-
So it has been over two years since I abandoned the last iteration of Black Stories on MotK due to ~*~circumstances~*~. I had almost forgotten that I ever ran this game, until...
Yesterday a certain shim brought the topic up again. So here we are again, it's time to dust off the case-cards and start working those brains!
The old thread - containing links to all previously solved cases - can be found here (http://www.shrinemaiden.org/forum/index.php/topic,6067.0.html)
But before we begin, let me greet you and explain what you are going to do here.
Greetings, Ladies and Gentlemen,
I am honored that you have followed my invitation once more.
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 again to play the game 'Black Stories', which I'm sure many of you know by a lot of different names.
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.
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. I will then tell you if you are right or - if you are wrong - which parts are correct.
> 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 the use of supernatural explanations is allowed will be specified as such.
Some more meta information:
Be fair and don't answer to riddles that you know the answer for from the start. A number of those cases might be widely known around the world, maybe with slight variations so 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.
Detective's Record
Case 01: Camping (http://www.shrinemaiden.org/forum/index.php/topic,14649.msg967418.html#msg967418) - Solved (http://www.shrinemaiden.org/forum/index.php/topic,14649.msg967693.html#msg967693)
Case 02: Fun at Work (http://www.shrinemaiden.org/forum/index.php/topic,14649.msg967693.html#msg967693) - Solved (http://www.shrinemaiden.org/forum/index.php/topic,14649.msg970184.html#msg970184)
Case 03: BT's Round ~ Impossible Trial (http://www.shrinemaiden.org/forum/index.php/topic,14649.msg970198.html#msg970198) - Solved (http://www.shrinemaiden.org/forum/index.php/topic,14649.msg971523.html#msg971523)
Case 04: Surprise (http://www.shrinemaiden.org/forum/index.php/topic,14649.msg973212.html#msg973212)
So with this done, we shall start right away with our newest riddle:
Case 01: Camping
Shortly after Harry had arrived at the camping ground some people died there.
-
>Is Harry a hurricane?
-
>Did harry kill the people?
-
Oh, I love these. Case 01 seems really... bland, though. I'm used to a short 'story'. OK!
>Is the number of deceased relevant?
>Are all the bodies still 'there'?
-
Oh, I love these. Case 01 seems really... bland, though. I'm used to a short 'story'.
I'll just say that goes for a lot of the fifth edition cases I'm using right now. I also have the "Real Crime" edition, which isn't too bad, but I'll probably also get the second edition soon because the earlier ones were often better. (Most of the cases in the first thread were from the first edition.)
>Is Harry a hurricane?
Heheh, someone is starting off strong here: Yes
>Did harry kill the people?
No
>Is the number of deceased relevant?
No
>Are all the bodies still 'there'?
No
-
Well there's not much left now is there?
>Were the deceased expecting Harry?
>Were there survivors?
-
>Did Harry ate all the marshmellows?
-
>Is the camping ground in an unusual location?
>Are the campers using the camping ground unusual?
-
> Did the people die because of damage caused by Harry?
-
>Did the people die of water or food poisoning?
-
Were the dead people non-civilians (e.g. rescue services, research staff, military etc)?
-
A note: I've played this game before with 'points', where every question adds one to the count, 'good' questions don't count and are worth -2 points, 'very good' questions are the same but '-5' and the solution doesn't count and ends the game. Aim for the least amount of points. I find that it makes it more competitive and limits walls of useless questioning. :V
-
>Were the deceased expecting Harry?
Unknown, but you may assume they did know about Harry beforehand
>Were there survivors?
Yes
>Is the camping ground in an unusual location?
No
>Are the campers using the camping ground unusual?
No
> Did the people die because of damage caused by Harry?
No
>Did the people die of water or food poisoning?
No
Were the dead people non-civilians (e.g. rescue services, research staff, military etc)?
No, everyone that died was a normal camper
A note: I've played this game before with 'points', where every question adds one to the count, 'good' questions don't count and are worth -2 points, 'very good' questions are the same but '-5' and the solution doesn't count and ends the game. Aim for the least amount of points. I find that it makes it more competitive and limits walls of useless questioning. :V
Huh, interesting. I can see the appeal of playing it like that, but I'll frankly admit that I'd probably not be able to keep track of scores and all properly. :V If there's interest in playing one or two rounds like that, that's an option, but at least for me it's not something I'd do permanently.
-
>Were the deaths caused directly by humans?
Yeah, I guess it's kind of a bother. If I host a round (I want to! I have a few cases on my mind.) I think I'll do it myself.
-
> Was Harry a small hurricane?
> Did anyone die by natural causes?
-
Hrm...I think I might have figured out the solution, is there any penalty for guessing now and being wrong?
EDIT: DERP I CAN READ.
Ok, so Harry the Hurricane comes ripping through this campsite. The campers were expecting it, but what they didn't expect was their food and water supplies to be ruined for whatever reason. They also ended up stranded by the hurricane. A few days in the aftermath they were hungry. VERY hungry. So hungry, in fact, they might have killed a few of their own for food before getting rescued.
-
>Did Harry occur naturally, or was he a by-product of whatever killed the campers?
-
>Did the campers get there after the hurricane had already struck?
-
>Is Harry's time of arrival relevant?
>Is the time of the year relevant?
>Was there a lightning storm when Harry arrived?
>Were the campers in their tents when Harry arrived?
>Did Harry take the bodies away with him?
-
>Were the deaths caused directly by humans?
No
> Was Harry a small hurricane?
No
> Did anyone die by natural causes?
No
Ok, so Harry the Hurricane comes ripping through this campsite. The campers were expecting it, but what they didn't expect was their food and water supplies to be ruined for whatever reason. They also ended up stranded by the hurricane. A few days in the aftermath they were hungry. VERY hungry. So hungry, in fact, they might have killed a few of their own for food before getting rescued.
No. I have marked the correct part in red (because we all like our Umineko references), as you can see that's not too much.
>Did Harry occur naturally
Yes
or was he a by-product of whatever killed the campers?
No
>Did the campers get there after the hurricane had already struck?
No, they were there before Harry occurred
>Is Harry's time of arrival relevant?
No
>Is the time of the year relevant?
No, let's assume summer or fall
>Was there a lightning storm when Harry arrived?
No
>Were the campers in their tents when Harry arrived?
Unknown, but probably Yes
>Did Harry take the bodies away with him?
No
-
>Did someone take the bodies away?
>Did the campers try to escape from Harry?
-
Case 01: Camping
Shortly after Harry had arrived at the camping ground some people died there.
Yeah, there was always this.
>Did the campers expect to die the way they did?
>Did anyone else expect the campers to die the way they did?
>Stupid, but were their deaths caused indirectly by humans?
>>By their own doing?
-
It's Lupus :|
More seriously, um, hmm...
>Were the campers isolated at all by the storm?
-
They say there's only a few ways to die. Natural, accidental, and murder. I think suicide is there too. So.
> Did any campers commit suicide?
> Did any campers die accidentally?
> Did any campers die of any type of poisoning?
> Did any campers die of drowning?
> Did any campers suffocate to death?
> Did any campers get mauled to death by an wild animal?
> Did any campers die of blunt force trauma?
> Did any campers burn to death?
> Did all campers have the same cause of death?
-
Idea: When Harry arrived, the campers ran to their cars and tried to escape. They died in a panic-induced multiple car crash.
-
>Did Harry steal away something important that caused the campers to die? (i.e. they died because this important thing was not there.)
-
>Did someone take the bodies away?
You could say that, Yes
>Did the campers try to escape from Harry?
No
>Did the campers expect to die the way they did?
No
>Did anyone else expect the campers to die the way they did?
Unknown, but not impossible
>Stupid, but were their deaths caused indirectly by humans?
Certainly not a stupid question. The answer though is No
>>By their own doing?
And thus No to this too
It's Lupus :|
(http://i.imgur.com/mHtpsKL.jpg)
>Were the campers isolated at all by the storm?
Possible, but unknown and thus irrelevant
As for the following: I'll just say that while my rules don't exactly forbid asking this many questions - and while it certainly leads to results - I think many will feel that this is kinda unsportsmanlike to just rattle off everything you can think of. Please try to not to do it that way too often.
> Did any campers commit suicide?
No
> Did any campers die accidentally?
No
> Did any campers die of any type of poisoning?
No
> Did any campers die of drowning?
No
> Did any campers suffocate to death?
No
> Did any campers get mauled to death by an wild animal?
Yes
> Did any campers die of blunt force trauma?
No
> Did any campers burn to death?
No
> Did all campers have the same cause of death?
Yes
Idea: When Harry arrived, the campers ran to their cars and tried to escape. They died in a panic-induced multiple car crash.
Not at all
>Did Harry steal away something important that caused the campers to die? (i.e. they died because this important thing was not there.)
No, Harry did not steal the precious thing
-
OK, idea.
>Various dangerous wild animals were caught up in the hurricane and landed in the campsite. They then proceeded to eat the campers.
-
> Was the campers' cause of death related to weather?
> Was the campers' cause of death related to a health condition?
> Was the campers' cause of death related to fire?
-
OK, idea.
>Various dangerous wild animals were caught up in the hurricane and landed in the campsite. They then proceeded to eat the campers.
Yes
While I could be nitpicky for details, I won't be this time, since we're just warming up again. I did, however, remember that the cards I use have some pictures on the solution as well, so I will from now on post those.
Harry was an especially strong hurricane, that caused the water level in the adjacent swamps to rise.
Some alligators were swept to a nearby camping ground by the water,
where they devoured several campers.
(http://i.imgur.com/k7x448y.jpg)
Well well, that wasn't too hard to start with, was it? Nicely done. Now on to the next one~
Case 02: Fun at work
The three friends wanted to take some funny pictures at their workplace.
One of them did not go home anymore on that day.
-
> Did he not go home on subsequent days?
> Was his marriage affected by the pictures taken that day?
> Did he die?
-
>Was there a photocopier involved?
-
>Is "the three friends" a name for something? Or are they just three friends?
>Is the workplace a physical place?
>Is that someone's 'home' a physical place?
May as well shoo the silliness away.
-
Sorry, I'll try to limit my questions.
> Did anyone die? Not just the guy who didn't go home, but anyone involved at all?
-
>Did the men work in a dangerous workplace?
>Was the man unable to go home because of his taking photos?
-
Is 'go home' meant literally unable to return to the place where one of the men sleeps every night?
-
>Were they in a place that allowed photography?
-
> Did these friends work at a museum?
> Did the event end with one of them in jail?
-
Was one of them a cop?
-
>Did they have a camera?
>If no, did they steal a camera?
-
Add to my questions from earlier:
>Is "One of them" referring to one of the friends?
-
Oh dear I really should have gotten around to this earlier today, sorry for that.
> Did he not go home on subsequent days?
Yes
> Was his marriage affected by the pictures taken that day?
It is unknown whether he was married in the first place
> Did he die?
Yes
>Was there a photocopier involved?
No, but I'm slightly curious what you had in mind there, it sounds potentially hilarious
>Is "the three friends" a name for something?
No
Or are they just three friends?
Yes
>Is the workplace a physical place?
Yes
>Is that someone's 'home' a physical place?
Yes
> Did anyone die? Not just the guy who didn't go home, but anyone involved at all?
Yes, there was a death
>Did the men work in a dangerous workplace?
I will admit I had to think about this one for a bit, I will say Generally No though
>Was the man unable to go home because of his taking photos?
Yes
Is 'go home' meant literally unable to return to the place where one of the men sleeps every night?
Yes
>Were they in a place that allowed photography?
This particular detail is Unknown. Whether it was allowed or not is Irrelevant to the case though
> Did these friends work at a museum?
No
> Did the event end with one of them in jail?
No
Was one of them a cop?
No
>Did they have a camera?
Yes
>Is "One of them" referring to one of the friends?
Yes, the man that did not go home was one of the three friends
-
>Did any pictures get taken?
>>Was the death caused by the action of taking pictures?
>>Was the death caused by the action of looking at said pictures?
-
>Did any pictures get taken?
Yes
>>Was the death caused by the action of taking pictures?
No
>>Was the death caused by the action of looking at said pictures?
No
-
I thought this was a direct conclusion of some of the responses put together but maybe not?
>Is the death related to the picture taking at all? (as in would it have happened regardless?)
-
>Is the death related to the picture taking at all?
Yes.
To clarify on the thing before: "caused by the action of taking pictures" I understand as "it happened because someone pushed a button on the camera". If you had something else in mind, I'll have to ask you to phrase that question differently.
-
No, that's what I meant.
>Was a picture taken before the death?
>Was a picture taken after the death?
>...at the time of death?
-
>Was there anything unusual about the camera used to take the photos?
>Was the man assassinated?
>Were they taking pictures of themselves?
>Was the workplace a zoo? >Was someone or something startled by the sound of the picture being taken?
-
> Was the picture of something dangerous?
-
>Was the flash on?
>Was there a mirror involved?
:derp:
-
>Was an animal involved?
-
>Was a picture taken before the death?
Yes
>Was a picture taken after the death?
No
>...at the time of death?
I will say No, as that is what I get from the card, it is theoretically possible that a picture was taken at the time of death though.
>Was there anything unusual about the camera used to take the photos?
No
>Was the man assassinated?
No
>Were they taking pictures of themselves?
Yes
>Was the workplace a zoo? >Was someone or something startled by the sound of the picture being taken?
No and No
> Was the picture of something dangerous?
You could say that, Yes
>Was the flash on?
Irrelevant
>Was there a mirror involved?
No
>Was an animal involved?
No
-
Was there any property damage as a result of the camera being operated?
-
>Did the action of taking the pictures triggered anything at all?
(and)
>Did the action of taking the pictures triggered something in that work place that was the cause of the death?
-
Did any of the group of friends have any unusual or supernatural attributes?
-
I'm vaguely surprised no one has asked this (and thusly probably missed it)
>Was the man killed by someone, or something alive?
>Was the man's cause of death unusual in any way?
-
> Did taking a picture prevent any of the men from doing something that could save a life?
-
>Was the man blinded by the camera flash? If so, did this lead to his death?
EDIT: >Did the man fall to his death?
-
> Was the picture of one man? Two?
> Was the dead man in the picture? Operating the camera?
-
Was there any property damage as a result of the camera being operated?
No
>Did the action of taking the pictures triggered anything at all?
No
>Did the action of taking the pictures triggered something in that work place that was the cause of the death?
No
Did any of the group of friends have any unusual or supernatural attributes?
Interesting thought, but No
>Was the man killed by someone, or something alive?
No
>Was the man's cause of death unusual in any way?
Yes
> Did taking a picture prevent any of the men from doing something that could save a life?
No
>Was the man blinded by the camera flash? If so, did this lead to his death?
No. As I said whether the camera used flash or not is irrelevant - and in fact unknown
EDIT: >Did the man fall to his death?
No. I will give a hint though: "fall" is certainly not a wrong idea
> Was the picture of one man?
Yes
Two?
No
> Was the dead man in the picture?
Yes
Operating the camera?
At some point during the case, Yes. At the time of death, No.
-
>Was the camera on a tripod?
>If so, did the tripod fall in any way?
-
>Did something fall on the man?
-
Was the camera at ground level?
-
Where the men ab-normal (Like aliens)?
-
> Was the death accidental?
> Was the man posing when he died?
-
> Did the dead man hold the camera in his hands?
> Did the man operating the camera back himself into a situation that lead either directly or indirectly to his death?
> More generally, did movement by the man operating the camera lead directly or indirectly to his death?
-
No. I will give a hint though: "fall" is certainly not a wrong idea
(http://i.imgur.com/eiVTq.jpg)
>Was the picture taker the one who died?
>Was the man taking a picture of himself?
>Were the friends doing anything illegal?
>Does the workplace have heavy/industrial machinery or power tools?
-
> Is the number of pictures taken relevant?
-
>Did the men work at a lighthouse or another similarly tall building?
-
>Was the camera on a tripod?
No
>If so, did the tripod fall in any way?
And that means No here as well, as no tripod was involved
>Did something fall on the man?
No
Was the camera at ground level?
It was not lying on the ground, if you mean that. No
Where the men ab-normal (Like aliens)?
No. They were, for all intents and purposes, perfectly normal humans.
> Was the death accidental?
Yes
> Was the man posing when he died?
A very good question! One that I shall answer with Yes.
> Did the dead man hold the camera in his hands?
No
> Did the man operating the camera back himself into a situation that lead either directly or indirectly to his death?
No
> More generally, did movement by the man operating the camera lead directly or indirectly to his death?
No
>Was the picture taker the one who died?
No
>Was the man taking a picture of himself?
No
>Were the friends doing anything illegal?
No. What the three friends did was not violating any laws.
>Does the workplace have heavy/industrial machinery or power tools?
No. The workplace is not of an industrial nature and does not hold power tools
> Is the number of pictures taken relevant?
No. However I will say that until the time of death the camera had been used to take several pictures
>Did the men work at a lighthouse or another similarly tall building?
No. The heigth of the building is unknown.
There've been some good questions, and you are doing pretty well. Don't worry if you don't have any good ideas yet, this one is pretty tricky. It may be useful to summarize what you know so far, so as to confirm that there have been no misunderstandings.
-
>Was the death immediate?
>Had the deceased's friends paid full attention to him when it counted (assuming such a moment / timeframe exists), would they have been able to save him?
-
So let me run through what we know.
Three dudes, at work, taking pictures of each other. At some point, a picture was taken of this man, presumably in some position; he then died. He did not die by falling to his death, nor by having the camera fall on him.
> Did he lose his balance while posing and fall onto or into a dangerous object or space?
-
>Was the death immediate?
Yes
>Could the death have been avoided if the friends had paid full attention to the deceased?
Hmmm... I will say No
Three dudes, at work, taking pictures of each other. At some point, a picture was taken of this man, presumably in some position; he then died. He did not die by falling to his death, nor by having the camera fall on him.
Indeed, all of this is absolutely correct.
> Did he lose his balance while posing
In a very broad sense: Yes
and fall onto or into a dangerous object or space?
I will have to say No here
-
>Was the cause of death physical trauma? (I don't remember if this was answered already.)
-
> Was assuming or holding the pose what proved fatal?
-
>Was the cause of the death related to ingestion or inhalation of a dangerous object/gas?
>Did the man that died accidentally activated a device (In the work space) that was the cause of his death?
>Did anyone else touched/manipulated anything in the work space (Excluding any doors they had to come through)?
-
>Did the man die at the workplace?
-
>Was the cause of death physical trauma? (I don't remember if this was answered already.)
I swear I'm never sure what exactly is included in "physical trauma"? I *think* my answer here should be Yes though.
> Was assuming or holding the pose what proved fatal?
You could say that I guess, Yes. The pose was definitely important to the death.
>Was the cause of the death related to ingestion or inhalation of a dangerous object/gas?
No
>Did the man that died accidentally activated a device (In the work space) that was the cause of his death?
Yes. As was answered before there were no power tools or machinery, but there was certainly a *device* of sorts.
>Did anyone else touched/manipulated anything in the work space (Excluding any doors they had to come through)?
No
>Did the man die at the workplace?
Yes
-
It's basically "was the death due to some part of the body getting hit by a strong physical force", I guess? For example, electrocution isn't included but falling off of a cliff is, as is getting hit in the head by a baseball bat.
>Is the pose what activated the device?
>Is the device lifeless?
>Is the activation method something like turning a switch on or off, pushing a button etcetera?
-
Take this blue truth! The man was having a picture taken of him. He worked in a police station. He was posing with himself holding a gun. By accident, he slipped. During this process, somehow the gun's barrel pointed at the man, and it accidentally went off. He was shot to death.
If that's somehow correct I demand a medal :V
-
> Was the workplace an office building?
> Did the intended pose involve having both feet on the ground? (As opposed to jumping in the air, standing on one leg, etc.)
> Is the particular pose a key element of the case?
-
It's basically "was the death due to some part of the body getting hit by a strong physical force", I guess? For example, electrocution isn't included but falling off of a cliff is, as is getting hit in the head by a baseball bat.
Ah okay, thanks for explaining. Yeah, this one is physical trauma then.
>Is the pose what activated the device?
In the sense that if the man hadn't posed as he did at all, the device would not have activated and the accident would not have happened: Yes
>Is the device lifeless?
Yes
>Is the activation method something like turning a switch on or off, pushing a button etcetera?
Generally Yes.
Take this blue truth! The man was having a picture taken of him. He worked in a police station. He was posing with himself holding a gun. By accident, he slipped. During this process, somehow the gun's barrel pointed at the man, and it accidentally went off. He was shot to death.
If that's somehow correct I demand a medal :V
False, no medals for you. However, the general idea about what kind of sequence of events it was, is not incorrect!
> Was the workplace an office building?
No
> Did the intended pose involve having both feet on the ground? (As opposed to jumping in the air, standing on one leg, etc.)
Yes, the intended pose did not involve his feet being in the air at any point.
> Is the particular pose a key element of the case?
As far as the general circumstances of the posing go, Yes.
-
Did the pose involve reaching for the sky?
-
Is the device small enough to be held by hand?
Is the device durable enough to be standed on?
Does the shape of the device resemble a cube?
Is the device composed of metal?
Is blood spilled when the man died?
-
My my my, what an interesting thread! I adore those kind of games.
>Did the reason for taking the picture involve showing off the device in question?
-
Holy crap This thread is back :o
*Exits lurk mode*
>Did the dead man had any physical contact with whatever the device that killed him?
>Did he do the Saturday Night Fever pose?
>Would he have died if there was only 2 people instead of 3?
-
> Did the intended pose involve the man having either of his hands above his head?
> Is the workplace inside a building?
> Is it a government workplace? (i.e. post office, police station, fire department, school, courthouse, military base, any building owned or operated by a government institution as well as national parks and other similarly outdoor government work. And yes, I know post office is debatable.)
-
Did the pose involve reaching for the sky?
No
Is the device small enough to be held by hand?
No
Is the device durable enough to be standed on?
Yes
Does the shape of the device resemble a cube?
Not really, I'd say. No
Is the device composed of metal?
While there may be small metal parts, generally No
Is blood spilled when the man died?
No
>Did the reason for taking the picture involve showing off the device in question?
Oh man you're asking a hard one. I hope this won't mislead, but I will say Yes.
>Did the dead man had any physical contact with whatever the device that killed him?
Yes
>Did he do the Saturday Night Fever pose?
... Maybe? :V As far as this case is concerned, No
>Would he have died if there was only 2 people instead of 3?
Most likely, Yes
> Did the intended pose involve the man having either of his hands above his head?
Unknown. The position of his hands is Irrelevant to the case. For all we know he may have been throwing gang signs and the result would have been the same
> Is the workplace inside a building?
From my knowledge this kind of workplace can exist both inside and outside a building. Which one is the case in this incident is Unknown.
> Is it a government workplace? (i.e. post office, police station, fire department, school, courthouse, military base, any building owned or operated by a government institution as well as national parks and other similarly outdoor government work. And yes, I know post office is debatable.)
Yes
-
Sooo he died immediately, from a physical injury, without spilling blood. And it's not freefall. I feel like I'm playing an AA game. *_*
>Did he make physical contact with the device or was it the other way around?
>Were there multiple instances of contact or was it immediate death at the first (and only) time?
e:
>Would you commonly find this device in someone's house?
-
Is a dunk tank involved?
Or a gallows?
Or if not gallows, a guillotine?
-
Is there a pole involved in this workplace?
-
>Was an object launched at him?
-
> Was the death related to a prior health condition?
> Did he die of blunt trauma? Was it to the head?
-
Is the weather related?
Is the dead dude a magician?
-
Sooo he died immediately, from a physical injury, without spilling blood. And it's not freefall. I feel like I'm playing an AA game. *_*
Correct. Those are the circumstances of the death.
>Did he make physical contact with the device or was it the other way around?
A bit hard to answer, but from my point of view I lean towards the former
>Were there multiple instances of contact or was it immediate death at the first (and only) time?
There was a single instance of contact that led to the immediate death
Yeah, that wasn't Yes or No answers, but I felt like being nice. :V
>Would you commonly find this device in someone's house?
No, definitely not
Is a dunk tank involved?
No
Or a gallows?
Ohohohohohohoho. Good thinking, capt.h. Your answer is: Yes
Or if not gallows, a guillotine?
No
Is there a pole involved in this workplace?
No
>Was an object launched at him?
No
> Was the death related to a prior health condition?
No
> Did he die of blunt trauma?
I think that counts as blunt, Yes
Was it to the head?
No
Is the weather related?
No
Is the dead dude a magician?
No
Well, I think this case will be solved soon. A crucial bit of information has been revealed, now go and puzzle things together!
-
>They were executioners?
-
>So, 3 people, 1 was taking the picture and 1 was posing with the gallows, was the third person to be blamed for the accident?
>Did the pose the guy did involve putting his head through the loop?
-
I'd be mildly surprised if there was an active gallows today, although for the purpose of the riddle it is possible they were executioners or prison guards. Let us take a guess.
The three men worked at one of those historical villages, as tour guides or something. They decided to take funny pictures. One of the men stuck his head in the loop of a noose at the gallows for a pose. A picture was taken. Blinded by the flash or something, maybe trying to get down, he accidentally triggers the level to make the floor underneath him drop. His neck snaps, and he is dead.
-
Oh dear I need to work on my scheduling. Apologies for that.
>They were executioners?
Yes
>So, 3 people, 1 was taking the picture and 1 was posing with the gallows, was the third person to be blamed for the accident?
No
>Did the pose the guy did involve putting his head through the loop?
Yes
I'd be mildly surprised if there was an active gallows today, although for the purpose of the riddle it is possible they were executioners or prison guards. Let us take a guess.
Actually gallows are still used for executions in some countries, aside from the fact that this case could take place centuries ago. If you want a relatively recent example, Saddam Hussein was executed via the gallows after the Iraq-invasion.
The three men worked at one of those historical villages, as tour guides or something. They decided to take funny pictures. One of the men stuck his head in the loop of a noose at the gallows for a pose. A picture was taken. Blinded by the flash or something, maybe trying to get down, he accidentally triggers the level to make the floor underneath him drop. His neck snaps, and he is dead.
Almost. Correct parts are in blue, the rest should be easy from the answers above, so once someone corrects those parts you'll have your solution.
I also have no idea why camera flash is in there, after all it was said twice that camera flash did not play a role and might not have been used at all.
-
>The three worked the gallows as executioners, decided to take funny pictures, idiot puts head in loop, strikes pose that activates the gallows, dies.
Can I have the next round or the one after? I have some riddle-diddles but I don't mind putting them on hold until a fitting time comes if you're doing these as some sort of series.
-
Almost. Correct parts are in blue, the rest should be easy from the answers above, so once someone corrects those parts you'll have your solution.
I also have no idea why camera flash is in there, after all it was said twice that camera flash did not play a role and might not have been used at all.
Absent mindedness.
If we need the explanation why he activated gallows, then my guess is it's because he lost his balance when sticking his head in the loop and accidentally hit the lever.
-
Did the operation of the camera trigger maybe a reflex reaction from the men and the panic caused the activation of the machine to get the kill?
-
>The three worked the gallows as executioners, decided to take funny pictures, idiot puts head in loop, strikes pose that activates the gallows, dies.
If we need the explanation why he activated gallows, then my guess is it's because he lost his balance when sticking his head in the loop and accidentally hit the lever.
Yes
The three men were working as executioners.
Just for fun they put the noose around their necks and took pictures in different poses.
When the trapdoor suddenly gave away the executioner who was wearing the noose at that moment had his neck broken and died immediately.
(http://i.imgur.com/zkBKGRY.jpg)
Right BT, if you are that eager to play your riddle, the next round is yours. Go ahead!
-
OK! These aren't from cards or anything - they're what I remember from this sort of thing I had roughly 7 years ago. I remember ~4 riddles and most of the facts, which shows how much fun that was. All credit goes to the teach who ran the activity (whose name I don't remember), as they're pretty much made from scratch by him. Most of them aren't short, one of them is really long, but I'll pull a short one right now I think.
Case 03: Impossible Trial
She was furious as she stepped out the courtroom.
The guilty party was painfully apparent to all, yet not a single thing could be done.
-
> Is the guilty party a single person?
> If Yes, is he/she still alive?
-
>Could nothing be done because of a legal loophole?
-
> Is anyone other than the guilty party dead?
> Was the guilty party the defendant?
> Was it a civil case? (as opposed to a criminal case?)
-
> Was "she" the judge? An attorney? The plaintiff? Related to the case?
-
> Is the guilty party a single person?
If your question is whether or not they were a single entity, the answer is YES.
> If Yes, is he/she still alive?
YES
>Could nothing be done because of a legal loophole?
I would say NO
> Is anyone other than the guilty party dead?
Was answered above that the guilty party is not dead. In fact, no one involved is dead, so: NO
> Was the guilty party the defendant?
YES
> Was it a civil case? (as opposed to a criminal case?)
I'd say civil but ehh. Not the easiest thing to answer.
> Was "she" [...] The plaintiff?
YES
-
I'd say civil but ehh. Not the easiest thing to answer.
YES
...Huh?
Civil meaning not criminal, or in other words, no threat of jailtime, fines, suspended sentences, or community service (criminal involving a case where a law was broken and a legally mandated minimum sentence will be imposed if the defendant is found guilty). Civil is everything else, and involves divorce, lawsuits, custody battles, suing for damages etc.
> Is "she" the defendant's wife?
> Is "she" a member of the defendant's family?
-
...Huh?
Civil meaning not criminal, or in other words, no threat of jailtime, fines, suspended sentences, or community service (criminal involving a case where a law was broken and a legally mandated minimum sentence will be imposed if the defendant is found guilty). Civil is everything else, and involves divorce, lawsuits, custody battles, etc.
Consider this answer: the plaintiff considers what the defendant did as a crime, but I don't think there's a ruling that covers this case. It's quite the special case.
> Is "she" the defendant's wife?
NO
> Is "she" a member of the defendant's family?
NO
-
> Was the crime the defendant was accused of causing misery in an unconventional way, such as threatening suicide?
-
>Did the crime involve an action that broke a societal unspoken law rather than an actual one? (Say, offending a religion through free speech.)
-
> Is the defendant a human being? A corporation? Another kind of entity?
-
>Is the single entity responsible an animal?
Hey, I remember a riddle where it all hinged on this fact. It's not completely out of the question!
-
> Was the crime the defendant was accused of causing misery in an unconventional way, such as threatening suicide?
I wouldn't say the misery was unconventional, NO
>Did the crime involve an action that broke a societal unspoken law rather than an actual one? (Say, offending a religion through free speech.)
Gonna say NO to this one as well
In general questions like these are kind of hard to answer. I think a better avenue is, for example, this one:
> Is the defendant a human being? A corporation? Another kind of entity?
NO, NO, YES
>Is the single entity responsible an animal?
NO
-
> Is the defendant a robot or some other form of artificial intelligence?
> Is the defendant an extraterrestrial? :3
-
>Is the defendant a non-living object?
-
> Was the crime an act of comission? (Where the defendant did something?)
> Was the act a crime of omission? (Where the defendant failed to do something?)
-
> Is the defendant a robot or some other form of artificial intelligence?
NO
> Is the defendant an extraterrestrial? :3
:( YES
>Is the defendant a non-living object?
NO
> Was the crime an act of comission? (Where the defendant did something?)
YES
> Was the act a crime of omission? (Where the defendant failed to do something?)
NO
-
> Did the crime involve "probing"?
> Did the crime involve kidnapping?
> Did the crime involve cows?
-
> Did the crime involve "probing"?
> Did the crime involve kidnapping?
> Did the crime involve cows?
NO, NO, NO
-
Was the defendant protected by diplomatic immunity?
-
> Can the defendant comprehend his crime?
> Is the defendant physically within the courtroom?
> Was the defendant's crime violent?
> Was the defendant's crime financial?
-
> Was there a threat of retribution if the defendant is harmed/confined by humans?
> Was the court adjourned because it failed to come up with any sentences that would possibly be a punishment to the defendant?
> Was anyone within the court manipulated somehow?
> Was the defendant the last of its kind?
> Did the defendant bribe the humans with something valuable to them?
-
> Can the defendant comprehend his crime?
NO
> Is the defendant physically within the courtroom?
NO
> Was the defendant's crime violent?
NO
> Was the defendant's crime financial?
NO
I think it won't be hard to figure everything out with the identity of the defender. You've already narrowed it down by quite a bit.
-
>Was the defendant's crime trespassing?
-
Is star trek involved?
-
Whoops, missed Raitaki's questions last time. They're pretty good, sorry!
> Was there a threat of retribution if the defendant is harmed/confined by humans?
You could very well say that
> Was the court adjourned because it failed to come up with any sentences that would possibly be a punishment to the defendant?
I think that's a YES
> Was anyone within the court manipulated somehow?
NO
> Was the defendant the last of its kind?
NO
> Did the defendant bribe the humans with something valuable to them?
There was no bribery involved - answered by your manipulation question, really
>Was the defendant's crime trespassing?
NO
Is star trek involved?
Nope
MAN apparently I missed this too:
Was the defendant protected by diplomatic immunity?
NO
-
Hmm...I think the only major thing left we have to find out is the crime itself :V
> Was the defendant charged with causing property to Earth or any of its spacebound possessions? (This includes satellites, space shuttles currently on space missions and their crew, etc.)
> Was the defendant responsible for any deaths of Earth life, or any modifications to their habitats or genetics?
> Was the defendant charged with interfering with major Earth affairs and politics? (includes economy, media, etc.)
> Was the defendant a representative appearing in court representing its own race?
-
Is the plaintiff non-human?
Is the courtroom on earth?
-
Hmm...I think the only major thing left we have to find out is the crime itself :V
If you find that you find everything else, though I don't know how easy that'll be. It's -slightly- specific
> Was the defendant charged with causing property to Earth or any of its spacebound possessions? (This includes satellites, space shuttles currently on space missions and their crew, etc.)
NO
> Was the defendant responsible for any deaths of Earth life, or any modifications to their habitats or genetics?
YES
> Was the defendant charged with interfering with major Earth affairs and politics? (includes economy, media, etc.)
NO
> Was the defendant a representative appearing in court representing its own race?
NO
Is the plaintiff non-human?
NO, she's human
Is the courtroom on earth?
YES
-
> Was the defendant responsible for any non-human deaths?
> Was the defendant responsible for any alterations to earth genetics?
> Was the defendant responsible for modifications to earth habitats?
(For specificity)
-
> Was the defendant responsible for any non-human deaths?
Assuming you mean "charged with" over "responsible for": NO
> Was the defendant responsible for any alterations to earth genetics?
Err, what do you mean by earth genetics?
> Was the defendant responsible for modifications to earth habitats?
Assuming you mean "charged with" over "responsible for": NO
-
> Was the defendant charged with altering any traits or genes that can be inherited in any Earth organism?
> Was the defendant charged for the death of any Earth life? If yes, then I'll add the following question:
> Was the defendant charged for: the deaths of human beings? the deaths of animals? the deaths of plant life? the destruction of habitats? the "deaths" of microorganisms necessary for the well-being of Earth life?
If each of the above questions is answered YES at some point: > Did the defendant engineer some kind of disease or toxic substance and unleash it somewhere on Earth?
-
Did the defendants actions result in the death of non human life?
Did the defendants actions result in modifications to earth habitats?
Did the defendant modify the dna of an orgasnism on earth?
(I am not asking whether he was charged with any of these.)
> Did the defendant have a relationship with the plaintiff?
-
lol capt h your first 3 are all included in what I just posted :P
-
Charged versus resulted. Charged is what you are arrested for, resulted means it happened, but it wasn't why youre on trial.
-
Guys wait.
What if we're going about this the wrong way?
> Is the defendant a meteorite?
-
But who would put a meteorite on trial? And what could a meteorite do that's not violent? :V
-
Defendant was stated to be living.
>Is the defendant a bacteria or some other microbial organism a la the Andromeda Strain?
-
> Was the defendant charged with altering any traits or genes that can be inherited in any Earth organism?
YES
> Was the defendant charged for the death of any Earth life? If yes, then I'll add the following question:
NOt exactly
> Was the defendant charged for: the deaths of human beings? the deaths of animals? the deaths of plant life? the destruction of habitats? the "deaths" of microorganisms necessary for the well-being of Earth life?
I'll be nice here and state that the deed was done to a human being (I might have answered this already, in fact, though I don't know)
If each of the above questions is answered YES at some point: > Did the defendant engineer some kind of disease or toxic substance and unleash it somewhere on Earth?
I don't like the phrasing of this, but this somewhat of a YES
Did the defendants actions result in the death of non human life?
Actions at any point in time? That's most certainly a YES, I'd say
Did the defendants actions result in modifications to earth habitats?
Certainly, YES
Did the defendant modify the dna of an orgasnism on earth?
YES
> Did the defendant have a relationship with the plaintiff?
NOthing special
> Is the defendant a meteorite?
NO
But who would put a meteorite on trial? And what could a meteorite do that's not violent? :V
This case isn't the most logical / calculated thing out of the plaintiff, I assure you
Defendant was stated to be living.
>Is the defendant a bacteria or some other microbial organism a la the Andromeda Strain?
Nipping this in the bud. Although I said it was "alive" early on, it was to address the claim that the defendant was "dead". You'd certainly address the defendant as "alive" and not "dead", even though they're not any of what we call "living beings". I don't mind doing this because we should be done at any moment now.
-
The defendant is a virus?
-
The defendant is a virus?
NO
-
Is the defendant carbon-based?
-
Is the defendant carbon-based?
Specify what you mean by "carbon-based".
-
Is the defendant sentient?
-
Is the defendant sentient?
NOpe
-
does the defendant have genetic material?
-
>Is the defendant's existence due to sentient life?
-
does the defendant have genetic material?
>Is the defendant's existence due to sentient life?
> ...Is the defendant a Reaper (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IvOo0aY5L_U)?
-
does the defendant have genetic material?
NO
>Is the defendant's existence due to sentient life?
NO
> ...Is the defendant a Reaper (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IvOo0aY5L_U)?
NO
You're thinking too hard
Hint to happen soon enough
-
Specify what you mean by "carbon-based".
>Does the defendant contain carbon molecules?
>Is the defendant radioactive?
>Is the defendant gaseous?
>Is the defendant a wave?
-
>Does the defendant contain carbon molecules?
YES
>Is the defendant radioactive?
>Is the defendant gaseous?
>Is the defendant a wave?
YES
YES
NO
-
>Is the defendant THE SUN?
-
>Is the defendant THE SUN?
YES
-
...well shiet
The Sun was sued for somehow burning/singing/cause skin damage/causing lasting radiation-related genetic damage to one or some persons on Earth with its UV rays. The plaintiff was a woman who promptly got yelled at by the judge for being silly and kicked out of court, right before he started asking around for whichever fool that let this case through.
-
This is pretty much it, except you've yet to name the exact charge. I recall some answers that should limit this to one obvious answer.
-
I bet it's got something to do with her hair.
-
The sun was taken to court by the plaintiff for giving someone/someones cancer due to ultraviolet radiation. The plaintiff was then laughed out of court for being absurd and stupid.
-
The sun was taken to court by the plaintiff for giving someone/someones cancer due to ultraviolet radiation. The plaintiff was then laughed out of court for being absurd and stupid.
That is good enough
She was an unfortunate victim of skin cancer.
Her condition worsening, she could not possibly return to her former way of life.
Such an injustice cannot be overlooked, now can it?
Staring at her, the judge mustered a reply. "Sorry, miss, but it is not in our power to help you."
The bright rays of the sun obscuring her vision, she left the coutroom on that same day.
(http://animatedcliparts.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/sun-clip-art-AT-2.gif)
You taking over again, Sakana?
-
Case 04: Surprise
A man came home, found a surprise and was dead a little while later.
-
>Was the surprise a birthday party?
>Did the surprise involve a weapon?
>Did the man die within an hour of finding the surprise?
-
> Did the surprise kill him?
> Is the surprise related to his death?
-
>Did the surprise trigger anything such as PTSD or Epilepsy?
>Is the man's state of health prior to the surprise relevant to the case?
-
:silly:
>Was the home his home?
>Was the surprise surprising?
:lesssilly:
>Was his death instantaneous?
-
:silly:
>Was the home his home?
>Was the surprise surprising?
>Was the death deafening?
-
> Was there blood?
-
>Are their any supernatural factors involved in this incident?
-
>Was the surprise a birthday party?
No
>Did the surprise involve a weapon?
No
>Did the man die within an hour of finding the surprise?
Yes
> Did the surprise kill him?
Yes
> Is the surprise related to his death?
Yes
>Did the surprise trigger anything such as PTSD or Epilepsy?
No
>Is the man's state of health prior to the surprise relevant to the case?
You could say that, yes
>Was the home his home?
Yes
>Was the surprise surprising?
Surprisingly, yes
>Was his death instantaneous?
No
>Was the death deafening?
Deafinitely no
> Was there blood?
No
>Are their any supernatural factors involved in this incident?
No. This case could very well take place in the real world as we know it
-
> Was the man poisoned?
-
>Are third parties involved? (if the surprise is considered a party :V)
>>IF YES: Is more than one third party involved?
Edit: Inspired by my own question:
>Is the surprise lifeless?
-
> Did the man kill himself, or allow himself to be killed willingly?
-
> Did the man die of a heart attack?
-
>Did the man have long QT syndrome?
-
> Was the man poisoned?
No
>Are third parties involved? (if the surprise is considered a party :V)
Yes
>>IF YES: Is more than one third party involved?
No
>Is the surprise lifeless?
Yes
> Did the man kill himself, or allow himself to be killed willingly?
No
> Did the man die of a heart attack?
No
>Did the man have long QT syndrome?
I had to google that one :V No
-
>Was the surprise alive at one point in time?
>Did the man have a phobia?
>Was an appendix involved? Was the man Houdini?
>Did the man die of laughter?
-
>Was the surprise alive at one point in time?
No
>Did the man have a phobia?
He was scared of being watched by ducks. That's not relevant to the case though, so No
>Was an appendix involved? Was the man Houdini?
Are we talking about the organ or is there some meaning of that word I don't know? Though I am still certain the answer is No
>Did the man die of laughter?
No here too.
-
>Was the surprise caused by the third party?
>Was the third party aware of the surprise before it happened? After it happened? While it was happening?
-
> Would the surprise have been lethal to anyone else? To everyone else?
-
>Was the surprise caused by the third party?
Yes
>Was the third party aware of the surprise before it happened? After it happened? While it was happening?
Yes to all of those, I guess. The third party was at all points fully aware of the surprise.
> Would the surprise have been lethal to anyone else?
There are other people it would have been lethal to, Yes
To everyone else?
A very good set of questions: No
-
Hopefully I'm not repeating past questions here.
>Was the surprise lethal to the deceased due to a physical trait?
>Was the surprise lethal to the deceased due to something he knew and others didn't?
>Was the third party aware of the surprise because it was her goal to kill the deceased?
-
>Was the surprise lethal to the deceased due to a physical trait?
If you mean a physical trait of the surprise, I would consider this a Yes. If you mean the man... I think that's still a Yes.
>Was the surprise lethal to the deceased due to something he knew and others didn't?
Yes
>Was the third party aware of the surprise because it was her goal to kill the deceased?
No. The third party did not plan to kill the man.
-
>Was the third party aware that the surprise would kill the deceased?
>Was it possible for the third party to save the deceased?
Wait...
>Was the third party aware that the deceased would find the surprise?
>Was the surprise meant to be surprising?
-
>Did the man have Diabetes?
-
>Was the third party aware that the surprise would kill the deceased?
No
>Was it possible for the third party to save the deceased?
No
Wait...
>Was the third party aware that the deceased would find the surprise?
Yes
>Was the surprise meant to be surprising?
Yes. The surprise was at all times meant to be exactly that: a surprising surprise
>Did the man have Diabetes?
No. But this is not a bad direction, I will say that much.
-
>Did the man have any allergies?
>Was the surprise ever living as opposed to always having been lifeless?
Also checking known info so far, since I'm just starting to play:
[The victim died as a direct result of the surprise found, within an hour. The one behind the surprise did not know it would kill them but fully intended for them to find it and be surprised by it. Somehow the person's health is related to the surprise's ability to cause the victim's death. The surprise is not alive, though we do not yet know if it ever was, only that it was not then a living thing. The man did not have Diabetes.]
Did I summarize this correctly?
-
>Did the man have any allergies?
Heheh. Yes.
>Was the surprise ever living as opposed to always having been lifeless?
No
Also checking known info so far, since I'm just starting to play:
[The victim died as a direct result of the surprise found, within an hour. The one behind the surprise did not know it would kill them but fully intended for them to find it and be surprised by it. Somehow the person's health is related to the surprise's ability to cause the victim's death. The surprise is not alive, though we do not yet know if it ever was, only that it was not then a living thing. The man did not have Diabetes.]
Did I summarize this correctly?
Yes. A very good summary, and absolutely correct.
-
>Did the surprise involve food or drink?
-
>Did the surprise involve food or drink?
Yes. And I'll be nice and say that's a Yes to food, not to drink.
-
>Was the man lactose intolerant?
-
>Was the man lactose intolerant?
No
-
w/e
>The man came home to find that someone had made/bought him food, which unknown to both contained something he was allergic to. Eating it caused an allergic reaction which caused him to die.
-
Did this food contain peanuts and/or tree nuts?
-
Could he have seen the thing that he was allergic to? Was it inside the food?