attack her if she does it again. Work from there.
-
Did Suwako say something like 'Letty's so fat....'? :V
-
Did Suwako say something like 'Letty's so fat....'? :V
D?ja vue? NO again.
-
There was this hugely convoluted plot to gather spring and make it eternally winter. The gathered spring would have to go to Saigyou Ayakashi to make it bloom. But when it blooms, the person buried beneath it would be revived and the youkai cherry blossom would also be unsealed. To keep the tree from getting free, a powerful sacrifice was needed. What better than a goddess? Yukari, Yuyuko and Kanako plotted all of this and sent Cirno to handle the sacrifice while Youmu went to gather spring. Unfortunately, Youmu didn't do the job well enough and took too long. Spring rolled around and shit hit the fan!
Fix'd. Does it work now?
:V
-
There was this hugely convoluted plot to gather spring and make it eternally winter. The gathered spring would have to go to Saigyou Ayakashi to make it bloom. But when it blooms, the person buried beneath it would be revived and the youkai cherry blossom would also be unsealed. To keep the tree from getting free, a powerful sacrifice was needed. What better than a goddess? Yukari, Yuyuko and Kanako plotted all of this and sent Cirno to handle the sacrifice while Youmu went to gather spring. Unfortunately, Youmu didn't do the job well enough and took too long. Spring rolled around and shit hit the fan!
Fix'd. Does it work now?
:V
(http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/ab98/Twilight0402/Sakana.png)
Why do I feel someone wants to make closer contact with my tuna here? :V
-
(http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/ab98/Twilight0402/Sakana.png)
Why do I feel someone wants to make closer contact with my tuna here? :V
Kanako was supposed to be crossed out.
-
Oh right, fixed it.
That doesn't change the matter though :V
But screwing around a bit is part of the fun of a game, so it's obviously okay :D
-
Oh whoops, I didn't see I had my questions answered. Heh.
So, Suwako said something to Cirno about freezing the frogs which Cirno thought was related to Letty?
-
So, Suwako said something to Cirno about freezing the frogs which Cirno thought was related to Letty?
Cirno related it to Letty by herself, YES. In a simple and idiotic way though, fitting for a Cirno.
-
It's relevant to figure out how Cirno related what Suwako said to Letty correct?
Did Cirno think it had to do with Letty only coming out during winter?
Did Cirno think it had to do with Letty's personality?
Did Cirno think it had to do with Letty's abilities?
Did Cirno think it had to do with Letty's physical health?
Did Cirno think it had to do with Letty's looks?
-
It's relevant to figure out how Cirno related what Suwako said to Letty correct?
Pretty much YES. It's relevant how Cirno would link Suwako's anger about frog freezing to Letty in a way that makes her want to dispose of Suwako.
Did Cirno think it had to do with Letty only coming out during winter?
Did Cirno think it had to do with Letty's personality?
Did Cirno think it had to do with Letty's abilities?
Did Cirno think it had to do with Letty's physical health?
Did Cirno think it had to do with Letty's looks?
First one get a YES, the rest more like NO. Though you make a bit of a wrong assumption. Cirno didn't think it 'had to do' with Letty (if I answered that way before, sorry), it's that Suwako's attitude posed a problem for her when she (Cirno) was thinking of Letty.
-
~Time up~
I'll solve now, because we don't need to drag this on longer than neccessary.
You all were pretty close and had discovered the events that had taken place, however you were still missig the motive of this murder and the exact reason why Cirno timed her actions like she did. That I shall reveal now:
Suwako was always scolding Cirno because of her habit of freezing frogs,
eventually threatening her if she continues doing it.
However, when winter started and Letty's awakening drew near,
Cirno wanted to share her hobby with her friend as well.
She wanted to freeze frogs together with Letty, but it would be impossible with Suwako around.
So in order to fully enjoy the potential fun time with her friend,
Cirno ambushed Suwako and managed to kill her.
To hide the body, she threw it into a nearby lake, which froze over during the winter.
Letty and Cirno enjoyed a nice winter together, but when spring came the lake thawed and the murder was revealed.
I'm not sure whether this was too hard or, on the contrary, too simple to be considered a reason. :ohdear:
Maybe I just have a weird logic...
Well, anyway, next up is Thaws once again, with the last Touhou riddle we have for the moment.
Twentyfifth Case: Killer Unveiled
A girl was doing a demonstration.
Lots of people from all over Gensokyo, and even the Netherworld, Makai and underground came to watch.
During the event, someone was discovered to be a killer.
-
Is the identity of the girl doing the demonstration relevant?
Is the process that uncovered the killer relevant?
Does the killer wear a hat (excluding ribbons, horns and ears)?
-
Is the identity of the girl doing the demonstration relevant?
YES
Is the process that uncovered the killer relevant?
Well YES because that's what you have to discover.
Does the killer wear a hat (excluding ribbons, horns and ears)?
NO, but the girl doing a demonstration does.
Awesome riddle, Sakana, very Cirno-like motive, I don't think there'd problem with the logic, but it's really hard. :P
-
Aw, wasn't on to ask more questions for the riddle beforehand. Oh well, loved the riddle anyway. Now for this one!
Did someone die in the process of this demonstration?
-
Did someone die in the process of this demonstration?
NO
-
Was there some sort of corpse around?
-
Was there some sort of corpse around?
YES
-
Was it Sakuya's Killing Doll? :V
Is the person doing the demonstration an animal youkai? Lunarian? Other kind of youkai? Human?
Ditto with the killer.
:V
-
Was it Sakuya's Killing Doll? :V
NO
Is the person doing the demonstration an animal youkai? Lunarian? Other kind of youkai? Human?
Not animal, but it's a kind of Japanese mythological/folklore youkai.
By that I mean it's something like a karakasa other than something like... a "flower youkai"
Ditto with the killer.
A kind of Japanese mythological/folklore youkai.
:V
I'm giving a bit more hint regarding questions on identities so it'll be easier for all of us.
-
The demonstrator and killer are NOT the same person, due to an earlier statement.
Possible candidates: Kisume, Kogasa, Satori/Koishi, Letty, Murasa, Komachi(?), Shiki(?), Nitori, Nue, Suika, and Yuugi. Or do I have the conditions too wide/narrow?
So that would be... Kisume, Kogasa, Komachi, Nue, Suika, and Yuugi without hats, and Satori, Koishi, Murasa, Shiki, and Nitori with hats. Huh, roughly even split.
I'm guessing Satori was the demonstrator, and discovered the killer through demonstrating her powers?
-
So that would be... Kisume, Kogasa, Komachi, Nue, Suika, and Yuugi without hats, and Satori, Koishi, Murasa, Shiki, and Nitori with hats. Huh, roughly even split.
I'm guessing Satori was the demonstrator, and discovered the killer through demonstrating her powers?
NO, but you've got the candidates right.
-
Yeah, thought that would be too easy.
Is it relevant who else is attending the demonstration?
Were either of the demonstrator or killer from underground?
-
Is it relevant who else is attending the demonstration?
YES, one person there had a minor role in this.
Were either of the demonstrator or killer from underground?
YES. Killer was, demonstrator wasn't.
-
Race listing for the victim and/or other relevant attendee.
Killer Kisume or Yuugi?
-
Race listing for the victim and/or other relevant attendee.
Not a YES/NO question but since I've already done this before:
Identity of victim is irrelevant, but you can discover it if you want, she's just a youkai though.
Relevant Attendee: Youkai with animal features.
Killer Kisume?
YES
or Yuugi?
NO
-
Did Kisume intend on killing her victim?
-
Did Kisume intend on killing her victim?
NO, but how the victim died is irrelevant, as in not required to solve the case.
-
Can it then be inferred that Kisume was not caught by her motives or guilt?
-
Can it then be inferred that Kisume was not caught by her motives or guilt?
YES, she was not caught by her motives/guilt.
-
Is the identity of the person who is dead relevant?
-
Is the identity of the person who is dead relevant?
Identity of victim is irrelevant, but you can discover it if you want, she's just a youkai though.
-
Is the relevant animalistic attendee Orin,
Okuu Utsuho, or someone from aboveground?
Did the relevant attendee make the killer discovery during the demonstration? Did the demonstrator?
Was the relevant attendee part of the demonstration (i.e. volunteer)?
Since Higan isn't mentioned in the attendee listing, I can probably rule out Shiki as the demonstrator. So, Murasa or Nitori?
Is the nature of the demonstration relevant?
-
Was the demonstration done on Kisume?
Did the demonstration reveal the corpse?
-
Is the relevant animalistic attendee Orin, Okuu Utsuho, or someone from aboveground?
YES, NO, NO.
Did the relevant attendee make the killer discovery during the demonstration?
Did the demonstrator?
UNKNOWN, it doesn't matter who made the discovery.
Was the relevant attendee part of the demonstration (i.e. volunteer)?
NO
Since Higan isn't mentioned in the attendee listing, I can probably rule out Shiki as the demonstrator. So, Murasa or Nitori?
NO, YES. Wow good job on getting the identities so quickly. :o
Is the nature of the demonstration relevant?
To find the "process" of discovery, knowing the nature of the demonstration would definitely help. So, I'd say YES.
Was the demonstration done on Kisume?
YES
Did the demonstration reveal the corpse?
YES
-
(http://img689.imageshack.us/img689/3622/nitoritryscience.th.gif) (http://img689.imageshack.us/i/nitoritryscience.gif/)
I'm sorry, I swear that's all I want to post here.
Okay really now
Was the corpse in Kisume's bucket?
Was the demonstration a real-world technology, a technology Nitori has displayed in the Touhou games, a more sci-fi technology, or none of the above?
-
(http://img689.imageshack.us/img689/3622/nitoritryscience.th.gif) (http://img689.imageshack.us/i/nitoritryscience.gif/)
YES
Was the corpse in Kisume's bucket?
YES
Was the demonstration a real-world technology, a technology Nitori has displayed in the Touhou games, a more sci-fi technology, or none of the above?
NO, YES, NO, NO.
-
Did Kisume put someone else in the bucket not knowing that they would die?
If not, Did Kisume hide the corpse in the bucket?
-
Bleh, I didn't follow those too carefully.
What technology? Stealth-cloaking? Missiles?
-
Did Kisume put someone else in the bucket not knowing that they would die?
NO
If not, Did Kisume hide the corpse in the bucket?
YES
What technology? Stealth-cloaking? Missiles?
NO
-
Extending Aaaaaaaaaaaaaarrm!! XD
-
(http://img689.imageshack.us/img689/3622/nitoritryscience.th.gif) (http://img689.imageshack.us/i/nitoritryscience.gif/)
I'm sorry, I swear that's all I want to post here.
Hey, if you stumble in here and happen to have images fitting the current riddle, feel free to post them. You wouldn't be E-Mouse if you didn't :D
Stealth-cloaking?
NO
You sure about that one Thaws? I'd have given this a YES.
-
You sure about that one Thaws? I'd have given this a YES.
Yea, probably shouldn't be looking for the exact same name. Sorry.
-
Did the technology make Kisume's bucket transparent, showing the corpse?
-
Did the technology make Kisume's bucket transparent, showing the corpse?
YES
-
During the celebration, Nitori was showing off the incredible Kappa tech, such as optical camouflage. It was experimented on Kisume, turning her bucket invisible. As it happened, everyone saw a corpse of someone Kisume killed.
-
Did Orin want to take the corpse?
-
During the celebration, Nitori was showing off the incredible Kappa tech, such as optical camouflage. ______________________, so it was experimented on Kisume, turning her bucket invisible. As it happened, everyone saw a corpse of someone Kisume killed.
YES. Though there's just this bit of detail missing there. Why was it experimented on Kisume?
Did Orin want to take the corpse?
UNKNOWN, you may assume she had the intent to (and she probably did).
-
YES. Though there's just this bit of detail missing there. Why was it experimented on Kisume?
MAYBE
Did the crowd want to see what Kisumes lower half was? Since she never leaves the bucket?
-
Did Kisume volunteer?
Did Orin volunteer Kisume?
Did someone else volunteer Kisume?
-
Did the crowd want to see what Kisumes lower half was? Since she never leaves the bucket?
NOt exactly, actually, in my answer, it was used on Kisume herself not the bucket, I felt that it was not exactly wrong so I didn't point it out before, but the intention was basically something like looking into her bucket.
Did Kisume volunteer?
NOt really.
Did Orin volunteer Kisume?
YES, Orin suggested Kisume to be the volunteer, but why?
Did someone else volunteer Kisume?
NO
-
Did Orin sense the corpse?
Did Orin slip the corpse into the bucket?
-
Did Orin sense the corpse?
YES :)
Did Orin slip the corpse into the bucket?
NO
-
During the celebration, Nitori was showing off the incredible Kappa tech, such as optical camouflage. Orin volunteered Kisume, sensing a corpse, turning her bucket invisible. As it happened, everyone saw a corpse of someone Kisume killed.
-
CASE SOLVED!
Enough details have been uncovered and brought into connection to declare this case as solved. Please wait a bit for
post-game summary.
During the celebration, Nitori was showing off the incredible Kappa tech, such as optical camouflage. Orin volunteered Kisume, sensing a corpse, turning her bucket invisible. As it happened, everyone saw a corpse of someone Kisume killed.
YES
Kisume, as usual, was doing what she does best, dropping down onto people and stuff. Today however, an accident occured, she had dropped straight onto the back of the head of Parsee. With the momentum from dropping from a really high place, she effectively killed Parsee by damaging her medulla.
Naturally, Kisume panicked. She knew she had to hide the corpse as soon as possible, but she heard that people are heading towards the bridge from underground. She quickly tore off the bottom of her robe to clean up the blood, and hid Parsee under herself in the bucket.
The group heading outside consisted of some underground youkai. Kisume was relieved when she noticed that Satori was not there, or else she would've got caught immediately. They were heading to see Nitori's demonstration of her newest inventions, and Yamame picked up Kisume and forced her to go with her. She needed Kisume as an witness to prove that she wasn't really dirtying up the rivers anymore and want to have better relationships with the Kappas.
(Most of the information above isn't necessary to solve the case, it's just me trying to explain why Kisume would go to the demonstration with a corpse under her...)
When they got there, Nitori was looking for a volunteer to test her Optical Camouflage. Orin has smelled smell of corpse coming from Kisume's bucket for a while, so she used this opportunity to force Kisume up onto stage to use the camouflage. Perhaps others, like Orin, was always curious to see what's inside the bucket, so no one really cared Kisume's objections.
When Nitori used the Optical Camouflage on Kisume, what they saw inside the bucket was the corpse of Parsee, they realised Kisume is a killer.
Good job everyone,
another one that was solved pretty quickly.
-
Just for your information, I'll continue with the next riddle in a bit less than 24 hours. Please wait warmly~
Also, nice job on solving Thaws last riddle. I wouldn't have expected it to go that fast, you all were spot-on with your questions.
-
Well then, my dear players.
With some slight delay, let's get back to our game.
You have done well in solving those riddles from a land of dreams and fantasy.
Now, we will once more descend into the realm of reality.
The curtain rises on the next riddle, may you do well in your quest to find its truth.
Twentysixth Case: New shoes
Mary went into a shop and bought new shoes.
In the evening she had to die for that.
-
Yay new case!
Did anything involved have to do with her old shoes?
Did she die due to her old shoes?
Did she die due to her new shoes?
Was what kind of shoes it was relevant?
-
Is anyone other then Mary involved?
-
Was it illegal to have these shoes?
Are these new shoes actually shoes?
-
Does this have anything to do with Cinderella? :V
-
Did anything involved have to do with her old shoes?
YES
Did she die due to her old shoes?
YES
Did she die due to her new shoes?
Also YES
Was what kind of shoes it was relevant?
YES
Is anyone other then Mary involved?
YES
Does this have anything to do with Cinderella?
Interesting idea, but NO
Was it illegal to have these shoes?
NO
Are these new shoes actually shoes?
YES
-
Are they skates?
Was she murdered?
Was she strangled by the shoelaces? :V
Was the other person the shoe seller?
-
Was anything supernatural involved?
Did someone else kill her because of her new shoes?
Did they perhaps do it out of jealousy?
-
Are they skates?
NO
Was she murdered?
NO
Was she strangled by the shoelaces? :V
NO
Was the other person the shoe seller?
NO
Was anything supernatural involved?
NO. Supernatural stuff is never involved unless it's said so at the beginning of the riddle. Since you only just joined the game recently, you probably didn't know that, it should be in the rules on the first page. :)
Did someone else kill her because of her new shoes?
YES
Did they perhaps do it out of jealousy?
NO
-
Is Renko involved?
Was the death an accident?
Did the death happen due to a problem in wearing her new shoes?
Did she trip at a really bad place while wearing mismatching shoes?
-
Is Renko involved?
NO. Else Sana would be playing here with us right now :V
Was the death an accident?
YES
Did the death happen due to a problem in wearing her new shoes?
YES
Did she trip at a really bad place while wearing mismatching shoes?
NO
-
DID she wear mismatching shoes at a relevant time?
Were the new shoes high-heeled? Were the old ones?
-
DID she wear mismatching shoes at a relevant time?
NO
Were the new shoes high-heeled?
YES
Were the old ones?
NO
-
Were the new shoes geta?
Did she mistake one set of shoes for the other?
-
Did she trip at all?
Did someone accidentally bump into her?
Were her old shoes high-heels?
-
Were the new shoes geta?
It would work with geta as well, so if you want to, you can assume YES. It's unlikely though.
Did she mistake one set of shoes for the other?
NO
Did she trip at all?
NO
Did someone accidentally bump into her?
NO
Were her old shoes high-heels?
Ahem...
Were the old ones?
NO
-
Were the new shoes unusual, rare, or unique in some manner?
Would she have been able to acquire these shoes on any given day?
-
Was she stabbed with the heels?
Did she die from a physical injury?
Did the heels broke off from the shoes at some point?
-
Is the identity of who killed her relevant?
The death was due to a difference in properties between the shoes.
Did the new shoes have small heels that could easily get stuck in things?
-
Were the new shoes unusual, rare, or unique in some manner?
NO
Would she have been able to acquire these shoes on any given day?
YES
Was she stabbed with the heels?
Hell NO :V
Did she die from a physical injury?
That she surely did, YES
Did the heels broke off from the shoes at some point?
NO
Is the identity of who killed her relevant?
YES
The death was due to a difference in properties between the shoes.
I assume you mean between the old and new shoes, so YES
Did the new shoes have small heels that could easily get stuck in things?
IRRELEVANT
-
Did her killer think that her shoes were unusual, rare, or unique?
Likewise did they think that she should not have been able to get them on any given day?
-
Did her killer think that her shoes were unusual, rare, or unique?
UNKNOWN
Likewise did they think that she should not have been able to get them on any given day?
UNKNOWN
-
Did it went like she wouldn't have died if she was not wearing high heel shoes but a normal shoes, and that it had nothing to do with them being new or old?
-
Was the killer related to her obtaining either of the shoes?
-
Did it went like she wouldn't have died if she was not wearing high heel shoes but a normal shoes, and that it had nothing to do with them being new or old?
YES
Was the killer related to her obtaining either of the shoes?
Probably YES, but possibly in a different way than you think :V
-
Was she misidentified by whomever killed her due to her shoes?
-
Was the killer the sales?
Edit: I mean salesman. Though whatever, you got what I'm thinking of anyways. :P
Did the killer directly killed her? (as in that person came and somehow killed her with a physical method)
If not, does that mean the killer and Mary never met after their encounter when Mary obtained the shoes?
Did the killer make a phonecall?
Was the killer doing something that cause Mary's death?
-
Was she misidentified by whomever killed her due to her shoes?
NO
Was the killer the sales?
NO
Did the killer directly killed her?
YES
If not, does that mean the killer and Mary never met after their encounter when Mary obtained the shoes?
See above
Did the killer make a phonecall?
NO
Was the killer doing something that cause Mary's death?
I think that would be the definition of 'killer'. YES
-
Did the shoes, being high-heeled, raise the woman's height unusually and thus become in that manner the cause of death?
-
Was the killer at the shop when Mary was there?
Did the two meet again in the evening when the killer accidentally killed Mary?
Was the killer the original owner of the shoes?
If yes, so the shop was actually some kind of second hand items shop?
-
Did the shoes, being high-heeled, raise the woman's height unusually and thus become in that manner the cause of death?
Ah, here we go. YES
Was the killer at the shop when Mary was there?
NO
Did the two meet again in the evening when the killer accidentally killed Mary?
NO if it's related to the question before. But YES, they did meet in the evening.
Was the killer the original owner of the shoes?
NO
If yes, so the shop was actually some kind of second hand items shop?
See above
-
Ah, here we go. YES
Pff, finally.
Did the woman follow an otherwise typical daily routine?
Was the other person, doing whatever they were doing, also doing an otherwise typical daily routine?
-
Was the other person Mary's friend?
By relevant to Mary obtaining the shoes, did that mean that the person is the one who brought Mary to the shop to buy new shoes?
-
Did the woman follow an otherwise typical daily routine?
Typical routine for her, YES. Whether it was daily, I do not know.
Was the other person, doing whatever they were doing, also doing an otherwise typical daily routine?
See above. YES, the second person was also doing a typical routine.
Was the other person Mary's friend?
NO
By relevant to Mary obtaining the shoes, did that mean that the person is the one who brought Mary to the shop to buy new shoes?
NO
-
Well, seems to me that determining the occupation of the second person will pretty much solve the case. Hm.
Was the second person a: construction worker, cargo loader, large vehicle operator, miscellaneous repairman, electrician?
Was the woman's death caused by grievous bodily injury, shock, electrocution, concussion?
-
Well, seems to me that determining the occupation of the second person will pretty much solve the case. Hm.
YES
Was the second person a: construction worker, cargo loader, large vehicle operator, miscellaneous repairman, electrician?
NO to all
Was the woman's death caused by grievous bodily injury, shock, electrocution, concussion?
YES for bodily injury, NO to the rest
-
Was it head trauma?
-
Was the woman aware of what eventually caused her death, even if she wasn't aware it would kill her?
An example would be a man ordering a piano raised to his apartment balcony, but unaware it would snap and fall on him.
-
Was it head trauma?
I dunno if we have the same image of a 'trauma', but I'd say YES. It was damage to the head
Was the woman aware of what eventually caused her death, even if she wasn't aware it would kill her?
YES, absolutely
-
Would determining the cause of death enable us to determine the nature of the person responsible, and vice versa?
Was she near a window or balcony when she died?
-
Would determining the cause of death enable us to determine the nature of the person responsible, and vice versa?
YES
Was she near a window or balcony when she died?
IRRELEVANT, but most likely NO
-
Hmm, forgot to even ask the usual one: is the death caused by inattention or negligence?
-
Hmm, forgot to even ask the usual one: is the death caused by inattention or negligence?
Phew, hard to answer. It's not really part of the case, but I'd say there is a bit of negligence involved YES.
-
Did her murderer reside near her, or were they there by the nature of their employment?
Were they present (within, say, 25 meters) when she died?
-
Did her murderer reside near her, or were they there by the nature of their employment?
YES for both, second one is important for the case
Were they present (within, say, 25 meters) when she died?
YES
-
Aha.
Did Mary happen to work in a circus or other establishment?
Did her new height happen to throw off the aim of a practised marksman?
-
Did Mary happen to work in a circus or other establishment?
YES
Did her new height happen to throw off the aim of a practised marksman?
YES
-
So:
Mary is a knife-thrower's assistant (or archer's assistant). Her new high-heeled shoes put her head off target, and a knife (or arrow) stabbed her in the head after travelling at a high velocity. The murderer was the knife-thrower (or archer).
-
~CASE SOLVED~
Mary is a knife-thrower's assistant (or archer's assistant). Her new high-heeled shoes put her head off target, and a knife (or arrow) stabbed her in the head after travelling at a high velocity. The murderer was the knife-thrower (or archer).
Good enough, YES
Mary was the wife and assistant of a knife thrower.
Their performance involved the husband throwing knifes while blindfolded.
She bought new high-heeled shoes, but didn't tell him because she wanted it to be a surprise.
So the man aimed just like he was used to, and hit Mary directly in the head, killing her.
Nice job solving that one.
Oh, I love that riddle.
It's so mean~
And for those wondering, I answered the man might be related to her buying the shoes
because I suspect it might be his money Mary is spending. :V
ANyway, why wait when we can continue at once.
Next will be a really weird riddle, as you will see from its description already.
Have fun~
Twentyseventh Case: The One-Armed Men
A man put a severed arm into a package and shipped it.
The package arrived at the one-armed men, who threw the content into the sea, satisfied
-
Are any of the men pirates or yakuza? :V
-
Was the severed arm a human arm?
Was there anything significant or identifying on the severed arm?
Does this involve the cover-up of a crime?
Of course, this is all assuming that the severed arm does not belong to the one-armed man... men? Wait, what?
-
I know the answer to this one already, so I'll sit it out.
-
What the? How did you manage to put the first question that fast... o_0
Are any of the men pirates or yakuza? :V
Yakuza wouldn't make sense, so NO. But there's no real reason why they should not have been pirates, so YES, if you want.
And more already:
Was the severed arm a human arm?
YES
Was there anything significant or identifying on the severed arm?
NO. It was a normal arm. As normal as a severed arm can be...
Does this involve the cover-up of a crime?
NO. I would probably have given the Yakuza a yes if it was :V
Of course, this is all assuming that the severed arm does not belong to the one-armed man... men?
YES
Wait, what?
Absolutely YES :V
I know the answer to this one already, so I'll sit it out.
Good boy mod
-
I know the answer to this one already, so I'll sit it out.
-
I know the answer to this one already, so I'll sit it out.
Good boy natural occuring phenomenom mostly combined with heavy rain
-
Why the hell are there that many one-armed men in the same place
Was the arm sent the sender's arm?
Was the same package received by the one-armed group, containing that arm?
Was there anything else of importance in the package?
Was this some sort of hazing/initiation rital?
-
Did the man who threw the arm in the sea lose his arm to the man who the arm originally belonged to?
-
I know the answer now
-
Why the hell are there that many one-armed men in the same place
Because Black Stories :V
Was the arm sent the sender's arm?
NO
Was the same package received by the one-armed group, containing that arm?
YES
Was there anything else of importance in the package?
NO
Was this some sort of hazing/initiation rital?
NO
I know the answer now
Good boy mindhax-rabbit
EDIT: Forgot one
Did the man who threw the arm in the sea lose his arm to the man who the arm originally belonged to?
NO
-
Did the sent arm come from one of the one-armed men that received it?
Is man/men literal or metaphorical?
-
Good boy mindhax-rabbit
I lied :D
-
Did the sent arm come from one of the one-armed men that received it?
NO
Is man/men literal or metaphorical?
NO........(okay, it's literal)
I lied :D
You know what, I'm going to answer your posts in a two-way from now on:
I above was truth: >:(
I above was (another) lie: Goddamnit Pesco!
-
NO........(okay, it's literal)
Fucking English language.
Was the sent arm removed in an accident? The receiving men?
Does the sender have one arm?
Is the location of either the sender or receiver relevant (aside from the 'ocean' part)?
Was it part of a burial at sea...?
-
Fucking English language.
Fucking Yes-No-Questions :V
Was the sent arm removed in an accident?
NO
The receiving men?
What? If I put that into the question before, I get 'Were the receiving men removed in an accident? :V
Does the sender have one arm?
YES. Like the vast majority of humans has. But I know what you want to ask, so: NO. He has two arms.
Is the location of either the sender or receiver relevant (aside from the 'ocean' part)?
Silghtly YES, but it's only of little importance
Was it part of a burial at sea...?
NO
-
Are these arms weaponry arms?
-
Are these arms weaponry arms?
NO. Wouldn't work in the original riddle. Remember I translate those form German and we use two very different words for arms and weapons.
-
What? If I put that into the question before, I get 'Were the receiving men removed in an accident? :V
Sorry; Receiving mens' arms.
Thusly, were the missing arms of the men receiving the arm-containing package lost due to one or more accidents?
YES. Like the vast majority of humans has. But I know what you want to ask, so: NO. He has two arms.
Have you been tricksey about grammar in any of your other answers >:|?
Was the sent arm removed by force?
Was the sent arm removed due to the same cause as the receiving mens' missing arms?
Is the (original) owner of the arm - the person that it came off of - relevant?
Is "content" a typo in the question description, or is grammar raspberrying me again?
-
does riddle matter if there is only one one-armed man instead of men?
Is the fact that they have one arm significant?
Is this the future?
Do they have robotic arm?
Was the arm the receiver got the right arm? And was he right armed?
-
A man wants to join THE ONE-ARMED MEN group, but he must first prove that he is qualified to join the group -- he must send his own severed arm to prove he's ONE-ARMED. The leader received that arm package and is satisfied with the proof.
I don't even know what I'm getting at. :V
-
A man wants to join THE ONE-ARMED MEN group, but he must first prove that he is qualified to join the group -- he must send his own severed arm to prove he's ONE-ARMED. The leader received that arm package and is satisfied with the proof.
I don't even know what I'm getting at. :V
I want to believe this one ;_;
-
A man wants to join THE ONE-ARMED MEN group, but he must first prove that he is qualified to join the group -- he must send his own severed arm to prove he's ONE-ARMED. The leader received that arm package and is satisfied with the proof.
I don't even know what I'm getting at. :V
That is clearly the one and only true answer.
Was the shipping of the arm done for medical or scientific reasons?
I do not recall if this was asked before so: is the arm unusual in any way, beyond being a severed arm?
-
Thusly, were the missing arms of the men receiving the arm-containing package lost due to one or more accidents?
Indirectly YES
Have you been tricksey about grammar in any of your other answers >:|?
Not in a way that I am aware of, NO
Was the sent arm removed by force?
If you mean, without the consent of the person it belongs to, NO
Was the sent arm removed due to the same cause as the receiving mens' missing arms?
YES
Is the (original) owner of the arm - the person that it came off of - relevant?
Not really, NO. There is one or two things you can discover about that person, but it's not relevant
Is "content" a typo in the question description, or is grammar raspberrying me again?
Eh? The 'content of the package', is there anything wrong with that?
does riddle matter if there is only one one-armed man instead of men?
It could work the same way with only one man, but it makes more sense with a group.
Is the fact that they have one arm significant?
Definitely YES
Is this the future?
I dunno, it may be depending on which time-zone you live in. Oh wait, you mean the riddle... IRRELEVANT
Do they have robotic arm?
NO
Was the arm the receiver got the right arm? And was he right armed?
Both UNKNOWN and IRRELEVANT
A man wants to join THE ONE-ARMED MEN group, but he must first prove that he is qualified to join the group -- he must send his own severed arm to prove he's ONE-ARMED. The leader received that arm package and is satisfied with the proof.
NO~
Though it is a humorous idea. I think I had a similar idea when I played this riddle with friends IRL. :D
Was the shipping of the arm done for medical or scientific reasons?
NO
I do not recall if this was asked before so: is the arm unusual in any way, beyond being a severed arm?
NO
-
Was the arm the man's bait for fishing sharks?
Was it food for their pet piranhas in sea...?
Could it be thrown into somewhere else other than the sea?
Was throwing into the sea simply a way of disposing the arm?
Were they being one-armed related to their occupation?
Was severing the arm some kind of punishment?
-
Was the arm the man's bait for fishing sharks?
(o_0) ...NO
Was it food for their pet piranhas in sea...?
(o_0) ...NO :V
Could it be thrown into somewhere else other than the sea?
NO. It's not explicitely stated, but I see the ea as relevant.
Was throwing into the sea simply a way of disposing the arm?
NO. It was more than that.
Were they being one-armed related to their occupation?
Could say that, YES
Was severing the arm some kind of punishment?
Uh... if I'm really liberal with the word, YES. But better try something else.
-
Eh? The 'content of the package', is there anything wrong with that?
I forget how to describe the grammatical logic behind it, but in that case "content" should be pluralized to "contents," even though there's only one thing in the package. Probably has to do with the "of" there, and maybe ownership? Sorry, I know English well, but I can't describe it well.
This has probably been covered indirectly, but just to make sure: Was the arm removed due to poison? Due to disease? Social purposes only? Or something I'm not thinking of?
-
I forget how to describe the grammatical logic behind it, but in that case "content" should be pluralized to "contents," even though there's only one thing in the package. Probably has to do with the "of" there, and maybe ownership? Sorry, I know English well, but I can't describe it well.
Oh, so that was it. Yeah, I figured maybe it should have been 'contents'. Anyway, it means the arm and nothing else.
Was the arm removed due to poison? Due to disease? Social purposes only? Or something I'm not thinking of?
NO, probably YES to the last. Though I would like you to elaborate on 'Social purposes' to be sure.
-
NO, probably YES to the last. Though I would like you to elaborate on 'Social purposes' to be sure.
As part of a ritual, like the "hazing ritual" I mentioned: A religious practice, superstition, tradition, or symbol of status that is not directly grounded in practical concerns.
Was the owner of the sent arm alive when his arm was removed? The receiving men?
Was the owner of the sent arm alive when his arm was sent?
Were bladed weapons involved in the arm loss? Bladed industrial implements?
-
As part of a ritual, like the "hazing ritual" I mentioned: A religious practice, superstition, tradition, or symbol of status that is not directly grounded in practical concerns.
Okay, then it's a NO
Was the owner of the sent arm alive when his arm was removed? The receiving men?
Both YES. How would they receive the arm if they were dead anyway? :/
Was the owner of the sent arm alive when his arm was sent?
YES
Were bladed weapons involved in the arm loss? Bladed industrial implements?
NO
-
Was the method of arm severance relevant?
Were they performers?
Was there anything relevant under the sea?
-
Was the method of arm severance relevant?
NO
Were they performers?
NO
Was there anything relevant under the sea?
Depending on how I interpret part of the riddle, maybe YES.
-
Was there probably will be the arms of the other One-Armed Men under the sea according to how you interpret things?
Are these One-Armed men sane...?
Did the men want the package wrappings/box actually but not the arm...?
Did the sender know the owner of the arm? (I didn't even notice the sender was not the arm's owner until I read the page before again >_<)
-
*fills in while fishy is away*
Was there probably will be the arms of the other One-Armed Men under the sea according to how you interpret things?
No.
Are these One-Armed men sane...?
Yes.
Did the men want the package wrappings/box actually but not the arm...?
No.
Did the sender know the owner of the arm? (I didn't even notice the sender was not the arm's owner until I read the page before again >_<)
Yes.
-
Don't be hijacking the game. That ain't nice.
Less hijacking, more allowing it to be advanced seamlessly.
Time zones are :dealwithit: territory.
-
Hey, ain't a gamemaster allowed to enjoy the nice weather a bit? :D No! You must hikikomori forever, dohoho.
Anyway, since those riddles exist in variations, I'd appreciate it if you'd send me a PM with your version of the solution before you try to take over, since you won't know if we're talking about the same stuff.
If I know you have the right solution, then I'll allow answering when questions pile up too much.
Which wasn't the case here yet, just saying.
Oh, and at least keep to the proper formatting when answering, really now. ;)
And just saying, if you wanna enjoy the fun of being a gamemaster, you just need to say so. It wasn't used yet, but there's an option in the OP saying everyone can run a riddle if they want, with my permission of course.
Be that as it may, Edible's answers were correct, so game on people. :)
-
Did either men want to lose their arms?
-
Did either men want to lose their arms?
NO. I doubt anyone ever would want that.
-
NO. I doubt anyone ever would want that.
Unless it was poisoned or diseased and amputating it would save their life, hence the question about those. =(
Is the reason the arm of the sent man was removed relevant? The reason for the receiving mens' arms to be removed?
Is the reason the arm was sent relevant?
-
Unless it was poisoned or diseased and amputating it would save their life, hence the question about those. =(
Aha. Well, if that's the way you meant it, then you may be onto something. I won't change my previous answer, but there's something interesting in this sentence of yours.
Is the reason the arm of the sent man was removed relevant? The reason for the receiving mens' arms to be removed?
YES
Is the reason the arm was sent relevant?
YES
-
Aha. Well, if that's the way you meant it, then you may be onto something. I won't change my previous answer, but there's something interesting in this sentence of yours.
Damnit, and NOW I think of another actual possibility. Was the sent arm removed because it got stuck and had to be removed to escape? The arms removed from the other men?
Was the arm thrown into the sea for practical reasons? Symbolic reasons? As part of a collection?
-
Was the sent arm removed because it got stuck and had to be removed to escape? The arms removed from the other men?
NO. Keep trying.
Was the arm thrown into the sea for practical reasons?
Symbolic reasons?
As part of a collection?
Out of those three, symbolic is closest I think.
-
Were the two men once co-workers? Enemies? Acquaintances?
Is the idea of karma involved in this?
-
Was the arm severed because of:
Frostbite?
Burn damage?
Was the person who sent the arm a doctor?
-
Are sharks involved?
-
Were the two men once co-workers? Enemies? Acquaintances?
Two men? Where? Anyway, the people involved were acquaintances, YES. NO to the rest.
Is the idea of karma involved in this?
NO
Was the arm severed because of:
Frostbite?
Burn damage?
NO
Was the person who sent the arm a doctor?
IRRELEVANT
Are sharks involved?
NO
-
Was the sent arm severed because of a concrete practical concern? Was it done on purpose? Was it done with explicit permission?
All of the above questions, but for the receiving group?
-
Was the sent arm severed because of a concrete practical concern?
Uh, there's a concrete reason, YES.
Was it done on purpose?
The severing? YES
Was it done with explicit permission?
Permission by whom? The owner of the arm? YES
All of the above questions, but for the receiving group?
Definitely YES, YES and YES
-
So then, the owner of the arm willingly cut the arm off?
Did the owner of the arm do it for the person who threw the arm into the ocean or did the owner do so for personal reasons?
Was the owner of the arm under a life threatening situation?
-
Did anyone involved remove their own arm?
Did the arms removed from the sender and receivers get removed due to the same cause?
Were the severed arms usable immediately before removal?
-
So then, the owner of the arm willingly cut the arm off?
Willingly, YES. By himelf? I doubt it, but it's IRRELEVANT
Did the owner of the arm do it for the person who threw the arm into the ocean or did the owner do so for personal reasons?
I don't see a Yes-No-Question anywhere, yo! Anyway, personal reasons: YES
Was the owner under a life threatening situation?
NO
Did anyone involved remove their own arm?
UNKNOWN, but possible
Did the arms removed from the sender and receivers get removed due to the same cause?
Overall YES, though there were some differences.
Were the severed arms usable immediately before removal?
UNKNOWN, but possibly YES
-
Were the arms removed due to inconvenience? Injury? Cosmetics/appearance?
Were the arms functionally replaced, i.e. prosthetics? Is that relevant?
Was water significantly involved in the cause for the arms' removal?
-
Crap, got to stop wording my questions like that.
Was the owner of the arm responsible for the receiver losing his arm?
Did the receiver lose his arm by accident?
-
Sorry for the delay today. Had some business to take care of.
Were the arms removed due to inconvenience? Injury? Cosmetics/appearance?
Basically NO. But if you could say what 'inconvenience' would mean specifically, that'd help.
Were the arms functionally replaced, i.e. prosthetics? Is that relevant?
IRRELEVANT, but assume NO
Was water significantly involved in the cause for the arms' removal?
Interesting question. YES.
Crap, got to stop wording my questions like that.
YES :V
Was the owner of the arm responsible for the receiver losing his arm?
NO
Did the receiver lose his arm by accident?
NO
-
Did any of them need a hand? :V
-
Did any of them need a hand? :V
Obviously :V
-
Basically NO. But if you could say what 'inconvenience' would mean specifically, that'd help.
Were the arms removed due to getting in the way of tasks that their owner found more important, or was otherwise considered unnecessary and not worth the hassle?
Double-checking for injury and cosmetics/appearance, since it isn't 100% clear whether that "NO" was universal or just to "inconvenience."
Was/were the arms of either relevant party removed while working above a body of water (that was not further underground in case you feel like being a dick)? While working underwater?
Was/were the arms removed by the force of a water stream (i.e. highly pressurized and/or very fast/heavy such as... I don't know, a waterfall)?
(Just assume these questions ask for both the receiving group and the guy with the sent arm, since I don't want to waste time fucking around with grammar.)
-
Were the arms removed due to getting in the way of tasks that their owner found more important, or was otherwise considered unnecessary and not worth the hassle?
My sarcastic mind would allow me to actually word things in a way to allow me a yes here, but I'll be honest and say NO.
Remind me to inlcude the sarcastic-wording thing when we get to the solution. :D
Was/were the arms of either relevant party removed while working above a body of water (that was not further underground in case you feel like being a dick)?
It wasn't removed during work, NO
While working underwater?
NO
Was/were the arms removed by the force of a water stream (i.e. highly pressurized and/or very fast/heavy such as... I don't know, a waterfall)?
NO
(Just assume these questions ask for both the receiving group and the guy with the sent arm, since I don't want to waste time fucking around with grammar.)
Did that.
I'll say you that, my dear players: You are currently taking a really roundabout way of getting any closer to the solution. I have no idea whether this is due to unclear answers, so maybe a summarizing would be in order. Recheck your current assumptions.
-
I can't think of any reason someone would want to have their arm removed, which is basically the only possibility left: It wasn't a direct accident, it was with permission, and it wasn't due to any sane reason I can come up with.
Did they want the arms removed?
Is "not during work" a technicality meaning that it was lost while over a body of water while NOT working?
Was it removed/given reason to be removed during a leisure activity? As part of a special event? Educational?
Is wordplay involved in this?
Should we be focusing on why the arm was/were removed? How? Why it was sent? Specific identities of anyone involved?
-
Was their arms not damaged when they had them severed?
Could they use their arms just like a normal human?
Did they almost drown in sea before?
-
It wasn't a direct accident, it was with permission, and it wasn't due to any sane reason I can come up with.
YES
Did they want the arms removed?
NO. As I said before, I doubt anyone would want that, but it was one of the best choices for them
Is "not during work" a technicality meaning that it was lost while over a body of water while NOT working?
Could you please state more clearly what you mean with that 'over a body of water' stuff? I have no idea how to understand that. And YES, they were not working at the time of removal of the arms.
Was it removed/given reason to be removed during a leisure activity?
As part of a special event?
Educational?
That kind of detail on the situation are UNKNOWN
Is wordplay involved in this?
NO
Should we be focusing on why the arm was/were removed? How?
Why it was sent?
Specific identities of anyone involved?
NO for 'How?' and 'Specific Identities', YES for the other two
Was their arms not damaged when they had them severed?
IRRELEVANT (and answered before)
Could they use their arms just like a normal human?
YES
Did they almost drown in sea before?
YES! Finally something in the right direction!
-
Could you please state more clearly what you mean with that 'over a body of water' stuff? I have no idea how to understand that. And YES, they were not working at the time of removal of the arms.
I mean, was "Was/were the arms of either relevant party removed while working above a body of water" answered NO because they were not above a body of water, or because I used the word "working" and they weren't working: grammar tricksiness. But apparently the whole thing's irrelevant, so it's been led to a huge waste of time. :V
Are fish significantly involved? Boats?
The arms were removed due to a 'sort of' accident, with permission but without wanting to lose it, and not due to disease, poison, injury, or to escape a trapped arm. It was thrown into the sea symbolically in reference to nearly drowning.
... A crew of sailors stranded on an island had to eat their own arms to survive: except for one, who later had it removed and thrown into the sea for fairness' sake.
Possible story, lolidunno
But, are the other removed arms still intact somewhere?
-
Actually I wanted an example of what that phrase meant to you, but your next questions cover that ^^
Are fish significantly involved?
NO
Boats?
YES
The arms were removed due to a 'sort of' accident, with permission but without wanting to lose it, and not due to disease, poison, injury, or to escape a trapped arm. It was thrown into the sea symbolically in reference to nearly drowning.
YES
... A crew of sailors stranded on an island had to eat their own arms to survive: except for one, who later had it removed and thrown into the sea for fairness' sake.
Almost, YES. Having an island there is the Edible version, mine is drifting on the sea, but I'll count that part. However, part of your answer directly contradicts already discovered facts. Fix that, and you're good to go.
But, are the other removed arms still intact somewhere?
NO
-
WERE the arms used as food, then? Was that the main reason for their removal, to avoid complete cannibalism?
Did I mess up in calling them sailors, out of the irrelevant whim of calling them pirates and being a choice-of-words technicality?
-
WERE the arms used as food, then? Was that the main reason for their removal, to avoid complete cannibalism?
YES. The arms were used as foot ass there was nothing else available.
Did I mess up in calling them sailors, out of the irrelevant whim of calling them pirates and being a choice-of-words technicality?
NO. Whether they were pirates, sailors, or just random people on a boat vacation is IRRELEVANT. I'll make pirates the solution now, because it's fun :V
-
And had it sent to the rest of the group so they could eat it (or whatever) for fairness' sake? :V
Is this about making a deal about whose arms get eaten first - the last one needing to fulfill his end of the bargain on that?
Is it relevant that someone else sent the recently-removed arm, rather than the owner himself?
-
And had it sent to the rest of the group so they could eat it (or whatever) for fairness' sake? :V
NO
Is this about making a deal about whose arms get eaten first - the last one needing to fulfill his end of the bargain on that?
That as well, YES
Is it relevant that someone else sent the recently-removed arm, rather than the owner himself?
YES. This is exactly the point you still have to find out more about.
-
A group of people were stranded in the ocean, and made an agreement to cut off one person's arm and eat it in order to survive without having to kill anyone. The two-armed person got out of his end of the deal somehow (most likely from the group being rescued), and the one-armed group sent someone to collect the arm they were owed. Rather than getting killed, the remaining two-armed survivor agreed with the 'assassin' to have just the arm removed and sent.
I forget, did the package sender have two arms?
-
A group of people were stranded in the ocean, and made an agreement to cut off one person's arm and eat it in order to survive without having to kill anyone. The two-armed person got out of his end of the deal somehow (most likely from the group being rescued), and the one-armed group sent someone to collect the arm they were owed. Rather than getting killed, the remaining two-armed survivor agreed with the 'assassin' to have just the arm removed and sent.
Red parts are correct, the rest isn't.
I forget, did the package sender have two arms?
YES
-
Is the package sender the last member of the stranded group, or the person who had their arm removed?
-
Is the package sender the last member of the stranded group
YES
Or the person who had their arm removed?
NO
Keep it up. You're on the right track now ^^
-
Now the question is how they got conned/bribed into it... or is that not relevant?
The sender was asked for his own arm, but managed to get someone else's and sent that instead.
-
Now the question is how they got conned/bribed into it... or is that not relevant?
The sender was asked for his own arm, but managed to get someone else's and sent that instead.
YES. You pretty much answered your own question already :V
-
A group of
people pirates were stranded in the ocean, and made an agreement to cut off one person's arm and eat it in order to survive without having to kill anyone. The two-armed person got out of his end of the deal somehow (most likely from the group being rescued), and was later asked to send it. He managed to remove someone else's arm instead, and sent that to avoid losing his own arm.
Do we need to find how the sent arm was acquired?
Was the sent arm recently removed when it was sent?
-
I'll count that one. Solution and new riddle will come in a bit. Please wait warmly~
-
~Case solved~
Enough details have been uncovered and brought into connection to declare this case as solved
A group of people pirates were stranded in the ocean, and made an agreement to cut off one person's arm and eat it in order to survive without having to kill anyone. The two-armed person got out of his end of the deal somehow (most likely from the group being rescued), and was later asked to send it. He managed to remove someone else's arm instead, and sent that to avoid losing his own arm.
YES The logic behind the case is complete in this answer, I will use my card-version for the solution though.
A long time ago the four pirates, yarrr~ men drifted on a treetrunk on the sea in a hopeless situation.
Their ship has sunk, they had no food.
So they agreed that everyone had to sacrifice an arm.
Before it was the fourth man's turn however, they were rescued.
The other three reminded him of his promise and claimed one of his arms.
Since the fourth man lived far away from them, he didn't even think of keeping the promise.
He offered whoever was ready to lend him a hand arm one million Euro.
Soon a volunteer was found, the arm was severed and sent to the other three men, who believed it was the arm of the fourth one.
This one was quite a mean riddle, eh?
I enjoyed watching your struggles, and they payed off nicely in the end.
Also, this riddle made for a lot of interesting and fun questions.
So, which one next....
Hmmm, how about...
Ah, yes, that's a nice one, I'm sure you'll like it, my dear players.
Twentyeighth Case: Flickering
When the light flickered, Stephen knew he came too late.
-
Was he too late in the sense that someone died?
Was someone on life support?
-
Did the light come from an appliance used to light areas(Lightbulb, lamp, etc.)
Did the light come from electricity sparks?
-
Was he too late in the sense that someone died?
YES
Was someone on life support?
NO
Did the light come from an appliance used to light areas(Lightbulb, lamp, etc.)
YES
Did the light come from electricity sparks?
NO
-
Was the light from an electrical appliance? (Being careful here)
-
Since the light was flickering, does that mean it never stays lit up?
Was the light an fire alarm?
Was Stephen too late to save (at least) one person's life?
-
Well, a friend of mine got into a discussion with me today, and it just gave me a devious idea.
Was someone executed?
-
Was the light from an electrical appliance? (Being careful here)
Checking for candles, eh? Nice move indeed. It's a NO however.
Since the light was flickering, does that mean it never stays lit up?
NO. It usually does stay lit.
Was the light an fire alarm?
NO
Was Stephen too late to save (at least) one person's life?
YES
Was someone executed?
Goddamnit Thundr. How do you always do this? YES!
Seems like this will be shorter than I thought, interesting. ^^
-
Electric chair~
-
Electric chair~
YES~ Not enough though~
-
At first I thought it was the electric chair from the flickering... but then I thought not when the light came from an actual light source.
So... did the light flicker because of the need for a large amount of power by another source?
If so, was said source the electric chair?
Was the person Stephen trying to stop from getting killed actually innocent?
-
So... did the light flicker because of the need for a large amount of power by another source?
YES
If so, was said source the electric chair?
YES
Was the person Stephen trying to stop from getting killed actually innocent?
YES NO
-
Stephen learned on a phone that the man that was to be executed for a certain crime was actually innocent. He quickly ran over as fast as he could to try and stop the execution from taking place. As he reached though, he saw that the light from the room was flickering. He realized he was too late, the man was electrified on the chair and the lights flickered from the surge of electricity used.
-
Stephen learned on a phone that the man that was to be executed for a certain crime was actually innocent. He quickly ran over as fast as he could to try and stop the execution from taking place. As he reached though, he saw that the light from the room was flickering. He realized he was too late, the man was electrified on the chair and the lights flickered from the surge of electricity used.
YES. While the 'on the phone'-part is not neccessary, I still want one more info. It shouldn't be any challenge now, but: why Stephen? It wasn't just a coincidence that it was him who tried to stop the execution.
-
Did Stephen have evidence disproving the crime?
Was Stephan related to the person that was executed?
Was Stephan the one that the executed person was accused of killing :V
-
Wait, screw that. I read my card wrong.
Correction time, sorry for the mistake:
The person that was executed was NOT INNOCENT!
Did Stephen have evidence disproving the crime?
NO
Was Stephan related to the person that was executed?
YES. Not as family though, if that's what you thought of.
Was Stephan the one that the executed person was accused of killing :V
NO. Would be a hilarious plot-twist though :V
-
Was Stephen actually the killer?
Did Stephen know that the man being executed was innocent the entire time?
-
Sorry, I had to make a correction about the innocence thing. My mistake *bow*
Was Stephen actually the killer?
NO
Did Stephen know that the man being executed was innocent the entire time?
NO, as the man wasnt innocent after all
-
Was Stephen an accomplice to the crime?
Was it actually a killing? Is that relevant?
Was Stephan trying to stop the execution for the sake of the criminal being executed? For his own sake? For other specific people? For bystanders? (i.e. electrical problems making the chair a group death device for any observers)
-
Was Stephen an accomplice to the crime?
NO
Was it actually a killing? Is that relevant?
IRRELEVANT. The person was sentenced to death, that's all.
Was Stephan trying to stop the execution for the sake of the criminal being executed?
YES
For his own sake?
NOt really. It might have benefitted him though
For other specific people?
For bystanders?
NO
-
Is Stephan's relationship to the accused relevant? Is how he planned to stop the execution relevant?
-
Is Stephan's relationship to the accused relevant?
Is how he planned to stop the execution relevant?
Both YES, as this is exactly what is still missing for a solution.
-
Was Stephan the executed person's lawyer? A recreational/locational friend? Business partner?
Was Stephan planning to stop the execution via primarily social means (i.e. interfering with the people working on it)? By cutting the power? Otherwise interfering with the physical requirements for the electrical chair? Or is execution by electrical chair not relevant for more than explaining the flickering?
-
Was Stephan the executed person's lawyer?
YES
A recreational/locational friend? Business partner?
NO
Was Stephan planning to stop the execution via primarily social means (i.e. interfering with the people working on it)?
By cutting the power?
Otherwise interfering with the physical requirements for the electrical chair?
NOne of those. Social means might be the closest, but it's not the way he wanted to do it.
Or is execution by electrical chair not relevant for more than explaining the flickering?
YES. It was only for the flickering.
-
Did Stephen has a witness to testify that his client's not guilty?
Did Stephen has some kind of evidence to prove his client's not guilty?
-
Did Stephen has a witness to testify that his client's not guilty?
Did Stephen has some kind of evidence to prove his client's not guilty?
NO. The person was guilty.
-
Was Stephan planning to help the accused escape?
-
Was Stephan planning to help the accused escape?
NO
-
Was Stephan planning to use legal (as in lawyerly) means to stop the killing (declare a mistrial, alternative guilt, paperwork errors, etc)? Are legal system factors relevant beyond the death sentence?
Is Stephan doing this for any reason beyond being the accused's lawyer?
-
Was the execution postponed?
-
Was Stephan planning to use legal (as in lawyerly) means to stop the killing (declare a mistrial, alternative guilt, paperwork errors, etc)? Are legal system factors relevant beyond the death sentence?
YES to both.
Is Stephan doing this for any reason beyond being the accused's lawyer?
NO
Was the execution postponed?
NO
-
Was Stephen attempting to get something akin to a will from the deceased?
In a perfect aberration of the courts, could some factor have led to the deceased's execution being postponed?
-
Was Stephen attempting to get something akin to a will from the deceased?
NO
In a perfect aberration of the courts, could some factor have led to the deceased's execution being postponed?
Aberr...what? *dictionary* Oh, okay. Ahem.... Whether the court was sane or not at the time is IRRELEVANT. Also, it was NOT about a postponing. Think about other measures in relation to someone sentenced to death.
-
Was it an attempt to declare a mistrial? Insanity defense?
What country's legal system is this based off of?
-
The factors I can think of that could legally stop an execution:
>Religious purposes (summoning a priest, etc. for confession before the execution)
>Legal purposes (Usually a will)
>Gubernatorial right (The ability of a governor to postpone an execution indefinitely)
>Procedure purposes (The execution equipment is improperly cared for, the person brought to be executed was the wrong person, etc.)
-
>Gubernatorial right (The ability of a governor to postpone an execution indefinitely)
Mmmmmmm, delicious abuse of authority~
-
Was it an attempt to declare a mistrial? Insanity defense?
NO
What country's legal system is this based off of?
Well, I'd say Germany's, but we don't have a death sentence, so... Most likely the USA's?
>Gubernatorial right (The ability of a governor to postpone an execution indefinitely)
Well, if it means indefinitely, let's count that one.
So, I guess I'll declare:
~CASE SOLVED~
Phoenix Stephen was the lawyer of the person sentenced to death.
However, he managed to obtain pardon at the last minute.
He rushed to the prison to stp the execution.
When he saw the lights flicker, he knew he was too late.
The electical chair had already been activated.
This one is a bit weird.
You'd think they'd call the executioners if there was a pardon.
But noooo, let's leave it to the running speed of the lawyer whether someone will live or die.
Well, no break for you, my dear players.
The next riddle will start immediately.
Twentynineth Case: Overslept
A man fell asleep in his car and drowned.
-
Was the man operating the vehicle when he fell asleep?
Was the car already in the water when he fell asleep?
Was there foul play involved, or can the incident be blamed solely on the deceased?
-
You know, the last case makes so much more sense if it was really Phoenix....
:V
Was it raining?
Was there an avalanche?
Was there some kind of relevant natural disaster that happened?
Was it sea water that the man drowned in?
RANDOM THEORY TIME : The man was driving to the beach. He parked his car by the seashore to watch the sunset, then he fell asleep in his car. Then the tides rised so much it drowned the sleeping man inside.
-
Was the car submerged in water?
Was he drowned in water? Or another liquid? Or not a liquid?
Was anyone else present at the drowning?
-
Did the man inhale any gas that condensed while in his lungs to cause the drowning?
-
/me high-fives Pesco
Did he drown in the car? How soon after falling asleep did he drown: Under 5 minutes? 5 mins - 30 mins? 30 mins - 4 hours? etc... :V
-
Was the man operating the vehicle when he fell asleep?
NO
Was the car already in the water when he fell asleep?
WRONG ASSUMPTION (Wow, I already thought I'd never get to use this answer again :V)
Was there foul play involved, or can the incident be blamed solely on the deceased?
NO. The incident was not only the deceased person's fault.
Was it raining?
IRRELEVANT
Was there an avalanche?
NO
Was there some kind of relevant natural disaster that happened?
NO
Was it sea water that the man drowned in?
NO
RANDOM THEORY TIME : The man was driving to the beach. He parked his car by the seashore to watch the sunset, then he fell asleep in his car. Then the tides rised so much it drowned the sleeping man inside.
NO
Did the man inhale any gas that condensed while in his lungs to cause the drowning?
Wow, I'd never have thought of that. Unfortunately, NO.
Did he drown in the car?
YES
How soon after falling asleep did he drown: Under 5 minutes? 5 mins - 30 mins? 30 mins - 4 hours? etc... :V
UNKNOWN
-
Could this be ruled a murder? Was the car flooded with the intent of drowning the man?
Was his sleep induced or natural?
-
Could this be ruled a murder?
NO, not from the definition of murder that I know of.
Was the car flooded with the intent of drowning the man?
NO
Was his sleep induced
NO
or natural?
YES
-
We assume the method of death was by drowning (something not supposed to be in his lungs causing him to not be able to breathe)?
Did he drown in a liquid?
Did he drown in a gas?
Did he drown in a fluid solid?
-
Was the position/location of his car relevant to his murder?
-
Was the car submerged in water?
Was he drowned in water?
Was anyone else in the car at the drowning? Present near the car?
-
We assume the method of death was by drowning (something not supposed to be in his lungs causing him to not be able to breathe)?
YES
Did he drown in a liquid?
NO
Did he drown in a gas?
NO
Did he drown in a fluid solid?
Sounds about right. YES. I hope I'm not having the wrong image here.
Was the position/location of his car relevant to his murder?
YES
Was the car submerged in water?
NO
Was he drowned in water?
NO
Was anyone else in the car at the drowning?
NO
Present near the car?
YES
-
... Oh god. <_<
Was he involved in an automobile collision?
Was the cause of death directly related to an airbag?
-
Did the man suffer any physical injuries?
Is the solid fluid he drowned in, something that is commonly obtainable in powder form?
-
Was he involved in an automobile collision?
NO
Was the cause of death directly related to an airbag?
NO
Did the man suffer any physical injuries?
None that I know of, NO
Is the solid fluid he drowned in, something that is commonly obtainable in powder form?
Now it's getting complicated. Part of it is in powder form, YES.
-
... was jell-o involved in this somehow? :|
-
... was jell-o involved in this somehow? :|
While it would be awesome, and delicious, it is a NO :V
-
Cement?
TEACHER TEACHER I NEED A CHEMIST ;_;
-
Cement?
YES
TEACHER TEACHER I NEED A CHEMIST ;_;
Call bofh yourself. You should know where to find him :V
-
Was he hitchhiking in a cement truck?
-
Was he hitchhiking in a cement truck?
NO
-
The man fell into a pit in the road that was to be filled with cement. The man was unconscious for too long to call for help, and the workers never noticed him, somehow. They dumped the cement, killing the man.
-
The man fell into a pit in the road that was to be filled with cement. The man was unconscious for too long to call for help, and the workers never noticed him, somehow. They dumped the cement, killing the man.
NO
-
What kind of car was he in - convertible, van, pickup truck, compact, SUV, 18-wheeler-style product transfer whatchamacallems, miniature car, go-kart, not relevant, other?
Was this part of an escape artist/magic trick of some sort?
-
Was the man sleeping inside one of those big trucks that mix cement?
-
What kind of car was he in - convertible, van, pickup truck, compact, SUV, 18-wheeler-style product transfer whatchamacallems, miniature car, go-kart, not relevant, other?
Now that's too much for me, as I dunno what some of those types even are. It was your standard 'use it everyday to get wherever you want'-vehicle. Maybe a Volkswagen?
Was this part of an escape artist/magic trick of some sort?
NO
Was the man sleeping inside one of those big trucks that mix cement?
NO
-
Was the car on the road? Was it near a road? Was it down a hill or something?
Was the car itself filled with cement, or only a limited portion that caused the person to drown? Or is that an irrelevant concern?
-
Was the car on the road?
YES
Was it near a road?
NO
Was it down a hill or something?
NO
Was the car itself filled with cement, or only a limited portion that caused the person to drown? Or is that an irrelevant concern?
How much of the car was filled in the end is IRRELEVANT.
-
Was the cement filling the car an accident?
Was the vehicle moving while he was asleep?
-
Was the cement filling the car an accident?
NO
Was the vehicle moving while he was asleep?
NO
-
Did the man piss off any gangsters?
-
Point of order: I believe "drowning" has to involve liquid filling the lungs, thus drowning in a gas is not, by definition, possible.
The man fell asleep during a traffic jam behind a cement mixer. The mixer broke and poured cement on his car, which was open-topped.
-
The man fell asleep during a traffic jam behind a cement mixer. The mixer broke and poured cement on his car, which was open-topped.
Looks solved. I thought this one sounded familiar.
-
Did the man piss off any gangsters?
NO
The man fell asleep during a traffic jam behind a cement mixer. The mixer broke and poured cement on his car, which was open-topped.
Looks solved. I thought this one sounded familiar.
...
.....
........
:smug:
NO. Not at all~
-
Is any part of my statement on the right track?
-
Is any part of my statement on the right track?
YES. There was a cement mixer involved, that much is true.
-
Can't remember if this was asked before - was the man in a vehicle of some sort?
-
Can't remember if this was asked before - was the man in a vehicle of some sort?
................ If you're asking about the man that died, I highly advise you read the original riddle again...
-
Was the car in which he died parked in a ditch that was scheduled to be filled with concrete?
-
Was the car in which he died parked in a ditch that was scheduled to be filled with concrete?
NO
-
................ If you're asking about the man that died, I highly advise you read the original riddle again...
Well, that's embarrassing. Um, did the man fall asleep somewhere he would be reasonably expected/allowed to? I.e. nobody would question him falling asleep there.
-
Um, did the man fall asleep somewhere he would be reasonably expected/allowed to? I.e. nobody would question him falling asleep there.
Hmm. Sleeping in a car is unusual enough in itself... Could you give some examples of places, so that I won't answer the wrong way?
-
Was the car his?
Was someone trying to kill him?
Was someone trying to fill the car with cement?
-
Hmm. Sleeping in a car is unusual enough in itself... Could you give some examples of places, so that I won't answer the wrong way?
I would guess in a parking lot (especially highway gas stations, where truck drivers nap in their car while freighting cross-country often) or MAYBE on the side of the road to take a nap to remain alert. Alternatively, sleeping while someone else is/was/should be driving the car.
And how the hell can a car be ON a road but not near a road? :V
Did he get into a car accident crash with a cement mixer?
Was the pouring of the concrete intentional? Was the pouring of the concrete specifically into his car intentional?
-
Was the car his?
YES
Was someone trying to kill him?
NO
Was someone trying to fill the car with cement?
YES
And how the hell can a car be ON a road but not near a road? :V
Beg your pardon?
Did he get into a car accident crash with a cement mixer?
NO
Was the pouring of the concrete intentional? Was the pouring of the concrete specifically into his car intentional?
Both YES
-
Beg your pardon?
Just being a dick about semantics.
Also re-asking "Um, did the man fall asleep somewhere he would be reasonably expected/allowed to?" now that I've given some examples of what might be expected normally.
Did he ask to have his car filled with cement? Specifically allow for it?
-
Just being a dick about semantics.
Seems I made some weird answers somewhere? Business as usual :V
Also re-asking "Um, did the man fall asleep somewhere he would be reasonably expected/allowed to?" now that I've given some examples of what might be expected normally.
I'd say YES. To clear that up, I'll also say that the car was parked normally at the side of a road.
Did he ask to have his car filled with cement? Specifically allow for it?
NO to both
-
Was this a prank that went wrong?
Was the person who poured cement in the car aware of the man inside?
-
Was this a prank that went wrong?
Kind of, YES
Was the person who poured cement in the car aware of the man inside?
NO
-
Some guy decided to play a prank, so he saw the car on the side of the road,but didn't realize a guy was inside it. He decided to mess with the owner of the car, so he poured a lot of cement into the car, without realizing the guy was inside, thus killing him.
-
Some guy decided to play a prank, so he saw the car on the side of the road,but didn't realize a guy was inside it. He decided to mess with the owner of the car, so he poured a lot of cement into the car, without realizing the guy was inside, thus killing him.
Red part is true. As for the reason behind the incident, it has yet to be discovered.
-
Was a different car intended to be filled with cement?
Was the guy with the cement truck following orders from someone else?
-
Was he parked somewhere he shouldn't be? <_<
-
Was a different car intended to be filled with cement?
NO
Was the guy with the cement truck following orders from someone else?
NO
Was he parked somewhere he shouldn't be? <_<
If I take a round-about way of thinking, YES. It was at least somewhere he sholdn't have parked for his own good (as the results show)
-
Was where he parked indirectly or directly responsible for his car getting filled with cement?
-
Did the car happen to be in something larger that was going to be filled with cement regardless of whether the car was there? Was the car singled out to be filled? Or neither?
-
Was where he parked indirectly or directly responsible for his car getting filled with cement?
YES
Did the car happen to be in something larger that was going to be filled with cement regardless of whether the car was there? Was the car singled out to be filled?
NO to both
-
Let's try that question again, Sakana: Was where he parked directly responsible for his car getting filled with cement? Was it indirectly responsible for his car getting filled with cement?
Was the car filled as part of a routine operation by the cement mixer's operator?
-
Oh wait, there were two options in that question before? Didn't even see that :V
Was where he parked directly responsible for his car getting filled with cement?
YES. It's a bit hard to say if it was directly or indirectly, but I guess directly is more in the right direction.
Was it indirectly responsible for his car getting filled with cement?
See above, so here would be a NO
Was the car filled as part of a routine operation by the cement mixer's operator?
NO
-
*lightbulb*
Was this man a crash dummy?
-
I'm pretty sure crash test dummies can't drown.
-
I'm pretty sure crash test dummies can't drown.
You can "drown" anything in cement. And test dummies are technically men!
-
You can "drown" anything in cement. And test dummies are technically men!
But crash test dummies do not sleep.
-
But crash test dummies do not sleep.
They're sleeping all the time!
-
Did the person fill the car with cement for:
retaliation?
entertainment?
losing a bet?
Is how that person didn't see the man inside the car relevant?
-
Was this man a crash dummy?
Hm, metaphors, eh? Unfortunately, NO.
Did the person fill the car with cement for:
retaliation?
YES
entertainment?
NO
losing a bet?
NO
Is how that person didn't see the man inside the car relevant?
NO
-
Revenge for parking in front of someone's house?
-
NO-WAY-THIS-WILL-BE-CORRECT THEORY: A construction worker(uhh is this the occupation of the people who pave roads, etc?) has just finished smoothing the still not dry concrete floor when some guy drove his car pass by, ruining his work. The worker is so angry he poured cement into his car when he saw him park his car after he smoothed the floor again, not aware that the man's still inside.
-
Revenge for parking in front of someone's house?
I'd say NO, as the parking itself is not the reason. It has to do with 'in front of someone's house', though
NO-WAY-THIS-WILL-BE-CORRECT
YES :V
This theory was completely off, sorry. Well, except for the man being a construction worker/ cement mixer driver, but you already knew that.
-
Was it retaliation for financial reasons? Sexual/romantic? Jealousy? Factional (political parties, generalized social classes, etc)? Other social factors (angry coworker, spurned friend, upset neighbor, etc)? Or not relevant?
-
Sexual/romantic?
YES
Jealousy?
Factional (political parties, generalized social classes, etc)?
Other social factors (angry coworker, spurned friend, upset neighbor, etc)?
Or not relevant?
Was it retaliation for financial reasons?
NO, NO, NO, NO and NO
-
A man seduced/won/stole/whatever a construction worker's crush/wife/girlfriend, who wanted to retaliate: When he saw his car parked on the side of the road, he took the opportunity to fill it with cement. He didn't realize that the owner was still inside, though it's debatable whether he cared.
-
~CASE SOLVED~
A man seduced/won/stole/whatever a construction worker's crush/wife/girlfriend, who wanted to retaliate: When he saw his car parked on the side of the road, he took the opportunity to fill it with cement. He didn't realize that the owner was still inside, though it's debatable whether he cared.
100% YES.This is pretty much literally the answer on my card. Nice work~
New case will come after I'm done with writing an exam tomorrow. Please wait warmly~
-
Freed from the shackles of exams,
I can now be at your service again.
So let us continue with our game,
as there are still many riddles left to be solved.
Thirtieth Case: The High-Rise Builiding
A lonely woman jumped from a high-rise building.
A moment before she hit the ground, she regretted it.
-
Did she see something at the last moment which convinced her that her suicide was pointless?
Someone?
-
Did she jump with the intention of dying?
-
Was the fact she was lonely relevant?
Is anyone else involved in the case?
-
Did she see something at the last moment which convinced her that her suicide was pointless?
NO
Someone?
NO
Did she jump with the intention of dying?
YES
Was the fact she was lonely relevant?
YES
Is anyone else involved in the case?
Indirectly YES
-
Did she hit somebody when she jumped down? (Killed that person instead of herself.)
-
Did she hit somebody when she jumped down? (Killed that person instead of herself.)
Ah, the classic suicide fail. But not here, NO.
-
Did she die when she hit the ground?
-
Did she die? As in, did something save her?
-
Did she forget something and then remembered?
Is the fact that she is a she important?
Is the person involved a man?
Her children?
Is the person someone she knew?
Is the location important?
Did she misinterpret something important?
Did she thought someone was dead but actually wasn't?
-
A moment before she hit the ground, she regretted it.
I thought all suicide attempts had evidence of trying to escape it at the last second...? Well, where it was possible to pick that up, at least.
Did she see something at the last moment which convinced her that her suicide was pointless?
Did she hear something that made her regret it? Smell? Feel/touch?
Did she regret her choice to commit suicide? Did she regret something else as the "it" there? Suicide location? Method?
-
Did she die when she hit the ground?
YES
As in, did something save her?
NO
Did she forget something and then remembered?
NO
Is the fact that she is a she important?
NO, could have been a man as well
Is the person involved a man?
UNKNOWN
Her children?
Is the person someone she knew?
Both UNKNOWN
Is the location important?
YES
Did she misinterpret something important?
YES
Did she thought someone was dead but actually wasn't?
YES
I thought all suicide attempts had evidence of trying to escape it at the last second...?
Dunno, maybe. Though you'd really think people would be able to think ahead a bit more, not only after jumping from some roof and a second before hitting the ground >_>
Did she hear something that made her regret it?
YES
Smell?
NO
Feel/touch?
The ground :V .... err, I mean NO
Did she regret her choice to commit suicide?
YES
Did she regret something else as the "it" there? Suicide location? Method?
NO
-
Is the location related to the person she thought was dead?
Did she hear the person someone she thought was dead? An indirect signal that they were alright?
Was the 'person' she thought was dead human?
Is what she landed on (aside from "ground capable of killing her at that speed") relevant?
-
Is the location related to the person she thought was dead?
YES
Did she hear the person someone she thought was dead?
NO
An indirect signal that they were alright?
YES
Was the 'person' she thought was dead human?
YES
Is what she landed on (aside from "ground capable of killing her at that speed") relevant?
NO
-
Did she suicide at the wrong place?
was the something she heard a human?
-
Did she suicide at the wrong place?
NO
was the something she heard a human?
NO
-
Is the identity of the person she thought was dead relevant/important? Was it her lover?
Was the high-rise building where she lived? Where the thought-dead person lived? Her workplace? Thought-dead person's workplace? Where the thought-dead person supposedly died?
Was what she heard from a machine? An animal?
-
Was her cellphone ringing?
-
Is the identity of the person she thought was dead relevant/important?
YES. Because I'm going for 'get every last detail' again on this one
Was it her lover?
Possibly YES, but that's not all.
Was the high-rise building where she lived?
Where the thought-dead person lived?
YES
Her workplace?
UNKNOWN
Thought-dead person's workplace? Where the thought-dead person supposedly died?
Possibly YES
Was what she heard from a machine?
YES, if that counts as 'machine', but look below for your answer.
An animal?
NO
Was her cellphone ringing?
YES, as in, it was a phone ringing. It's not hers though.
-
was the cellphone's owner the person who she thought was dead?
-
was the cellphone's owner the person who she thought was dead?
Most likely YES.
I guess I should also mention that, while there is not a completely false assumption, you're taking something for granted that is not the whole truth in those last few questions from you and Mouse.
-
hmmmm... Is the ringtone a special ringtone?
was it a cellphone?
or is it a normal home phone?
is the location where the sound is coming from important?
if yes is it the thought to be dead person's house?
-
hmmmm... Is the ringtone a special ringtone?
UNKNOWN. Make it the Final Fantasy Victory Fanfare, because I like that sound :V
was it a cellphone?
or is it a normal home phone?
IRRELEVANT. It was a phone
is the location where the sound is coming from important?
Not the specific location, NO. The overall location is the same as the woman's, which I already said IS relevant.
if yes is it the thought to be dead person's house?
See above. IRRELEVANT
-
was the thought to be dead person a FF fan?
Was the thought to be dead person living with her?
was she dependent on the thought to be dead person?
is the type of the building relevant?( like its a office building or a apartment)
-
Was the thought to be dead person living with her?
Possibly YES. You will have noticed that I always give those weird answers here. Try to figure out why.
was she dependent on the thought to be dead person?
NO
is the type of the building relevant?( like its a office building or a apartment)
IRRELEVANT. The location is relevant on a greater scale. THe buildig itself ismost likely an apartment building.
-
you are saying possibly or likely alot...... what could that mean?
and the repetition of 'location'
-
you are saying possibly or likely alot...... what could that mean?
I'm only giving answers to the best of my knowledge. What that means, that's for you to find out~
and the repetition of 'location'
As I said, the general location of this riddle is relevant. If you like that better, I could also say 'the surrounding situation', as it comes down to the same thing. It is also deeply tied to the other problem with what the woman was thinking. Solve one of those two, and you'll get the other as well.
-
Are (perceived) ghosts involved in this?
Is the owner of the phone relevant?
Was the phone making noise due to something resulting from making a conventional phone call (ringing, sound through the phone line)? From it hitting/landing on something physically? A different physical reaction (I don't know, electrical discharge or explosion)? A non-dialing function of the phone ('battery recharged' noise or other automated alert from a modern cellphone)?
-
Was anyone supposed to know the number of the phone except the person-thought-dead (and possibly the woman herself)?
-
Are (perceived) ghosts involved in this?
NO
Is the owner of the phone relevant?
NO
Was the phone making noise due to something resulting from making a conventional phone call (ringing, sound through the phone line)?
YES. Ringing from a call
From it hitting/landing on something physically? A different physical reaction (I don't know, electrical discharge or explosion)? A non-dialing function of the phone ('battery recharged' noise or other automated alert from a modern cellphone)?
All NO
Was anyone supposed to know the number of the phone except the person-thought-dead (and possibly the woman herself)?
IRRELEVANT. Assume YES, the number was probably known to lots of people, as is usual.
-
was the building near water?
is the area an urban area?
rural?
is it near a forest?
does the country matter?
was it near or in a dessert?
was there anyone near her when she commited suicide?
was she lonely because she thought the thought-to-be person was dead?
-
was the building near water?
IRRELEVANT
is the area an urban area?
YES
rural?
NO
is it near a forest?
does the country matter?
was it near or in a dessert?
IRRELEVANT
was there anyone near her when she commited suicide?
NO
was she lonely because she thought the thought-to-be person was dead?
YES. The incomplete assumption that I referred to before is in this question again.
-
Aha, pretty sure I know this one. PM incoming.
-
Did she think someone died because she did not receive the phone call?
Was the phonecall from the person she thought was dead anyways?
The woman was waiting for a phone call from the hospital. She was supposed to receive a phone call from them if the surgery on the person she loved was successful. However, it was way past the time the surgery was scheduled to end yet she did not receive a phone call. She suicided as she wanted to die with her lover, but then as she was falling to the ground, her phone rang... most likely a call from hospital about the successful surgery. She regreted deeply that she did not wait longer.
-
Did she think someone died because she did not receive the phone call?
NO
Was the phonecall from the person she thought was dead anyways?
In the widest sense YES
The woman was waiting for a phone call from the hospital. She was supposed to receive a phone call from them if the surgery on the person she loved was successful. However, it was way past the time the surgery was scheduled to end yet she did not receive a phone call. She suicided as she wanted to die with her lover, but then as she was falling to the ground, her phone rang... most likely a call from hospital about the successful surgery. She regreted deeply that she did not wait longer.
NO. Not at all.
-
is the location a construction site?
-
is the location a construction site?
NO
I think a hint is in order now. I shall reveal the point about the 'thought-to-be-dead', that has not been discovered yet:
It is not only one person that the woman thinks is dead, there are multiple persons.
-
NO
I think a hint is in order now. I shall reveal the point about the 'thought-to-be-dead', that has not been discovered yet:
It is not only one person that the woman thinks is dead, there are multiple persons.
did she thought everyone in the world disappeared?
was she actually alone?
did people go somewhere without telling her?
was it a prank?
was it a special day?
-
AH, now you got on the right track. Good~
did she thought everyone in the world disappeared?
YES
was she actually alone?
As she perceived it, YES. Otherwise, NO
did people go somewhere without telling her?
NO
was it a prank?
was it a special day?
Both NO
-
Is there still more to discover?
Is it 2012? :V
-
did she look around everywhere and called everyone before committing suicide? (don't really think its relevant but if she didn't, she is stupid :V)
was everyone in the building supposed to evacuate?
was it a special event?
-
Is there still more to discover?
Does the story make sense yet? I think not, so YES~
Is it 2012? :V
You're almost having the right idea there. But NO.
did she look around everywhere and called everyone before committing suicide? (don't really think its relevant but if she didn't, she is stupid :V)
YES
was everyone in the building supposed to evacuate?
UNKNOWN. There is no information why she was in the building.
was it a special event?
Hm, you might say that, YES. More specifically, it was after the event.
-
were the people hiding?
from something dangerous?
or thought to be dangerous but actually wasn't?
underground?
is this the future? (I keep I asking this question all the time :V)
-
were the people hiding?
from something dangerous?
or thought to be dangerous but actually wasn't?
underground?
is this the future? (I keep I asking this question all the time :V)
Whether each of those individually is a YES or NO is hard to say.
I will give the future a YES, however.
If I take all of those together, I think I can see what you're aiming for. And it seems to be the right answer, so ask for it.
-
The woman was doing her stuff like any day. However, she didn't watch the news in which there was a notice that there was going to be some kind of catatrophe (a fallout, war, 2012, zombie and etc). Then, she realized that people were missing so she checked everywhere but couldn't find people because they were hiding/evacuating from the catastrophe. Then, she committed suicide but somehow someone called a phone in the building while she was jumping off. This made her realise that she isn't the only survivor.
-
~ CASE SOLVED ~
The woman was doing her stuff like any day. However, she didn't watch the news in which there was a notice that there was going to be some kind of catatrophe (a fallout, war, 2012, zombie and etc). Then, she realized that people were missing so she checked everywhere but couldn't find people because they were hiding/evacuating from the catastrophe. Then, she committed suicide but somehow someone called a phone in the building while she was jumping off. This made her realise that she isn't the only survivor.
All the important details are there, so YES
The woman believed she was the only survivor of a nuclear war.
After over a year of searching around for other survivors she decided to end her life.
The moment she jumped from the building, she heard a phone ringing
- somewhere, there was at least one other human left...
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7tbddRS8lQ
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7tbddRS8lQ
YES :D
-
Heh, that's pretty awesome.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7tbddRS8lQ
This one is better. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kB_l4AdtJds)
-
This one is better. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kB_l4AdtJds)
Why not have them all? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glu5wr5LRm4)
-
Mind if I step in for one, Sakana?
-
Mind if I step in for one, Sakana?
You mean you have a riddle you want to post? I don't mind at all, I'm rather happy to see that option used. Go right at it, and if it's not one I know, I might get to play myself for once~
I'll of course modify thread title and Detective's record as soon as the riddle is posted.
-
Now my dear players,
the next riddle will be brought to you not by me, but by Sir Edible.
For the duration of this riddle, he shall be the gamemaster
and answer your questions and theories.
Have fun, and who knows,
I might just join in on this one myself, as I do not know the solution to it~
-Sakana
Case 31: The Bank
A bank was robbed. A bank teller was found dead. The robbers were arrested.
-
Was money stolen?
Any hostages at any stage of the entire process?
-
Were the robbers arrested at the bank?
Did the robbers kill the bank teller?
Is this a bank that stores money?
Was it the police who arrested the robbers?
Were the robbers arrested for the reason of robbing the bank?
-
Was money stolen?
Yes.
Any hostages at any stage of the entire process?
Depends on your definition of hostage. Either everyone at the bank at the time of the robbery was, or no one was.
Were the robbers arrested at the bank?
No.
Did the robbers kill the bank teller?
No.
Is this a bank that stores money?
Yes.
Was it the police who arrested the robbers?
Yes.
Were the robbers arrested for the reason of robbing the bank?
Yes.
-
Did the bank teller kill himself?
Did the police kill the bank teller?
Did someone try to "be the hero" and ended up killing the bank teller?
Did the bank teller have something that happened to him which killed him? (Heart attack, stroke, etc.)
-
Did the bank teller kill himself?
No.
Did the police kill the bank teller?
No.
Did someone try to "be the hero" and ended up killing the bank teller?
No.
Did the bank teller have something that happened to him which killed him? (Heart attack, stroke, etc.)
The bank teller died from neither heart attack nor stroke.
-
Were the robbers arrested during escape?
-
Were the robbers arrested during escape?
Rephrase statement regarding specifics of timeline defining "during escape," if you would.
-
During escape:
Getting out of the bank?
Getting into their getaway transportation?
While moving from the crime scene to a hideout?
Entering their hideout?
In their hideout?
-
While moving from the crime scene to a hideout?
This will work. Yes.
-
Did the bank teller die as a direct result of events during the robbery? From a physical wound? Disease? Poison?
-
Did the bank teller die as a direct result of events during the robbery?
No.
From a physical wound?
Yes.
Disease? Poison?
No, and no.
-
Was the teller's wound inflicted before or after the robbery? As part of a cover-up afterward? An existing wound aggravated by actions during the robbery?
Was the wound an accident? An attack from someone else?
Is his death related to the robbery at all? Was he present for the robbery?
-
Was the teller's wound inflicted before or after the robbery?
Neither.
As part of a cover-up afterward?
No.
An existing wound aggravated by actions during the robbery?
No.
Was the wound an accident?
Yes.
An attack from someone else?
No.
Is his death related to the robbery at all?
Yes.
Was he present for the robbery?
No. :)
-
Was the bank teller an accomplice?
-
Was the bank teller an accomplice?
No.
-
Random theory:
A bank was robbed on impulse when the lone teller that was supposed to be watching the building got into an accident (car crash?) and died. The robbers were later caught by the police thanks to the automated systems watching the bank.
OR
A band of robbers was stalking a bank teller to try and get his access codes at the bank. When he got into an accident and died, they looted the body for something giving them that information, and robbed the bank with it. They were caught by the police on the way back from the crime.
Was the teller at the bank? Was there anyone other than the robbers present at the bank during the robbery?
Did the robbers directly interact with the teller while was alive? After death?
-
Was the robbery planned beforehand?
Was the teller working at the same bank that got robbed?
-
A bank was robbed on impulse when the lone teller that was supposed to be watching the building got into an accident (car crash?) and died. The robbers were later caught by the police thanks to the automated systems watching the bank.
A band of robbers was stalking a bank teller to try and get his access codes at the bank. When he got into an accident and died, they looted the body for something giving them that information, and robbed the bank with it. They were caught by the police on the way back from the crime.
Both of these statements are wrong.
Was the teller at the bank?
No.
Was there anyone other than the robbers present at the bank during the robbery?
Yes.
Did the robbers directly interact with the teller while was alive? After death?
No, and no.
Was the robbery planned beforehand?
Yes.
Was the teller working at the same bank that got robbed?
The teller worked at the bank, yes.
-
Was the other person present:
-someone who worked at the bank?
-a bank customer?
-a security person?
Was it only one more person that was present?
-
Is how the robbers were caught relevant? Is how the teller died relevant? Is where the teller died relevant?
Was the teller in the bank during the robbery, even if he wasn't present for the robbery itself?
-
-someone who worked at the bank?
Yes.
-a bank customer?
Yes.
-a security person?
Nah.
Was it only one more person that was present?
Yes.
Is how the robbers were caught relevant?
Yes.
Is how the teller died relevant?
Yes.
Is where the teller died relevant?
Yes.
Was the teller in the bank during the robbery, even if he wasn't present for the robbery itself?
I believe I've already answered this - No.
-
I believe I've already answered this - No.
You have, but between the smile and the way I originally worded the question, I wanted to make sure it wasn't a semantics issue.
Likewise, did the robbers interact with the teller that died at all?
Were the police actively contacted by anyone present at the robbery? One of the robbers? One of the witnesses?
Was there an automated system that detected them? (Motion detectors, safe alarms, cameras)
Are the identities of the others present at the robbery relevant?
Was the robbery actively violent? Did anyone else die?
Are the details of how the money was acquired relevant?
-
Likewise, did the robbers interact with the teller that died at all?
No.
Were the police actively contacted by anyone present at the robbery? One of the robbers? One of the witnesses?
Yes, no, yes.
Was there an automated system that detected them? (Motion detectors, safe alarms, cameras)
Yes.
Are the identities of the others present at the robbery relevant?
No.
Was the robbery actively violent? Did anyone else die?
No, no.
Are the details of how the money was acquired relevant?
No.
-
Did one of the witnesses call the police? A (cell)phone call of another kind? A personal visit to the police station to report the crime?
Was the killed teller supposed to be at the bank when the robbery occurred? Was he related to how the crime was reported? Was the cause of his death related to the robbery?
-
Did one of the witnesses call the police? A (cell)phone call of another kind? A personal visit to the police station to report the crime?
Irrelevant, as the witnesses themselves were irrelevant.
Was the killed teller supposed to be at the bank when the robbery occurred?
No.
Was he related to how the crime was reported?
Reported by whom?
Was the cause of his death related to the robbery?
Yes.
-
Irrelevant, as the witnesses themselves were irrelevant.
Identity=/=Actions. But okay. Was their presence irrelevant?
Did the police come due to the crime being reported? Or was it a coincidence? Were they also investigating/doing something about the teller's death?
-
Identity=/=Actions. But okay. Was their presence irrelevant?
Did the police come due to the crime being reported? Or was it a coincidence?
I'll save you some time, because I'm feeling nice.
The police were alerted of the robbery either during or shortly after it occured. The specifics are irrelevant.
Were they also investigating/doing something about the teller's death?
Yes.
-
Did the teller's injury come from while he was on the job? At home? Elsewhere?
Was the teller's death caused by the actions of another person? Did he get run over by the police car? Were the police otherwise related to his cause of death?
-
Did the teller's injury come from while he was on the job? At home? Elsewhere?
No, no, yes.
Was the teller's death caused by the actions of another person?
Yes.
Did he get run over by the police car? Were the police otherwise related to his cause of death?
No, no.
-
Is this Inside Man?
-
Did the killed teller die to the actions of one of the robbers? The police? The witnesses?
-
Is this Inside Man?
No, but <3.
Did the killed teller die to the actions of one of the robbers? The police? The witnesses?
No to all.
-
Just some random thing I noticed:
We're about 3/4th to the thread limit. The first thread had 20 riddles. This one has as of yet 11. What the hell have you guys been doing :V
-
We're about 3/4th to the thread limit. The first thread had 20 riddles. This one has as of yet 11. What the hell have you guys been doing :V
Pesco came, 233 posts later, headdesk.
Did the teller suicide?
Was the teller killed by a gunshot? Car crash?
-
Did the teller suicide?
No.
Was the teller killed by a gunshot? Car crash?
No, aaaand yes.
-
~ Alright everyone, this game is still going on. Shoot the questions, so our dear mod-turned-admin Edible has something to answer when he wakes up ~
Was the teller on the way to the bank?
Were other people involved in the crash?
If yes, were those people the robbers?
Does the crash directly relate to the robbery? (As in, either the crash happened because of the events before, during or after the robbery, or the crash influenced the robbery or made it possible at all)
-
Was the teller on the way to the bank?
Yes.
Were other people involved in the crash?
Yes.
If yes, were those people the robbers?
No.
Does the crash directly relate to the robbery?
Yes.
-
Was the teller driving?
Did the teller crash in order to dodge something?
If yes, was that something a car? police car?
-
Is it relevant who the other people involved in the crash were?
-
Hey, Edible,
If you can't find the time to give answers for this riddle, maybe you can send me the solution so I can answer instead. I know there's been stuff happening and things still need to settle down, but I'd rather not let this game starve because of that.
-
Son of a -
Sorry, got distracted by... everything that happened with these forums. -_-; My sincere apologies.
Was the teller driving?
Yes.
Did the teller crash in order to dodge something?
No.
Is it relevant who the other people involved in the crash were?
Not really.
-
Sorry, got distracted by... everything that happened with these forums. -_-; My sincere apologies.
That's what I thought, what with the new admins and all. Glad to see you're back on the game. :)
-
Did the crash that the teller got into delay the robbers' escape? Is the teller relevant to the robbers' escape attempt? Is the nature of the robber's escape relevant?
-
Did the crash that the teller got into delay the robbers' escape?
Yes.
Is the teller relevant to the robbers' escape attempt?
No.
Is the nature of the robber's escape relevant?
Yes.
-
... I want to say those first two answers contradict one another, barring an implicit lack of "direct" being assumed.
Did the robbers escape by car? On foot? Did they have anything to do with causing the crash?
Was the robbers' escape vehicle involved in the crash? Did they encounter the crash while trying to escape?
Is how the crash occurred relevant? Is anyone involved in the crash, other than the teller, relevant?
Were the police investigating the crash during the robbery? Did the crash help them in managing to capture the robbers? Did it hinder them? Is how the police captured the robbers relevant?
-
The robbers robbed the bank then escaped by driving. They were then stuck in a traffic jam caused by a car crash involving the bank teller. The police caught up. The robbers were arrested.
-
I'm repeating myself on some of these. :(
Did the robbers escape by car? On foot? Did they have anything to do with causing the crash?
Yes. No. Yes.
Was the robbers' escape vehicle involved in the crash? Did they encounter the crash while trying to escape?
No. Yes.
Is how the crash occurred relevant? Is anyone involved in the crash, other than the teller, relevant?
Yes. Yes - kind of.
Were the police investigating the crash during the robbery? Did the crash help them in managing to capture the robbers? Did it hinder them? Is how the police captured the robbers relevant?
No. Yes. No. Yes.
The robbers robbed the bank then escaped by driving. They were then stuck in a traffic jam caused by a car crash involving the bank teller. The police caught up. The robbers were arrested.
This is correct. However, you're still missing a vital piece of the puzzle.
-
Did the teller hit another car?
Did he hit an animal?
Did he hit a human?
Did he hit anything at all?
-
Did the robbers set up some road trap to try and stop any police chasing them that went off prematurely and left them trapped behind a car crash instead?
Did the robbers intend for the crash to happen? Was it a side effect (or failure) of a different scheme that didn't quite go as planned?
If yes: Was the crash cause the robbers set up intended to delay the police? Distract them? Did the escaping robbers follow the route they intended to for the escape? Did the crash divert them?
Was the crash only with other cars? Or were there other relevant physical interferences involved? (road spikes, artificial blockades, oil slicks, ice, etc)
Were ambulances or other emergency vehicles relevantly involved?
-
Did the teller hit another car?
Yes.
Did the robbers set up some road trap to try and stop any police chasing them that went off prematurely and left them trapped behind a car crash instead?
No.
Did the robbers intend for the crash to happen? Was it a side effect (or failure) of a different scheme that didn't quite go as planned?
No, and not... exactly.
If yes: Was the crash cause the robbers set up intended to delay the police? Distract them? Did the escaping robbers follow the route they intended to for the escape? Did the crash divert them?
No, no, yes, no.
Was the crash only with other cars? Or were there other relevant physical interferences involved? (road spikes, artificial blockades, oil slicks, ice, etc)
For simplicity I'll say no, and no.
Were ambulances or other emergency vehicles relevantly involved?
No.
-
Is it relevant where the crash happened? (like, in town, on a freeway etc.)
-
Is it relevant where the crash happened? (like, in town, on a freeway etc.)
Not particularly.
-
Then I guess it is relevant how the crash happened?
Is there anything else besides specifics of the crash that we're missing?
Was the car the teller hit that of the robbers?
Were the robbers escaping in a car at all? (Not sure if we had that already)
-
Were the robbers intending to use (one of) the car(s) that the teller crashed into?
-
Then I guess it is relevant how the crash happened?
Very.
Is there anything else besides specifics of the crash that we're missing?
Yes.
Was the car the teller hit that of the robbers?
No.
Were the robbers escaping in a car at all? (Not sure if we had that already)
Yes, this was covered in the blue text.
Were the robbers intending to use (one of) the car(s) that the teller crashed into?
No.
-
Are we missing things about: The teller (aside from crash details)? The robbers? The robbery event itself? The escape attempt? The police?
This'd be really silly if it were missed, but... was the teller an accomplice of the robbers?
-
The robbery event itself?
Yes.
This'd be really silly if it were missed, but... was the teller an accomplice of the robbers?
No.
-
Wow, this is turning out to be a lot more complicated than I would have thought. Nice~
Is it relevant what kind of car the teller hit?
Is it relevant why he hit it? (reasons like alcohol, sleep, losing control etc.)
-
Are we missing relevant details about how the robbery was executed? What was stolen (presumed money)? What was done with the stolen goods before the main escape attempt? Why the place was robbed?
-
Is it relevant what kind of car the teller hit?
Nein.
Is it relevant why he hit it? (reasons like alcohol, sleep, losing control etc.)
Yes.
Are we missing relevant details about how the robbery was executed? What was stolen (presumed money)? What was done with the stolen goods before the main escape attempt? Why the place was robbed?
Yes. No. No. No.
-
Alright, crash-reason-details it is then.
Was the teller drunk?
Was he under the influence of any kind of drugs/ medicine/ other substances that meddle with your senses?
Was the crash due to negligence of the teller or another person?
Did the teller hit the car because he wanted to avoid hitting something else (a human for example)?
Die the teller lose control over his car?
Did the car have a technical failure of some kind?
Was the teller Ruro sleepy?
Was the teller distracted by something?
-
Was the teller drunk?
No.
Was he under the influence of any kind of drugs/ medicine/ other substances that meddle with your senses?
No.
Was the crash due to negligence of the teller or another person?
The latter, though I would hesitate to call it negligence.
Did the teller hit the car because he wanted to avoid hitting something else (a human for example)?
No.
Die the teller lose control over his car?
No.
Did the car have a technical failure of some kind?
No.
Was the teller Ruro sleepy?
No.
Was the teller distracted by something?
No.
-
Did the teller want to hit that whatever-he-hit?
Did he hit someone? With the intent to kill him/her?
-
Was it really the teller that hit something? Did something hit the teller?
Do we have to know who this person who caused the teller to hit something is?
-
Did the teller want to hit that whatever-he-hit?
No.
Did he hit someone? With the intent to kill him/her?
No. No.
Was it really the teller that hit something? Did something hit the teller?
No. Yes.
Do we have to know who this person who caused the teller to hit something is?
No.
-
I suggest you go through the answers and look for clues that have been missed.
-
Is the car the teller hit related to the robbers in a significant way? Was its driver an accomplice of the robbers?
Apparently the robbery was non-violent and there were others there but they don't really matter. The details of how the money was acquired are irrelevant, so that leaves, uh...
Is it relevant how the robbers got into the bank? How they convinced the people there to let them have the money? Were weapons involved?
-
Is the car the teller hit related to the robbers in a significant way?
Yes!
Was its driver an accomplice of the robbers?
No.
Is it relevant how the robbers got into the bank?
No.
How they convinced the people there to let them have the money?
No.
Were weapons involved?
Yes!
-
Were weapons involved in the robbery itself? With the car that crashed into the teller?
Is the type of weapon relevant? Were there multiple weapons? Multiple types of weapons? Were they used only to threaten? Used as weapons? In a way that caused/led to the crash?
-
Were weapons involved in the robbery itself?
Yes.
With the car that crashed into the teller?
Yes.
Is the type of weapon relevant?
Yes.
Were there multiple weapons?
No.
Multiple types of weapons?
No.
Were they used only to threaten?
Yes.
Used as weapons?
No.
In a way that caused/led to the crash?
Yes.
-
Was it a bladed weapon? Projectile? Gun? Explosive?
To make sure - was it the same weapon involved in the robbery and the car crash?
Did the weapon directly lead to the crash by causing physical problems for either of the cars involved? By its presence indirectly influencing the driver(s) to make poor decisions?
Did the robbers directly interact with the car the teller crashed into? Did they leave money there? The weapon?
Is the driver of the other car relevant?
-
Gun?
Yes.
To make sure - was it the same weapon involved in the robbery and the car crash?
Yes.
Did the weapon directly lead to the crash by causing physical problems for either of the cars involved? By its presence indirectly influencing the driver(s) to make poor decisions?
Yes. Yes.
Did the robbers directly interact with the car the teller crashed into? Did they leave money there? The weapon?
No. No. No.
Is the driver of the other car relevant?
Yes.
-
Did the robbers drive the escape vehicle themselves?
Did they take a hostage during the robbery?
DId they take the hostage with them on the escape?
Did they force that hostage to drive the escape vehicle?
-
This has probably been asked, but was the other car related to the police?
Is the gun's original owner relevant?
Is the type of gun the robbers used relevant? Were any weapons used by other parties?
Did the robbers keep possession of the gun after the robbery?
Is the weapon relevant to how the robbery was executed? Was it done by openly displaying the gun and asking for money? Something more subtle?
-
Did the robbers drive the escape vehicle themselves?
Yes.
Did they take a hostage during the robbery?
No.
This has probably been asked, but was the other car related to the police?
No.
Is the gun's original owner relevant?
No.
Is the type of gun the robbers used relevant?
No.
Were any weapons used by other parties?
No.
Did the robbers keep possession of the gun after the robbery?
Yes.
Is the weapon relevant to how the robbery was executed? Was it done by openly displaying the gun and asking for money? Something more subtle?
Yes, yes, no.
-
Are there more relevant details to how the robbery was executed than openly displaying the gun and asking for/demanding the money?
Was the gun ever fired? Did the robbers try to dispose of the gun after the robbery in any way? Say, by leaving it in the middle of the street, making people freak out and crash?
-
Are there more relevant details to how the robbery was executed than openly displaying the gun and asking for/demanding the money?
Yes.
Was the gun ever fired?
Yes.
Did the robbers try to dispose of the gun after the robbery in any way? Say, by leaving it in the middle of the street, making people freak out and crash?
No.
-
Was the gun fired during the robbery?
Was it fired during the escape?
Did the shot cause the accident in which the teller died?
-
Was the gun fired by the robbers?
-
Was the gun fired during the robbery?
Yes.
Was it fired during the escape?
No.
Did the shot cause the accident in which the teller died?
Yes.
Was the gun fired by the robbers?
Yes.
-
Okay, so the shot was fired during the robbery, but caused the accident of the teller, which hindered the escape... hm, this is interesting.
Just to clarify again:
Did the accident in which the teller died happen at the time of the robber's escape?
Did the shot fired during the robbery hit anything outside the bank?
Did it hit a person?
Did it hit a vehicle?
Was the gun only fired once?
Is it relevant how often the gun was fired?
-
Did the accident in which the teller died happen at the time of the robber's escape?
No.
Did the shot fired during the robbery hit anything outside the bank?
Yes.
Did it hit a person?
No.
Did it hit a vehicle?
Yes.
Was the gun only fired once?
Yes.
Is it relevant how often the gun was fired?
No.
-
Alright, so I had a false assumption all the time.
Did the shot hit the escape vehicle?
Did it hit the teller's car?
Did the shot disable the vehicle?
Did it just damage it in a way that would lead to an accident later?
-
Did it hit another car causing said person to panic and crash into the teller?
-
Alright, so I had a false assumption all the time.
Yes. <3
Did the shot hit the escape vehicle?
No.
Did it hit the teller's car?
No.
Did the shot disable the vehicle?
No.
Did it just damage it in a way that would lead to an accident later?
No.
Did it hit another car causing said person to panic and crash into the teller?
... Yes.
:toot:
-
Okay, so:
The robbers started the robbery as planned. In the process, they fired a shot with their gun as a threat. The shot hit a car outside the bank, causing the driver to panic and hit another car, causing an accident. The man in the other car was a bank teller, working at the bank that was robbed at the moment, who wanted to get to work but was unfortunately killed in the accident. Because of the accident, the robbers couldn't get away in their escape vehicle and got caught by the police who had been called by the people inside the bank.
Anything else still missing?
-
The robbers started the robbery as planned. In the process, they fired a shot with their gun as a threat. The shot hit a car outside the bank, causing the driver to panic and hit another car, causing an accident. The man in the other car was a bank teller, working at the bank that was robbed at the moment, who wanted to get to work but was unfortunately killed in the accident. Because of the accident, the robbers couldn't get away in their escape vehicle and got caught by the police who had been called by the people inside the bank.
I believe this summarizes the entire riddle nicely. Well done, everyone.
-
YEEEEEEEEAAAHHHHHHHH! Nice that I could get the final move in this one~
That was definitely a nice riddle, and I had fun being on the asking part for once. Just tell if you wanna do another one sometime.
Next riddle from me will come tomorrow.
EDIT: And once again I lied. I'm very sorry for the delay, real life decided to be an asshole. *apologetic bow*
The game will continue in about 24 hours, meaning Monday night. Please wait warmly~
-
Are you ready, my dear players?
Much has happened those last few weeks,
but that shall not disturb our game.
Once again, I shall assume the position of gamemaster,
and present to you, our next riddle.
Shuffling the cards, I let luck decide on what you shall face next,
and it seems the powers of fate want you to solve a very nice riddle.
Let the curtain rise again on this Black Story~
Case 32: A Spoonful of Grandma
With great joy the family ate the grandmother a spoonful at a time.
-
Let's ask the obvious ones, hmm?
Was the family human?
Was the grandmother human?
Was she the grandmother of any members of the family?
Did they know they were eating the grandmother?
Is that why they were happy?
-
Is grandma a kind of food? A medicine?
Could grandma be eaten any other way - with different utensils?
as a solid or liquid?
Was grandma eaten at as a single serving? A shared dish? Over more than one meal?
-
Let's ask the obvious ones, hmm?
Hmm, the subjects are learning *scribbles notes* interesting, very interesting *scribbles more notes* :D
Was the family human?
YES
Was the grandmother human?
YES
Was she the grandmother of any members of the family?
While I can not completely rule out a 'yes', I'll answer NO because that should be more correct in regards to the solution you have to find
Did they know they were eating the grandmother?
NO
Is that why they were happy?
NO
Is grandma a kind of food?
NO
A medicine?
NO
Could grandma be eaten any other way - with different utensils?
I'd say YES
as a solid?
NO, I don't think that counts as solid
or liquid?
NO
Was grandma eaten at as a single serving?
NO
A shared dish?
I think YES, but what exactly is the definition of 'shared dish'?
Over more than one meal?
YES
-
Is Grandma alive?
Is she preparing the meals?
-
Is Grandma alive?
NO
Is she preparing the meals?
NO
-
Is this actually about unintentional cannibalism? :(
Did grandma work in, visit, or perish due to a meat-packing plant or other similar food processing facility?
-
Is their grandmother Edible? :V
Were they eating the grandmother's ashes?
-
Is this actually about unintentional cannibalism? :(
It seems to fall under the definition of cannibalism, YES
Did grandma work in, visit, or perish due to a meat-packing plant or other similar food processing facility?
NOne of this at all
Is their grandmother Edible? :V
Apparently YES
Were they eating the grandmother's ashes?
YES
-
Oh.
...
I see Rou just solved the riddle. Thanks Rou!
Was Grandma's urn acidentally tipped into dinner? <_<
COMEDY OPTION: Were her ashes mistaken for another cooking supply?
-
I see Rou just solved the riddle. Thanks Rou!
Oh, do not be mistaken. What Rou solved was a very important part of the riddle, but it is not all. Not by far >:D
Was Grandma's urn acidentally tipped into dinner? <_<
NO
COMEDY OPTION: Were her ashes mistaken for another cooking supply?
NO
-
I wish I didn't know this one.
-
Did grandma die in a fire?
-
Was it intentional that grandma's ashes ended up in the food?
Was anyone other than the family and grandmother significantly involved in this?
Is their "great joy" significant to the riddle? Is it related to the meal?
Is the grandmother biologically related to anyone relevant? Is it just being used as a catchall for 'old woman?'
-
did grandma taste good?
were they happy because the food tasted good?
is the type of food they were eating important?
were the ashes misplaced?
is her age important?
is the location important?
is this part of a ritual?
was the grandma killed?
is the duration of the time, she was dead important?
-
Did grandma die in a fire?
IRRELEVANT
Was it intentional that grandma's ashes ended up in the food?
Wrong assumption
Was anyone other than the family and grandmother significantly involved in this?
YES
Is their "great joy" significant to the riddle?
YES
Is it related to the meal?
See above, wrond assumption
Is the grandmother biologically related to anyone relevant?
YES. I suppose she was a biological grandma, not just a social one.
Is it just being used as a catchall for 'old woman?'
NO
did grandma taste good?
UNKNOWN
were they happy because the food tasted good?
Wrong assumption
is the type of food they were eating important?
Wrong assumption
were the ashes misplaced?
NO
is her age important?
NO
is the location important?
Kind of, YES. Assume that the family in the riddle description lives in Germany.
is this part of a ritual?
NO
was the grandma killed?
IRRELEVANT, assume NO
is the duration of the time, she was dead important?
NOt really. Assume she died recently.
-
Kind of, YES. Assume that the family in the riddle description lives in Germany.
Is it a grandma of someone you know? :V
Is there wordplay afoot?
-
Is it a grandma of someone you know? :V
NO :V Actually, my saying 'assume that...' was kind of wrong. It's even on the riddle card that they live in Germany, so it's a fact.
Is there wordplay afoot?
NO
-
Wrong assumption
Wa-- okay, time to get to the bottom of this.
Did the family directly eat the ashes, thinking they were something else? Did they eat the ashes at all? Is anything else they ate relevant?
Is the use of 'spoonful' significant? Does it mean actually using spoons? If so, is the use of spoons significant?
Is there one other relevant person, or multiple? Does it matter?
Is/are the other relevant person(s) biologically related to the grandmother? The family? By marriage, to grandmother? To the family?
Is/are the other relevant person significantly involved in how grandmother's eatenity came about? Did they intend for it?
-
Did the family directly eat the ashes, thinking they were something else?
YES
Did they eat the ashes at all?
YES
Is anything else they ate relevant?
NO
And with that you have discovered the reason for the 'wrong assumptions' before :D
Is the use of 'spoonful' significant? Does it mean actually using spoons? If so, is the use of spoons significant?
The spoons were pretty much only a hint to get to the ashes. So, they are NOT significant any more.
Is there one other relevant person, or multiple?
YES
Does it matter?
NO. Whether it is only one other person or mutlitple doesn't matter I think. But you may assume there are multiple persons.
Is/are the other relevant person(s) biologically related to the grandmother?
The family?
By marriage, to grandmother?
To the family?
Whether by marriage or biology, is UNKNOWN. However, the other persons are related to both the grandmother and the family, YES.
Is/are the other relevant person significantly involved in how grandmother's eatenity came about?
YES
Did they intend for it?
NO
Oho, those were some very good questions, Mouse. Keep at it~
-
Is eatenity a real word?
-
Is eatenity a real word?
UNKNOWN AND IRRELEVANT.
I was wondering that as well, but we all understand what it means, so whatever :V
-
Did the family know that grandma was dead?
Were they aware that they were eating ashes of some kind?
Were there any other people involved, who might have misinformed them of what they were eating?
-
Did the family know that grandma was dead?
NO. At least not at the time relevant for the riddle.
Were they aware that they were eating ashes of some kind?
NO
Were there any other people involved, who might have misinformed them of what they were eating?
Other people involved: YES. Those people misinformed them: NO
-
Is eatenity a real word?
NO
UNKNOWN AND IRRELEVANT.
I was wondering that as well, but we all understand what it means, so whatever :V
YES
Was grandmother cremated? Were the other people related to the cremation? Did they perform the cremation? Transport the ashes?
Is it necessarily relevant what the family thought the ashes were, aside from "edible?" Do you think it would help significantly? Was it a type of pudding?
When the family was eating the ashes, had they been last/currently stored in an urn? Vase? Box? Was it something that is intended for funerary ashes?
Are cultural differences/misunderstandings relevant to this?
-
Was grandmother cremated?
YES
Were the other people related to the cremation?
YES
Did they perform the cremation?
IRRELEVANT. I guess it was performed by a professional, they just ordered it.
Transport the ashes?
NO. Think a bit more along the lines of that question though.
Is it necessarily relevant what the family thought the ashes were, aside from "edible?"
YES. At least the basic idea the family had, you don't have to discover the exact thing.
Do you think it would help significantly?
Possibly YES
Was it a type of pudding?
NO
When the family was eating the ashes, had they been last/currently stored in an urn?Vase? Box?
It only says 'container' on the card. Let's assume a type of URN
Was it something that is intended for funerary ashes?
YES, but apparently it was not obvious to the family
Are cultural differences/misunderstandings relevant to this?
NO
-
Did the family receive the ashes in the urn and the family mistake the urn for a food container? Going by the assumption that they received the urn and thought it was something edible from grandma.
-
Did the family receive the ashes in the urn and the family mistake the urn for a food container?
Pretty much, YES. I'll go ahead andsay they mistook it for vitamins.
That's the 'how' they mistook it.
Now for two more things:
'Why' did they mistake it?
And why did they receive it in the first place?
Also:
Going by the assumption that they received the urn and thought it was something edible from grandma.
The red is truth.
-
Did the other relevant persons ask for the cremation of the grandmother? Was it her own request?
To make sure: The other people involved are also part of the extended family including both the grandmother and the people that ate her ashes, right?
Were the ashes sent to the receiving family due to a particular personal closeness they had to the grandmother, beyond simply being family (favorite son, eldest son, etc)? Is it due to the location they were at, such as the grandmother's childhood home? Were they sent there on request from the grandmother before her death?
Did the other people involved have a professional relationship with the family that received the ashes? Their family doctor? Physician? Or were they treated more as family? Friends? Acquaintances? Is this relevant?
Was the urn accompanied by a letter or other communication? That was misinterpreted? Were the ashes eaten (in part) due to a lack of information about them? Was a letter or other communication intended to be received first/at the same time, but didn't arrive properly? Was the family expecting something similar in appearance to arrive in the mail for other reasons? Was the sender of the urn clear to them?
-
Did the other relevant persons ask for the cremation of the grandmother?
IRRELEVANT
Was it her own request?
YES
To make sure: The other people involved are also part of the extended family including both the grandmother and the people that ate her ashes, right?
YES
Were the ashes sent to the receiving family due to a particular personal closeness they had to the grandmother, beyond simply being family (favorite son, eldest son, etc)?
YES
Is it due to the location they were at, such as the grandmother's childhood home? Were they sent there on request from the grandmother before her death?
YES to both
Did the other people involved have a professional relationship with the family that received the ashes? Their family doctor? Physician? Or were they treated more as family? Friends? Acquaintances?
NO to all. The relationship was basically that of a normal family, though there is something special to it. So, YES, the relationship between the two parts of the family is RELEVANT
Was the urn accompanied by a letter or other communication?
I dunno if it counts as 'other communication', but there was something else with the urn, YES
That was misinterpreted?
The 'something else' led to the misinterpretation, YES
Were the ashes eaten (in part) due to a lack of information about them?
YES
Was a letter or other communication intended to be received first/at the same time, but didn't arrive properly?
UNKNOWN. An explaining letter arrived later than the urn, whether that was intentional or not is UNKNOWN and IRRELEVANT to the riddle.
Was the family expecting something similar in appearance to arrive in the mail for other reasons?
Kind of, YES. It ties together with the 'something else' from before.
Was the sender of the urn clear to them?
YES
-
Don't tell me they sent both vitamins and funeral ashes in the same package...
-
Don't tell me they sent both vitamins and funeral ashes in the same package...
NO. You're close though, and the real answer isn't much better :V
-
I'm not sure if you people will be satisfied or really disappointed with the end of this one :V
-
Did the two parts of the family dislike each other? Was only the 'other' side significantly involved in Grandma's elderly-life care? Was the grandma-eating part of the family relatively uninvolved in following Grandma's current condition before her death? Is the relevant link between the families related primarily to the grandmother?
Does the families' special relationship relevantly relate to: special generous provision/giveaway of goods? Friendly pranks or jokes? Something special about marriage setups between the groups? Genders? Generations? Age? Location? Physical attributes? Social attributes? Which of these are relevant?
Is the nature of the "vitamins" relevant? Is their (perceived) importance relevant? Were they thought to be for genuinely medical purposes (necessary supplements for an existing medical condition)? Other supplements (cultural vitality/sexual potency beliefs, complementary vitamins to maintain good health/cover nutrition despite poor diet)? Placebo such as most types of homeopathic medication (zing)?
There was another item included with the urn, right? Did it have any writing on it? Any special significance to the family segment that ate the ashes? The other family portion?
Did the other family send the ashes to the eater family?
Is a particular botchup in package or letter transportation relevant?
-
Did the two parts of the family dislike each other?
NO
Was only the 'other' side significantly involved in Grandma's elderly-life care?
Was the grandma-eating part of the family relatively uninvolved in following Grandma's current condition before her death?
Actually, UNKNOWN, but I' say you can assume YES to both.
Is the relevant link between the families related primarily to the grandmother?
NO
Does the families' special relationship relevantly relate to: special generous provision/giveaway of goods? Location?
YES to those two
Friendly pranks or jokes? Something special about marriage setups between the groups? Genders? Generations? Age? Physical attributes? Social attributes? Which of these are relevant?
NO to the rest
Is the nature of the "vitamins" relevant? Is their (perceived) importance relevant?
Were they thought to be for genuinely medical purposes (necessary supplements for an existing medical condition)?
NO
Other supplements (cultural vitality/sexual potency beliefs, complementary vitamins to maintain good health/cover nutrition despite poor diet)?
YES, see bolded part
Placebo such as most types of homeopathic medication (zing)?
NO
There was another item included with the urn, right?
YES
Did it have any writing on it?
NO
Any special significance to the family segment that ate the ashes?
YES
The other family portion?
Dunno if it was that significant to them, maybe YES, but more like IRRELEVANT.
Did the other family send the ashes to the eater family?
YES
Is a particular botchup in package or letter transportation relevant?
NO. Assume all transport happened as planned.
-
Was the eating family eating poorly? From famine? Poverty? Oppression?
Did the two family segments live in the same nation? Is the amount of distance between them (aside from "having to send packages to send stuff to one another") relevant?
Was the other sent item a religious symbol? Something the grandmother owned? Something the grandmother kept close to her at all times, typically? Something that originated from the house/location her ashes were sent to? Did it resemble something else that was misinterpreted as a symbol for a vitamin supplement? Are its origins relevant?
-
Was the eating family eating poorly?
YES
From famine? Poverty? Oppression?
NO. Poverty might come close, but there's a more general reason for the family's condition.
Did the two family segments live in the same nation?
NO
Is the amount of distance between them (aside from "having to send packages to send stuff to one another") relevant?
NO
Was the other sent item a religious symbol? Something the grandmother owned? Something the grandmother kept close to her at all times, typically? Something that originated from the house/location her ashes were sent to?
NO to all
Did it resemble something else that was misinterpreted as a symbol for a vitamin supplement?
NO, not directly. Let's say that the nature of the other items (there were multiple) made it reasonable for the family to assume there may also be vitamins.
Are its origins relevant?
Only as far as that it comes from the other family.
-
Was the urn included with medical supplies? Food? Money? Could it be called a 'donation?'
Is the reason for the eater family not eating well relevant? Are they refugees? Is it an issue of scarcity of food? Of a specific type of food? Of a specific group of foods (meats, grains, fruits, etc)?
Are there any other geographical details beyond "different nations and distance" that are relevant? (Heck, is 'different nations' relevant?)
-
Was the urn included with medical supplies?
NO
Food?
YES
Money? Could it be called a 'donation?'
NO. I don't think the term donation applies here.
Is the reason for the eater family not eating well relevant?
YES
Are they refugees?
NO
Is it an issue of scarcity of food?
Most likely, YES
Of a specific type of food? Of a specific group of foods (meats, grains, fruits, etc)?
Could be, but IRRELEVANT
Are there any other geographical details beyond "different nations and distance" that are relevant? (Heck, is 'different nations' relevant?)
I'd say YES. The riddle makes more sense if the other nation is discovered.
-
Is this incident following a disaster of some sort?
Is the nation Haiti?
-
Is this incident following a disaster of some sort?
NOt a disaster, but you're close.
Is the nation Haiti?
NO. The 'receiving' families nation has already been unveiled by me. And Haiti wouldn't make any sense as the 'sending' famlies home.
-
NO. The 'receiving' families nation has already been unveiled by me. And Haiti wouldn't make any sense as the 'sending' famlies home.
Err, yeah. *whop*
Is it following war?
Is it part of war reparations?
-
Is it following war?
YES.
With this, nearly everything important has been discovered. It's time to try and get some complete theories out there.
Is it part of war reparations?
NO
-
A family caught in Germany during a war could not get food on their own, and relied on another branch of the family to send food to them. The grandmother of the family lived outside of Germany, and wanted to have her ashes sent back to her home when she died. When she did, the funeral ashes were sent to Germany along with the food they expected to receive... and were taken to be vitamins.
-
A family caught in Germany during a war could not get food on their own, and relied on another branch of the family to send food to them. The grandmother of the family lived outside of Germany, and wanted to have her ashes sent back to her home when she died. When she did, the funeral ashes were sent to Germany along with the food they expected to receive... and were taken to be vitamins.
YES
After the war the family was sent packages containing food by their relatives in America.
One day a container with a grey powder was in the package.
The family thought it to be vitamins and every member of the family took a spoonful of it everyday.
Some weeks later a letter from America arrived.
In it, the relatives informed them that the grandmother had died
and that, according to her will,
her ashes had been sent to her home-country Germany...
Hehe, well done, well done.
Even though it was mostly a one-man...er... one-mouse feat towards the end.
This was, from my experience, one of the more complicated riddles, especially if the gamemaster insists on most details.
You have, however, wonderfully solved this without getting distracted about unneccessary details even once.
-
And here we go.
The goddess of luck has decided on the next riddle,
which shall be:
Case 33: Cursed Vacation
When the man came back from the toilet, his nice vacation was over.
-
Was any death involved at all?
-
Did the visit to the toilet end his vacation being nice? Did it end the vacation itself?
If not, then did what happened after leaving the toilet end his vacation being nice? End the vacation itself?
Is there metaphor involved in the initial statement? Wordplay?
Is it significant that it was a man?
Is the toilet significant? Is it in a washroom? Outhouse? Elsewhere?
Was the man physically injured?
-
Where did the man come back to? Is the location significant?
-
Alright, back from photographing cherry blossoms~
*Ahem*
Was any death involved at all?
NO
Did the visit to the toilet end his vacation being nice?
YES
Did it end the vacation itself?
YES
If not, then did what happened after leaving the toilet end his vacation being nice? End the vacation itself?
YES to that as well, meaning it was not the visit to the toilet in itself that ended the vacation
Is there metaphor involved in the initial statement? Wordplay?
NO
Is it significant that it was a man?
NOt neccessarily. Could have been a woman as well.
Is the toilet significant?
YES
Is it in a washroom? Outhouse? Elsewhere?
IRRELEVANT
Was the man physically injured?
NO
Where did the man come back to?
I do not see a Yes-No-question here, Sir.
Is the location significant?
YES
-
Oh, sorry didn't look at rules >_<
So was exiting the toilet to a certain place the cause of the end of the man's vacation?
-
Oh, sorry didn't look at rules >_<
No problem, now you know :D
So was exiting the toilet to a certain place the cause of the end of the man's vacation?
NO. The exiting was not the cause. It was just an action which made the man realize the cause.
-
Did he eat something he wasn't supposed to?
-
Did he eat something he wasn't supposed to?
NO
-
Did he flush something he wasn't supposed to?
-
Was he returning from using the toilet for its (primary) intended purpose? To throw up in? Anything else? Did he directly use the toilet at all? Is its usage relevant?
Was it a publicly-usable (i.e. not household) toilet? Is that relevant?
Are financial issues directly significant? Romantic? Sexual? Physical health? Safety? Freedoms? Responsibilities?
Did he return from the toilet under his own power?
-
Did he flush something he wasn't supposed to?
NO
Was he returning from using the toilet for its (primary) intended purpose? Did he directly use the toilet at all?
YES, therefore...
To throw up in? Anything else? Is its usage relevant?
...these here all get a NO
Was it a publicly-usable (i.e. not household) toilet? Is that relevant?
YES and YES
Are financial issues directly significant? Romantic? Sexual? Physical health? Safety? Freedoms? Responsibilities?
NO. I don't think any of these terms really fits.
Did he return from the toilet under his own power?
YES
-
Was the specific action he did in the toilet important?
Did he eject something that shouldn't have come out of his body?
-
Was the specific action he did in the toilet important?
NO
Did he eject something that shouldn't have come out of his body?
NO
-
Did he know that the vacation was going to end when he did the action?
-
Did he know that the vacation was going to end when he did the action?
NO
-
Was he directly responsible for what ended his nice vacation? Indirectly responsible?
Did something happen outside of the bathroom during the time he was using it?
-
Was he directly responsible for what ended his nice vacation?
This one is a bit tricky to answer, but I'll go with NO
Indirectly responsible?Therefore this one is YES
Did something happen outside of the bathroom during the time he was using it?
YES
-
RANDOM THEORY TIME.
The man was on a plane. Sometime during the flight, he needed to go drop "number 2." While he was inside the toilet, something caused a malfunction and the plane crashed. He stepped out to see his vacation ended before it had barely started.
-
The man was on a plane. Sometime during the flight, he needed to go drop "number 2." While he was inside the toilet, something caused a malfunction and the plane crashed. He stepped out to see his vacation ended before it had barely started.
Hmm, interesting one, but NO
-
Are there any other people involved? One? Two? Many? One other group? Two? More?
Does the man belong to a specific social group that is relevant to the riddle? Group membership of others involved?
Were police or law enforcement involved? Military? Workplace superiors? Coworkers? Family?
-
Are there any other people involved? One?
Double YES
Two? Many? One other group? Two? More?
NO
Does the man belong to a specific social group that is relevant to the riddle? Group membership of others involved?
NO to both
Were police or law enforcement involved? Military? Workplace superiors? Coworkers?
NO
Family?
YES
-
Wife? Father? Mother? Uncle? Aunt? Cousin? Grandparent? Child?
Did he meet them upon leaving the toilet/bathroom? Was the family member there before he entered? Were they present at either point?
-
Wife?
YES
Father? Mother? Uncle? Aunt? Cousin? Grandparent? Child?
NO
Did he meet them upon leaving the toilet/bathroom?
Was the family member there before he entered?
NO
Were they present at either point?
NO. Not in the bathroom.
-
Did his wife do something outside of the bathroom, causing him to realize that his vacation was over when he exited the bathroom?
-
Did his wife do something outside of the bathroom, causing him to realize that his vacation was over when he exited the bathroom?
YES
-
was she pregnant?
-
was she pregnant?
IRRELEVANT
-
Did his wife end the vacation? Or did his wife just make him realize his vacation was over? Was his vacation over when he went into the bathroom?
-
Did his wife end the vacation?
YES
Or did his wife just make him realize his vacation was over?
NO
Was his vacation over when he went into the bathroom?
It was over somewhere between the time he entered and the time he left the toilet. The specific point is IRRELEVANT.
-
Did the wife know something he didn't?
-
Did the wife know something he didn't?
NO. To make things easier: quite the contrary is true.
-
Was the vacation a long one? Was it a short one? Was it a vacation to another city? Did the vacation start while he was in the bathroom?
-
Did he tell his wife that he was going on vacation?
-
Was the vacation a long one?
Was it a short one?
IRRELEVANT
Was it a vacation to another city?
YES
Did the vacation start while he was in the bathroom?
NO
Did he tell his wife that he was going on vacation?
YES
-
Was his wife with him in the city that he was taking a vacation in?
-
Was his wife with him in the city that he was taking a vacation in?
NO, but more like: WRONG ASSUMPTION
-
Did the man and his wife start their vacation prior to this point?
Was there a certain thing he should have told his wife to prevent the end of his vacation?
-
Did the man and his wife start their vacation prior to this point?
YES
Was there a certain thing he should have told his wife to prevent the end of his vacation?
Kind of, YES
-
Did the end of the vacation cause his death somehow?
If the vacation had ended differently, would he be dead?
Has someone else asked these question?
Will I be in trouble for topic necromancy?
-
Did the end of the vacation cause his death somehow?
NO
If the vacation had ended differently, would he be dead?
I can imagine many ways it could have ended with death. So, UNKNOWN.
Has someone else asked these question?
NO
Will I be in trouble for topic necromancy?
I don't think so. I'm planning to set Black Stories on hold for a bit soon. It's ran out of fuel for now, but the timing isn't bad as I have a major assignment coming up and other things. But as long as the current case is unsolved, this topic will stay open :)
-
Can we get a picture response special for the next quest?
-
Can we get a picture response special for the next quest?
You guys liked that, eh? Sure, why not~, so: YES
-
>Did Wife take action upon some object that made it impossible for man to use/access that thing anymore while the man was at the toilet?
>Did Wife want to be on the vacation?
>Did Wife's idea of vacation identical to man's idea of vacation?
>Did Wife unintentionally ended the man's vacation instead of intentionally?
-
>Did Wife take action upon some object that made it impossible for man to use/access that thing anymore while the man was at the toilet?
YES
>Did Wife want to be on the vacation?
YES
>Did Wife's idea of vacation identical to man's idea of vacation?
IRRELEVANT
>Did Wife unintentionally ended the man's vacation instead of intentionally?
YES
Oho, those were good questions. I think you're actually pretty close now~
-
>Is the word "cursed" on the title relevant to the answer of this riddle? "nice"?
>Was the object wife performed her action upon disguised as something else?
>Is the item she threw away: a ticket? invitation? passport? money? card? something illegal?
>Did the man realize his vacation was over at the moment he stepped out of the toilet?
>Was the object she performed action seen by someone else? taken by someone else?
-
>Is the word "cursed" on the title relevant to the answer of this riddle? "nice"?
NO
>Was the object wife performed her action upon disguised as something else?
NO
>Is the item she threw away: a ticket? invitation? passport? money? card? something illegal?
NO. She didn't throw anything away.
>Did the man realize his vacation was over at the moment he stepped out of the toilet?
YES
>Was the object she performed action seen by someone else?
UNKNOWN. But since I guess there were other people around, YES
taken by someone else?
NO
-
Is the method of transport for the vacation relevant? Is access to such transport relevant?
-
Did the man step on something as he exited the toilet?
Was the toilet moved while he was inside it?
-
By end, does that mean that he has returned to where he usually lives/works? Or just as in his sense of the vacation was over?
-
Is the method of transport for the vacation relevant?
YES
Is access to such transport relevant?
Not sure how this is meant. Might be YES.
Did the man step on something as he exited the toilet?
NO
Was the toilet moved while he was inside it?
Okay, that would be hilarious. But, NO.
By end, does that mean that he has returned to where he usually lives/works?
NO
Or just as in his sense of the vacation was over?
YES
-
By end, does that mean that the actions of his wife meant that he had to return to where he usually lives/works? By end, does that mean that the actions of his wife meant that he was unable to return to where he usually lives/works?
Is physical access to transport (such as being able to reach working boats or whatever) to end the vacation relevant? Is social or financial access to transport (such as being able to get tickets) to end the vacation relevant?
-
By end, does that mean that the actions of his wife meant that he had to return to where he usually lives/works?
You may assume that returning home would have been his best course of action after what had happened, YES.
By end, does that mean that the actions of his wife meant that he was unable to return to where he usually lives/works?
NO. He was able to return, though you may assume it was harder to do so at that point.
Is physical access to transport (such as being able to reach working boats or whatever) to end the vacation relevant?
If I understand that question correctly, YES
Is social or financial access to transport (such as being able to get tickets) to end the vacation relevant?
YES
Holy hell, are you trying to test me with those complicated ways to formulate the questions? :V
-
Holy hell, are you trying to test me with those complicated ways to formulate the questions? :V
I am trying to make sure I cover my ass from getting misleading or incomplete answers. Also I'm tired and not thinking straight, but that's nothing new.
Was the transport to leave the vacation a water route? Land? Air? Other? Directly animal-powered? More technological?
-
I am trying to make sure I cover my ass from getting misleading or incomplete answers. Also I'm tired and not thinking straight, but that's nothing new.
Hey, it's nothing bad. In fact, it makes answering more interesting :D
Was the transport to leave the vacation a water route? Land? Air? Other? Directly animal-powered? More technological?
I'll make it simple and say that the vacation spot and the home were connected via land-routes that are accessible by car.
-
Meh, still not sufficient information but..
While traveling to his travel destination by car with his wife, the man exits the car temporarily to do his business in the washroom - probably at rest or gas station on highway. When the man is in the washroom, his wife, still in his car, tries to drive the car to move it into different location but ends up damaging the car on the process, making it inoperable. The man seeing the damage at the moment he stopped out of the washroom, realizes his vacation is over because not only he lack the means to travel, but need to bring it back to where he live to get it fixed and the price of fixing it will probably delve into the money he saved for the vacation.
(sound of blue spike epically slashing through the air)
-
While traveling to his travel destination by car with his wife, the man exits the car temporarily to do his business in the washroom - probably at rest or gas station on highway. When the man is in the washroom, his wife, still in his car, tries to drive the car to move it into different location but ends up damaging the car on the process, making it inoperable. The man seeing the damage at the moment he stopped out of the washroom, realizes his vacation is over because not only he lack the means to travel, but need to bring it back to where he live to get it fixed and the price of fixing it will probably delve into the money he saved for the vacation.
(sound of red shield blocking the strike)
NO. The red parts are correct.
A hint: Don't assume a normal car.
-
Was the transportation vehicle a RV?
-
Was the transportation vehicle a RV?
Excuse me? I don't know much about as cars as is, and abbreviations in English don't really help :V
-
Excuse me? I don't know much about as cars as is, and abbreviations in English don't really help :V
An RV is a "recreational vehicle", which is a large vehicle usually equipped with basic home stuff - kitchen, bathroom, bedroom. Designed so you can both drive in it and live in it. I believe they're also called campers.
THE MORE YOU KNOW
-
An RV is a "recreational vehicle", which is a large vehicle usually equipped with basic home stuff - kitchen, bathroom, bedroom. Designed so you can both drive in it and live in it. I believe they're also called campers.
THE MORE YOU KNOW
Ah, thank you. That was probably the one single term for that kind of car that I didn't know. :V
In that case: YES, the vehicle was an RV.
And please don't crush me with your mind :ohdear:
-
Don't worry, I won't.
Was the RV moved in such a way that it contributed to the end of the vacation?
-
Don't worry, I won't.
Was the RV moved in such a way that it contributed to the end of the vacation?
I hoped you would know the answer with you bringing up RV successfully :(
>More specifically, was the wife trying to back the RV?
-
Don't worry, I won't.
Phew :D
Was the RV moved in such a way that it contributed to the end of the vacation?
YES
>More specifically, was the wife trying to back the RV?
NO
-
...Alright, fail idea time:
While traveling to his travel destination by car with his wife, the man goes to do his business in the washroom inside the car (there's a washroom built-in). When the man is in the washroom, his wife accidentally pressed something/did something to the car that rendered in inoperable, thus causing it to fail. The man forgot to tell his wife not to press/do that thing, and so the car died. Afterwards, they had to walk back towards where they usually lived/worked.
-
...Alright, fail idea time:
While traveling to his travel destination by car with his wife, the man goes to do his business in the washroom inside the car (there's a washroom built-in). When the man is in the washroom, his wife accidentally pressed something/did something to the car that rendered in inoperable, thus causing it to fail. The man forgot to tell his wife not to press/do that thing, and so the car died. Afterwards, they had to walk back towards where they usually lived/worked.
NO. While the car may be equipped to live in it, it does NOT have a bathroom. (Don't as me, I don't know why either >_>)
-
...OK, did the RV bump into anything to cause significant damage to it? Or in any way, causing it to be inoperable?
Is the fact that it is equipped to live in it relevant to the situation, or could it just be any big car?
...Finally, is the wife better at driving the car than the man? Or is the wife not as skilled, causing something to happen?
-
...OK, did the RV bump into anything to cause significant damage to it? Or in any way, causing it to be inoperable?
NO
Is the fact that it is equipped to live in it relevant to the situation,
YES
or could it just be any big car?
NO
...Finally, is the wife better at driving the car than the man? Or is the wife not as skilled, causing something to happen?
IRRELEVANT. What happened has nothing to do with skill.
-
>Did the man see anything relevent to the situation?
>Did the wife say anything that made him know the vacation was over?
-
>Did the man see anything relevent to the situation?
Only what he saw when he exited the toilet. So, YES.
>Did the wife say anything that made him know the vacation was over?
NO. The two did not speak with each other in the situation at hand.
-
>Was the thing he saw that made him know the vacation was over is his wife?
-
>Was the thing he saw that made him know the vacation was over is his wife?
NO
-
>Was the thing inside our outside the RV?
-
>Was the thing inside
NO
our outside the RV?
YES. To help a little bit, it was less of a 'thing' he was seeing, but more a certain situation.
-
>Is the weather relevent?
>Were they in heavy traffic?
>Did he see a bridge?
-
>Is the weather relevent?
NO
>Were they in heavy traffic?
IRRELEVANT
>Did he see a bridge?
NO
-
>Did anything in the RV Break?
-
>Did anything in the RV Break?
NO. It was fully functional all the time
Maybe you should try to do a re-read of this case and summarize everything important that has been discovered as of yet. This might help you get new clues and ideas.
-
hmm....
>Did the wife crash the RV?
-
>Did the wife crash the RV?
NO. It was fully functional all the time
-
welp...
>Are the keys to the RV relevent?
>Is there something electronic besides the RV involved?
-
>Are the keys to the RV relevent?
NO. However, if you wanna know, at the time of the events the wife had the keys.
>Is there something electronic besides the RV involved?
NO
-
My Summary:
So when the man exited the bathroom, his vacation was over
Wife was a key member in this, she caused the vacation to end,
but unintentionally, and it was the situation with Wife that the
man knew his vacation was over, while wife was in the RV.
(did I get that right?)
>Is the distance from the restroom to the RV relevant?
>Was the RV doing anything at the time?
-
So when the man exited the bathroom, his vacation was over
Wife was a key member in this, she caused the vacation to end,
but unintentionally, and it was the situation with Wife that the
man knew his vacation was over, while wife was in the RV.
YES, that is correct.
>Is the distance from the restroom to the RV relevant?
You might say so, YES.
>Was the RV doing anything at the time?
YES
-
>Was the RV in any kind of motion?
>If so, if Wife responsible for the motion?
>Is the RV blocking something?
-
>Was the RV in any kind of motion?
YES
>If so, if Wife responsible for the motion?
YES
>Is the RV blocking something?
NO
-
>Is matter of fuel relevant to the solving this question?
>Was it raining? snowing? sunny?
>Did the man own RV? Rented?
>Did RV have retractable roof?
>Is it morning? afternoon? night?
>Was man driving RV toward certain destination? resting between the way to the destination? has already arrived at the destination?
>Could man see the inside of RV immediately after stepping out the washroom?
>Was something within RV affected by wife's actions?
>Did wife know that man was outside RV?
-
>Is matter of fuel relevant to the solving this question?
NO
>Was it raining? snowing? sunny?
IRRELEVANT. Let's say sunny, because I like sun.
>Did the man own RV? Rented?
IRRELEVANT. They probably owned it.
>Did RV have retractable roof?
IRRELEVANT.
>Is it morning? afternoon? night?
IRRELEVANT. Probably daytime.
>Was man driving RV toward certain destination?
NO. His wife was driving.
resting between the way to the destination?
YES. He was resting.
has already arrived at the destination?
NO
>Could man see the inside of RV immediately after stepping out the washroom?
NO
>Was something within RV affected by wife's actions?
You could say so, YES
>Did wife know that man was outside RV?
NO
Those were good questions. Keep going, you're almost there.
-
>Was wife driving away from the washroom while man was in the washroom?
>Did the man have some method of contacting her?
>Is the RV divided into separate sections, so wife in the driver seat might not been able to see the entire RV inside?
-
>Was wife driving away from the washroom while man was in the washroom?
YES
>Did the man have some method of contacting her?
NO
>Is the RV divided into separate sections, so wife in the driver seat might not been able to see the entire RV inside?
YES
Now put those things together and you'll have the solution ^^
-
Let me channel the power of Battler.
(http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/1528/11819182.png)
The man and wife are traveling to their destination by RV, and is resting on the way. The man - sleeping in one of the rooms in RV - wakes up and decides to go to washroom and leaves the RV without informing his wife. Meanwhile wife, who is tasked with driving the RV, decides it is time to leave and starts pulling away from the rest station or wherever they were resting while man is in the washroom. Wife does not realize man is not in the RV because she still think he is sleeping in one of the rooms. The man, exiting the washroom, sees either RV moving far away or that there is no longer RV anymore. He has no method to contact her, and his wife is unlikely to realize the fact that man is not in RV for long time, so he is stuck.
-
~ CASE SOLVED! ~
The man and wife are traveling to their destination by RV, and is resting on the way. The man - sleeping in one of the rooms in RV - wakes up and decides to go to washroom and leaves the RV without informing his wife. Meanwhile wife, who is tasked with driving the RV, decides it is time to leave and starts pulling away from the rest station or wherever they were resting while man is in the washroom. Wife does not realize man is not in the RV because she still think he is sleeping in one of the rooms. The man, exiting the washroom, sees either RV moving far away or that there is no longer RV anymore. He has no method to contact her, and his wife is unlikely to realize the fact that man is not in RV for long time, so he is stuck.
YES. Absolutely perfect description of the events, nothing to add here.
My, my, so this game has started again when I was abot to declare it dead.
Wonderful, wonderful, let's see how far we can continue.
I definitely still have more than enough riddles to solve, fear not.
Since this thread is 50 posts away from the limit, starting another case in here is impractical.
Therefore, I will start a new thread with the next riddle either tonight or tomorrow.
And remember, by request of Pesco, the next riddle will be another photo-answer-special, and I'll work hard to make it even better than the last one.
(If you don't know what that means, look at Case 16, it's in the Detective's Record in the OP
Please wait warmly until the next game is prepared~
-
One thing I was bit unsure about that solution was that the man could simply have waited on the washroom. If the wife is moderately smart, she will realize the place she left could have only been the place the man got lost, and will return- at maximum man will only need to wait two days; inconvenient, but not enough to screw over entire vacation or try to return to home. Isn't it?
Also, since they chose to rest during their way, you can anticipate the place they were resting was camping ground, RV park, or some random spot near the highway. If so man can simply try to stop one of the cars passing by, explain the situation, and borrow the cellphone to contact the wife. Perhaps the wording was bit too strong in this puzzle? It kinda seemed to suggest they had no choice but to return, which suggested some unrecoverable situation, which above situation definitely is not.
:3
-
Yeah, there's probably about a million ways the man could have saved the vacation. But that's how Black Stories work, you get used to it :D
-
Wow, interesting case
Good Job Detective ventuswings!