-
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, but let us start with a real classic to get your minds working.
First Case: The Man at the Window
A man looked out of a window.
A moment later, he shot himself.
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 - 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 - Down to the bottom of Misty Lake (http://www.shrinemaiden.org/forum/index.php?topic=4702.msg263383#msg263383) - SOLVED (http://www.shrinemaiden.org/forum/index.php?topic=4702.msg269620#msg269620)
-
Is the window fully transparent?
-
Is the window fully transparent?
YES
-
Ooh, sounds interesting. I will state that I will not knowingly answer any riddles I already know the answer to, as that ruins the spirit of the game [edit: oh, it's in the rules anyway]. Also, to add a bit of kitsch, I'll do it all Umineko-style:
The man shot at his reflection in the window, presumably to scare off, wound or kill a would-be assailant that he saw outside.
-
Did the man die after shooting himself?
Is the window attached to a moving vehicle?
-
The man shot at his reflection in the window, presumably to scare off, wound or kill a would-be assailant that he saw outside.
NO
Did the man die after shooting himself?
YES
Is the window attached to a moving vehicle?
NO
-
NO
Aw. Did the man willingly commit suicide?
-
Did any other person exist near him?
-
Did the man willingly commit suicide?
YES
Did any other person exist near him?
NO
-
Did the man commit suicide due to what he saw through the window?
-
Did the man commit suicide due to what he saw through the window?
YES
-
Did the man have a troubled past?
-
Did the man shoot himself with a gun?
If so,
Did the man have the gun with him before he looked out of the window?
-
Did the man have a troubled past?
NO
Did the man shoot himself with a gun?
YES
Did the man have the gun with him before he looked out of the window?
UNKNOWN. You may assume he went to fetch it after he looked out of the window.
-
After the man died, did anything not immediately related to the man change in any way?
-
is there a drug that makes someone commit suicide if he looks at something? (lol, Knox's 4th law)
-
After the man died, did anything not immediately related to the man change in any way?
NO
is there a drug that makes someone commit suicide if he looks at something? (lol, Knox's 4th law)
NO. Knox's (http://www.diogenes-club.com/knoxrules.htm) 2nd and 4th Law apply to all cases unless stated otherwise.
-
was the time between when he looked out the window and when he shot himself under 5 minutes?
was the man alive for while after he shot himself?
-
Was the man physically and mentally healthy when he shot himself?
Might as well ask the weirder questions:
The man shooting himself, and the man committing suicide - are these the same act?
-
Was there anything dangerous around him?
Did he shoot himself with a gun?
Was there someone outside when looked out the window?
Is the man real?
-
Did the man have any way of interacting with what was outside the window, other than the window itself?
-
Did he shoot himself with a gun?
Answered upthread, YES.
-
Answered upthread, YES.
:V
Was he delusional?
-
was the time between when he looked out the window and when he shot himself under 5 minutes?
IRRELEVANT. You may assume that only few time passed between the two events
was the man alive for while after he shot himself?
UNKNOWN. Out of compassion for the deceased let us assume he died immediately
Was the man physically and mentally healthy when he shot himself?
YES
The man shooting himself, and the man committing suicide - are these the same act?
YES. An interesting thought indeed. Such sharpness of mind might be of great use to later cases, I assure you.
Was there anything dangerous around him?
NO
Was there someone outside when looked out the window?
YES
Is the man real?
YES
Did the man have any way of interacting with what was outside the window, other than the window itself?
YES. I am, however, not completely sure whether I understood this question as you intended it, so you might want to elaborate on it a bit more. I would not want you to follow wrong clues because of a misunderstanding of mine.
If you meant interaction with the outside without leaving his position at the window, the answer is NO
Was he delusional?
NO
-
was the person outside someone he knew?
if so did he know that person well?
-
I...think I have it. I think I solved the case.
But let's confirm
Was the man engaged/dating/in a relationship with anyone else?
If the man were to see this significant other with another man, possibly engaging in some flirtation to more serious things like kissing, would he be so moved by grief as to kill himself?
If the above two are correct, did the man kill himself because his significant other was quite likely cheating on him?
-
was the person outside someone he knew?
NO. Therefore the answer to your other question is NO as well
Was the man engaged/dating/in a relationship with anyone else?
UNKNOWN and IRRELEVANT
If the man were to see this significant other with another man, possibly engaging in some flirtation to more serious things like kissing, would he be so moved by grief as to kill himself?
UNKNOWN and IRRELEVANT
Therefore your conclusion, Mylady, is incorrect as well.
-
The above is certainly possible, though somewhat unlikely if the man was mentally healthy. Just in case it's not:
Was there anything of note outside other than the person that is there?
If not:
The man saw someone outside he thought he had killed, intentionally, but he did not know he had failed. The shock drove him to suicide.
-
were there more than one person outside?
-
Was there anything of note outside other than the person that is there?
YES
The man saw someone outside he thought he had killed, intentionally, but he did not know he had failed. The shock drove him to suicide.
NO
I shall add the use of the blue color to the rules, as it seems it will be a convenient way for you, my dear players, to express your theories
were there more than one person outside?
Possible, but IRRELEVANT
-
Did the man shoot himself against his will?
-
Did the man shoot himself against his will?
NO
INFO:
For future use of colored theories, please use aqua instead of blue from now on. It's easier to read on the dark background.
-
Hmm, not sure what to do now, as there can be any amount of reasons that would cause a sane and healthy man to shoot himself just by looking at something, and that's just when it's assumed he is in the safety of his own home.
-
Hmm, not sure what to do now, as there can be any amount of reasons that would cause a sane and healthy man to shoot himself just by looking at something, and that's just when it's assumed he is in the safety of his own home.
Oh Sir Fightest, it seems you are at a loss of ideas, but I have no doubt that this is only because you are yet unfamiliar with this game.
Only for now, let me give you some advice as to how you might want to work your way towards the truth:
These riddles almost never represent something that happens every day.
As it is, you should assume that there is something special about the man in question and the situation surrounding him as well.
Ask for details that allow you to figure out more about the man and the situation he was in, and you shall be rewarded with the truth.
It is a rule of these riddles that often one single detail will be enough to clear up most of the confusion that surrounds it.
So ask away, no matter how unlikely an idea might be.
-
Only for now, let me give you some advice as to how you might want to work your way towards the truth:
These riddles almost never represent something that happens every day.
As it is, you should assume that there is something special about the man in question and the situation surrounding him as well.
Aah, I was hoping for that. Game on, then!
Was the man in the safety of his own home when he shot himself?
-
Was the man in the safety of his own home when he shot himself?
Safety: YES / Own Home: NO. This answer might be debatable, but 'no' should be the best way to lead you on the right path.
Also, you should never forget that you are not alone and this is not a competition.
If you have no more cluse, wait for others to ask questions. They might think of something that you did not notice.
NOTE: I'm giving a bit more hints than usual because this is the first game and it is sometimes hard to grasp how the riddles work. That will change once we get to the second case.
-
Is there any other window that the man could have looked through, or was this one the only one? Specifically, "other window" signifies a window that would let the man see something else entirely; a second window next to the original one that faces the same thing would not count.
-
The man was a burglar/thief. He looked outside the window and saw the police had caught him. Suicide was his only solution.
-
Was the person outside alive?
Was the person outside female?
-
Is there any other window that the man could have looked through, or was this one the only one? Specifically, "other window" signifies a window that would let the man see something else entirely; a second window next to the original one that faces the same thing would not count.
NO. There are probably other windows in existence, but looking thorugh any of them would not have resulted in the same events
The man was a burglar/thief. He looked outside the window and saw the police had caught him. Suicide was his only solution.
NO
Was the person outside alive?
NO
Was the person outside female?
IRRELEVANT
-
The man looked outside, saw zombie(s) and killed himself
-
The man looked outside, saw zombie(s) and killed himself
Doesn't this violate the non-supernatural law?
[edit] Here's an idea:
The man got in a fight and accidentally pushed his opponent out of the window, which was high up. His opponent died from the fall. Seeing this, the man committed suicide from shock/guilt.
[edit] If not true: was the death of the person outside caused by events or objects also outside?
[edit] Was the person outside ever alive to begin with?
-
Doesn't this violate the non-supernatural law?
Depends, did this man correctly believe that zombies exist?
-
Doesn't this violate the non-supernatural law?
Wait, no super natural stuff?
Awww, I was hoping to conclude the case with the claim that it was either Koishi hax or Flandre being her psychotic self that freaked the guy into suicide.....
-
The man looked outside, saw zombie(s) and killed himself
NO
I suppose I shall have to make it clear that the solutions to all riddles are to be found in the sphere of reality, unless it is stated otherwise. I apologize for not stating this clearly at the beginning.
I do not mind, however, if you present me with theories as the one above, as having fun is a crucial part of the game.
Depends, did this man correctly believe that zombies exist?
Ohoh, an interesting thought. There are indeed riddles in which the way an individual in the case incorrectly perceives the events is of relevance for solving it, however the case right now is not one of those.
-
Awww, I was hoping to conclude the case with the claim that it was either Koishi hax or Flandre being her psychotic self that freaked the guy into suicide.....
Touhou riddles might come later, if I or someone else creates some. That will not be before several cases have been played, however, so that everyone has a basic idea of how the logic of the game works.
-
Summary of relevant facts according to Pesco:
The man is not in a movable container (i.e. not a vehicle)
What is outside would not directly cause him harm (Yes answer to safety of the home question)
The place he was in is not his own
There are other ways in and out besides the window, though none of which are in reach without moving
-
What about my questions? :(
-
Is the man in prison?
-
What about my questions? :(
I beg your pardon, Sir, it seems you added them while I was already writing my statement, so I did not notice your edit in time. I shall answer them now.
The man got in a fight and accidentally pushed his opponent out of the window, which was high up. His opponent died from the fall. Seeing this, the man committed suicide from shock/guilt.
NO for the first part. The last sentence however, ignoring the context you put it in, I shall answer with YES
was the death of the person outside caused by events or objects also outside?
YES
Was the person outside ever alive to begin with?
YES
The man is not in a movable container (i.e. not a vehicle)
What is outside would not directly cause him harm (Yes answer to safety of the home question)
The place he was in is not his own
There are other ways in and out besides the window, though none of which are in reach without moving
It is as you say.
The man is in a non-moving place, and what he sees outside is not something that would harm him directly. He also was not in a place he owns or rents in any way, though the place does have a connection to him. There are other exits to the place, which would require the man to move.
Is the man in prison?
NO
-
Did the man have any relation whatsoever to the events that lead to the death of the person outside?
Did he have any relation with the victim?
-
Is this event contemporary?
-
Was suicide the man's only rational solution to what he saw outside?
-
Did the man have any relation whatsoever to the events that lead to the death of the person outside?
YES
Did he have any relation with the victim?
NO
Is this event contemporary?
YES, meaning the events relevant for this case all happened over the course of 24 hours at most.
Was suicide the man's only rational solution to what he saw outside?
NO. There might surely have been other solutions, but it is the spirit of this game to often portray the most drastic and dramatic possibilities
I shall now take my leave for the night, so please excuse me, Ladies and Gentlemen. I shall be available to answer your questions again once my body has had its rest.
-
This is a weird guess, and probably wrong, but:
the man shot himself because he saw, or thought he saw the ghost of a person he killed?
if not, Was the man in a church/morgue?
did he shoot a mirror?
-
This is a weird guess, and probably wrong, but:
the man shot himself because he saw, or thought he saw the ghost of a person he killed?
I proposed a similar theory upthread. Needless to say it was incorrect. :V It being an actual ghost also violates the non-supernatural law.
And speaking of weird questions:
Was the man aware that he would die upon committing suicide?
-
Mebbe... The man thought he had killed the person outside, and killed himself over it.
-
Is the man a criminal?
is this a everyday thing? Already answered :V
was the man inside the victim's house?
-
Was the man of a sane mind?
Did he have a significant loss that day?
Is this surprisingly hard?
-
Was the man of a sane mind?
Answered upthread, YES.
-
the man shot himself because he saw, or thought he saw the ghost of a person he killed?
NO
Was the man in a church/morgue?
NO
did he shoot a mirror?
NO
Was the man aware that he would die upon committing suicide?
YES. He commited the suicide with the exact goal of dieing.
The man thought he had killed the person outside, and killed himself over it.
YES. He did not only think so, he really had a connection to the death, as was answered before.
However, needless to say, this alone does not suffice. What I want you to tell me is, what happened that lead to the death and how is the man connected to it.
Is the man a criminal?
NO
was the man inside the victim's house?
NO
Was the man of a sane mind?
YES. He was fully aware of what had happened and how he was connected to it.
Did he have a significant loss that day?
NO, he did not lose anything significant to him, as in: a person, money or an object
Is this surprisingly hard?
Ohohoho. I can understand that you find this riddle to be quite hard. However I shall assure you that you, my dear players, appear to be marching into the exactly right direction in which the truth lies. I am confident that it will not take too long for you to solve this riddle.
I have solved many of those riddles with friends, and the number of questions that was asked here up to now is still below the number that is in average needed to solve a case.
I admit this specific one here may be hard, but it is a real classic one as well, and its hardness stems mostly in the unusual situation it depicts. In this riddle here, one specific detail will solve almost all of the case, but one has to ask for that detail first.
Let me tell you, there are riddles that I consider far harder than this one that I have available, but those are often also more interesting.
I might add another hint as to how you should ask your questions:
At this point, I assume everyone of you has an image in their mind of what you know has happened. Now take the assumptions you have made in this image, and check them once more. Was every assumption you made, and may it be a really small detail, confirmed by my humble self? If not, then ask it, for having your own assumptions confirmed or denied is vital for solving a case
-
Was he in a house?
was the man's job something related to fighting? (as in like in the FBI, police, military, etc
-
I find the most challenging part to be working with strictly yes/no questions, but it's that restriction that makes it fun.
A comment:
The man was not at home, yet knew where to get a gun intimately enough to not even consider another alternative, which suggests he either carries a gun, or operates for a lengthy amount of time somewhere where he could easily do so.
Is the man any of the following: policeman, soldier, gun store salesman, hunter?
-
Also did he mistake the person outside for someone else?
-
Was he in a house?
Certainly not the kind of house you are thinking of, so NO. He was in a building that might be called a house though.
was the man's job something related to fighting? (as in like in the FBI, police, military, etc
NO
I find the most challenging part to be working with strictly yes/no questions, but it's that restriction that makes it fun.
A comment:
The man was not at home, yet knew where to get a gun intimately enough to not even consider another alternative, which suggests he either carries a gun, or operates for a lengthy amount of time somewhere where he could easily do so.
Is the man any of the following: policeman, soldier, gun store salesman, hunter?
I see you have realized what makes this game special, and I am glad to see you like the challenge. As you can see I often use a little bit more than just 'YES/NO' while trying not to give too much information, because being too strict in the answers will make the game unnecessarily hard and frustrating for the players.
As for your question: NO
I shall say that the manner in which the man commited suicide is irrelevant, only the fact that he did is of importance.
I originally heard this riddle with the suicide by shooting, but the man might as well have slit his wrists, jumped down somewhere or strangled himself.
Thinking about it now, the gun is probably the method that makes least sense, but people in those riddles often seem to have a gun available for the sole purpose of shooting themselves.
Also did he mistake the person outside for someone else?
NO
-
Would this man have died due to a direct cause with what happened outside if he did not commit suicide?
-
did the person outside commit suicide as well?
was it daytime?
was the man (inside the building) scared of death?
was he scared of blood?
-
Would this man have died due to a direct cause with what happened outside if he did not commit suicide?
NO
did the person outside commit suicide as well?
NO
was it daytime?
YES. More precisely, the suicide happened in the early morning
was the man scared of death?
was he scared of blood?
Both are UNKNOWN. You may assume he was not scared more or less of any of these things than any other human.
-
Was this set in a urban area?
is the window open?
is the window broken?
-
Was this set in a urban area?
NO
is the window open?
is the window broken?
Both are UNKNOWN. You may assume that the window was intact and closed all the time.
-
Hmm, not really got anything insightful, so I'll make a few of my sillier theories:
The Resident Evil scenario:
The man is a worker in a sealed laboratory working with dangerous pathogens or the like. Upon seeing someone die outside the sealed area through an observation window, he realised that he caused a containment breach. Realising that there was no longer anywhere he could go, he committed suicide to avoid death by starvation etc., also shock.
-
The man is a worker in a sealed laboratory working with dangerous pathogens or the like. Upon seeing someone die outside the sealed area through an observation window, he realised that he caused a containment breach. Realising that there was no longer anywhere he could go, he committed suicide to avoid death by starvation etc., also shock.
Well, I think you already expect that, but NO. The man is not a scientist or anything alike and therefore did not cause any virus outbreaks or contaminations.
However, I may extract the following from your theory:
The man is at his workplace.
The death outside is somehow connected to his work.
Those I shall answer with YES.
-
Was the death of the person outside caused by the man's negligence?
If not, was it caused by malicious intent?
-
Was the death of the person outside caused by the man's negligence?
YES
Therefore:
If not, was it caused by malicious intent?
NO
-
Was it the man's job to make sure such a death wouldn't happen?
-
The man saw a person died due to him neglecting to do a certain procedure in his work and suicide out of guilt. Is this statement correct?
Was the death of the person outside caused by physical harm?
Was the death of the person outside caused by lack of air?
Was the death of the person outside caused by a human? (As in things like being stabbed/shot/etc)
-
Is the man a construction worker?
If not, is he a sailor?
As soon as we understand the mans job, we have this.
-
Was it the man's job to make sure such a death wouldn't happen?
YES
The man saw a person died due to him neglecting to do a certain procedure in his work and suicide out of guilt. Is this statement correct?
YES
Was the death of the person outside caused by physical harm?
YES
Was the death of the person outside caused by lack of air?
YES
Either of the above two is a possibility and will lead to the same result
Was the death of the person outside caused by a human?
NO
Is the man a construction worker?
NO
If not, is he a sailor?
NO
As soon as we understand the mans job, we have this.
Indeed, you are well on your path to the truth.
-
Is the house a Greenhouse?
Was the man a gardener?
-
Is how the man outside died relevant?
Is the man a security guard?
Did all this happen in somewhere where there's water(I mean places near lakes, seas, swimming pools, etc)?
-
was the person who died a customer?
-
Is the house a Greenhouse?
What?
-
What?
Really? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse)
-
Is the man a construction worker?
If not, is he a sailor?
You mean: Is this man one of the Village People? :V
-
Was he a terrorist who tried to send a parcel bomb and accidentally blew up the mailman?
*prepares for awkward glances*
-
originally the man had a plan to kill someone else by using some kind of mechanism but he accidentally killed someone who wasn't involved and because of that he felt guilty so he killed himself.
if not, does his job require a gun
-
Really? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse)
My surprise was at how a greenhouse could be related to a person dying from asphyxiation.
-
Is the house a Greenhouse?
NO
Was the man a gardener?
NO.
Is how the man outside died relevant?
YES, as far as the general circumstances surrounding the death are concerned. The specific cause of death is irrelevant, as was stated before.
What you just did here, Sir Thaws, is a very clever move indeed. It is allowed for the players to ask for the relevance of something in general before they lose themselves in asking for all varieties of something.
Is the man a security guard?
NO
Did all this happen in somewhere where there's water(I mean places near lakes, seas, swimming pools, etc)?
YES
You mean: Is this man one of the Village People? :V
To my knowledge, he was not, though I can not say whether he did not like to dress in a similar fashion and sing YMCA occasionally. The thought scares me, however.
Was he a terrorist who tried to send a parcel bomb and accidentally blew up the mailman?
NO, though I would almost like to accept this solution, as it is wonderfully creative.
originally the man had a plan to kill someone else by using some kind of mechanism but he accidentally killed someone who wasn't involved and because of that he felt guilty so he killed himself.
NO
if not, does his job require a gun
NO, in fact there is no relation between his job and any kind of fireams or other weaponry. As I said, people in these riddles are capable of possessing guns for the sole purpose of suicide.
My surprise was at how a greenhouse could be related to a person dying from asphyxiation.
You should not assume that asphyxiation is the only way to die from a lack of air. Read through the answers above carefully, and I think you shall find what you are searching through.
-
The man was in a submarine and saw someone drowning?
-
Oh, go on, next half-silly theory:
The Prestige scenario:
The man accidentally sealed someone inside a waterproof (or other liquid-proof) container, and filled the container up with such liquid. He realised his negligence upon observing the contents of the liquid through an observation window.
-
Is the man an astronaut?
-
Is the man an astronaut?
Not a moving vehicle, same applies to the submarine. At least, I think.
-
Another question for the sake of clearup - if the man behind the window swapped places would the victim, would they die as well? And would the former victim shoot themselves?
Alternatively, is the man behind the window a stupid child with a gun playing Persona 3?
-
Not a moving vehicle, same applies to the submarine. At least, I think.
I was about to say that space stations don't move that much, but then I realised it's still orbiting around the Earth at high velocities. It is a kind of home though, and lethal accidents and asphyxiation are highly possible there.
-
The man was in a submarine and saw someone drowning?
NO for the submarine. However drowning is one of the possible causes of death for the person outside.
The man accidentally sealed someone inside a waterproof (or other liquid-proof) container, and filled the container up with such liquid. He realised his negligence upon observing the contents of the liquid through an observation window.
NO
Is the man an astronaut?
NO, for the reason stated by Sir Fightest. The space station theory is indeed intersting, but is wrong for this case here.
Another question for the sake of clearup - if the man behind the window swapped places would the victim, would they die as well? And would the former victim shoot themselves?
Oh, that kind of question. Those are alway hard to answer, so don't try to read to much into them, but for this specific one I would say: YES
Had both traded places and the same negligence had happened, the man would possibly have died. You may assume that the other person would then, upon looking out of the window and realizing the result of his actions, have shot himself, as this is the course of action people take in these riddles.
-
Did the man regularly look through this window prior to this event?
-
Did the man regularly look through this window prior to this event?
YES. You may assume that looking through the window was part of his daily routine. It is also possible that 'looking through the window' happens simply when one passes by it due to the way it is positioned. What is important is only that he realized what was outside.
-
Did the victim die the night beforehand, and he wasn't seen until the next morning?
It's been stated that the suicide occured in the early morning, but maybe the death was earlier.
Actually, question 2 - does the man behind the window work in an aquarium?
-
Did the victim die the night beforehand, and he wasn't seen until the next morning?
YES
Actually, question 2 - does the man behind the window work in an aquarium?
NO
-
Does the man work in a factory?
-
Does the man work in a factory?
NO
-
Is the location where the person outside died a controlled environment?
-
Is he a lifeguard? A security guard?
-
Is the location where the person outside died a controlled environment?
NO
Is he a lifeguard? A security guard?
NO. But keep this general direction.
-
The man was a doctor in a psychiatric ward, and the person outside was an escaped patient who hung himself overnight. Upon seeing the patient, the doctor felt guilty and shot himself.
Just trying out what I think is a logical solution...
-
The man was a doctor in a psychiatric ward, and the person outside was an escaped patient who hung himself overnight. Upon seeing the patient, the doctor felt guilty and shot himself.
NO. Interesting theory though.
-
Well, I'm a psych major, so it was the first thing that came to my mind.
Was the man in a role of responsibility?
-
Was the man in a role of responsibility?
Definitely YES
-
Was the man outside a subordinate of the man who shot himself?
-
Was the man outside a subordinate of the man who shot himself?
NO. There was no relation between the two men.
-
Did the window actually look outdoors, rather than observing a room? (Probably phrased badly, but you should know what I mean...)
-
Did the man's job have a high risk to people who didn't work there?
Did the dead man work in the same profession as the suicidal man?
Did the man's job require him to look out the window?
-
Was the man inside a criminal?
Was the man inside a gang member/mobster?
-
Did the window actually look outdoors, rather than observing a room? (Probably phrased badly, but you should know what I mean...)
YES. What the man saw through the window was outdoors. It was not any kind of room or interior.
Did the man's job have a high risk to people who didn't work there?
NO. There was only a risk for other people when the negligence happened.
Did the dead man work in the same profession as the suicidal man?
NO
Did the man's job require him to look out the window?
NO. It is possible to do his job without looking through a window or anything similar.
Was the man inside a criminal?
NO. The man was an upstanding citizen.
Was the man inside a gang member/mobster?
NO. See above.
My dear players, it appears to me that you are in danger of getting distracted from your path. There were already clues today that will help you figure out the man's profession or at least more details about the setting, so I encourage you to look for them. Check all those questions that I have answered with YES and try to use all of them in your thinking. You shall find the truth.
-
Was the man outside a criminal?
-
Was the man outside a criminal?
NO. He was an upstanding, and now dead, citizen as well.
-
Was the person outside a child?
-
Was the person outside a child?
NO. The person was an adult.
-
He was working at a zoo, and tending to the boa constrictor. When he came into work one day he found someone in the pen, suffocated by the snake.
-
Was anyone else involved in the death of the man outside?
-
did the man outside die by strangulation?
did the man outside die by drowning?
was the man outside a criminal?
is this the present?
was the man outside wanting for help but the man inside couldn't help him?
was the man inside in a lighthouse?
was the man outside ON A BOAT?
-
> Did the man outside die from a single, specific cause?
-
He was working at a zoo, and tending to the boa constrictor. When he came into work one day he found someone in the pen, suffocated by the snake.
Unfortunately NO
Was anyone else involved in the death of the man outside?
NO. It is, however, possible that there were other victims from the same incident the man outside died from.
did the man outside die by strangulation?
NO
did the man outside die by drowning?
YES. Drowning is one of the ways he might have died.
was the man outside a criminal?
NO
is this the present?
YES
was the man outside wanting for help but the man inside couldn't help him?
NO. He did not know whether there was anyone near that could help him even if he had wanted help.
was the man inside in a lighthouse?
YES
was the man outside ON A BOAT?
YES
The truth is now almost in your grasp. Take the last steps, and shine light onto this mystery, my dear players.
> Did the man outside die from a single, specific cause?
NO, if you mean a cause of death, because there were several ways he could have died. He did die from a single, specific incident, which allowed for several causes of death. The most reasonable causes of death you may assume are drowning and physical harm.
-
DERP! I think this is it. DJ BATTLE BATTLER, sorry for stealing your thunder if this is indeed it - you were clearly onto it, if not, then don't mind me. :V
The man was on the top floor of a lighthouse in the morning when he came up to turn it off. Finding it already turned off, or, specifically, not turned on in the first place, he looked outside in a panic and saw a wrecked boat. Hilarity ensued.
-
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.
The man was on the top floor of a lighthouse in the morning when he came up to turn it off. Finding it already turned off, or, specifically, not turned on in the first place, he looked outside in a panic and saw a wrecked boat. Hilarity ensued.
YES
The man was a lighthouse keeper.
Everyday, he would turn on the lighthouse's lights and then go to bed for the night.
One day, however, he forgot to turn the lights on.
That night, a small boat crashed onto the cliffs near the lighthouse, killing the people that rode it.
When the man woke up the next morning and climbed onto the lighthouse, he happened to watch through a window onto the shore.
There he saw the remains of the boat and the corpse of a person that had died in the accident.
That moment he realized his mistake and killed himself out of grief and guilt.
I knew I could expect a lot of you, my dear players.
It might have been a rough start, but you have stood up to the challenge and mastered it.
I especially want to congratulate Sir Fightest and Sir Battler for their hard work, but your victory was, of course, thanks to the combined efforts of all those that played, no matter how few they may have asked.
This first game was meant to show you several of the basics of these riddles.
When there is a man, question the specifics of the man.
When there is a house, question the specifics of the house.
When there is a death, question the specifics of the death.
Also: Ask every question on your mind, no matter how ridiculous it may sound. Even if it is answered with NO, it may give another player a vital idea.
I myself have played cases that have been literally solved in a matter of seconds just because someone asked an absolutely ridiculous question and was indeed right.
But most important is of course:
Have fun and enjoy the thrill of hunting a truth concealed in mysteries.
Of course I hope that solving this riddle was as much fun for you as it was for me to watch you solve it.
As I said, I still have a lot more riddles for you to solve, and I suppose we shall swiftly move on to the next one.
Therefore, I shall prepare a new riddle for tonight.
Until then, feel free to have a tea or discuss the riddle you just solved, I shall call you when the new game is prepared.
-
Good show, Fightest and Battler. I'll be looking forward to the next riddle as well~
/me sips from a teacup.
-
I fail, I contributed almost nothing to this <_<;
/me goes back to corner of fail
-
(http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/2935/56297146.jpg) (http://img96.imageshack.us/i/56297146.jpg/)
I do say, a smashing performance from you, my dear chaps. Nothing stirs the old noggin like a good caper. Do keep at it, what, what!
-
Just a suggestion: Keep a record of the riddles in the OP and link the post discussing the solution.
-
Just a suggestion: Keep a record of the riddles in the OP and link the post discussing the solution.
I had planned to always link to the current riddle in the OP anyway, but adding a link to the solution as well is a good idea. Thanks, Pesco.
Edit: Done. 'Detective's Record' has been added to the OP.
-
*shakes fist* Curse you, detectives! The renown and fame for solving this case was going to be MINE! MIIIIIIINE
Well done to both of you. As soon as I saw the lighthouse question I thought 'ohhh crap, this is it'. Nice work.
-
*shakes fist* Curse you, detectives! The renown and fame for solving this case was going to be MINE! MIIIIIIINE
Well done to both of you. As soon as I saw the lighthouse question I thought 'ohhh crap, this is it'. Nice work.
As I said, one little detail can solve a case, and here it was the lighthouse that made most things clear. At that point it was only a question of who would be online first to post the conclusion.
-
I've got this game under co-operatives. Everyone adds a little to finding the solution.
-
"wakes up"
Oh shit....It was solved?
I knew I shouldn't have played all that fable....
I'll have some tea now, I guess.
-
So this level of reasoning was possible for Furudo Erika :V
-
Looks like another case solved by Inspector Gadget!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-JHfXVlkik (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-JHfXVlkik)
-
I've got this game under co-operatives. Everyone adds a little to finding the solution.
Yay, I contributed to UGW's archive. Awesome :D
Yes, cooperative seems to be the fitting category.
-
When can we expect a new one?
-
When can we expect a new one?
I'm meeting with friends in 3 hours. Since I have decided what the next riddle will be, I'll reveal it before I leave.
-
Alright, Ladies and Gentlemen.
I shall hereby end the break I have granted you.
Gather around for the next round of our game, and prove to me once more that you deserve to be called detectives.
I hope you have cleared your minds in preparation for what is to come.
The riddle I present you next is one my humble self personally likes a lot.
I dare not say whether it is harder or easier than the first one, but I would certainly declare it to be more interesting.
Well then, here is the next case, the next mystery that waits for you to unveil it.
Let the game begin once more.
Second Case: Dead in the Desert
A naked dead man lies in a desert.
He holds a burnt match in his hand.
-
Does the man have burn wounds?
-
Is the man in a closed, sealed
and adiabatic system at equilibrium?
Are his clothes burnt?
Are there any other flammables around him besides the match?
Is the match used 'up completely' burnt?
-
Does the man have burn wounds?
NO
Is the man in a closed, sealed and adiabatic system at equilibrium?
Unless it is meant humorous, I fear I do not understand this question, Sir Pesco. May I ask for you to elaborate?
Are his clothes burnt?
NO
Are there any other flammables around him besides the match?
NO
Is the match used 'up completely' burnt?
IRRELEVANT. It is only of importance that it is burnt at all.
-
Closed - fully enclosed area with restricted access
Sealed - What had been enclosed can not leave and what is outside can not enter.
Adiabatic - No heat can enter or leave the system
Equilibrium - Once the man died, no other changes occurred.
-
This ons easy peasy. Was he in an aircraft of sorts at one point, like a helicopter or hot air balloon?
Did the man fall a great distance?
EDIT: If both questions are true, then I know the answer, but I'll hold for now. After work, I shall reveal the truth! (If both questions are right.)
-
You know what's sad? The fact that I HEARD the first case before and forgot it :(.
Ah well, Thundr's question makes this one feel familiar as well...but I don't quite have the solution.
I don't think I can add anything yet.
-
Are there visible wounds on the person? (slashes, gaping wounds, etc.)
-
The reason the man is naked is because he stripped himself after setting himself on fire, directly or indirectly - is this true?
-
Did the man get to his current location with no external assistance that he could not control?
-
*hair swish*
Maybe I'm being ambitious with this one, but I'm willing to challenge the definition of 'desert'. This is one I recall always hearing from my father - a desert is just a term for a place where there's no rain.
Hence, did the man freeze to death?
(The only problem I have here is why he'd be naked...)
-
*hair swish*
Maybe I'm being ambitious with this one, but I'm willing to challenge the definition of 'desert'. This is one I recall always hearing from my father - a desert is just a term for a place where there's no rain.
Hence, did the man freeze to death?
(The only problem I have here is why he'd be naked...)
Funny you should ask that. Hypothermia causes a person to think they're overheating, which usually leads to death by freezing when they take all their clothes off.
-
Did the man die of dehydration?
Is it important what he even died of?
-
Was the man travelling in the desert?
Did he have clothes on before death?
-
You know what's sad? The fact that I HEARD the first case before and forgot it :(.
Ah well, Thundr's question makes this one feel familiar as well...but I don't quite have the solution.
I only realise I heard the first case before after 2 pages of questions :/ The intro was really vague and not mentioning anything about a lighthouse so it's not surprising to not realise it. :P
I feel like I've heard this one before, but I can't remember anything about the solution at all. :D
Is the use of the match relevant?
Was the match used for lighting up something?
Was the match used for warmth?
Was the temperature of the desert really high and unbearable when the man died?
-
If my questions get answered yes, I know the answer.
-
Did the man have cloths on Prior to dieing?
The man Died by freezing to death, he tried to burn the match and/or his cloths to keep warm, but it wasn't enough. The desert is verry cold at night, you see...
-
Closed - fully enclosed area with restricted access
Sealed - What had been enclosed can not leave and what is outside can not enter.
Adiabatic - No heat can enter or leave the system
Equilibrium - Once the man died, no other changes occurred.
Ah, now I understand. Then I shall say that it was the middle of an open desert, so NO to the first two. YES to the last point.
Was he in an aircraft of sorts at one point, like a helicopter or hot air balloon?
YES
Did the man fall a great distance?
YES
Should you really know the solution already? I'm interested. I shall remind you that it would be nice if you would hold back on the answer if you already knew it from somewhere else. Should you have reached it by yourself, however, then shoot away.
Are there visible wounds on the person?
UNKNOWN. As he did fall, as was answered before, you may assume there are some external wounds related to that.
The reason the man is naked is because he stripped himself after setting himself on fire, directly or indirectly - is this true?
NO
Did the man get to his current location with no external assistance that he could not control?
Double negation, now I'm confused as to which answer would be correct. I shall point to Sir Thundr's questions as for how the man got to his current location.
Hence, did the man freeze to death?
NO
Did the man die of dehydration?
NO
Is it important what he even died of?
NO. You may assume that he died from the fall, however only the falling itself is important, not the fact whether he died from it or not. He may have survived the fall and died any other way, which would not change the case at hand.
Is the use of the match relevant?
YES
Was the match used for lighting up something?
NO
Was the match used for warmth?
NO
Was the temperature of the desert really high and unbearable when the man died?
UNKNOWN. It might have been cold night as well.
Did the man have cloths on Prior to dieing?
YES
Did the man have cloths on Prior to dieing?
The man Died by freezing to death, he tried to burn the match and/or his cloths to keep warm, but it wasn't enough. The desert is verry cold at night, you see...
NO. Freezing to death is one possibility, but it is not part of the riddles solution.
-
Alright, take 2.
The man was flying a balloon over the desert when the gas stopped working. He lit a match to look into the dank area where the gas was stored, and caused an explosion blowing up the balloon. This proceeded to burn away his clothes and he landed in the desert naked.
-
The man was flying a balloon over the desert when the gas stopped working. He lit a match to look into the dank area where the gas was stored, and caused an explosion blowing up the balloon. This proceeded to burn away his clothes and he landed in the desert naked.
NO. Though the theory is interesting, the events were more interesting and unusual. However, I allowed myself to color in red those words that are certainly the truth.
-
The man was flying in a balloon with a woman over the desert. They got naked for
SCIENCE sex and he was leaning over to light a candle for ambiance but he fell over the side due to a sudden wind bump.
:V
Does this man fly hot air balloons for personal enjoyment (hobby or non-professional sport)?
-
A comment:
I personally find it very unlikely that the man managed to hold on to a match whilst falling a great distance. However, in the spirit of the game, I'll go with it.
-
The man was flying in a balloon with a woman over the desert. They got naked for SCIENCE sex and he was leaning over to light a candle for ambiance but he fell over the side due to a sudden wind bump.
As amusing as it is, I have to say NO
I will extract one point though: The man was not in the balloon alone. That I shall answer with YES.
Does this man fly hot air balloons for personal enjoyment (hobby or non-professional sport)?
UNKNOWN. You may assume that he had some experience with it, but it does have no influence on the case.
I personally find it very unlikely that the man managed to hold on to a match whilst falling a great distance. However, in the spirit of the game, I'll go with it.
Believe me, there are some far more unlikely things to come in later riddles. However, I would say it should be possible for the man to hold the match if you assume he held it in his fist while falling. I do not see any problems here, though that may be due to my limited experience with falling naked from high places.
-
I do not see any problems here, though that may be due to my limited experience with falling naked from high places.
I was going to make a joke about that, but then I realised that there are people who actually do that. The things people do...
Did the man fall from this great height willingly?
-
Did the man fall from this great height willingly?
YES
-
Was he suiciding?
Was he trying to live when he fell?
Was there danger on the balloon? (If yes,) Was the danger caused by the other person on the balloon?
-
Was he suiciding?
Was he trying to live when he fell?
NO and YES. When he fell, the man knew that he would most possibly not survive, even if he did survive the fall. However, you may assume that the man did not wish to die.
Was there danger on the balloon?
YES, as in: Staying on the balloon might have been dangerous for the man as well.
Was the danger caused by the other person on the balloon?
NO
-
> Did the man remove his clothing to try to prevent further harm to himself?
-
> Did the man remove his clothing to try to prevent further harm to himself?
YES
-
Did he jump out of the balloon in order to stop it from crashing and killing the other passenger?
-
Did he jump out of the balloon in order to stop it from crashing and killing the other passenger?
YES
-
The man was flying in a balloon over the desert. He was with other people. The balloon had run out of gas and was slated to fall. In a desperate attempt to keep it afloat, the man lit a match. However, the flame was not enough to keep the man and the other people on it to keep the balloon afloat. The man threw his clothes out of the balloon. A temporal solution. Deciding that the only way to save the other people on the balloon was to jump off to relieve weight, that is exactly what he did. Unfortunately, he never made it past the fall.
-
Oh, welcome to the game, Sir Hime. A pleasure to see you here.
A nice theory you have there, however it is not yet the final solution.
So let me evaluate it. As you know, the parts that I color red are those that are the truth:
The man was flying in a balloon over the desert. He was with other people. The balloon had run out of gas and was slated to fall. In a desperate attempt to keep it afloat , the man lit a match. However, the flame was not enough to keep the man and the other people on it to keep the balloon afloat. The man threw his clothes out of the balloon. A temporal solution. Deciding that the only way to save the other people on the balloon was to jump off to relieve weight, that is exactly what he did. Unfortunately, he never made it past the fall.
As you can see, you are incredibly close to the truth. What has yet to be discovered is the meaning of the match.
Let me say the following:
The balloon was indeed about to go down. The reason why it did, however, is irrelevant. It may have been lack of gas, it may have been a hole in the hull as well. Therefore the match was not used to try and keep the balloon afloat.
Also, even though the man knew that they had to relieve weight, he did not jump out of noble courage. There was another reason he jumped off which I expect you to discover soon.
-
Did the man attempt to force others off the balloon before him?
-
Did the man attempt to force others off the balloon before him?
NO
-
As already mentioned, the man was on a hot air balloon with several other passengers. The balloon was going to crash. The man took off his clothes and threw them off but this didn't work. The match was the deciding factor to see who would be the one to... "vacate" the premises. Sadly for that man, he seemed to get the short-end of the stick...
-
Was the balloon on fire, and did he jump out of the balloon to avoid being burnt alive? (Burning alive seems a far worse death than falling to death. Atleast when you hit the ground it's immediatly over, hardly any pain.)
-
Derp, looks like trance got it. I recall this one again.
(It's hilarious how I probably know most of these but forgot the solutions so I can enjoy them again)
-
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.
As already mentioned, the man was on a hot air balloon with several other passengers. The balloon was going to crash. The man took off his clothes and threw them off but this didn't work. The match was the deciding factor to see who would be the one to... "vacate" the premises. Sadly for that man, he seemed to get the short-end of the stick...
YES
The man was taking part in a trip over the desert in a hot air balloon.
Suddenly the balloon started to sink due to damage of the hull or lack of gas.
In an attempt to make the balloon rise again, the passengers first threw off every their bags.
As that didn't help, they then started to get naked and threw off their clothes, but the balloon was still too heavy to rise.
Since the passengers knew that crashing in the desert would mean certain death, no matter whether they survived the initial impact or not, they had to take desperate measures.
So it was decided:
The only way to lose weight on the balloon was for one of the passengers to jump off into the desert.
Since obviously noone wanted to volunteer, they let luck decide.
They burnt a match that they had still kept in the balloon, blew it out, and then mixed it with unlit matches.
After that, every passenger drew a match, with the knowledge that the one who drew the burnt match would have to sacrifice himself.
When the man saw that he lost the gamble, he gave in to his fate and jumped.
My, my, my,
what a spectacular show from you, my dear players.
I certainly did not expect this riddle to be solved within a single day, even if I myself find it to be easier than the last one.
This time my special congratulations go to Sir Trancehime, who entered this game and immediately revealed the truth from the facts that all of you had already discovered.
Also I applaud to Sir Thundr, who was the first to ask for the balloon, a question which was of great importance for this case.
Wonderful, simply wonderful.
I am certainly highly pleased with how this game is going.
Well then, like before, it is time for a short break.
Have a tea and enjoy the feeling of achievement that comes after a solved riddle.
I shall inform you that, from the next riddle on I shall no longer have to rely on those riddles that I have kept in my memory.
Thanks to the courtesy of a dear friend of mine I have here in my hands a number of fifty cards that contain even more riddles.
From those I shall choose the next one you will challenge.
Expect the new riddle to appear in about eight hours, when the clock strikes midnight here in my home.
-
Hey, well done! The match had me stumped!
-
Hey, well done! The match had me stumped!
The post below from UK is the only reason why I managed to get the solution in the first place. I practically gave the answer away after my first theory, so I'm surprised I actually managed to get in my corrected statement.
(It's hilarious how I probably know most of these but forgot the solutions so I can enjoy them again)
-
I knew it. I was sure of the answer. I've never heard this one before, but it seemed pretty obvious. Congratulations guys.
-
I knew it. I was sure of the answer. I've never heard this one before, but it seemed pretty obvious. Congratulations guys.
Oh dear, how did I forget that.
Of course you, Sir Thundr, also receive a special congratulation, for it was you who asked about the balloon first and seemingly you had discovered the truth already back then.
That was a vital part in the solving of this riddle and deserves praise.
I have corrected my post-solution message acordingly, for I do not wish to belittle anyones achievements.
-
Meh, I don't really care if I get credit.
-
I was gone for a day and this happens? >:
-
Meh, I don't really care if I get credit.
Pah, that's for me to decide ;D. Anyway, 10 more minutes to the promised time, so I should start preparing the next post.
-
The bell strikes twelve.
Isn't midnight a mysterious time?
Is it the end of the old day?
The beginning of the new one?
Or is it, in fact, something entirely different, a world between the days,
a moment that breaks free from the limitations of time we have pushed onto everything?
Be it as it may, there could be no better moment to reveal a new riddle than this magical moment of midnight.
So let us not waste time, let the curtain rise on this new case.
Third Case: The Radio
A man drove through the city in his car.
He turned on the radio and killed himself.
-
This (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iwuy4hHO3YQ&feature=related) is the answer.
Did the man have a destination in mind?
-
did he kill himself intentionally?
did the radio mention someone he knew?
-
Did the radio play Jeepers Creepers? :V (Sorry, couldn't resist)
Did the man have a car crash?
-
No wait, I do know the answer to this one I think.
Was the man returning from somewhere?
Was the man supposed to be working at that time of the day?
If it's a yes to both of these, I've got it.
-
did he kill himself because of the radio?
-
This (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iwuy4hHO3YQ&feature=related) is the answer.
And just as I was thinking that I could have made the case name a play on this song. :V
Did the man have a destination in mind?
YES
Did the radio play Jeepers Creepers?
I do not know that that is, dear Sir, but NO
Did the man have a car crash?
NO
Was the man returning from somewhere?
YES
Was the man supposed to be working at that time of the day?
YES
Unbelievable. I'm beginning to doubt myself here. I just decided I would reduce the number of hints besides YES or NO from this riddle on, but it seems it is going to be solved in a flash again.
did he kill himself because of the radio?
I would understand 'radio' as the machine itself, so NO
-
Can I give the answer?
-
Can I give the answer?
Do it. If you really have it figured out after just that, then you deserve this moment of glory.
-
Just as I sent you the PM with the answer :/
The man was a presenter on the radio and went out to commit a crime. On the way back, he turned on the radio to hear the pre-recorded show he would use as his alibi. On hearing the recorded show run out, he was caught. Therefore suicide.
-
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.
Goodness, that certainly went far beyond my expectations. Solving the case within a mere hour, incredible.
One detail is slightly different from my case-card, but this solution works all the same.
The man was a presenter on the radio and went out to commit a crime. On the way back, he turned on the radio to hear the pre-recorded show he would use as his alibi. On hearing the recorded show run out, he was caught. Therefore suicide.
YES
The man was a radio moderator that had decided on killing his wife.
To produce an indestructible alibi, he recorded all of his announcements beforehand.
He then let the record play while he went to commit the murder.
Everyone would think he could not be the murderer because if they heard him on radio, he had to be at the radio station.
Upon having done as he had planned, he drove back to his work.
On the way he turned on the radio to see if it was working as he had planned it.
However, the record had been damaged, which led to the sound jumping and making it clear that it was no live broadcast.
Seeing that his alibi had been destroyed, the man killed himself.
Well, I think noone can argue that all credit for solving thise case goes to that man with the pet rabbit in our middle, Sir Pesco.
You have shown wonderful combination skills just now.
I would really like to say more, but I am honestly at a loss for words.
However, I can imagine many will be slightly disappointed by those fast events.
I shall therefore present the next case without delay, in hopes that it will last longer this time.
Fourth Case: Exotic Meal
A girl ordered an iguana steak at an exotic restaurant.
After the first bite, she stood up and threw herself in front of a passing car.
-
was the iguana her pet?
was it really iguana steak?
is this suicide?
was the iguana alive?
was it because of the iguana that she wanted to die?
was this set in somewhere non-western?
was the passing car a random car?
-
Did she intend to die?
-
Was the car a full-size vehicle?
-
Was the steak poisoned?
Did she have enough to pay for it?
If she didn't get hit by the car, would she have survived? (I mean if she just continued eating the steak.)
Was she a vegetarian?
If the steak she ate was that of another animal's, would she have done the same thing?
-
Did she intentionally order the iguana steak?
Did she know what it was?
-
was the iguana her pet?
NO
was it really iguana steak?
YES
is this suicide?
YES
was the iguana alive?
NO
was it because of the iguana that she wanted to die?
YES
was this set in somewhere non-western?
IRRELEVANT
was the passing car a random car?
YES
Did she intend to die?
YES
Was the car a full-size vehicle?
YES
Was the steak poisoned?
NO
Did she have enough to pay for it?
YES
If she didn't get hit by the car, would she have survived? (I mean if she just continued eating the steak.)
YES
Was she a vegetarian?
NO
If the steak she ate was that of another animal's, would she have done the same thing?
NO
Did she intentionally order the iguana steak?
YES
Did she know what it was?
YES
-
Is the girl pregnant?
Did the girl have any illnesses?
Was the girl forced to order iguana steak?
-
Is she allergic to iguana?
-
Did she believe that the steak is poisoned?
Is the reason why she decided to suicide by throwing herself in front of a car relevant?
Did she do so simply because it was the most convenient way to suicide?
Is there any other person involved in this?(If yes,) Was the waiter/waitress the served the steak involved?
-
Did anything occur between taking said first bite and throwing herself in front of a car? (Besides standing up.)
-
Was the girl blind?
-
Is the girl pregnant?
NO
Did the girl have any illnesses?
NO
Was the girl forced to order iguana steak?
NO
Is she allergic to iguana?
NO
Did she believe that the steak is poisoned?
NO
Is the reason why she decided to suicide by throwing herself in front of a car relevant?
NO
Did she do so simply because it was the most convenient way to suicide?
YES
Is there any other person involved in this?
YES
Was the waiter/waitress the served the steak involved?
NO
Did anything occur between taking said first bite and throwing herself in front of a car?
NO
Was the girl blind?
NO
-
Did someone go to the restaurant with her?
-
Did someone go to the restaurant with her?
IRRELEVANT
-
Did she kill herself imedeatly after eating?
The steak was so bad, she could not bear to live any more knowing such a horrible thing exsisted and killed herself
if not
It was so good that she decided there was nothing in life that she could ever enjoy more than that, and decided to end her life.
or maybe
she was planning on killing herself anyways and she ws just haveing her last meal first.
-
Was whoever prepared the iguana steak in on it?
Was the iguana an ordinary menu item?
Was the iguana poisonous in life?
-
Did she kill herself imedeatly after eating?
YES
The steak was so bad, she could not bear to live any more knowing such a horrible thing exsisted and killed herself
NO
It was so good that she decided there was nothing in life that she could ever enjoy more than that, and decided to end her life.
NO
she was planning on killing herself anyways and she ws just haveing her last meal first.
NO
Was whoever prepared the iguana steak in on it?
NO
Was the iguana an ordinary menu item?
YES
Was the iguana poisonous in life?
NO
-
It's a long shot, but...
Was there an item (e.g. a ring) within her steak?
-
Is the age of the girl relevant?
Is the time of day relevant?
-
Was there an item (e.g. a ring) within her steak?
NO
Is the age of the girl relevant?
NO. Assume anything from 15 years upwards.
Is the time of day relevant?
NO
-
Did the iguana steak taste different from how it was supposed to?
Was there anything present in the steak that shouldn't have been?
-
Did the iguana steak taste different from how it was supposed to?
NO. It was an Iguana steak, so it tasted like one. I think I know what you want to ask, but you'll have to rephrase it.
Was there anything present in the steak that shouldn't have been?
NO
-
Not sure what to ask, so:
The girl took a bite out of the iguana steak and realised that she could not taste anything. Concluding that she has suffered brain damage, she decided to end it there and then.
-
The girl took a bite out of the iguana steak and realised that she could not taste anything. Concluding that she has suffered brain damage, she decided to end it there and then.
NO
-
When she took a bite of the steak, did she taste anything other than the steak? For example, blood in her mouth?
-
Was the other person relevant to her death?
Was the other person relevant with the steak?
Was the other person inside the restaurant?
Have the other person said anything to her that caused her to suicide?
Did she ever swallow the bite?
-
Did she enter the restaurant with the intention to eat?
-
When she took a bite of the steak, did she taste anything other than the steak? For example, blood in her mouth?
NO
Was the other person relevant to her death?
'Death' as in only the act of suicide itself: NO. As for the cause of suicide: YES
Was the other person relevant with the steak?
NO
Was the other person inside the restaurant?
NO
Have the other person said anything to her that caused her to suicide?
YES
Did she ever swallow the bite?
IRRELEVANT
Did she enter the restaurant with the intention to eat?
YES
-
Did the girl know what iguana steak was supposed to taste like?
Did the other person mislead the girl as to what iguana steak was supposed to taste like?
-
Was the other person in a romantic relationship with the girl?
if so, did the other person break her heart in some way, driving her to commit suicide?
-
Did the girl know what iguana steak was supposed to taste like?
NO
Did the other person mislead the girl as to what iguana steak was supposed to taste like?
YES
Was the other person in a romantic relationship with the girl?
NO
if so, did the other person break her heart in some way, driving her to commit suicide?
NO
-
Did the girl, upon eating the iguana steak, in fact think she was eating something else?
[edit] If that's the case, then:
Did the girl think she ate human, dog, or something else that is considered taboo to eat in Western culture?
-
Did the girl, upon eating the iguana steak, in fact think she was eating something else?
NO
-
Ack, I thought I was onto something.
Are the girl's suicide and her being misled about the iguana steak's taste directly connected?
-
Was it extremely spicy? (the heat of the spice might cause her to frantically run around to find a way to lessen the heat in her mouth, only to unwittingly go the wrong way and onto the motorway outside)
-
Was it extremely spicy? (the heat of the spice might cause her to frantically run around to find a way to lessen the heat in her mouth, only to unwittingly go the wrong way and onto the motorway outside)
Nah, the suicide was intentional.
-
Are the girl's suicide and her being misled about the iguana steak's taste directly connected?
YES
Was it extremely spicy?
NO, not in a matter that would make it relevant for the case. Whether a usual iguana steak is prepared spicy or not, that I do not know.
-
Please tell me it's not something like this
Was she told that the steak could tell you something stupid like whether you would find love, or if you had cancer or something if it tasted a certain way, and the girl got a result she didn't like, so committed suicide? (Similar to the "If your hand is bigger than your face you have cancer" without the subsequent smack in the face)
-
Was she told that the steak could tell you something stupid like whether you would find love, or if you had cancer or something if it tasted a certain way, and the girl got a result she didn't like, so committed suicide? (Similar to the "If your hand is bigger than your face you have cancer" without the subsequent smack in the face)
NO. I can reassure you that this is not even close to the truth. An interesting line of thought so. I can imagine this kind of things have led to quite some drama and tragedies already in the real world...
-
I am quite happy it wasn't. It'd be rather juvenile.
Was she misled about the taste in such a way that there was a "target" taste that she didn't get?
-
Was she misled about the taste in such a way that there was a "target" taste that she didn't get?
YES
-
Did the target taste have any effect beyond the enjoyment of the meal?
Did missing the target taste have any implications beyond enjoyment of the meal?
-
Did she believe the steak was poisoned?
If yes, did someone else convince her it was poisoned?
-
Did she believe the steak was poisoned?
If yes, did someone else convince her it was poisoned?
Already answered (http://www.shrinemaiden.org/forum/index.php?topic=4702.msg230314#msg230314)
Was there any threat to her life that she thought there would be if she didn't manage to get a certain taste in the steak as told by the other person?
Was the other person a doctor?
Did the other person want her to die?
-
Is the fact that it's specifically an iguana steak relevant?
Was the girl going to have an iguana steak without having been misled anyway?
Did the person know that the girl was going to or will have gone to have an iguana steak?
-
I'm going to try to crack this with one guess.
The woman was poor and near death, so she wanted to taste an expensive meal. Knowing she couldn't pay for it with nothing to lose, she leaped out in front of a car to avoid having to pay.
-
Was the person who suggested she eat the steak in the restaurant?
Is the kind of restaurant she went into relevant?
-
Did the target taste have any effect beyond the enjoyment of the meal?
I'm sorry, might I ask you to elaborate a bit on this? I'm not sure I understand it completely and don't want to give a wrong answer.
Did missing the target taste have any implications beyond enjoyment of the meal?
I do think I understand this one however, and it is a YES
Was there any threat to her life that she thought there would be if she didn't manage to get a certain taste in the steak as told by the other person?
NO
Was the other person a doctor?
NO
Did the other person want her to die?
NO
Is the fact that it's specifically an iguana steak relevant?
YES
Was the girl going to have an iguana steak without having been misled anyway?
Probably YES
Did the person know that the girl was going to or will have gone to have an iguana steak?
NO
The woman was poor and near death, so she wanted to taste an expensive meal. Knowing she couldn't pay for it with nothing to lose, she leaped out in front of a car to avoid having to pay.
NO. I think it was said before that she did have the money to pay.
Was the person who suggested she eat the steak in the restaurant?
WRONG ASSUMPTION
Is the kind of restaurant she went into relevant?
NO. It offers iguana steak, that is enough.
-
Phew, so, once we know what the girl was expecting to taste, we'll probably have this one. Hmm.
-
Was the person who suggested she eat the steak in the restaurant?
WRONG ASSUMPTION
Innnnnnnteresting.
Does she have multiple personality disorder?
-
/me looks at Fightest
...Did she think it would taste like chicken?
-
Just to be clear, WRONG ASSUMPTION means there was a premise set in the question that is not true for the case or wasn't answered with YES. I'll leave it to you to find out what it was.
Phew, so, once we know what the girl was expecting to taste, we'll probably have this one. Hmm.
There's more to it than just that, but it's the right general direction as you have noticed.
Does she have multiple personality disorder?
NO
...Did she think it would taste like chicken?
NO
-
Did she expect it would taste worse?
Did she expect it would taste better?
-
Hmmm......
Did the other person add something to the steak?
-
Was she a taste-tester?
-
Putting the important facts together(based only on answers given):
-Someone misled her about the taste of iguana steak, but did not want her to die, nor did they know she would have iguana steak
-The difference in taste between the expected and actual was directly connected with her committing suicide
-The other party is indirectly responsible for the suicide, therefore
-The other party was not present at the restaurant, nor was anyone there "in on it"
CONJECTURE: There was no "it" to be in on; they had no reason to expect she would suicide after a bite of iguana steak
I assume all of the above is correct?
-
Did the steak taste like a traumatic memory?
-
Did she expect it would taste worse?
UNKNOWN
Did she expect it would taste better?
UNNOWN
Did the other person add something to the steak?
NO
Was she a taste-tester?
NO
-Someone misled her about the taste of iguana steak, but did not want her to die, nor did they know she would have iguana steak
-The difference in taste between the expected and actual was directly connected with her committing suicide
-The other party is indirectly responsible for the suicide, therefore
-The other party was not present at the restaurant, nor was anyone there "in on it"
CONJECTURE: There was no "it" to be in on; they had no reason to expect she would suicide after a bite of iguana steak
YES
Did the steak taste like a traumatic memory?
Though the choice of words is a bit weird, I'll give this a YES
-
did she know that she was going to die/commit suicide?
-
Gonna give it a shot, then...
In the past, our subject had eaten a meal, it doesn't matter what it was. When she ate it, something horrible happened afterward, either to her or someone else she knew. Time passed, and a friend suggested to her to try an iguana steak, but told her it tasted different than it really did. Girl goes over to restaurant, orders, steak, has a bite. Her memory of the event comes to her when she tastes the steak... Panicked and distressed, the girl runs outside and jumps into traffic to escape the pain.
-
Was she a criminal?
Did eating the steak remind her of a crime she did?
Was the other person that midlead the taste still alive?
Seeing if this is something like case 3. :V
I don't think we've actually asked this o_o
Have she ate an iguana steak before?
-
did she know that she was going to die/commit suicide?
NO
In the past, our subject had eaten a meal, it doesn't matter what it was. When she ate it, something horrible happened afterward, either to her or someone else she knew. Time passed, and a friend suggested to her to try an iguana steak, but told her it tasted different than it really did. Girl goes over to restaurant, orders, steak, has a bite. Her memory of the event comes to her when she tastes the steak... Panicked and distressed, the girl runs outside and jumps into traffic to escape the pain.
NO It has to do something with an event in the past, that much is true. Also the last sentences, from 'Girl goes to restaurant...' onwards are also correct.
Was she a criminal?
NO
Did eating the steak remind her of a crime she did?
NO
Was the other person that midlead the taste still alive?
IRRELEVANT
Seeing if this is something like case 3. :V
Pukukuku. Don't take me lightly, dear players. There are indeed cases that share similar aspects, but I will not ask two of those that close to each other. Though remembering back on other cases is often a good tactic to get ideas.
Have she ate an iguana steak before?
NO
-
Did she eat an iguana before? (It's not the same question!)
-
Sorry if I'm asking repeat questions
Is the [take a phrase from the list below] relevant?
Location of the scenario
Sequence of events (going to the restaurant -> ordering the steak -> etc etc)
Presence of the other person
Reason for why she ordered iguana steak
Taste of the steak
-
Did she eat an iguana before? (It's not the same question!)
NO
Is the [take a phrase from the list below] relevant?
Location of the scenario
NO
Sequence of events (going to the restaurant -> ordering the steak -> etc etc)
NO. If she had gotten the steak any other way, things would probably have played out the same
Presence of the other person
NO
Reason for why she ordered iguana steak
Looking at my solution car, partly YES. There is something like a reason, though it is not necessarily vital for the case.
Taste of the steak
YES
-
Does eating the steak remind her of someone she knew?
Is that someone dead?
Does eating the steak remind her of a natural disaster?
Will knowing the specific taste of the steak help solve this case? (Like the steak is sweet, sour, etc)
-
Is the girl willingly choosing suicide as opposed to the circumstances killing her so she killed herself before it happens?
-
Does eating the steak remind her of someone she knew?
NO
Is that someone dead?
See above
Does eating the steak remind her of a natural disaster?
NO
Will knowing the specific taste of the steak help solve this case? (Like the steak is sweet, sour, etc)
NO
Is the girl willingly choosing suicide as opposed to the circumstances killing her so she killed herself before it happens?
NO. She would have survived if not for the suicide.
-
Did she suicide out of guilt?
Did she suicide out of sorrow?
-
Did she suicide out of guilt?
NO
Did she suicide out of sorrow?
NO
-
Pretty much have no clue about this... I'll just try some more emotions...
Will knowing how the girl felt when she suicide be helpful to solving this case?
Was she angry when she suicide?
Was she frustrated when she suicided?
Was she relieved when she suicided?
-
Will knowing how the girl felt when she suicide be helpful to solving this case?
YES. But it is not necessarily vital. There are other ways to figure it out.
Was she angry when she suicide?
Was she frustrated when she suicided?
Was she relieved when she suicided?
NO to all.
If I may give my opinion, please consider the following:
Look at what you know already.
Look especially at the questions I answered with yes or comented a bit on.
Try to connect all of those into a single summary and look at that.
I assure you that you already have enough clues to find out something vital.
-
We're quite Sana on this one. I think we've been asking too many specifics instead of broad-stroking general situations first.
-
I'm try investigating that traumatic experience...
Did she saw something die? (If yes,) Was it a person? Was it an iguana?
Did she suffer physical pain?
Did she suffer mentally?
Was the person that mislead her about the taste relevant to this experience?
??? ???
-
Was she actually feeling joy when she threw herself in front of the car?
-
Did she suicide to help someone?
Was any proposal involved?
Was the other person a close friend?
Did the other person have business with the girl?
-
I'm try investigating that traumatic experience...
Which is a good thing to do, let me tell you that.
Did she saw something die?
Possibly YES
Did she suffer physical pain?
YES
Did she suffer mentally?
Possibly YES
Was the person that mislead her about the taste relevant to this experience?
YES
Did she suicide to help someone?
NO
Was any proposal involved?
NO
Was the other person a close friend?
NO
Did the other person have business with the girl?
NO
Was she actually feeling joy when she threw herself in front of the car?
NO
-
Was the other person the chef who cooked the steak beforehand?
Had she ever been to the restaurant before?
-
Did she incorrectly believe that she was going to die after tasting the steak?
Was the expected death in such a way that she would rather just throw herself in front of a car than let it happen?
-
Was the other person the chef who cooked the steak beforehand?
NO
Had she ever been to the restaurant before?
IRRELEVANT
Did she incorrectly believe that she was going to die after tasting the steak?
NO
Was the expected death in such a way that she would rather just throw herself in front of a car than let it happen?
See above. NO.
-
Was this traumatic experience within the last few years?
Did it occur while she was a child?
Was she at one point forced to eat an iguana in order to survive?
-
Was this traumatic experience within the last few years?
UNKNOWN. But it may help you to assume that.
Did it occur while she was a child?
NO. See above.
Was she at one point forced to eat an iguana in order to survive?
NO
-
Had she met the other person before entering the restaurant?
Is this person connected to the previous traumatic experience?
Was she the only person to undergo this experience?
-
Had she met the other person before entering the restaurant?
YES
Is this person connected to the previous traumatic experience?
YES
Was she the only person to undergo this experience?
NO
-
Was the woman a part of a cult?
-
Was the woman a part of a cult?
NO
It seems you are sincerely stuck here, my dear players.
As such, I offer you my assistance.
If you wish for it, I may point you to one of the questions already asked which may help you if you just modify it a bit.
Answer if you want me to do that, or take what I just said as a hint in itself, it is up to you to decide.
-
Hm, before you give a clue let me take a stab at this one.
The girl in question was orphaned after the tragic lost of a family member. In her youth her parental figure would always bring her to this restaurant so they could eat this meal together. The parental figure always stated how the steak was always the best here and how the recipe hasn't changed since she was a child. She then came to this restaurant to once again eat the meal that was the only reminder of her parental figure that she had left. After she ate the food she noticed that the steak tasted nothing like what it used to. After confirming that indeed the recipe had been changed she had nothing left to remind her of her family. Being mentally unstable she threw herself into traffic in a state of grief/distress.
-
Did the other person eat an Iguana before?
If so, was this Iguana in steak form?
-
Did the other person eat an Iguana before?
If so, was this Iguana in steak form?
Both answered, both no.
-
The girl in question was orphaned after the tragic lost of a family member. In her youth her parental figure would always bring her to this restaurant so they could eat this meal together. The parental figure always stated how the steak was always the best here and how the recipe hasn't changed since she was a child. She then came to this restaurant to once again eat the meal that was the only reminder of her parental figure that she had left. After she ate the food she noticed that the steak tasted nothing like what it used to. After confirming that indeed the recipe had been changed she had nothing left to remind her of her family. Being mentally unstable she threw herself into traffic in a state of grief/distress.
NO. A truly beautiful theory I admit, but alas, it is not the one you are looking for.
Did the other person eat an Iguana before?
If so, was this Iguana in steak form?
Both answered, both no.
I think they were not answered before, as NeoGenesis is asking for the other person, not for the girl. The answer for the other person would be IRRELEVANT.
As for giving a clue, let me offer you another idea:
You would probably not like me giving a too strong hint, so I thought about the following:
Only for today, until midnight (maybe longer, if need arises), I will allow for a change of perspective.
That means you may, if you want, question the girl directly the same way you usually question me.
To do this, state the question you want to ask the girl in orange
I will then answer in orange from the girls perspective at the time right after she tasted the steak, shortly before the suicide.
Once again, you may use what I offer, or you may take it as a hint in itself (which it is). Good luck.
-
Is the person relevant to her suicide still alive?
Did the person relevant to her suicide harm her in anyway in the past.
Was there anything out of the ordinary with the steak. This doesn't mean poison. It means was there anything different about this steak compared to the others made that day.
-
Was the experience involved with an iguana?
Was the iguana eaten in the experience?
Did the girl know the iguana before this?
Was there guns involved with the experience?
Are you in fear?
Was there anything unusual about the colour of the steak?
If you knew what you'd taste after eating the steak, would you still eat it?
I have no idea how to make good use of this new mechanic.
-
I've heard this one before, so I worry it might be a little unfair of me to answer, but some questions in the right direction (if I do, in fact, have the right idea for the answer):
Did the girl think she'd eaten iguana before?
Had she actually eaten iguana before?
-
Thanks Arashi I think that might have been the little nudge I needed. Though I'm still a bit unclear on some of the specifics I'm going to take a stab at it.
In the past this girl must have had an abusive parent or parental guardian that took care of her. Then one day she saw her family pet rather beaten up and or close to death and the parent said they were going to take it to the vet to get put down. Instead what the parent did was kill the family pet and instead feed it to the daughter calling it iguana steak. So then the girl goes over to restaurant, orders, steak, has a bite. Her memory of the event comes to her when she tastes the steak...It doesn't take her long to figure out that what she ate all those years ago wasn't iguana at all. Panicked and distressed, the girl runs outside and jumps into traffic to escape the pain.
-
Is the person relevant to her suicide still alive?
IRRELEVANT
Did the person relevant to her suicide harm her in anyway in the past.
NO
Was there anything out of the ordinary with the steak. This doesn't mean poison. It means was there anything different about this steak compared to the others made that day.
NO
Was the experience involved with an iguana?
NO
Was the iguana eaten in the experience?
NO
Did the girl know the iguana before this?
NO
Was there guns involved with the experience?
NO
Are you in fear?
Was there anything unusual about the colour of the steak?
If you knew what you'd taste after eating the steak, would you still eat it?
NO, it's not really fear that I'm feeling. It's something different.
NO. The steak looked normal I think.
NO. If I knew what I would taste, I wouldn't eat it.
Did the girl think she'd eaten iguana before?
YES
Had she actually eaten iguana before?
NO.
Good job, Lady Arashi.
This was exactly the question I was waiting for. It was also the reason I implemented the 'ask the girl' system.
If it is done like this, I do not mind people who know the solution helping the others whe they're stuck.
As the relevant question has been asked, asking the girl is no longer permitted. I will send her consciousness back to the netherwolrd, so she will not answer any more questions.
In the past this girl must have had an abusive parent or parental guardian that took care of her. Then one day she saw her family pet rather beaten up and or close to death and the parent said they were going to take it to the vet to get put down. Instead what the parent did was kill the family pet and instead feed it to the daughter calling it iguana steak. So then the girl goes over to restaurant, orders, steak, has a bite. Her memory of the event comes to her when she tastes the steak...It doesn't take her long to figure out that what she ate all those years ago wasn't iguana at all. Panicked and distressed, the girl runs outside and jumps into traffic to escape the pain.
NO. Only the parts from 'It doesn't take her long to realize...' onwards are correct.
-
Well then let me have a guess...
The girl was once a victim of a ship wreck. She and some other passengers on the ship were fortunately washed up onto a shore of a deserted island in the middle of nowhere. Unfortunately, they had no food source/they ate everything/etc. Desperate, one passenger had secretly killed another passenger for his meat, and lied to the others that the meat was from an iguana he killed on the island. Naturally, the girl ate this meat with everyone else without much thought.
Eventually, they were saved, and the girl went to have a steak of iguana meat some day later, when she realised that the steak tasted nothing like what she tasted back at the island! She quickly concluded that she had ate the meat of a fellow passenger, and suicided.
-
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.
The girl was once a victim of a ship wreck. She and some other passengers on the ship were fortunately washed up onto a shore of a deserted island in the middle of nowhere. Unfortunately, they had no food source/they ate everything/etc. Desperate, one passenger had secretly killed another passenger for his meat, and lied to the others that the meat was from an iguana he killed on the island. Naturally, the girl ate this meat with everyone else without much thought.
Eventually, they were saved, and the girl went to have a steak of iguana meat some day later, when she realised that the steak tasted nothing like what she tasted back at the island! She quickly concluded that she had ate the meat of a fellow passenger, and suicided.
YES
Slightly different from my card version again, but the details are neglectable.
The girl had survived a ship wreck and was washed ashore on an island.
As she was seriously injured, the other surviving passengers gave her water and meat.
When she asked for the source of the meat, they told her they had hunted tow big iguana.
After the survivors were saved, every pain was forgotten.
Until the day the girl went to the exotic restaurant.
She wanted to try once again the meat of an iguana that had saved her life.
After the first bite she realized that it had not been iguana meat that she had been eating,
but the flesh of the corpses that had been washed ashore.
Filled with horror, she suicided.
Ah, it was a long struggle, and it needed some help, but finally this riddle was solved as well.
Let me tell you that this one exists in variations, so if anyone ever tells you a similar riddle with penguin meat, you will now know the answer.
There were a lot of times when you were asking in the right direction,
but the questions always missed the perspective of the girl.
It was relevant to find out that she assumed she had done something when she actually hadn't.
This is another valuable lesson for many riddles:
Take the perspective of the people in it and try to make their views clear.
Well, my dear players
I shall once again grant you a little break after this hard task.
The next few riddles I choose will probably be some less difficult ones.
Expect a new one tonight, in about six or seven hours.
-
Ack, and I was thinking of asking whether the girl had eaten something considered taboo previously. Well, serves me right for not asking questions.
-
Ack, and I was thinking of asking whether the girl had eaten something considered taboo previously. Well, serves me right for not asking questions.
Happens. Sometimes you got the right idea and only find out it would have been right afterwards.
Don't worry, there's still more than enough games to play for everyone to ask lots of questions. (remember I said I have 50 cases, you have solved 4 so far ;D)
-
Fok damn! Well played with that one.
-
Alright, Ladies and Gentlemen,
The break is over,
so let us continue swiftly on to the next riddle.
The one I have chosen next is of low difficulty,
I expect it to be solved in a flash.
Fifth Case: Elevator and Stairs
After he killed his wife with a knife, he took the elevator from the seventh floor to the first floor.
There he realized that he had forgotten the murder weapon at the scene.
So he took the elevator to the third floor and walked the other four floors up to his flat.
-
Was the man REALLY REALLY short?
-
Was the man REALLY REALLY short?
Seems you won't disappoint me about solving it fast. YES
-
All yours theshim.
-
Easy is one thing. This is a bit ridiculous.
The man was a midget and could only reach the first row of buttons in the elevator, so he could only go up to the third floor and had to take the stairs the rest of the way.
-
This one is certainly popular, I keep seeing it in different versions all over the place.
I presume the Anthony and Cleopatra one is going to be there as well?
-
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.
The man was a midget and could only reach the first row of buttons in the elevator, so he could only go up to the third floor and had to take the stairs the rest of the way.
Of course YES. Yep, that one was ridiculous, but of course the next one will be better.
The murderer was a midget that could only reach the buttons for first to third floor.
Sixth Case: The Sauna
In a sauna lies a dead man next to a thermos bottle
-
Did the thermos bottle contain alcohol?
Has the man's skin shriveled?
-
Is the bottle open?
Is the content of the bottle relevant to the man's death?
Were other people involved in the incident?
-
Is the bottle empty?
Have the sauna stones recently been heated?
-
Did the thermos bottle contain alcohol?
NO
Has the man's skin shriveled?
UNKNOWN
Is the bottle open?
YES
Is the content of the bottle relevant to the man's death?
YES
Were other people involved in the incident?
YES
Is the bottle empty?
NO
Have the sauna stones recently been heated?
YES (Though it doesn't necessarily have to be a sauna using stones)
-
Did the dead man Drink the contents of the Bottle?
Did anybody else drink the contents of the bottle?
Are the contents of the bottle safe to drink?
-
Did the dead man Drink the contents of the Bottle?
NO
Did anybody else drink the contents of the bottle?
NO
Are the contents of the bottle safe to drink?
YES
-
Is the bottle completely full? That is to say, was the contents of the bottle used up at all?
If so, was it splashed onto the Rocks, or whatever is used to heat up the room with moisture?
If so, then does that action have any relation to the man's death? (As in it caused or was caused by the death)
-
Is the bottle completely full?
NO
That is to say, was the contents of the bottle used up at all?
YES
If so, was it splashed onto the Rocks, or whatever is used to heat up the room with moisture?
NO
If so, then does that action have any relation to the man's death?
See above. NO.
-
Is the bottle plastic?
Is it metal?
Are the contents appetizing?
Are the contents subject to chemical change depending on temperature?
-
Did the man who died intent to die?
Did whoever else was involved intend for the man to die?
Is knowing where the bottle comes from helpful to figuring out either what the bottle contains or how it's connected to the man's death?
Also, let's clear up who else was involved.
Was it more than one person?
Does the gender of the person/people matter?
Did the other person/people join the man in the sauna?
-
Is the bottle plastic?
Is it metal?
It's a thermos bottle, it's gonna be ceramic with a metallic outer case.
Was the thermos bottle meant to be opened within the sauna?
-
Did the bottle's usage have anything to do with the temperature?
Did the man fill the thermos himself?
-
In fact, best get the obvious out of the way:
Was the thermos filled with water?
-
Is the bottle plastic?
No. See Fightest's post
Is it metal?
YES
Are the contents appetizing?
IRRELEVANT. What is appetizing and what is not would depend on the individuals tastes, wouldn't it?
Are the contents subject to chemical change depending on temperature?
YES
Did the man who died intent to die?
NO
Did whoever else was involved intend for the man to die?
YES
Is knowing where the bottle comes from helpful to figuring out either what the bottle contains or how it's connected to the man's death?
I think, YES.
Was it more than one person?
NO
Does the gender of the person/people matter?
NO
Did the other person/people join the man in the sauna?
YES
Was the thermos bottle meant to be opened within the sauna?
YES
Did the bottle's usage have anything to do with the temperature?
YES
Did the man fill the thermos himself?
NO
Was the thermos filled with water?
YES.
Good questions up to now. Let's see how long it will take you from here.
-
Was saran wrap involved?
-
Was the water in the thermos contaminated with something?
-
Was the water in the thermos contaminated with something?
No, I've proven it was safe to drink.
The Other person Carried in a thermos filled with cold water. The other person walked into the Sauna, determined to commit homicide on the man for whatever reason, and did so, somehow using some of the water.
-
Pretty sure I know this one from the get-go, so I'll leave you guys to solve it.
-
Did the man die from extreme temperature?
-
Does the victim have head trauma?
-
I think I know this one as well. Is it alright if I ask a question to confirm? It might come close to giving it away, but not quite.
-
Was saran wrap involved?
NO
Was the water in the thermos contaminated with something?
NO
The Other person Carried in a thermos filled with cold water. The other person walked into the Sauna, determined to commit homicide on the man for whatever reason, and did so, somehow using some of the water.
YES. Now find out the rest.
Did the man die from extreme temperature?
NO
Does the victim have head trauma?
NO
I think I know this one as well. Is it alright if I ask a question to confirm? It might come close to giving it away, but not quite.
I would like to let this one continue at least until midnight at my place, because there seems to be quite some interest in it, so please refrain from asking your question here. Might I ask you to send me a PM containing your answer instead, so I can tell you if you're right?
And if it is still far from being solved tonight, then I shall allow you to push it in the right direction or solve it.
-
...Was the sauna filled with water?
If not, was the sauna filled with something that would react badly to water?
-
Did the other person add anything into the water after entering?
Did the other person leave before the man died?
Did the man die from suffocation?
Did the man die from being poisoned?
Did all the water in the bottle vaporize due to heat?
If so, was that all that had happened to the water? (not counting what it did when it's steam)
-
...Was the sauna filled with water?
NO
If not, was the sauna filled with something that would react badly to water?
NO
Did the other person add anything into the water after entering?
NO
Did the other person leave before the man died?
NO
Did the man die from suffocation?
NO
Did the man die from being poisoned?
NO
Did all the water in the bottle vaporize due to heat?
NO
If so, was that all that had happened to the water?
NO
-
Did some the water in the bottle vaporize due to heat?
If so, was that all that had happened to the water?
Did the steam react with anything?
Did the man die from being burned?
Did the man die from physical injuries?
Did the man eat something beforehand that caused his death?
Was there anything on the man that caused his death? (Clothes soaked with chemicals, etc)
-
The "I don't care about facts" case:
The contents of the bottle have nothing to do with the man's death. It was only filled up to give the thermos some extra weight which was used by the other person to bludgeon the man to death. The top of the thermos was knocked off during the bludgeoning, which allowed some of the water to spill out when the other person dropped the murder weapon and ran out.
-
Did some the water in the bottle vaporize due to heat?
Possibly YES. Not relevant though.
If so, was that all that had happened to the water?
YES
Did the steam react with anything?
NO
Did the man die from being burned?
NO
Did the man die from physical injuries?
YES
Did the man eat something beforehand that caused his death?
NO
Was there anything on the man that caused his death? (Clothes soaked with chemicals, etc)
NO
The contents of the bottle have nothing to do with the man's death. It was only filled up to give the thermos some extra weight which was used by the other person to bludgeon the man to death. The top of the thermos was knocked off during the bludgeoning, which allowed some of the water to spill out when the other person dropped the murder weapon and ran out.
NO
-
The man with the thermos bottle intended to kill the man within the sauna, so, with the filled bottle in hand, opened the lid and spilt it along the floor of the sauna discreetly. The sap he wanted to kill consequently slipped over the puddle of water as he was leaving and probably suffered enough injuries to make the death seem completely accidental, when it was in fact not.
-
The man with the thermos bottle intended to kill the man within the sauna, so, with the filled bottle in hand, opened the lid and spilt it along the floor of the sauna discreetly. The sap he wanted to kill consequently slipped over the puddle of water as he was leaving and probably suffered enough injuries to make the death seem completely accidental, when it was in fact not.
Interesting, but NO
-
Was there anything else other than water in the thermos bottle? (Clarifying the "contamination" question for myself) In this case "water" is a broad term that covers all the stuff that might be found in tapwater.
-
Was there anything else other than water in the thermos bottle? (Clarifying the "contamination" question for myself) In this case "water" is a broad term that covers all the stuff that might be found in tapwater.
NO
-
Did the other person hit the dead man with something to kill him? If yes, was it the bottle?
If not, did the dead man die by hitting the floor? If not, did he die by hitting the wall?
Was there blood? Is there any visible wounds on the man?
Was there any conflict/fight between the dead man and the other person in the sauna?
-
Then, unless I've gone insane, I call shenanigans on the contents of the bottle - i.e. the water - being subject to chemical change due to temperature. Evaporation and freezing are physical changes.
-
Eh, they listed this as a teamwork game. I don't wanna give the answer outright, but I'll throw out a hint.
To perform the murder, the killer had to be pretty strong. In fact, you could say they were the strongest.
-
Eh, they listed this as a teamwork game. I don't wanna give the answer outright, but I'll throw out a hint.
To perform the murder, the killer had to be pretty strong. In fact, you could say they were the strongest.
...Is the murder weapon ice?
-
Are you saying that
The killer brought in a hunk of ice in a thermos bottle, took it out, stabbed the other man with it, then booked it?
-
Then, unless I've gone insane, I call shenanigans on the contents of the bottle - i.e. the water - being subject to chemical change due to temperature. Evaporation and freezing are physical changes.
Eh? Eeh? Eee~h? Arr, damnit, you're right, my apologies. I didn't think enough about that question.
-
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.
The killer brought in a hunk of ice in a thermos bottle, took it out, stabbed the other man with it, then booked it?
YES
The man was stabbed with an icicle.
The murderer had brought the icicle ito the sauna in the thermos bottle.
A while after, the icicle had completely melted.
Therefore, the murder weapon was never found.
This was a nice game, I have to say.
I've said similar things already, but the way Sir Roukanken gave a push in the end
is exactly the kind of behaviour I would like to see from those who solve the riddle from the start.
That way, everyone will get the most out of our game.
I apologize for the mistake with the physical and chemical change,
as I was more concentrated on the relevant word 'change' in the question than the rest.
Anyway, let's not waste time, next riddle coming right up.
This one will be another classic that might be solved pretty fast,
and I expect a lot of people will know it form elsewhere.
-
You know, I'm kinda gypped. Because after finding out that was wrong, I immediately knew ice was involved, but it seemed I was too late to correct myself.
-
You know, I'm kinda gypped. Because after finding out that was wrong, I immediately knew ice was involved, but it seemed I was too late to correct myself.
If you knew the answer, that's reason enough to be proud of yourself, no matter if you were the one to post it or not :D
Seventh Case: A Strange Corpse
In the middle of a forest there was a strangely dressed corpse.
-
Oh wow that's vague.
Was the corpse dressed in wizard robes? :V
Was the corpse dressed in clothes that cannot be bought in a typical clothing store in a city?
-
Did the victim die of physical injuries?
Did he die as a result of any living creature within the forest?
EDIT: Actually, after thinking it over a little longer, I think I may recognise this case...
-
The "unfortunately true in the real world" case:
The man was a historic re-enactor or LARPer. His death was the result of a tragic accident and carelessness on both his part and of those around him.
-
Was the corpse dressed in wizard robes? :V
NO
Was the corpse dressed in clothes that cannot be bought in a typical clothing store in a city?
YES
Did the victim die of physical injuries?
YES
Did he die as a result of any living creature within the forest?
NO
The man was a historic re-enactor or LARPer. His death was the result of a tragic accident and carelessness on both his part and of those around him.
NO.
-
Checked with Sakana, and sure enough I've heard this one before. I'll just throw out a hint if things are going a little off course.
Assuming you guys have hint coins, that is
-
Was the corpse wearing a costume?
-
Was the corpse wearing animal skin?
Was the corpse wearing man-made materials?
Was the corpse having a voyage before he/she died while being of good cheer~ in a forest?
Was the person murdered?
If we knew what the corpse was wearing exactly, would it help us solve the case?
-
Was the corpse wearing a costume?
NO
Was the corpse wearing animal skin?
NO
Was the corpse wearing man-made materials?
YES
Was the corpse having a voyage before he/she died while being of good cheer~ in a forest?
NO, at least not as fas as I understand 'voyage'. Wrong assumption with the 'good cheer~' ;D
Was the person murdered?
NO
If we knew what the corpse was wearing exactly, would it help us solve the case?
Definitely YES
-
H2O in it's 3 forms is still water. There was nothing misleading about it. The key points in that case was that it happened in a place with heat and no weapon could be found.
Is the corpse human?
-
H2O in it's 3 forms is still water. There was nothing misleading about it. The key points in that case was that it happened in a place with heat and no weapon could be found.
It didn't really mislead anyone anyway. It's just that I tend to try and be incredibly accurate at times :V
Well, back to the questions, *cough* ahem...
Is the corpse human?
YES
-
Did the person recently die?
Did the person die by poison?
-
Is there anything of significance in the forest regarding the man's death?
-
Is it bad that if I see the word corpse, I think of "Corpse Voyage ~ Be of Good Cheer!" ? XD
Is it a sign that I'm addicted to Touhou?
Was the person there because he was travelling?
Was the person some kind of tribespeople living in the forest?
Was it a suicide?
Was the corpse burnt?
Did anyone other than the dead man caused the death of the man?
Did anyone other than the dead man caused the position of the corpse to be where it is now?
-
H2O in it's 3 forms is still water. There was nothing misleading about it. The key points in that case was that it happened in a place with heat and no weapon could be found.
The statement that the contents of the flask could undergo chemical reaction suggested that there was another compound in the water. Hence, it was misleading. But yeah, no harm done.
Ooh, I think I saw this one on Mythbusters, though it was busted:
The man was a diver, and got sucked up by the intake vacuum when a firefighting aircraft was collecting water from a nearby body of water. He was then unceremoniously dumped along with the water to extinguish a forest fire.
-
Looks solved.
-
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.
The man was a diver, and got sucked up by the intake vacuum when a firefighting aircraft was collecting water from a nearby body of water. He was then unceremoniously dumped along with the water to extinguish a forest fire.
YES
The man was a diver that was diving in a lake at the same time a great fire hapened in nearby woods.
When a firefighter plane came to suck up water from the lake, it sucked in the man as well.
The plane then dropped the man in the woods together with the water.
-
I have to admit, that case was definitely something new to me. Haha.
-
Sweet, I didn't think I'd be right!
For those curious, the folks at Mythbusters had a go at it, and determined that it wasn't really possible to suck up a person with the kind of pump that a typical firefighting helicopter would use. Still, drama is more fun than realism, so a good case.
-
Sweet, I didn't think I'd be right!
Hm, it seems that was a lucky shot, eh?
I don't really know how to feel about you solving it by knowing the solution from somewhere else,
I feel a bit bad for the others who where still working hard on the case.
Just for future reference, if anyone thinks they know the solution from a show or something, not by their own imagination/ combination, that will fall under the 'PM me before trying to solve'-rule.
This is to keep the game enjoyable for every player.
Think of it as our 'Codex of Honor' :)
Anyway, now that his one is solved, let's move on to the next.
This one will definitely be hard, and I am not sure it will be solvable without hints at some point, but let us see about that.
Eighth Case: Murder Without Consequences
A woman shot her husband.
The police took her into custody, but let her free a short while later.
-
Was the woman intending to shoot her husband?
If not, was she intending to shoot someone else threatening her husband?
Was she actually shooting at her husband, but told the police otherwise?
-
Was the woman intending to shoot her husband?
YES
If not, was she intending to shoot someone else threatening her husband?
NO. See above
Was she actually shooting at her husband, but told the police otherwise?
NO (as an answer to the second part, just to be clear)
-
Did her husband die?
Did she shoot with a gun?
Did her husband get hit by a bullet?
-
Did her husband get hit by a bullet?
Was it a bullet that would be considered a standard bullet (as in, a bullet meant for killing someone)?
-
Was the woman acting in self-defense?
Is her husband a real person?
[edit] Just for future reference, if anyone thinks they know the solution from a show or something, not by their own imagination/ combination, that will fall under the 'PM me before trying to solve'-rule.
Righto!
-
Did her husband die?
YES
Did she shoot with a gun?
YES
Did her husband get hit by a bullet?
YES
Was it a bullet that would be considered a standard bullet (as in, a bullet meant for killing someone)?
YES
Was the woman acting in self-defense?
NO
Is her husband a real person?
YES //Reading that question, I just had an idea about a case where an otaku kills his virtual waifu :V
-
YES //Reading that question, I just had an idea about a case where an otaku kills his virtual waifu :V
Had an approximately similar thought. :V
I wonder how far I can go with subjectivity in these questions:
Is the man the victim in this case OR the woman the "bad guy"? (working with Boolean operators)
-
Did the police determine correctly whether she shot the victim in question or not?
Was the will of the Husband involved in whether the woman was let go or not?
Is everyone involved a human? (I really don't know where to go with this.)
-
So the woman has not commited any crime?
Is there anything unusual about the law in the city the case in set in that allows killing?
Did the woman directly shot his husband to death with a gun?
(I realised this was actually not confirmed! It could've been the woman shot something else and another bullet hit the husband, lol. Though it's highly unlikely, these cases tend to make unlikely things occur, and we all know how much difference a little change in wording of the question can make. XD)
Is the place where the murder commited relevant?
Is there any third person involved in the killing?
Is the occupation of the woman relevant?
-
Is the man the victim in this case OR the woman the "bad guy"? (working with Boolean operators)
I'll divide that into two questions (man = victim?, woman = bad guy?) and answer both with YES
Did the police determine correctly whether she shot the victim in question or not?
YES
Was the will of the Husband involved in whether the woman was let go or not?
NO
Is everyone involved a human? (I really don't know where to go with this.)
YES. It's a good question, you never know, right?
So the woman has not commited any crime?
Please rephrase, the answer can be misinterpreted if I answer the question as it is.
Is there anything unusual about the law in the city the case in set in that allows killing?
NO
Did the woman directly shot his husband to death with a gun?
YES. It's 'her' husband, by the way ;)
Is the place where the murder commited relevant?
NO
Is there any third person involved in the killing?
NO
Is the occupation of the woman relevant?
NO
-
Are the police corrupt in a relevant manner?
Edit: don't tell me I know this one as well. PM incoming.
-
Are the police corrupt in a relevant manner?
NO
Edit: don't tell me I know this one as well. PM incoming.
Good boy ;D
-
Is the husband about to die even if he wasn't going to be shot?
-
Do the police believe the Man should have died?
By "Set her free" Does this mean she was allowed to return to her normal daily life, albeit as a widow?
-
The woman shot her because her husband was terminally ill, and asked her to kill him. So she shot him to put him out of his misery. She told the police what had happened and they set her free.
-
^I'm pretty sure that's still against the law in any place, but we should question the woman's motivations.
-
Was the bullet targeting a vital organ?
Was the man expecting to be shot soon?
Was the woman set free due to legal procedures?
EDIT: I have a random idea: The woman was arrested by the police. They somehow screwed up during the arrest with her rights and such and therefore had to let her go.
-
Assisted suicide is legal in some places
-
Is the husband about to die even if he wasn't going to be shot?
NO
Do the police believe the Man should have died?
NO
By "Set her free" Does this mean she was allowed to return to her normal daily life, albeit as a widow?
YES. It also means there would be no consequences for her actions, as stated in the case title.
The woman shot her because her husband was terminally ill, and asked her to kill him. So she shot him to put him out of his misery. She told the police what had happened and they set her free.
NO
Was the bullet targeting a vital organ?
IRRELEVANT
Was the man expecting to be shot soon?
IRRELEVANT, but probably NO
Was the woman set free due to legal procedures?
YES
-
Did the woman know anyone in the police force?
Did the woman dislike her husband for any reason?
Was her husband someone who did illegal things?
-
Did the shooting take place in an area where the government had legal control over their citizen's actions?
I remember a plot point in one of those discontinuity shows where everyone in town goes to sea just so they could drink Alcohol without getting busted. This might be a similar case.
-
Uh, since my idea for an answer was apparently missed...
The woman was arrested by the police. They somehow screwed up during the arrest with her rights and such and therefore had to let her go.
-
Did the woman know anyone in the police force?
NO
Did the woman dislike her husband for any reason?
YES
Was her husband someone who did illegal things?
Probably NO
Did the shooting take place in an area where the government had legal control over their citizen's actions?
YES
Uh, since my idea for an answer was apparently missed...
The woman was arrested by the police. They somehow screwed up during the arrest with her rights and such and therefore had to let her go.
NO 'Screwed up with her rights' is a good general direction though.
Sorry for missing it before, you must have edited your post just as I was writing mine, so I missd the edit.
-
were all of the evidences directed to the woman?
did she have a good lawyer?
did she screw the rules?
-
did she screw the rules?
Did she have money?
-
Did she have money?
Did she have green hair?
But seriously.
Did the police come to arrest this woman?
Did they come to arrest her for the murder?
-
Did the woman have some kind of right to kill?
-
I've got an idea based on the rights screwup...
The woman was unable to be arrested, because she couldn't be filed properly. She had burnt away her fingerprints prior to the crime, thus there was no way to connect her to the murder.
-
were all of the evidences directed to the woman?
YES
did she have a good lawyer?
NO
did she screw the rules?
Actually...YES
Did she have money?
UNKNOWN. She could afford the gun at least.
Did she have green hair?
UNKNOWN. Possibly NO, unless she dyed it. You do know that I'm going to answer everything with a question mark, right? :V
Did the police come to arrest this woman?
YES
Did they come to arrest her for the murder?
YES
Did the woman have some kind of right to kill?
NO
The woman was unable to be arrested, because she couldn't be filed properly. She had burnt away her fingerprints prior to the crime, thus there was no way to connect her to the murder.
Nice, but unfortunately NO. The first sentence isn't too bad though.
-
You do know that I'm going to answer everything with a question mark, right? :V
YES
-
Did she claim that she had shot her husband by accident, and thus a criminal motive could n't be determined?
-
Were any crimes committed by either party besides the murder?
-
Was she let go because of double jeopardy?
-
Um...
The woman was never read her Miranda rights. It's possible the police witnessed the crime and just directly arrested her, and forgot to tell her her rights.
Alternatively
She was interrogated without an attorney, admitted to the crime but was set free because she wasn't given the chance to talk to her lawyer
-
Is figuring out the correct government loophole the only thing we need to do to solve the case as it stands?
-
did she understand their language?
-
Did the police let her out with the intention of bringing her back in at a later date?
-
Did she claim that she had shot her husband by accident, and thus a criminal motive could n't be determined?
NO
Were any crimes committed by either party besides the murder?
NO
Was she let go because of double jeopardy?
Ohoh.....YES
Um...
The woman was never read her Miranda rights. It's possible the police witnessed the crime and just directly arrested her, and forgot to tell her her rights.
Alternatively
She was interrogated without an attorney, admitted to the crime but was set free because she wasn't given the chance to talk to her lawyer
Both NO
Is figuring out the correct government loophole the only thing we need to do to solve the case as it stands?
YES
did she understand their language?
YES
Did the police let her out with the intention of bringing her back in at a later date?
NO
-
Ah, Zakeri's got it.
-
Ah, Zakeri's got it.
Well, he still has to make the final theory, but yeah, this one is close to being solved now.
EDIT: Just saying, of course everyone else can solve as well.
-
jeopardy
(http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm114/Roukanken/trebek.jpg)
I'll let Zak finish this.
-
Well, If we're waiting on me~
For some reason, The man faked his death some years before. his wife was taken into custody and Tried for murdering him, but was let go because he turned up alive and well. Then, at a later date, She actually shot and killed him. She was taken into Custody and then let go because she was already tried and cleared innocent for the exact same crime.
-
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.
For some reason, The man faked his death some years before. his wife was taken into custody and Tried for murdering him, but was let go because he turned up alive and well. Then, at a later date, She actually shot and killed him. She was taken into Custody and then let go because she was already tried and cleared innocent for the exact same crime.
YES. Except that she was sentenced to jail after the first trial, but that's a minor detail.
The woman was tried for the murder of her husband and had spent several years in jail.
A mistake, because the man had faked his death and in reality just run away.
So she decided he had to die for revenge.
Because the woman had already been punished for murdering her husband, there was no reason for the police to arrest her again,
now that she had really killed him.
Wonderful, truly wonderful.
Congratulations to you, Sir Zakeri, for finding the final clue for this case.
This one is tricky, and can be very hard to solve if none of the players knows the jeopardy law,
but fortunately this was not the case here.
Well, please grant me one or two hours of time,
then I will prepare the next riddle for you.
Until then, relax and have a tea.
-
*sips tea, wears monocle*
-
Alright, my dear players.
It's classic time once again.
I could imagine that the next riddle may be solved almost immediatey, but we'll see about that.
Ninth Case: Thank You
A woman went to a bar and ordered a drink.
The barkeeper took out a gun and aimed directly at her.
The woman thanked him and left.
-
*is too good a person to insta-solve*
-
*is too good a person to insta-solve*
:V
As expected. I wouldn't even have cared if you had solved that one instantly, but yeah, let's wait a bit.
-
Too easy. I'll ignore it too.
-
Obvious. Old. Etc. :P.
-
Hahahah, hell, I know that case is a joke, but that's worse than I expected :V
Let's give it one hour, then I declare it shall be solved.
-
Was the gun one of those things that shoots drinks out?
-
Was the gun one of those things that shoots drinks out?
NO. Wait, what kind of things? Should I know these?
-
Wow, even I know this one. And I usualy suck at riddles, knowing only a few.
-
You know, one of those things behind the bar where you pull the trigger to squirt a drink into the glass...?
Eh, I'll let someone else take this.
-
You know, one of those things behind the bar where you pull the trigger to squirt a drink into the glass...?
Ah, that kind of thing. NO, as far as I know those riddles never use metaphors to describe anything, which would be the case then.
-
Ah, that kind of thing. NO, as far as I know those riddles never use metaphors to describe anything, which would be the case then.
I know of a couple that are sorta metaphorical, but that's basically the big thing in the case, figuring out the metaphor.
-
Really? Maybe you should let us solve some of those one day. Though already knowing that we'll have to search for metaphors might kinda kill the challenge.
-
Really? Maybe you should let us solve some of those one day. Though already knowing that we'll have to search for metaphors might kinda kill the challenge.
It's only one or two out of a book of them I had. Still have probably, but haven't read lately, especially given the fact that you are doing these and I don't want my memory refreshed. Though I haven't seen too too many I know.
-
Dig that book out again once we reach case 50, because that's when my stack will be depleted. Though that day is still far away.
-
Dig that book out again once we reach case 50, because that's when my stack will be depleted. Though that day is still far away.
Google ftw :V
-
/me sighs
The woman had the hiccups. She ordered a cup of water. The bartender knew she had hiccups and instead pulled a gun on her to scare them away. Obviously, it worked. "Thank You"
-
It's only one or two out of a book of them I had. Still have probably, but haven't read lately, especially given the fact that you are doing these and I don't want my memory refreshed. Though I haven't seen too too many I know.
Yeah, I had a couple such books and remember a fair bit of them. Hence, I'm probably mostly going to lurk this thread and maybe ask a question or two in the right direction if one goes on for quite a while like Case 4 did. :3
-
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.
The woman had the hiccups. She ordered a cup of water. The bartender knew she had hiccups and instead pulled a gun on her to scare them away. Obviously, it worked. "Thank You"
YES
No, I will not even bother to put up an extra solution for this one.
Lady UK has said everything really.
Now, after this silly joke of a riddle, let's continue to a real one, shall we?
For the tenth riddle I have chosen an especially nice one.
Though, knowing you all, even a swift walk to the truth wouldn't surprise me.
The rule of informing me if you think you know it applies here especially, because it would be a shame to have it spoiled for anyone.
Tenth Case: The Mayor
A priest held his farewell speech.
Near the end the mayor appeared and wanted to thank him.
He was shot before he could finish speaking.
-
Yeah, I had a couple such books and remember a fair bit of them. Hence, I'm probably mostly going to lurk this thread and maybe ask a question or two in the right direction if one goes on for quite a while like Case 4 did. :3
That's the one sad thing about those riddles: You can only play them one time.
-
Ooh, I don't know this one.
Ok, how about this
Did the mayor die?
Was he shot with a gun?
If the answer to both of those is yes
The mayor went up to thank the priest and it was a photo opportunity. He was "shot" with a camera.
I'm only proposing that because I don't believe I'm correct. If I am correct though, I didn't mean to break the case like that... :S.
-
Did the mayor die?
YES
Was he shot with a gun?
YES
The mayor went up to thank the priest and it was a photo opportunity. He was "shot" with a camera.
NO
-
Ok, good.
Was the mayor intentionally shot?
Was he shot with the intent of killing the mayor?
Was he shot directly as a result of thanking the preist?
-
Was the mayor in any way related to the priest?
Was he being thanked for a wedding ceremony?
Was he shot to ensure he never finished his speech?
-
Was the content of the mayor's speech relevant to him getting shot?
Was the content of the priest's speech relevant to the mayor getting shot?
-
Was the mayor intentionally shot?
YES
Was he shot with the intent of killing the mayor?
YES
Was he shot directly as a result of thanking the preist?
YES
Was the mayor in any way related to the priest?
YES
Was he being thanked for a wedding ceremony?
NO
Was he shot to ensure he never finished his speech?
NO
Was the content of the mayor's speech relevant to him getting shot?
YES
Was the content of the priest's speech relevant to the mayor getting shot?
YES
-
Had the mayor performed a severely sinful act?
Was the mayor a heretic?
-
Had the mayor performed a severely sinful act?
YES
Was the mayor a heretic?
NO
-
Is it relevant who shot the mayor?
Was the priest's speech out of the ordinary?
Was the mayor's speech out of the ordinary?
-
Is it relevant who shot the mayor?
YES
Was the priest's speech out of the ordinary?
YES
Was the mayor's speech out of the ordinary?
NO
-
Was the mayor shot by the priest?
-
Was the mayor shot by the priest?
[alexander anderson]"The Lord giveth, and the Lord taketh away. AAAAAAAAAMEEEEEENNNNNNN![/alexander anderson]
Did the priest bless the mayor in his speech?
Did the priest suggest or imply that whoever shot the mayor would be blessed, or absolved of sin, in his speech?
-
Was the mayor shot by the priest?
NO
Did the priest bless the mayor in his speech?
NO
Did the priest suggest or imply that whoever shot the mayor would be blessed, or absolved of sin, in his speech?
NO
-
Did the preist's speech accuse the mayor of anything?
Did the preist's speech absolve the mayor of anything?
-
Longshot, but:
Were the mayor and the priest lovers?
-
Was the mayor the priests first confession?
Was the man who shot the mayor connected to the mayor's said wrong doing?
-
Did the mayor shoot himself?
Was the shooter related to the mayor?
-
Is the priest's being a priest relevant?
Is the mayor's being a mayor relevant?
-
Did the preist's speech accuse the mayor of anything?
NO, as in he didn't mention the mayor in his speech
Did the preist's speech absolve the mayor of anything?
NO
Also, what's a 'preist', Lady UK? :V
Were the mayor and the priest lovers?
NO
Was the mayor the priests first confession?
YES
Was the man who shot the mayor connected to the mayor's said wrong doing?
YES
Did the mayor shoot himself?
NO
Was the shooter related to the mayor?
NO
Is the priest's being a priest relevant?
YES
Is the mayor's being a mayor relevant?
NO
-
Did the Priest Hire someone to shoot the Mayor?
Was the Priest afraid of the Mayor?
Was the priest intending to leave town?
-
Did the Priest Hire someone to shoot the Mayor?
NO
Was the Priest afraid of the Mayor?
NO
Was the priest intending to leave town?
UNKNOWN. He might just have retired or something.
-
Do we have to know something special to know to figure out this puzzle?
-
Was the mayor guilty of murder?
Was he guilty of an affair?
Did he rise to power through a political scandal which he confessed to?
-
Do we have to know something special to know to figure out this puzzle?
How exactly? I'd say NO.
Was the mayor guilty of murder?
YES
Was he guilty of an affair?
NO
Did he rise to power through a political scandal which he confessed to?
NO
-
Was the mayor's victim somebody the killer knew?
-
Did the mayor commit murder intentionally?
Was the man the mayor killed related to either of the 3 involved in this case?
-
Is the identity of the culprit relevant to the case?
Did the murderer know of the crime before the speech?
Did the speech reveal the mayor's guilt?
-
Is the murder the mayor committed actually relevant to this case?
If so, then:
The mayor committed a murder, for reasons as of yet unknown. Someone who knew the victim, found out about this crime, and decided to take it into their own hands. They had been waiting for a chance to kill the mayor, and the confession was when they decided to strike.
-
Also, what's a 'preist', Lady UK? :V
Someone who believes in things that happen before other things.
EDIT: Alternatively it's a hybrid car that declares your sexual orientation to the entire world (assuming a male is driving it)
-
The mayor committed a murder, for reasons as of yet unknown. Someone who knew the victim, found out about this crime, and decided to take it into their own hands. They had been waiting for a chance to kill the mayor, and the confession was when they decided to strike.
I'm gonna take this to the next level.
Did the mayor and Priest both speak?
The Priest spoke about how his first confession was of the murder of someone. Somehow, the mayor never heard said speech (late) and spoke about how he was the first one to confess to the priest. The man who shot him was related to the one who was murdered, likely his/her sibling.
-
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.
The Priest spoke about how his first confession was of the murder of someone. Somehow, the mayor never heard said speech (late) and spoke about how he was the first one to confess to the priest. The man who shot him was related to the one who was murdered, likely his/her sibling.
YES
During his speech the priest mentioned the mysterious murder that had taken place on the first day of his work for the community.
He also told that the first confession he had received had been that of the murderer.
The mayor, who only arrived at the speech later, in turn spoke about how he had been the first one to come to the priest to confess.
With this he had given himself away and was shot by a relative of the victim during his speech
Hmm, hmm, nice work everyone.
Of course Sir Thundr arrived at his spot-on-questions with his sharp intellect, not with external help, ri~ght? ;)
Linking a priest to confessions is the one most important step in this riddle,
and I have seen people despair over it because they could not find that one step.
Well, anyway, with this you have completed one fifth of my riddles,
let's move on to the next fifth with the following.
Hmm, which on should I choose....ah, yes, how about this one, though it is quite easy:
Eleventh Case: Mother's Funeral
At her mother's funeral, a woman saw a man she did not know.
Some days later she killed her sister.
-
was she her real sister?
was she her half sister?
-
Did the man know the woman?
Is the time frame (a few days later) relevant?
Is incest involved?
-
If the man had not been seen, would the sister have wound up dead?
Is adultery involved?
Is the man related to the woman?
Is the man related to the sister?
-
Hmm...I could swear I've heard this one before, but I remember nothing.
Is the death or cause of death of the mother relevant?
-
does the ages of the people matter?
-
Oh wow, I almost expected insta-solve on this one, but I guess not, which is nice. Alright...*cough..Ahem
was she her real sister?
YES
was she her half sister?
NO
Did the man know the woman?
UNKNOWN
Is the time frame (a few days later) relevant?
NOt really
Is incest involved?
NO
If the man had not been seen, would the sister have wound up dead?
NO
Is adultery involved?
NO
Is the man related to the woman?
NO
Is the man related to the sister?
UNKNOWN
Is the death or cause of death of the mother relevant?
NO
does the ages of the people matter?
NO
-
Does the man know her sister?
Does her sister know the man?
-
Does the man know her sister?
UNKNOWN
Does her sister know the man?
UNKNOWN
-
Do your UNKNOWNs actually mean IRRELEVANT?
-
Do your UNKNOWNs actually mean IRRELEVANT?
NO. Often the line between 'unknown' and 'irrelevant' is not clear, but I always think carefully about how I answer. I will only use irrelevant when it concerns some line of thought that can be dropped without consequences.
-
Was the fact that the man attended the funeral caused the woman to murder her sister?
Was there interaction between the man and the woman at the funeral?
Was there interaction between the man and the woman after the funeral?
Was her sister responsible for contacting people to attend the funeral?
-
Was the fact that the man attended the funeral caused the woman to murder her sister?
YES
Was there interaction between the man and the woman at the funeral?
NO
Was there interaction between the man and the woman after the funeral?
NO
Was her sister responsible for contacting people to attend the funeral?
UNKNOWN
-
Was the presence of a man at the funeral not a problem?
Did the woman think she's supposed to know who's going to the funeral?
Did the woman want only people she know to go to the funeral?
Had the woman ever found out the identity of the man?
-
Was the presence of a man at the funeral not a problem?
NO, it wasn't a problem.
Did the woman think she's supposed to know who's going to the funeral?
UNKNOWN, leaning towards IRRELEVANT
Did the woman want only people she know to go to the funeral?
IRRELEVANT
Had the woman ever found out the identity of the man?
NO
-
Was the fact that a man attended the funeral caused the woman to murder her sister?
Did you intentionally state "it wasn't a problem" after NO because problem wasn't the proper word to describe it and want to give me a hint as I was onto something?
Did the mother state specify anything she wanted her funeral to be that's revelant to this case?
-
Was the fact that a man attended the funeral caused the woman to murder her sister?
NO
Did you intentionally state "it wasn't a problem" after NO because problem wasn't the proper word to describe it and want to give me a hint as I was onto something?
UNKNOWN ;D. I rather used it because I always have problems with how the negation of a negation will be understood, but if you can make a hint out of it, then feel free to do so.
Did the mother state specify anything she wanted her funeral to be that's revelant to this case?
NO
-
Did she have a reason for killing her sister?
Did the unknown man intend to attend the funeral?
-
Did she have a reason for killing her sister?
YES
Did the unknown man intend to attend the funeral?
YES
-
Hmm...I could swear I've heard this one before, but I remember nothing.
Is the death or cause of death of the mother relevant?
This is EXACTLY what I thought when I read that, Fightest :P.
It must be a very forgettable case.
EDIT before posting:
AH! I just remembered it!
Shall I post the answer Sakana?
EDIT EDIT: Actually, since people are trying to solve, I should ask leading questions instead. Sorry, wasn't thinking.
-
Shall I post the answer Sakana?
Of course. If you managed to get the solution again from what people have asked, then post it. There has been enough details to reach the conclusion already.
Also, I kinda hoped for you to solve it, because remembering one of your questions on the first case I thought this one here would be your type of case ;)
-
Well, part of it was just a flash of memory. It wasn't entirely logically deduced. I heard it before, but forgot the answer til my memory was jogged. I'm not sure which question did it.
Should I post what I think I know anyway?
-
Should I post what I think I know anyway?
As I said, of course, there's enough details even if you hadn't remembered it. I'm already wondering why nobody else has stated a theory yet, maybe they think that it's too obvious to be true.
-
The man was rather attractive. He also worked with the funeral parlor. This woman fell madly in lust with the man. And I mean madly. To the point she'd kill her sister just to see the man again.
I don't understand why she didn't just go to the funeral parlor or whatever to meet him :P.
-
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.
The man was rather attractive. He also worked with the funeral parlor. This woman fell madly in lust with the man. And I mean madly. To the point she'd kill her sister just to see the man again.
I don't understand why she didn't just go to the funeral parlor or whatever to meet him :P.
YES. As expected, Lady Kitten, a nice description of the events. He's not a funeral worker on my card, so that'd answer your last comment, but it's a silly act nonetheless.
The woman fell madly in love with the unknown man at first sight.
But he disappeared right after the funeral, without her knowing his name.
She hoped to see him again at her sister's funeral.
A simple case with an incredibly simple answer,
but strangely enough those often take more time to solve than more complex cases.
The questions asked in this game were very nice and accurate, a beautiful teamwork between you players.
I'll have to ask you, dear players, to wait a bit before the next riddle again.
I have some work till late night today, and will therefore only be back around midnight.
So around that time, the next riddle will come.
-
I've heard this one before, but I remember hearing 'if you know the answer to this one before someone tells you, you have the mind of a psychopath'.
*steps away from UK*
-
Alright, time for the next one.
This one I chose by randomly drawing from the cards, and it turned out to be another classic and not too difficult.
Twelvth Case: Simple Murder
Romeo and Juliet are lying dead on the ground, the window is open.
-
Romeo and Juliet, wanting their love to last forever jumped out of a window several stories up and died from the impact.
-
Did one die before the other?
-
It was merely a play being put on.
-
Sorry, know this one. I know way too many of these, don't I? >_>
-
Sorry, know this one. I know way too many of these, don't I? >_>
It's OK, I do too. :3
EDIT: That is, both "know this one" and "know way too many" too.
-
Is Shakespeare involved? :V
I'm sure I've heard it before but can't recall the details atm.
-
Romeo and Juliet, wanting their love to last forever jumped out of a window several stories up and died from the impact.
NO
Did one die before the other?
NO, leaning towards IRRELEVANT
It was merely a play being put on.
NO
Is Shakespeare involved?
NO
Sorry, know this one. I know way too many of these, don't I? >_>
Nah, don't worry, there'll be ones that you don't know. (There definitely will, I assure you, and if I have to create them myself :3)
Also, this one is, like, amongst the first five riddles I had ever known. A classic, as I said.
-
Are the two of them humans?
When we hear the answer, we're going to feel like we were trolled?
-
Are the two of them humans?
NO
When we hear the answer, we're going to feel like we were trolled?
Possibly YES ;D
-
...Are Romeo and Juliet birds?
-
...Are Romeo and Juliet birds?
NO
-
Aah, I had heard the funeral one before. Heh, that one's one of the creepier ones. Also, yeah, I know this one as well.
-
Are Romeo and Juliet animals, or fishes?
-
Are Romeo and Juliet animals, or fishes?
YES to both
-
Hmmmmmmmmmm.........Gives me a strong foothold then.........
Was there a cat involved?
-
It's solved. Let someone new take a shot.
-
Was there a cat involved?
YES
-
Simple.
A cat knocked down a fishbowl on a windowsill, killing two fishes named Romeo and Juliet.
-
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.
A cat knocked down a fishbowl on a windowsill, killing two fishes named Romeo and Juliet.
YES
Romeo and Juliet were fish.
A cat entered through the open window and knocked over their fishbowl.
Being robbed of the water to live, both fish died on the floor.
*EDIT: I'll revise this paragraph, because I went a bit overboard here.
Just a word to Thundr:
I feel that you may have been getting answers from elsewhere, especially in the Mayor case.
I would be delighted if you culd prove me wrong.
Anyway, I have made my stance on the matter clear before:
Please don't solve if you didn't get the answer by yourself.
If you think you know it from somewhere else, inform me and I'll tell you how we will handle it.
Usually I will tell you to give the others a push in the right direction when necessary, or, if the game has progressed enough already, I'll allow you to solve. Fair and simple.*
Aaaanyway, here's the next case, this one is an original by a friend of mine, so I assure you it's highly unlikely that anyone will know the answer from the start.
I will explain how this one came into existence afterwards, the story is quite amusing.
Thirteenth Case: Tram of Death
Thomas got on a tram.
A bit later, he was dead.
-
Was there a reason why he got on the tram?
Did something happen before he got on the tram?
Was the death suicide?
Was the death intentional?
-
Was there a reason why he got on the tram?
YES
Did something happen before he got on the tram?
NO
Was the death suicide?
NO
Was the death intentional?
NO
-
For an expectedly easy case, you could give him the benefit of doubt. But if the GM deems something is game ruining, I'll investigate.
Was the tram travelling downhill?
Travelling uphill?
Under controlled operation?
Have any other passengers?
-
For an expectedly easy case, you could give him the benefit of doubt. But if the GM deems something is game ruining, I'll investigate.
He has the benefit of doubt, of course, and I won't do anything unless I have a real reason. I value everyone who plays here with me, that includes Thundr.
But I'd rather call out to someone a bit too early than too late.
Everyone's welcome to play and guess, just play fair please.
Was the tram travelling downhill?
NO
Travelling uphill?
NO
Under controlled operation?
NO
Have any other passengers?
NO
-
Is the reason why he got on the tram relevant to his death?
Was it due to someone else that he died?
-
Is the reason why he got on the tram relevant to his death?
YES
Was it due to someone else that he died?
YES
-
Was the tram stationary?
Is Thomas a tank engine? :V
-
Was the tram stationary?
YES
Is Thomas a tank engine? :V
NO
-
Was he the tram operator?
-
Was he the tram operator?
NO
-
Is there relevance in the length of time between Thomas getting on the tram and the time of his death?
Did he die of an electric shock?
-
Was Thomas told to get on the tram by another person?
Is only one person responsible for the man's death?
If yes to both, are the two above the same person?
Was the death due to carelessness or negligence?
Is there anything unusual about the tram itself, besides its being stationary?
[edit]Is Thomas a human being?
-
Is there relevance in the length of time between Thomas getting on the tram and the time of his death?
YES
Did he die of an electric shock?
NO
Was Thomas told to get on the tram by another person?
NO
Is only one person responsible for the man's death?
YES
If yes to both, are the two above the same person?
See above. NO.
Was the death due to carelessness or negligence?
YES
Is there anything unusual about the tram itself, besides its being stationary?
YES
Is Thomas a human being?
YES
-
Was the tram stationary at all times from when Thomas got on to the time of his death?
Is Thomas a hobo?
-
Was the tram stationary at all times from when Thomas got on to the time of his death?
YES
Is Thomas a hobo?
NO
-
Was Thomas looking to find something on the tram?
If yes, did he find it?
-
Was Thomas looking to find something on the tram?
YES. You could say it that way.
If yes, did he find it?
YES
-
Did Thomas die of one of the following: freezing, overheating, thirst, fear (could happen)? (no more than one answer required)
Did Thomas die of injury?
-
Did Thomas die of one of the following: freezing, overheating, thirst, fear (could happen)? (no more than one answer required)
NO
Did Thomas die of injury?
YES
-
Did Thomas left something on the tram? If so, did he went back to get it at night after the tram's operation time?
Was Thomas trapped in the tram?
Did someone left Thomas into the tram then forgot it?
-
Did Thomas left something on the tram? If so, did he went back to get it at night after the tram's operation time?
NO
Was Thomas trapped in the tram?
NOt really. Sorry, no clearer answer possible.
Did someone left Thomas into the tram then forgot it?
Hm, difficult, but I'll give that a YES
-
Oops typo. I meant "Did someone let Thomas in" not left, though I doubt it'd make a difference.
Did some kind of natural disaster happen?
Was something on fire?
Did Thomas die from getting hit by something falling down?
-
Oops typo. I meant "Did someone let Thomas in" not left, though I doubt it'd make a difference.
I thought so, and answered to the question as you meant it.
Did some kind of natural disaster happen?
NO
Was something on fire?
NO
Did Thomas die from getting hit by something falling down?
NO
-
Wild guess: Thomas had agreed to have a duel of honer with someone on this tram, but unfortunatley, he lost
-
Wild guess: Thomas had agreed to have a duel of honer with someone on this tram, but unfortunatley, he lost
The Sola scenario, I see. Still, there was nobody else on the tram. Unless I missed something.
Edit: Was the tram scheduled to be scrapped?
-
Wild guess: Thomas had agreed to have a duel of honer with someone on this tram, but unfortunatley, he lost
NO
Was the tram scheduled to be scrapped?
YES
-
Thomas was told to wait on the disused tram by someone, but they forgot about him and the fact that the tram was meant to be scrapped. Thomas got scrapped
along with the train.
-
More accurately: Thomas got into the tram to find shelter from the rain. He was not aware the tram was to be scrapped. The overseer neglected to check the tram properly, and signaled the go-ahead. Thomas was killed in the scrapping.
-
Thomas was told to wait on the disused tram by someone, but they forgot about him and the fact that the tram was meant to be scrapped. Thomas got scrapped
along with the train.
NO
More accurately: Thomas got into the tram to find shelter from the rain. He was not aware the tram was to be scrapped. The overseer neglected to check the tram properly, and signaled the go-ahead. Thomas was killed in the scrapping.
NO
He got onto the tram for a reason, but it was not to find shelter or because he was asked to.
It is true that he was overlooked by the person in charge of scrapping the tram and was scrapped along with it.
Now I want you to find out what he wanted in the tram.
-
Was the tram carrying something of importance?
Was thomas the man in charge of scrapping the train?
-
Was the tram carrying something of importance?
Leaning towards YES
Was thomas the man in charge of scrapping the train?
NO
-
Was Thomas a child looking for a lost toy on the train?
Was he looking for a lost piece of food? (Working from 'bit' here...)
-
Is the fact the guy's name is Thomas relevant?
If his name were Bob or George, would this have happened?
-
Was Thomas a child looking for a lost toy on the train?
NO
Was he looking for a lost piece of food? (Working from 'bit' here...)
NO
Is the fact the guy's name is Thomas relevant?
NO
If his name were Bob or George, would this have happened?
YES
-
Was the tram a goods tram?
-
Thomas is a homeless man. He needed a place to sleep and outside is obviously not a preferred location. When he saw an empty tram with doors unlocked, he went inside and slept without much thought. He was later scrapped with the tram as no one noticed him.
This kind of is the same thing as shelter...but I just want to make sure.
-
Did He Drop his wallet?
Was Tom Looking for a possession?
Was Tom looking for love?
Was Tom expecting the Tram to move?
-
OK, I've heard this one before, not going to touch it.
-
Was the tram a goods tram?
NO. A normal passenger tram.
Thomas is a homeless man. He needed a place to sleep and outside is obviously not a preferred location. When he saw an empty tram with doors unlocked, he went inside and slept without much thought. He was later scrapped with the tram as no one noticed him.
NO
Did He Drop his wallet?
NO
Was Tom Looking for a possession?
Well... could be seen as a YES
Was Tom looking for love?
Awww, unfortunately NO.
Was Tom expecting the Tram to move?
NO
OK, I've heard this one before, not going to touch it.
Ehh, are you being sarcastic?
Really, if you were insulted by what I said before, I apologize, but I ask you to understand my position.
Some of your questions in the Mayor case were suspiciously concrete regarding how little was known, but that could have been luck or genius on your side.
Anyway, as long as you have fun with this game, continue to participate.
-
Ehh, are you being sarcastic?
Really, if you were insulted by what I said before, I apologize, but I ask you to understand my position.
Some of your questions in the Mayor case were suspiciously concrete regarding how little was known, but that could have been luck or genius on your side.
Anyway, as long as you have fun with this game, continue to participate.
No, I'm serious, I've heard this one before.
-
No, I'm serious, I've heard this one before.
What? That should be impossible, unless I know you personally, which I doubt (o_0)
Send me a PM with your answer please, I'm curious.
-
Hmm...what can a man want with a tram? I dare say that this case...
8)
Has gone off the rails.
YEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHH!
Was the man looking for an actual item?
-
Did Yukari borrow this tram for Aimless Journey To Waste Station?
I have no clue where to go with this one, I'll admit.
-
Hmm...what can a man want with a tram? I dare say that this case...
8)
Has gone off the rails.
YEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHH!
Fok damn...
-
Fightest: 8):V
Was the man looking for an actual item?
YES
I have no clue where to go with this one, I'll admit.
Honestly, I don't think it can be solved without further tips. You'd have to know my friends or people similar to them to know where's this is going. Since the scrapped to death-part has been discovered, I'm gonna let this one run for a few more hours and then solve it myself.
So as to give you all a chance to unveil the truth completely, though, I shall drop some a single hint that might help you find the right path:
The tram that was being scraped was one of the last ones of its kind.
-
The man was staging a protest! :V
-
Was the man a Tram Enthusiast?
-
The man was staging a protest! :V
NO. Didn't you see the 'No revolutions' sign at the entrance of this thread? ;D
Was the man a Tram Enthusiast?
YES
-
Was the man trying to get a specific component?
If so, did this component, that he removed, somehow control the doors to the tram?
-
That hint was a bit strong, I think...
The man went into this tram, one of the last of its kind, attempting to salvage a particular part that was unique to this model. The operator was unaware of the man and gave the order to scrap it.
-
He wanted to take the Last Ride (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujgh-ELNst0)
-
Was the man trying to get a specific component?
YES
If so, did this component, that he removed, somehow control the doors to the tram?
NO
That hint was a bit strong, I think...
Well, I guess. But finding that out by yourselves would have been difficult, so it's okay.
The man went into this tram, one of the last of its kind, attempting to salvage a particular part that was unique to this model. The operator was unaware of the man and gave the order to scrap it.
YES Now take some last guesses about which part.
-
Did he want...the license plate?
Or the engine?
-
Did he want...the license plate?
NO. Those are on the outside.
Or the engine?
Too big too carry and better to get from the outside as well.
-
The steering wheel? A seat?
-
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.
The steering wheel?
What kind of tram has a steering wheel?
A seat?
YES
Thomas was a tram fanatic.
When he heard that the last trams of a type he liked very much were going to get scrapped, he wanted to get a souvenir.
So, when the tram was prepared for scrapping, he got onto it and decided that he would take home one of the seats.
Because the seats were bolted to the floor, however, he had to kneel down and remove the bolts one after another.
Because he was kneeling, the man in charge of the scrapping didn't see him and began his job.
Poor Thomas got scrapped together with the tram.
Good job on solving this obscure riddle.
As I said, it was created by my friends and is based on real events.
The person Thomas is modeled after does exist, and he is a tram fanatic that likes this (http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/ab98/Twilight0402/Tram.jpg) kind of tram especially.
Near the end of last year, some of those old trams were scrapped in public and the fanatics got a chance to take home some parts.
But of course, the scrapping-man took care that noone was left inside the tram when he started, and Thomas managed to get a seat safely.
It is now part of the furniture in his flat.
The events in this riddle were a joke my friends came up with after we all saw pictures and videos of the scrapping.
Next riddle will be up in a few hours, it will be from the cards again then.
-
Fourteenth Case: The Morning
When the woman woke up om a beautiful morning and took a short look outside the window, she killed herself.
And no, she was not in a lighthouse ;D
-
Was the window reflective?
Was she in her house?
Was she suicidal due to what she saw outside?
-
Was whatever she saw outside the window something that would have been able to hurt her?
Did she see a person through the window?
Was she alone in the room?
-
Was the window reflective?
NO
Was she in her house?
YES
Was she suicidal due to what she saw outside?
YES
Was whatever she saw outside the window something that would have been able to hurt her?
NO
Did she see a person through the window?
NO
Was she alone in the room?
YES
-
Was her occupation related to her death?
Was she mentally stable?
Was what she saw out the window traumatic?
-
Did whatever she saw outside the window make her recall some past experience?
-
Was her occupation related to her death?
YES
Was she mentally stable?
UNKNOWN
Was what she saw out the window traumatic?
YES
Did whatever she saw outside the window make her recall some past experience?
NO
-
Was she a weatherman, who was traumatised when she looked out and realised her forecast was wrong?
Did she see her boyfriend/husband in someone else's arms?
-
Was she a weatherman, who was traumatised when she looked out and realised her forecast was wrong?
NO
Did she see her boyfriend/husband in someone else's arms?
NO. Isn't that normally Lady UK's type of questions :V
-
Was whatever she saw outside something that she had caused?
-
Was whatever she saw outside something that she had caused?
NO
-
Was she frightened because it was a beautiful morning?
Was she frightened because a long time had passed in her sleep?
-
Was she frightened because it was a beautiful morning?
YES
Was she frightened because a long time had passed in her sleep?
NO
-
Did the woman have a mental illness?
-
Was she a psychic?
-
Did the woman have a mental illness?
UNKNOWN, leaning towards IRRELEVANT
Was she a psychic?
Kind of, YES
-
>Did she mean to die before she looked out the window?
>Was she supposed to do something before the sun rose?
>Was it early morning or close to afternoon?
Wait, let's try...
The woman was a thief who passed out in a home. When she woke up, she realized it was morning and she couldn't escape. So she killed herself.
-
>Did she mean to die before she looked out the window?
YES
>Was she supposed to do something before the sun rose?
NO
>Was it early morning or close to afternoon?
YES ;D(Nah, I won't be mean, early morning it is)
The woman was a thief who passed out in a home. When she woke up, she realized it was morning and she couldn't escape. So she killed herself.
NO
-
Does the date matter?
-
Is the fact that it was morning important?
-
Does the date matter?
NO. Though it would be possible to give it a YES if I added some details to the case.
Is the fact that it was morning important?
YES
-
Does the woman have some kind of condition that will affect her badly if she is exposed to sunlight?
-
Does the woman have some kind of condition that will affect her badly if she is exposed to sunlight?
NO
-
Why do all of these cases involve death? Let's have some larceny or arson for a change. :V
-
Why do all of these cases involve death? Let's have some larceny or arson for a change. :V
That one with double jeopardy wasn't really death-related. Well, it was, but not immediately. Well, immediately, but not of the person being investigated. :V
-
Would it be different if it wasn't a beautiful morning (as in rain)?
-
Was the woman checking something outside the window every morning and will kill herself if that thing she's checking for is there?
Did she see something that she didn't see before due to it being foggy/rainy/etc but finally saw it because it was a sunny morning?
-
Did she wake up in her own home?
-
Why do all of these cases involve death? Let's have some larceny or arson for a change. :V
Have you ever played Phoenix Wright? It's the same there, alsways murder. It's simply the most fun :V
Would it be different if it wasn't a beautiful morning (as in rain)?
Most possibly NO
Was the woman checking something outside the window every morning and will kill herself if that thing she's checking for is there?
NO
Did she see something that she didn't see before due to it being foggy/rainy/etc but finally saw it because it was a sunny morning?
NO
Did she wake up in her own home?
YES
-
Have you ever played Phoenix Wright? It's the same there, alsways murder. It's simply the most fun :V
The Second case of the third game didn't. At least, not until the end of the first part.
Incidentally, that same case is the reason why I thought the woman from the double jeopardy question was set free the first time.
-
The Second case of the third game didn't. At least, not until the end of the first part.
OBJECTI-Ah, no...*ahem*...It's been a while since I played the games, seems my memory failed me ;D
-
The Second case of the third game didn't. At least, not until the end of the first part.
But it ends up being a murder case anyway. In fact the whole first day is a set-up for said murder.
-
Did the woman, after waking up, infer that it was morning before looking outside the window?
Was she resolved to die before waking up?
Was she surprised to discover that it was morning after waking up?
Does her occupation entail her usually not waking up during early morning?
Did she commit suicide out of guilt? If so, was this guilt related to occupational neglect?
You said that she was "suicidal due to what she saw outside", but "meant to die before looking outside the window". Would she have committed suicide that very day if she had not looked outside the window?
-
Did the woman, after waking up, infer that it was morning before looking outside the window?
IRRELEVANT, maybe YES
Was she resolved to die before waking up?
YES
Was she surprised to discover that it was morning after waking up?
YES
Does her occupation entail her usually not waking up during early morning?
NO
Did she commit suicide out of guilt? If so, was this guilt related to occupational neglect?
YES and YES
You said that she was "suicidal due to what she saw outside", but "meant to die before looking outside the window". Would she have committed suicide that very day if she had not looked outside the window?
Look at the answers above. Probably a YES
-
Did she forget to do something last night?
Did she fell asleep unintentionally last night while working?
Did whatever she forgot to do caused anyone to die?
Was her work related with security?
-
Was she knocked out?
If so, she was probably doing something of great importance beforehand, and the events that took place wasn't her way.
-
Did she forget to do something last night?
NO
Did she fell asleep unintentionally last night while working?
NO
Did whatever she forgot to do caused anyone to die?
NO
Was her work related with security?
NO. Please don't take 'occupation' too seriously. It is not exactly a fitting term for what the woman was doing.
Was she knocked out?
NO
-
Was she committing a crime?
-
Was she committing a crime?
NO, I don't think it counts as a crime
-
Was she doing anything of dubious morality for a living?
-
Was she doing anything of dubious morality for a living?
YES
-
Was she a prostitute?
Was she pregnant?
-
Was she a prostitute?
NO. Wrong type of dubious morality.
Was she pregnant?
IRRELEVANT
-
Was she a drug mule?
-
Was she a drug mule?
NO
-
Was she a murderer? A spy?
-
Was she a super-hero?
-
Was she a murderer? A spy?
NO and NO
Was she a super-hero?
NO...
-
If she's not a drug mule, is she a drug dealer?
Did she kill someone, producing this suicidal guilt?
Did seeing it was morning remind her of what she felt guilty about?
-
If she's not a drug mule, is she a drug dealer?
NO
Did she kill someone, producing this suicidal guilt?
NO
Did seeing it was morning remind her of what she felt guilty about?
NO
-
Was she suicidal the night before?
Was she new to this occupation?
Was she a gangster?
Was she a corrupt politician?
-
Was she suicidal the night before?
NO
Was she new to this occupation?
UNKNOWN, I'd say NO
Was she a gangster?
NO
Was she a corrupt politician?
NO
I'd advise that someone makes a summary of the details up to now, that might help
-
The woman was alone in her room.
She was suicidal based on what she saw outside.
She was alone.
Her occupation was related to her death.
She was frightened because it was a beautiful morning.
She was some sort of psychic.
She was suicidal before seeing that it was morning.
The date may be relevant if more details are added.
She died of guilt based on her occupation.
'Occupation' is not a fitting term.
She partook in a shady business.
Was she a naysayer, panicking about the end of the world? She had expected the world to end, then died of grief when it didn't?
-
The woman was alone in her room.
She was suicidal based on what she saw outside.
She was alone.
Her occupation was related to her death.
She was frightened because it was a beautiful morning.
She was some sort of psychic.
She was suicidal before seeing that it was morning.
The date may be relevant if more details are added.
She died of guilt based on her occupation.
'Occupation' is not a fitting term.
She partook in a shady business.
YES to all, except maybe the 'suicidal before seeing it was morning'. I think I answered wrong there, looking at my card again: She was only suicidal because when she saw it was morning. She did expect to die though.
Was she a naysayer, panicking about the end of the world?
YES, but there's more to it.
She had expected the world to end, then died of grief when it didn't?
Pretty much YES, but there's more to the reason of suicide.
-
In that case, it's because she expected to become enlightened or rise to heaven. She then became suicidal when she realised her faith was misplaced.
-
In that case, it's because she expected to become enlightened or rise to heaven. She then became suicidal when she realised her faith was misplaced.
NO. Now's the time to go for the 'occupation' again
-
Was her occupation religious? Scientific?
Was she paid for it?
Did she think her actions would end the world?
Was she intending to kill herself for some holy cause?
-
Was the woman the leader of a suicide cult?
-
Was her occupation religious? Scientific?
YES. NO.
Was she paid for it?
Well, I'd guess she made money, so kind of YES
Did she think her actions would end the world?
NO
Was she intending to kill herself for some holy cause?
NO
Was the woman the leader of a suicide cult?
What exactly would define a suicide cult? I'll give a YES to cult leader, though.
-
Wild guess time.
Was she supposed to commit suicide yesterday?
Did the subjects of this cult leave her?
-
Was she supposed to commit suicide yesterday?
NO
Did the subjects of this cult leave her?
Subjects as in the other people? Kinda, YES.
-
The woman was a cult leader. They believed it was the end of the world. The means they were to commit suicide didn't kill the woman, and when she woke up the next day, the world was intact and beautiful, the subjects were dead. Unable to handle the guilt, she killed herself.
-
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.
The woman was a cult leader. They believed it was the end of the world. The means they were to commit suicide didn't kill the woman, and when she woke up the next day, the world was intact and beautiful, the subjects were dead. Unable to handle the guilt, she killed herself.
YES Except for one detail, but this way works as well.
The woman was the leader of a cult and had prophesized the end of the world for that night.
Most of the cult's members, including her kids, had taken poison so as not to have to experience the end of the world.
The woman herself wanted to face the terrible event and dismissed the poison.
When she realized that she had been wrong the next morning, she killed herself as well.
Hoho, it seems that one was a bit harder than expected, but you all did a good job solving it.
Though, looking at it now, finding the detail of a cult is pretty hard.
I will take a little break with the riddles again, so no new one will be up before tomorrow night.
-
And now, it is time for the next riddle.
Please allow me to selfishly choose one that I may use for a slight self-insert. :V
This one is also a classic, so many might know the answer.
Dangerous Call
On the floor of a telephone booth there was a dead man.
In front of the booth lies a big Sakana fish.
-
I know the answer.
-
The usual set of questions then:
Was the man killed?
Was it suicide?
Was he aware that he was going to, or could die prior to walking into the booth?
Are the surroundings (barring the fish) relevant to the case?
Is the fish's size relevant to the case?
-
I know the answer.
Good work. Here, have a Patchi :3
Don't kill me please >_>. Also, I just saw we're the same age, yay!
Was the man killed?
NO
Was it suicide?
NO
Was he aware that he was going to, or could die prior to walking into the booth?
NO
Are the surroundings (barring the fish) relevant to the case?
NO
Is the fish's size relevant to the case?
YES
-
Good work. Here, have a Patchi :3
Don't kill me please >_>. Also, I just saw we're the same age, yay!
I kill you anyway.
-
Did the man die of natural causes?
Did the fish prevent him from exiting the phone booth due to it being huge?
-
I kill you anyway.
Oh shi..... (o_0)
Did the man die of natural causes?
NO. What would be natural causes for you?
Did the fish prevent him from exiting the phone booth due to it being huge?
NO
-
I already have a Patchy, so I'll stay out of this one as well :3
-
NO. What would be natural causes for you?
Uh, yeah, that is a bit of a vague descriptor. Natural would be that once his environment has been established, he dies from nothing else but what can be provided by the environment, i.e. dehydration in a desert or freezing in the arctic or starvation in both.
-
Uh, yeah, that is a bit of a vague descriptor. Natural would be that once his environment has been established, he dies from nothing else but what can be provided by the environment, i.e. dehydration in a desert or freezing in the arctic or starvation in both.
Okay. Under that prerequisite, the NO stays untouched.
-
Is the phone booth intact?
Is the fish intact?
Is the fish fresh?
Did the fish belong to the man?
Was the man aware of the fish prior to his death?
-
Is the phone booth intact?
NO
Is the fish intact?
Probably YES. Well, it's dead. Does that count as intact?
Is the fish fresh?
YES
Did the fish belong to the man?
YES
Was the man aware of the fish prior to his death?
YES
-
Did the fish directly cause the man's death?
-
Does the man sell fish?
Was the man delivering the fish?
Was the man making a phone call?
If so, was who he was trying to call caused the death?
-
Did the fish directly cause the man's death?
NO
Does the man sell fish?
IRRELEVANT
Was the man delivering the fish?
UNKNOWN/ IRRELEVANT
Was the man making a phone call?
YES
If so, was who he was trying to call caused the death?
NO
-
Was the man calling (on the phone):
For help?
The Police?
Someone he knew?
For taxi?
Did the man just bought the fish?
Is the fish the man's pet?
Was the man going to eat the fish?
-
Was the man calling (on the phone):
For help?
NO
The Police?
NO
Someone he knew?
YES
For taxi?
NO
Did the man just bought the fish?
NO
Is the fish the man's pet?
NO
Was the man going to eat the fish?
IRRELEVANT
-
Fufufu~ I know this one as well.
-
Was the man beaten to death with the fish?
Was the man calling to give important information to a person?
Was the man killed by another person?
If so, did the man have information that would incriminate the other person?
-
Was the man beaten to death with the fish?
NO :V
Was the man calling to give important information to a person?
From his point of view, YES
Was the man killed by another person?
NO
If so, did the man have information that would incriminate the other person?
See above, NO
-
Dangit, there goes my idea.
Is the information concering the fish?
...Is the fish red?
Is it a herring?
-
Was the man beaten to death with the fish?
(http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm114/Roukanken/StillCap0006.jpg)
My reaction to this question. :V
-
Is the information concering the fish?
YES
...Is the fish red?
What? Magikarp? NO
Is it a herring?
UNKNOWN. It's a big fish.
-
(Guess it isn't a red herring)
Does the information concern the species of the fish?
The size?
Location?
Was the fish a direct factor in the man's death?
Did the man die of poison?
-
Oh god Rou! You just gave me an absolutely weird idea! For one of the next riddles I shouldn't answer with YES or NO, but with photos of myself making a facial expression depending on the answer. That'll be hilarous (and embarassingly stupid) :V
Does the information concern the species of the fish?
NO
The size?
YES
Location?
NO
Was the fish a direct factor in the man's death?
NO
Did the man die of poison?
NO
-
The man was a fisherman. He was calling his pal to tell him about the huge fish he caught, and uh... I got nothing. Oh wait. He was fishing in a storm, caught the fish, called his friend, and a large tree or wave or something smashed the phone booth and killed him, leaving his body and the fish there.
-
The man was a fisherman. He was calling his pal to tell him about the huge fish he caught, and uh... I got nothing.
YES. Right so far
-
Made an edit to add more to my idea.
-
The man was a fisherman. He was calling his pal to tell him about the huge fish he caught, and uh... I got nothing. Oh wait. He was fishing in a storm, caught the fish, called his friend, and a large tree or wave or something smashed the phone booth and killed him, leaving his body and the fish there.
NO Phone booth smashing doesn't sound bad though
-
Shoot. I check this thread, and I know the answer for once. :<
(Also, Happy Patchouli Day~<3)
-
Um...
Was there a storm?
Was the phone booth broken by outside forces?
Was the object breaking the phone booth also what killed the man?
-
Was there a storm?
NO
Was the phone booth broken by outside forces?
NO
Was the object breaking the phone booth also what killed the man?
NO
Try to think a bit more outside the ordinary, the answer is pretty improbable in real life.
-
The man was a fisherman and a strongman. He was on the phone, but instictivly stretched out his arms and broke the phone booth. He was still wet from fishing so the phone cable fell into water and electrocuted him. :V
-
The man was a fisherman and a strongman. He was on the phone, but instictivly stretched out his arms and broke the phone booth. He was still wet from fishing so the phone cable fell into water and electrocuted him. :V
Right up to the point of breaking the booth. Also, try to explain why he stretched his arms out, it was answered already.
-
The man was both a fisherman and a strongman. He had been out fishing that day and caught a huge fish. He stopped in at a phone booth and called up his buddy to tell him about this huge fish he caught. While telling the story, he streched his arms out to show how big the fish was, but broke the booth. The top of the booth fell on his head, killing him.
-
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.
The man was both a fisherman and a strongman. He had been out fishing that day and caught a huge fish. He stopped in at a phone booth and called up his buddy to tell him about this huge fish he caught. While telling the story, he streched his arms out to show how big the fish was, but broke the booth. The top of the booth fell on his head, killing him.
The manner of death is still off, but you've been bringing up such nice solutions already that I will count this one as YES
The man was a full-fledged fisherman that had called his friend to tell him how big the fish he just caught was.
He supported his exaggerated story with wild gesturing.
Doing that he smashed the windows of the booth with his flailing arms, slit his wrists and bled to death.
As Sir Roukanken pointed out to me earlier, my current avatar is surprisingly fitting for this riddle.
Except that Patchy will not bleed to death I hope.
-
Another one of those where I should ask "Are we gonna get trolled by the answer?" :V
Oh god Rou! You just gave me an absolutely weird idea! For one of the next riddles I shouldn't answer with YES or NO, but with photos of myself making a facial expression depending on the answer. That'll be hilarous (and embarassingly stupid) :V
Do it. Or else I Lynch you :V
-
Do it. Or else I Lynch you :V
How can I say NO if you/Tewi look at me like that (o_0)
Alright, let me charge my camera's batteries and search for a riddle that will make for some fun guesses and we'll start the special round tonight.
-
Totally knew the last one. But yay for facepalmery!
-
A special round sounds pretty entertaining.
-
Alright my dear players.
Preparations for the Case 16 Special Round are finished.
For this riddle, we will try out a new style of answering.
I will no longer answer your questions with words (unless it's really necessary), but with photos.
Photos of my humble self symbolizing the answer to your question by expression, gesture or other means.
Of course this method will 'cause answers from my side to take a bit longer, so have patience.
I may also let some more questions pile up before answering than before.
I hope that we can have a fun 16th game with this system, let's see how it goes.
And to use it properly, I have also chosen a riddle that will hopefully allow for some interesting questions.
Well then, let us begin~
(http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/ab98/Twilight0402/Intro.jpg)
Sixteenth Case - Two Dead Men
Two dead men were sitting at a table.
In their middle was a chessgame and a revolver.
-
Was chess srs bsnss to them?
Did anyone cheat at the game?
Were they killed by gunshot?
Did the revolver have two bullets used?
Was the chess game clearly in a state of checkmate for one side?
Did the chess game have anything to do with their deaths?
-
Is that picture of you awesome?
Did they kill each other?
Did one kill the other?
Did either of them suicide?
-
Was the revolver loaded?
Did the men often play chess together?
-
Is the revolver a game piece?
-
Were they actually Kinzo and Nanjo, Nanjo finally won a game of chess, and Kinzo shot Nanjo for a magic ritual and then burned himself up for the sake of finding Beatrice again?
Are you going to pick up the revolver and shoot me for that wild ass theory?
-
I know I've heard this one before. The memory is imperfect :(.
Is the chess game state relevant?
-
Just saying, I will sometimes re-use simple YES/No pictures if I don't have any better ideas.
Was chess srs bsnss to them?
(http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/ab98/Twilight0402/01.jpg)
Did anyone cheat at the game?
(http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/ab98/Twilight0402/02.jpg)
Were they killed by gunshot?
(http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/ab98/Twilight0402/03.jpg)
Ask differently.
Did the revolver have two bullets used?
(http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/ab98/Twilight0402/04.jpg)
Was the chess game clearly in a state of checkmate for one side?
(http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/ab98/Twilight0402/05.jpg)
That's a thumbs up, hard to see.
Did the chess game have anything to do with their deaths?
(http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/ab98/Twilight0402/06.jpg)
Is that picture of you awesome?
(http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/ab98/Twilight0402/07.jpg)
Your futile attempts at flattery shall not work on me.
Did they kill each other?
(http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/ab98/Twilight0402/08.jpg)
Did one kill the other?
(http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/ab98/Twilight0402/09.jpg)
Did either of them suicide?
Rephrase please, I'm not sure how to answer that one.
Was the revolver loaded?
(http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/ab98/Twilight0402/12.jpg)
Not when I got it...
Did the men often play chess together?
(http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/ab98/Twilight0402/13.jpg)
UNKNOWN
Is the revolver a game piece?
(http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/ab98/Twilight0402/14.jpg)
Were they actually Kinzo and Nanjo, Nanjo finally won a game of chess, and Kinzo shot Nanjo for a magic ritual and then burned himself up for the sake of finding Beatrice again?
(http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/ab98/Twilight0402/15.jpg)
It's useless! It's all useless!
Are you going to pick up the revolver and shoot me for that wild ass theory?
(http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/ab98/Twilight0402/16.jpg)
Is the chess game state relevant?
(http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/ab98/Twilight0402/01.jpg)
-
Does Haruhi know the answer?
Are all the pieces in a standard game of chess still on the board?
In their starting positions?
-
Were the two men murdered? (Count intentional self-inflicted death as murder for the purposes of this question)
Is the identity of the murderer important?
Are the men dead as a direct result of the revolver being fired?
Is there any game on the table other than the chess game?
-
Is a knowledge of chess required to solve this riddle?
Was there an illegal position in that both sides were in checkmate?
Was there a third person who performed the murder?
-
Does Roukan really not already know the answer?
-
Did Kilga not pay attention to the answers given?
-
Is there actually a game of chess being played on the chessboard.
-
Does Roukan really not already know the answer?
(http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm114/Roukanken/StillCap0012.jpg)
I'm just trying to think of some sort of clever chess term that would explain this. :V
Was there an argument over the rules?
Were either of the men killed by a gunshot wound?
-
Wild ass guess
They aren't really human men. They are chess pieces. Captured ones. Each side has captured a chess piece so they count as dead, and they are on the outside of the chessboard, on either side. Um...the revolver just looks cool
-
Next batch of answers will come after I've slept.
Sorry, just too tired right now.
Please wait warmly~ (and put up more questions if you want).
-
Did Kilga not pay attention to the answers given?
This is amusing to see from someone that asked if the chessboard was set up in the starting position when it's been confirmed one side is in checkmate.
-
Did the men have an overly convoluted arrangement that backfired and caused both their deaths?
Did you know you look like a serial killer in the first photo?
"It puts the questions in YES/NO form or it gets the hose again."
-
Does Haruhi know the answer?
(http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/ab98/Twilight0402/18.jpg)
(http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/ab98/Twilight0402/19.jpg)
Are all the pieces in a standard game of chess still on the board?
(http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/ab98/Twilight0402/20-1.jpg)
In their starting positions?
(http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/ab98/Twilight0402/21.jpg)
Did Kilga not pay attention to the answers given?
This is amusing to see from someone that asked if the chessboard was set up in the starting position when it's been confirmed one side is in checkmate.
(http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/ab98/Twilight0402/29.jpg)
Were the two men murdered? (Count intentional self-inflicted death as murder for the purposes of this question)
(http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/ab98/Twilight0402/22.jpg)
Is the identity of the murderer important?
(http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/ab98/Twilight0402/23.jpg)
Are the men dead as a direct result of the revolver being fired?
(http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/ab98/Twilight0402/24.jpg)
Thumbs up + thumbs down again. Held my hand too low.
Is there any game on the table other than the chess game?
(http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/ab98/Twilight0402/25.jpg)
Is a knowledge of chess required to solve this riddle?
(http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/ab98/Twilight0402/26.jpg)
Was there an illegal position in that both sides were in checkmate?
(http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/ab98/Twilight0402/27.jpg)
Takes that as NO
Was there a third person who performed the murder?
(http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/ab98/Twilight0402/28.jpg)
Is there actually a game of chess being played on the chessboard.
(http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/ab98/Twilight0402/30.jpg)
Was there an argument over the rules?
(http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/ab98/Twilight0402/31.jpg)
Were either of the men killed by a gunshot wound?
(http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/ab98/Twilight0402/32.jpg)
They aren't really human men. They are chess pieces. Captured ones. Each side has captured a chess piece so they count as dead, and they are on the outside of the chessboard, on either side. Um...the revolver just looks cool
(http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/ab98/Twilight0402/33.jpg)
(http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/ab98/Twilight0402/34.jpg)
Did the men have an overly convoluted arrangement that backfired and caused both their deaths?
(http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/ab98/Twilight0402/28.jpg)
Did you know you look like a serial killer in the first photo?
(http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/ab98/Twilight0402/35.jpg)
I'll probably have time for answering at late night today, so prepare a lot of nice questions for me until then.
-
(http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/ab98/Twilight0402/33.jpg)
(http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/ab98/Twilight0402/34.jpg)
Priceless expressions.
Anyway, was the game played really CHESS? Your board is clearly a GO board.
-
Is the location of the people relevant?
Was there an argument?
Was there cheating?
Did both of them abide by the rules?
Were they deciding something over a game of chess? (like whoever lost had to do something)
Was the revolver used this way : they spun the revolver before the game and whoever got pointed at goes first?
-
Totally irrelevant to this case but was the fish caught in case 15, you?
now back to topic
did one of them die by accident and the other by murder?
was the revolver used to kill one of them?
was the revolver RevolverKoala?
-
Did both men cause their own deaths? As in, did they both commit suicide?
Or did one of them kill the other and the remaining man killed himself?
Did they use chest matches to help decide arguments or decisions. As in, if both of them wanted a drink and both of them didn't want to move. Did they use chest to decide who would go and get the drinks?
-
Is the posture that the men died in important?
-
Were the two men sentient beings when the game began?
-
Is the location of the people relevant?
(http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/ab98/Twilight0402/36.jpg)
Was there an argument?
(http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/ab98/Twilight0402/37.jpg)
Maybe, but more like IRRELEVANT
Was there cheating?
(http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/ab98/Twilight0402/38.jpg)
Did both of them abide by the rules?
(http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/ab98/Twilight0402/39.jpg)
Were they deciding something over a game of chess? (like whoever lost had to do something)
(http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/ab98/Twilight0402/40.jpg)
Was the revolver used this way : they spun the revolver before the game and whoever got pointed at goes first?
(http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/ab98/Twilight0402/41.jpg)
Totally irrelevant to this case but was the fish caught in case 15, you?
(http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/ab98/Twilight0402/42.jpg)
Do I look like I'm dead?
did one of them die by accident and the other by murder?
(http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/ab98/Twilight0402/43.jpg)
What the hell am I doing in this photo? Answer is: Using Kilga's definition of murder (if I understood it right), then it is kind of a YES. You might want to ask again with other words if you have a certain idea.
was the revolver used to kill one of them?
(http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/ab98/Twilight0402/44.jpg)
was the revolver RevolverKoala?
(http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/ab98/Twilight0402/45.jpg)
Eh? Wait, let me ask...
(http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/ab98/Twilight0402/47-1.jpg)
No answer. I guess it's not him.
Did both men cause their own deaths? As in, did they both commit suicide?
(http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/ab98/Twilight0402/48.jpg)
Or did one of them kill the other and the remaining man killed himself?
(http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/ab98/Twilight0402/49.jpg)
Did they use chest matches to help decide arguments or decisions. As in, if both of them wanted a drink and both of them didn't want to move. Did they use chest to decide who would go and get the drinks?
(http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/ab98/Twilight0402/50.jpg)
Possible, but not really relevant.
Is the posture that the men died in important?
(http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/ab98/Twilight0402/51.jpg)
Were the two men sentient beings when the game began?
(http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/ab98/Twilight0402/52.jpg)
-
I can assume that one of the guys killed the other, and than killed himself, so if that's the case, I will try to find out why!
Did these two men hate eachother?
Did they consider eachother Rivals?
was it a murder/scuiside pact?
did the other man killhimself out of guilt, or anything like that?
-
I can assume that one of the guys killed the other, and than killed himself, so if that's the case, I will try to find out why!
(http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/ab98/Twilight0402/53-1.jpg)
Eh?
(http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/ab98/Twilight0402/54-1.jpg)
Wait, no, wrong!
(http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/ab98/Twilight0402/55.jpg)
(http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/ab98/Twilight0402/56.jpg)
Okay, let me try to get the situation straight again, some answers have obviously been confusing.
(http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/ab98/Twilight0402/57.jpg)
I'll be more clear about the deaths of the two men.
(http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/ab98/Twilight0402/58.jpg)
One killed himself. Kilga's definition of murder before included 'intentional self-inflicted death', so suicide did fall into it as well, as far as I understood it.
(http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/ab98/Twilight0402/59.jpg)
The second man died for other reasons, and was not killed by the first man.
Did these two men hate eachother?
Did they consider eachother Rivals?
was it a murder/scuiside pact?
did the other man killhimself out of guilt, or anything like that?
So, for the rest of your questions, I'll have to say
(http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/ab98/Twilight0402/60.jpg)
-
That looks like a GO board you're handling.
Other than the 2 man, was anyone else involved?
Is the past of any importance?
-
Are they extremely old?
Did one have a horrific disease, such as cancer?
-
Was there anyone around them when they died. As in, when the first man committed suicide was there anybody besides his opponent in the area.
Was there anything unusual about the chess pieces themselves? Were they in any sort of unorthodox shape? Did they resemble something else besides standard chess pieces?
Was there anything more then just a chess board, revolver, and chess pieces in their immediate grasp?
Was the suicide intentional?
Is the area in which they played their chest game important to the case?
-
I'm too tired for taking pics today, so I'll do it first thing in the morning. I'm really sorry everyone :-\ *bows deeply*
Until then, drop some more questions if you have some.
I'll say that much for you to work with: The yet unanswered questions won't reveal anything that can not be concluded from previous answers.
-
Okay.... location is relevant...hmm...
Were they on some kind of mobile transport?
Were they indoors?
Were they underwater?
Were they in the sky?
Were they in a locked room?
-
That looks like a GO board you're handling.
(http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/ab98/Twilight0402/61.jpg)
Well noticed. Your turn.
Other than the 2 man, was anyone else involved?
(http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/ab98/Twilight0402/62.jpg)
Is the past of any importance?
(http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/ab98/Twilight0402/63.jpg)
Are they extremely old?
(http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/ab98/Twilight0402/64.jpg)
Did one have a horrific disease, such as cancer?
(http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/ab98/Twilight0402/65.jpg)
Was there anyone around them when they died. As in, when the first man committed suicide was there anybody besides his opponent in the area.
(http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/ab98/Twilight0402/62.jpg)
Was there anything unusual about the chess pieces themselves? Were they in any sort of unorthodox shape? Did they resemble something else besides standard chess pieces?
(http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/ab98/Twilight0402/66.jpg)
Well,they look like pengu-
(http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/ab98/Twilight0402/67.jpg)
Nah, that's just because I don't have a chess set.
Was there anything more then just a chess board, revolver, and chess pieces in their immediate grasp?
(http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/ab98/Twilight0402/68.jpg)
There probably was, but it's IRRELEVANT to the case
Was the suicide intentional?
(http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/ab98/Twilight0402/69.jpg)
Is the area in which they played their chest game important to the case?
(http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/ab98/Twilight0402/70.jpg)
Were they on some kind of mobile transport?
Were they indoors?
Were they underwater?
(http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/ab98/Twilight0402/73.jpg)
Ohoh, interesting questions. Those deserve a
(http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/ab98/Twilight0402/74.jpg)
Double thumbs up!
Were they in the sky?
(http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/ab98/Twilight0402/72.jpg)
Were they in a locked room?
(http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/ab98/Twilight0402/71.jpg)
The direction this is going in looks good. Keep it up, my dear players.
-
Were they in a submarine?
Do you know what rank you are at Go?
-
Did anyone broke the window? If yes, was it the man who shoot himself had the bullet penetrate through him and hit the window?
Did the other person die by drowning?
You know, I have this book that had plenty of logic puzzles like these that I didn't remember having until this intro seemed familiar. However, having checked the book, it turns out that was just a situation where two man sat at a table quietly then one suddenly leaps and yells, where the solution was that they were playing chess. So it turned out that wasn't the current case, but what was interesting is that the puzzle on the page before that one is about a man not able to open a window because he was in a submarine!
If this turns out they were really in a submarine, this would be such a creepy coincidence, just maybe that book's writers heard of this and decide to split it into two riddles? :V
If so, this kind of counts me as having heard the case before... so sorry about it...
-
Did the man die of asphyxiation?
-
Do you know what rank you are at Go?
(http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/ab98/Twilight0402/77.jpg)
Well, I suppose I'd be somewhere between 30-25 Kyu, an absolute beginner.
I know how to play and have played a lot against computer programs, but only a few times against humans. I easily beat a bot ranked 22 Kyu on KGS once, but I don't count that.
Last time I played was on a real Go table in Japan with a friend.
If anyone wants to play sometime or wants to learn the game, I'd be delighted to play again.
But now, back to the game at hand:
Were they in a submarine?
(http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/ab98/Twilight0402/75.jpg)
(http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/ab98/Twilight0402/76.jpg)
Did anyone broke the window? If yes, was it the man who shoot himself had the bullet penetrate through him and hit the window?
(http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/ab98/Twilight0402/78.jpg)
Did the other person die by drowning?
(http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/ab98/Twilight0402/79.jpg)
You know, I have this book that had plenty of logic puzzles like these that I didn't remember having until this intro seemed familiar. However, having checked the book, it turns out that was just a situation where two man sat at a table quietly then one suddenly leaps and yells, where the solution was that they were playing chess. So it turned out that wasn't the current case, but what was interesting is that the puzzle on the page before that one is about a man not able to open a window because he was in a submarine!
If this turns out they were really in a submarine, this would be such a creepy coincidence, just maybe that book's writers heard of this and decide to split it into two riddles? :V
If so, this kind of counts me as having heard the case before... so sorry about it...
(http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/ab98/Twilight0402/80.jpg)
It seems I'll need to have some words with the author of that book, hehehe...
Ahem, anyway:
That kind of coincidence is far too obscure to count as 'know the case before', really. It's different from having seen the exact same event that's in the case on TV or something.
Did the man die of asphyxiation?
(http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/ab98/Twilight0402/81.jpg)
Thundr:
Judging from your question and your gameplay before, I'm sure you managed to figure out the answer by now.
If so, I'd like to ask you the favor of not solving this one, but leaving it to one of the other guys, okay?
I wanna see if the others can already make all the connections as well.
(Goddamnit, I look awful when I'm tired)
-
I'd like to ask you the favor of not solving this one, but leaving it to one of the other guys, okay?
I wanna see if the others can already make all the connections as well.
Kay. No problem Sakana. :V
-
Kay. No problem Sakana. :V
Thanks :)
-
Did they use the chess game to decide who gets to die by gunshot?
-
A submarine, you say? Let me have a guess:
The two men were the sole crew of a submarine. During a mission, the submarine broke down, in that it could not rise to the surface and refill its air supply. Since the two couldn't do anything to help their situation themselves, they decided to spend the time playing a game of chess. One of the two was a very sore loser, and upon losing the game, committed suicide. Soon after, the air ran out, and the other died as well.
-
Sorry, too tired for pictures today, once again.
Here's something for you all to work with for now:
The answer to Pesco's question is YES.
Yoshi's theory is wrong on one detail, which I want to be cleared however.
I'll say it's happy theory time now, so have at it.
-
Going for the kill:
There was only one bullet, so the winner of the game was allowed to shoot himself. The loser had to die a slow painful death from asphyxiation.
(Why they didn't just stand together and fire through both of them is beyond me.)
-
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.
The two men were the sole crew of a submarine. During a mission, the submarine broke down, in that it could not rise to the surface and refill its air supply.
Going for the kill:
There was only one bullet, so the winner of the game was allowed to shoot himself. The loser had to die a slow painful death from asphyxiation.
(http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/ab98/Twilight0402/82.jpg)
(http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/ab98/Twilight0402/83.jpg)
(http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/ab98/Twilight0402/84.jpg)
(http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/ab98/Twilight0402/85.jpg)
YES
(http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/ab98/Twilight0402/86.jpg)
A weird case, isn't it?
Playing a game over who gets to commit suicide?
(http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/ab98/Twilight0402/87.jpg)
It seems the men in this riddle....
(http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/ab98/Twilight0402/88.jpg)
...have really sunk low.
Well then, let me explain the events:
The two men were on a submarine...
(http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/ab98/Twilight0402/89a.jpg)(http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/ab98/Twilight0402/89b.jpg)
...that broke down and sunk.
(http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/ab98/Twilight0402/90a.jpg)(http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/ab98/Twilight0402/90b.jpg)
Without any hope for help, suicide seemed like a good option to them....
(http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/ab98/Twilight0402/91a.jpg)(http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/ab98/Twilight0402/91b.jpg)
...but the revolver they had only carried a single bullet.
(http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/ab98/Twilight0402/92a.jpg)(http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/ab98/Twilight0402/92b.jpg)
So they played a game of chess to decide who would get to die by the gun.
(http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/ab98/Twilight0402/93a.jpg)(http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/ab98/Twilight0402/93b.jpg)
(http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/ab98/Twilight0402/94a.jpg)(http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/ab98/Twilight0402/94b.jpg)
(http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/ab98/Twilight0402/95a.jpg)(http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/ab98/Twilight0402/95b-1.jpg)
After the winner of the game had died, the loser had to wait until the air ran out and he would painfully die.
(http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/ab98/Twilight0402/96a.jpg)(http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/ab98/Twilight0402/96b.jpg)
(http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/ab98/Twilight0402/96a.jpg)(http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/ab98/Twilight0402/97b.jpg)
(http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/ab98/Twilight0402/96a.jpg)(http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/ab98/Twilight0402/98b.jpg)
(http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/ab98/Twilight0402/96a.jpg)(http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/ab98/Twilight0402/99b.jpg)
Well then, this was certainly a lof of fun for me, and I hope so it was for you, my dear players.
You did a good job in solving this riddle.
Next round will be a standard one again, however this will not have been the last Special Round.
There will be others, maybe with photos again, maybe with something completely else.
I encourage those of you that have any ideas for how to make the game even more fun to tell me their ideas, no matter how crazy they may sound.
With this, let's rest a bit before I present you a new riddle tonight.
(http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/ab98/Twilight0402/100.jpg)
(http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/ab98/Twilight0402/101.jpg)
-
So much awesomeness that I can't handle
;D
-
That was fun! Although getting answers was just a little bit slower. It doesn't matter though. More time to think.
-
Alright, kept you waiting long enough, back to the game:
Seventeenth Case: Deadly Silence
The audience listened to the music.
Suddenly there was silence.
And that moment, someone died.
-
Was the audience listening to a live performance?
Could they see the performer?
Was the music being played "4:33"? :V
Was the silence part of the music?
Was the silence intended?
Did the person dying make a noise?
Was the person dying a performer? An audience member? A production staff? An outsider completely unrelated to the closed system of the events?
-
Was the audience listening to a live performance?
YES
Could they see the performer?
YES
Was the music being played "4:33"? :V
NO
Was the silence part of the music?
IRRELEVANT, look at next answer
Was the silence intended?
YES
Did the person dying make a noise?
UNKNOWN, but possibly YES
Was the person dying a performer?
YES
An audience member? A production staff? An outsider completely unrelated to the closed system of the events?
NO, NO and NO
-
did they go silent because the person died?
or did the person die because people went silent?
-
Oops, accidentally modified your post instead of quoting it :V
did they go silent because the person died?
UNKNOWN
or did the person die because people went silent?
NO, but that includes a wrong assumption on your part.
-
Was there more than a single person in the audience?
Was there a single performer?
Could you say that it was a large audience?
-
Were they performing a minute's silence for remembrance, or prayer?
Was the dying performer a vocalist?
Were they murdered?
-
Was there more than a single person in the audience?
YES
Was there a single performer?
NO
Could you say that it was a large audience?
IRRELEVANT, you may assume YES
Were they performing a minute's silence for remembrance, or prayer?
NO
Was the dying performer a vocalist?
NO
Were they murdered?
NO
-
Was the performer a magician? A hypnotist?
Was the death a result of the performance going wrong?
-
Was the performer a magician? A hypnotist?
NO and NO
Was the death a result of the performance going wrong?
YES
-
Was the cause of death from an instument?
Was the cause of death poison?
Was it intentional suicide?
-
Phew, it's been a while since I was here last.
[edit]Crap, this is a trivia answer, not a deduction answer. PM incoming.
-
Was the cause of death from an instument?
NO. But the mental image is amusing...
Was the cause of death poison?
NO
Was it intentional suicide?
NO
-
NO. But the mental image is amusing...
Well, there was that one Mythbusters episode with explosives and a trumpet...
-
Well, there was that one Mythbusters episode with explosives and a trumpet...
(o_0)
There wouldn't be a Youtube-link available for that, would there?
-
(o_0)
There wouldn't be a Youtube-link available for that, would there?
Make that "trombone", but here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9C6ipyy5WJs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9C6ipyy5WJs)
-
Was the performer playing a trombone?
-
Was the performer playing a trombone?
IRRELEVANT, but you may assume YES.
-
Was the dead performer was playing music?
Did it not matter what instument what the dead performer was using?
Was the cause of the silence what killed the performer?
Was there silence because the performer, who was playing music, died?
Was there a large sound produced before the silence? (Something like a gunshot?)
Did the performer rely on hearing sound to survive?
Was there anything wrong with the electric supply?
Was there a bomb?
-
Was the dead performer was playing music?
NO
Did it not matter what instument what the dead performer was using?
See above, wrong assumption.
Was the cause of the silence what killed the performer?
NO
Was there silence because the performer, who was playing music, died?
NO
Was there a large sound produced before the silence? (Something like a gunshot?)
NO
Did the performer rely on hearing sound to survive?
Kind of, YES
Was there anything wrong with the electric supply?
NO
Was there a bomb?
NO
-
Was the performance choreographed?
-
Was it a play?
Did the performer really died?
-
Was the performance choreographed?
I'd say YES
Was it a play?
NO
Did the performer really died?
YES
-
Was the performer blind?
-
The questioning seems to be going in the right direction, so I'll wait some more until dropping the first vague hint.
-
Was the performer blind?
UNKNOWN, according to my card, but I will make it a YES so that the riddle makes more sense.
-
Oh, well, I'll drop my first vague hint: some of you have seen the word "music" and immediately made some assumptions. Maybe you should reconsider those...
-
Live performance
Audience could see the performer
Intended silence but not part of the performance
Performer died
More than one person in the audience
The performance went wrong and caused the death
Performer required the use of hearing to survive
Choreographed performance
Performer really died
Assume performer was blind
Could the audience explicitly determine the cause of death?
Was the performer performing something that carried the risk of death?
Was the show one you expect to be part of a circus routine?
-
was the performer in a circus?
was it a magic show?
tightrope?
Trapeze?
was he blindfolded?
-
Could the audience explicitly determine the cause of death?
YES
Was the performer performing something that carried the risk of death?
YES
Was the show one you expect to be part of a circus routine?
YES
was the performer in a circus?
YES
was it a magic show?
NO
tightrope?
YES
Trapeze?
NO
was he blindfolded?
Could be, but I decided on blind, so NO
-
8)
did he die from falling?
-
did he die from falling?
Now how did you get that weird idea? :V YES
-
Was the music guiding the performer?
The Performer was walking the tightrope and could not see, they were using the music as an indication of where they should step somehow, but had missheard the music and fell, the musician had stoped the music when the person fell. there was no net.
Simmilar to above, except the person fell bcause the muscician stoped playing for whatever reason.
-
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.
The Performer was walking the tightrope and could not see, they were using the music as an indication of where they should step somehow, but had missheard the music and fell, the musician had stoped the music when the person fell. there was no net.
Simmilar to above, except the person fell bcause the muscician stoped playing for whatever reason.
YES to the second version.
The man who died was a tightrope artist in a circus.
Because he was blind, he worked together with a musician.
The musician would play during the performance and stop playing when the man had reached the end of the rope.
That way, he would know when to step off the rope.
That day, however, something in the audience distracted the musician and the stopped playing a bit too early.
The man thought it was the signal, stepped off the rope and fell to his death.
Next one will come in a bit.
-
Haaa~ Wow! I can't belive I really got it!
I feel super spescial awesome now!
-
Oh, hey, awesome!
-
I preferred if he was walking the tightrope blindfolded and juggling chainsaw nunchuks while on fire. He screwed up because he wasn't awesome enough and died. :V
-
I preferred if he was walking the tightrope blindfolded and juggling chainsaw nunchuks while on fire. He screwed up because he wasn't awesome enough and died. :V
Nope, we're not making a riddle based on MJP yet :V
Alright, how about we continue with another pretty classic one?
Eighteenth Case: Deadly Jump
A man traveled from A to B by train.
Twoo weeks later, he traveled back and jumped off the train in a tunnel.
-
Did he die?
Was it intentional suicide?
Did he rode in the same train for both journeys?
-
Had he left something important in the train on the previous visit, and when he failed to find it afterward resorted to suicide?
-
Did he die?
YES
Was it intentional suicide?
YES
Did he rode in the same train for both journeys?
IRRELEVANT
Had he left something important in the train on the previous visit, and when he failed to find it afterward resorted to suicide?
NO
-
Did he hallucinate?
-
Was he looking for a person on the train?
Did anyone else die?
Was the train the reason he killed himself?
-
Was he insane?
-
Are A and B towns?
Did something happen in B?
Did he suicide because of something that happened in the past?
Did he suicide because of happenings on the train?
-
Was the location where he jumped off important?
-
Did he hallucinate?
NO
Was he looking for a person on the train?
NO
Did anyone else die?
NO
Was the train the reason he killed himself?
NO
Was he insane?
NO
Are A and B towns?
YES
Did something happen in B?
YES
Did he suicide because of something that happened in the past?
NO
Did he suicide because of happenings on the train?
NO
Was the location where he jumped off important?
YES
-
Did he turn delusional after he heard about Xeno's paradox? :V
Did he think it was night as he entered the tunnel?
Did he kill himself because it was dark?
-
Did someone told him something that made him suicide in B?
Did he realise something in the train that made him want to die?
Was there a specific reason why he had to jump off a train in a tunnel?
If so, could he have jumped off a building instead?
Could he have jumped off outside the tunnel?
Did he want people to find his corpse?
Was there something in the tunnel he wanted?
Did he specifically jumped off in the tunnel because it's dark in there?
If yes, does this implies he could've jumped off anywhere that was permanently dark?
Was there something that meant very much to him in the tunnel?
-
Is the gap of 2 weeks important?
-
Did he turn delusional after he heard about Xeno's paradox? :V
N- Wait, what?
Did he think it was night as he entered the tunnel?
NO
Did he kill himself because it was dark?
YES
Did someone told him something that made him suicide in B?
Could possibly be seen as YES
Did he realise something in the train that made him want to die?
YES
Was there a specific reason why he had to jump off a train in a tunnel?
YES
If so, could he have jumped off a building instead?
Could he have jumped off outside the tunnel?
Did he want people to find his corpse?
Was there something in the tunnel he wanted?
NO, NO, NO and NO
Did he specifically jumped off in the tunnel because it's dark in there?
If yes, does this implies he could've jumped off anywhere that was permanently dark?
YES and YES
Was there something that meant very much to him in the tunnel?
NO
Is the gap of 2 weeks important?
YES for the gap, though the exact duration is IRRELEVANT
-
N- Wait, what?
Apologies, I can't spell. :V (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno's_paradoxes)
Anyway, did he have a crippling phobia of the dark which he received treatment for?
-
Anyway, did he have a crippling phobia of the dark which he received treatment for?
NO
-
Was the tunnel recently built?
-
Was the tunnel recently built?
IRRELEVANT
-
Did he recently receive warnings about the dark?
If he had been on a different route would it have changed anything?
(Are all the cases death of some kind?)
-
Did he recently receive warnings about the dark?
NO
If he had been on a different route would it have changed anything?
If there had been no tunnel, YES
(Are all the cases death of some kind?)
Almost all, YES. Because 'A man did X, then saw Y and then broke his arm' is just not as awesome as 'A man did X, then saw Y and then DIED A HORRIBLE DEATH :V
-
OH~!
I just remembered the answer to this one. So, shall I give hints at some point?
-
Did he realise something in the dark?
Did he thought he saw something in the dark?
-
Was the man blind or partially blind?
-
I just remembered the answer to this one. So, shall I give hints at some point?
Depending on the game-flow, YES :)
Did he realise something in the dark?
Well, kind of, yes.
Did he thought he saw something in the dark?
NO
Was the man blind or partially blind?
YES, but there's specifics to that.
-
The man went to B to perform a surgery for curing his night-blindness. On his way back, the train went into a tunnel and it was really dark. Realising that he still can't see in the dark, he concluded he has been scammed of all his money for the surgery and that he has not been cured. He suicided.
-
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.
The man went to B to perform a surgery for curing his night-blindness. On his way back, the train went into a tunnel and it was really dark. Realising that he still can't see in the dark, he concluded he has been scammed of all his money for the surgery and that he has not been cured. He suicided.
YES
The man had traveled to B for surgery on his eyes, because he was blind.
After the surgery he had to wear bandages over his eyes for a while.
On the way back to A he took off the bandages just as the train passed through a tunnel.
Convinced that he was still blind despite all promises, the man jumped out of the train.
Nice work, I honestly thought this one would take a little bit longer.
-
Oh, come on, that doesn't even make sense. Trains are lit up on the inside, even during daytime! :V
-
Oh, come on, that doesn't even make sense. Trains are lit up on the inside, even during daytime! :V
Don't ask me. And even if you assume that the part of the train he was in was completely dark, you normally can't open a train-window enough to jump out. So he would have had to walk to the doors, and it should be impossible to do that without passing any kind of light.
-
Don't ask me. And even if you assume that the part of the train he was in was completely dark, you normally can't open a train-window enough to jump out. So he would have had to walk to the doors, and it should be impossible to do that without passing any kind of light.
Aah, whatever, it was a good riddle nonetheless. I only nitpick because I love.
-
Hey, pointing out the logical errors in those riddles is almost as much fun as solving them :D
-
Ah oops. My answer is actually wrong because the concept of mine is the man was actually not cured and only realised it in the dark, while the real answer was that the man was actually cured but thought he wasn't in the dark.
So you could've given a NO and some hints.
Anyways, you've already revealed the true answer so whatever. :P
Mine would explain how he would still want to suicide even if he passed any kind of light though, but he wouldn't be so suicidal if it was just night-blindness. :/ Perhaps he was really poor and paying that surgery already got him bankrupt? :V
-
Hm, your version made more than enough sense and it had all the basic facts. Whether he was really still blind or whether he just thought so doesn't matter that much. To me, at least.
Maybe I wasn't just paying enough attention to your exact wording :V
-
yep, I knew this one. But I had to have my memory jogged by the questions :P. The blindness thing was basically what would crack it for people who didn't know it.
-
Okay, kept you all waiting long enough.
Well then, my dear players, here is the next riddle I shall present to you.
A quite hard one, if I may say so myself.
I'm curious how you will deal with it.
Nineteenth Case: Busy
A woman died because she phoned too long.
-
This is an odd one.
Was she killed by someone else?
Was she killed from negligence?
Was she ever really killed?
Is the wording important?
-
...Did she take too long when talking to a 911 operator while she was in danger?
-
Is something that happened in the past related to her death?
-
was she busy?
did she die because of what was said in the phone?
was she a normal person?
was there some kind of device on the phone?
was the death an accident?
-
Was she killed by someone else?
NO
Was she killed from negligence?
YES
Was she ever really killed?
YES
Is the wording important?
How? More specifics on that please, if you think it may be important.
...Did she take too long when talking to a 911 operator while she was in danger?
NO
Is something that happened in the past related to her death?
NO
was she busy?
*Looks at case name* YES
did she die because of what was said in the phone?
NO
was she a normal person?
I have yet to meet a normal woman :V YES
was there some kind of device on the phone?
NO
was the death an accident?
YES
-
Was she doing something else while talking on the phone?
Does that task require both hands?
-
Was the woman doing something during which making a phone call is hazardous?
Is the person she's talking to relevant?
-
The woman was driving with her mobile phone in one hand.
Traffic accident occurs.
Death.
I'd be surprised if it was that simple. :V
Was the phone a mobile phone?
Did she die from physical injury?
Was she on some kind of transportation?
-
Was she doing something else while talking on the phone?
YES
Does that task require both hands?
I'd say YES, but a lot of people seem to have perfected it with one or no hands at all...
Was the woman doing something during which making a phone call is hazardous?
YES
Is the person she's talking to relevant?
NO. Assume it was a friend.
The woman was driving with her mobile phone in one hand.
Traffic accident occurs.
Death.
Guess what :YES. But that's only part of it, there's a lot more to uncover.
Was the phone a mobile phone?
YES
Did she die from physical injury?
YES
Was she on some kind of transportation?
YES
-
Was the accident premeditated?
Was she driving a car?
Was there anyone else in the vehicle she was driving?
-
Did the accident happen in front of a traffic light?
Did the accident happen at a crossroad?
Did the accident happen due to the woman only driving with one hand?
Did she had to make a turn?
Did she crash into another vehicle?
-
Was the accident premeditated?
You mean to ask if she accidentally killed herself on purpose?
While I'm being silly, I'll add this: She had to make a call, but also had to get somewhere in an emergency. She didn't have a cellphone on her, so she thought she's go up to a payphone and grab it while driving.
-
Was the accident premeditated?
NO
Was she driving a car?
YES
Was there anyone else in the vehicle she was driving?
NO
Did the accident happen in front of a traffic light?
NO
Did the accident happen at a crossroad?
NO
Did the accident happen due to the woman only driving with one hand?
NO
Did she had to make a turn?
NO
Did she crash into another vehicle?
NO
You mean to ask if she accidentally killed herself on purpose?
N-...Wait, what? Accidentally on purpose? Paradox?
She had to make a call, but also had to get somewhere in an emergency. She didn't have a cellphone on her, so she thought she's go up to a payphone and grab it while driving.
NO How the hell would that even work to make a call? Wouldn't you rip off the payphones receiver?
-
NO How the hell would that even work to make a call? Wouldn't you rip off the payphones receiver?
ZA WARUDO!
That aside, can the whole death be considered murder?
The duration of the call was really long?
Was the longness caused by the other person?
-
That aside, can the whole death be considered murder?
NO
The duration of the call was really long?
It was TOO long, that's the important part. The actual duration is UNKNOWN
Was the longness caused by the other person?
IRRELEVANT
-
Was she stuck somewhere?
Did she use up the batteries of the phone?
Was she in a traffic jam?
-
Did she drive off a cliff?
Did She Drive into the Ocean?
Did She drive someone insane?
-
Was she stuck somewhere?
NO
Did she use up the batteries of the phone?
NO
Was she in a traffic jam?
NO
Did she drive off a cliff?
NO
Did She Drive into the Ocean?
NO
Did She drive someone insane?
IRRELEVANT She's a woman, so she might have :V
-
Was the cause of death due to the car crashing?
-
>If we figure out what to fill in the blank of "She used the phone so long that she _________", would it help us solve the case?
>She used the phone so long that she lost track of time?
>She used the phone so long that she didn't notice what's going on at the road?
>She used the phone so long that she couldn't speak well due to sore throat?
>She used the phone so long that she couldn't use her hands well because her hands were tired from holding the phone, lol?
>She used the phone so long that she died?
>She used the phone so long that she felt tired?
-
Was the cause of death due to the car crashing?
YES
>If we figure out what to fill in the blank of "She used the phone so long that she _________", would it help us solve the case?
YES. Actually, that _________ is probably the biggest part of the solution you're looking for. And let me tell you, there's a lot to go into that __________
>She used the phone so long that she lost track of time?
IRRELEVANT
>She used the phone so long that she didn't notice what's going on at the road?
NO
>She used the phone so long that she couldn't speak well due to sore throat?
NO
>She used the phone so long that she couldn't use her hands well because her hands were tired from holding the phone, lol?
NO
>She used the phone so long that she died?
Wasn't that the riddle itself? But NO if you wanna say she died from phoning alone.
>She used the phone so long that she felt tired?
NO
Oh my, I'm suprised. I know this one is not easy, but I'm missing a question that I would have expected right at the start. Please look at the case again closely and think, there's a hint there already.
-
>Does her death have anything to do with a busy signal?
-
>Does her death have anything to do with a busy signal?
YES. Well noticed, kitten.
-
>Well, I mean it was sorta obvious
I got nothing after that.
-
She had already crashed the car before she made the call. She was trying to send herself to hospital, but the line was busy so no-one sent an ambulance for her and she died.
-
What the hell. I was using > signs in this, this is a sign of playing too much Z-Machines here. ;-;
-
Did she drop the phone?
-
Did she drop the phone?
That's what I call a dropped call!
-
That's what I call a dropped call!
(http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/ab98/Twilight0402/88.jpg)
-
>Well, I mean it was sorta obvious
Not obvious enough it seems, since it wasn't asked before.
She had already crashed the car before she made the call. She was trying to send herself to hospital, but the line was busy so no-one sent an ambulance for her and she died.
NO
What the hell. I was using > signs in this, this is a sign of playing too much Z-Machines here. ;-;
YES
Did she drop the phone?
I suppose she might have when the accident occured, but as far as it's relevant to the case: NO
Pesco: I see you make good use of what I have provided :V
-
She was trying to get on line with another person?
-
She was trying to get on line with another person?
NO
-
Was she driving the car on a road?
Was her driving environment an open one?
-
Was she driving the car on a road?
YES
Was her driving environment an open one?
What would open be? If it means open fields, NO.
I think it's time for someone to try and summarize a bit. I think that will be neccessary for all of you to discover new clues.
-
Was there traffic around her?
-
Was there traffic around her?
IRRELEVANT
-
Did she crash into an immobile object?
Did she crash into another car?
-
Did she crash into an immobile object?
YES
Did she crash into another car?
That would have worked as well, but see above. NO.
-
She used the phone so long that the batteries exploded?
She used the phone so long that the radio signals interfered some other devices?
She used the phone so long that someone else was affected?
-
The woman was on a plane, she used her phone which interfered with vital radio signals. causing the plane to crash.
-
The woman was on a plane, she used her phone which interfered with vital radio signals. causing the plane to crash.
She's driving a car. :/ (http://www.shrinemaiden.org/forum/index.php?topic=4702.msg252039#msg252039)
Did she neglect something due to getting busy signals?
Did she neglect to make a phone call?
-
She's driving a car. :/ (http://www.shrinemaiden.org/forum/index.php?topic=4702.msg252039#msg252039)
Did she neglect something due to getting busy signals?
Did she neglect to make a phone call?
I'm just throwing stuff out there.
Was the car in some sort of autopilot?
Did the vehicle crash due to interference created by the phone call?
-
She used the phone so long that the batteries exploded?
NO
She used the phone so long that the radio signals interfered some other devices?
NO
She used the phone so long that someone else was affected?
Well..... you might say that, possibly YES
The woman was on a plane, she used her phone which interfered with vital radio signals. causing the plane to crash.
Erm...NO?
Did she neglect something due to getting busy signals?
NO
Did she neglect to make a phone call?
NO, she was phoning all the time.
Was the car in some sort of autopilot?
NO
Did the vehicle crash due to interference created by the phone call?
NO
Okay, I think it is time for me to push you all back into the right direction a bit.
Two things:
1) As you know because of UK's question, a busy signal was involved. That means someone could not reach someone else on the phone.
2) The woman was phoning, meaning she talked to someone.
-
was she panicking?
-
was she panicking?
NO At least not until the accident occured. She probably panicked at that moment just like any human would.
-
Was her driving direction/destination important?
Was who she spoke to important? In terms of the person's occupation.
-
Was her driving direction/destination important?
NO
Was who she spoke to important? In terms of the person's occupation.
NO. It was just a friend of hers.
-
Someone tried to call her but couldn't beacuse she was chatting on the phone?
The woman just had her car sent to be repaired. The technician told her the car's fixed and she can come get it. So the woman drove away when the techinician realised the brakes are not working or something. So he tried to call her to inform her to be careful but he kept getting a busy signal. The woman later died in a car accident when the car went out of control.
-
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.
The woman just had her car sent to be repaired. The technician told her the car's fixed and she can come get it. So the woman drove away when the techinician realised the brakes are not working or something. So he tried to call her to inform her to be careful but he kept getting a busy signal. The woman later died in a car accident when the car went out of control.
YES
The women had brought her car to a garage to have new tires installed.
After she had picked the car up again and driven away, the mechanic noticed he had forgotten to fasten some screws on the wheels.
He tried to call her immediately, but only got a busy signal because the woman was already talking to her friend on the phone.
When she took the first turn, she lost control over the car and crashed into a tree.
Oh my, now that was a suprise.
Well done, Sir Thaws.
I would have expected this case to still take a while, as it seems to have been quite hard, but now you have broken through the confusion in one step.
I am planning to put Black Stories on hold for a few days before the next case starts.
However, I will prepare something else for you, my dear players, of which I hope it will serve to make the game more fun once it starts again.
I still have to figure out some details, but expect an update tonight.
Please wait warmly and have a tea until then.
-
Your clue really helped to clear up the busy signal thing. :P
Once that was cleared up, there really isn't much possibilities of people capable of knowing the woman is going to crash and how, then tries to tell the woman. It's really either something's wrong with the car or the road.
My answer is yet again way off with the details, but that's to be expected as I kind of jumped to the conclusion. :V
-
Wow, didn't see that one coming.
Something to make the game more fun? This could be interesting.
-
Alright, my dear players.
Let me introduce you to the idea I have for the progression of this game.
Right now, I feel the game has lost a bit of its momentum. This was to be expected, seeing how we have been going through case after case without pause.
That is why I propose a little change of pace that shall give this game a new direction for a while.
But we already had the Special Round a while ago, and I'm not going to start another one just yet.
So what I am instead planning is the following:
I hereby declare the very first
~Create a Touhou Black Story Challenge~
That's right, my dear players.
No longer shall you only use your intellect and wits to solve what I present you.
No, I want you to use your skills to create new riddles and mysteries.
And it shall not be mysteries from the real world, like those we had before.
The riddles I want you to create shall come from a fantastic world behind the border, the world of Gensokyo.
So my idea is the following: To give our game a new twist and, in the best case, to let more people participate, I want us to play Touhou Black Stories.
Since those don't exist, you'll have to create them.
The rules are simple:
- Create a Black Story that has to do with Touhou in some way
- Once you've finished a story, send it to me via PM
- A Black Story consists of three things: A case name (not neccessary, but it would be nice), the riddle itself, and the solution that contains all the details that the players have to discover
- Since we're talking about Touhou, the logic rules are obviously softened. A lot. A whole lot. Oh hell, drop logic.
You may be as creative as you want with the case, but try to keep it solvable
- Solvable also means that your case should not use details that are very obscure and only known to a smaller number of people. Try to keep in mind, for example, that some characters are more widely known than others (Orange anyone?)
- If you're unsure about something, either use the cases in this thread as reference or ask here in the thread or via PM
-And most important is of course: Have fun creating riddles :D
Once the challenge ends, we will play the riddles you have created here in this thread. You can decide if you want to be the gamemaster when your riddle is played.
The riddles I find the most creative will be played first and their creator shall be praised on high, that is the only kind of prize I can offer for now.
I have not yet decided for how long I will let the challenge run, for now the deadline is the end of this week, Sunday Midnight.
Now then, have at it, I'm waiting for what you will suprise me with :)
-
"Cough"
Ehhhhhh......I'll get right on it.
We all will.
-
Every riddle has at least a single death, and crossing death over to touhou can be pretty hard.
-
Every riddle has at least a single death, and crossing death over to touhou can be pretty hard.
Crossover it with silliness.
-
Every riddle has at least a single death, and crossing death over to touhou can be pretty hard.
It's not neccessary if you don't want to. There are riddles without death.
EDIT: Oh, and btw, multiple entries are encouraged and accepted. The more we get the more fun it will be.
-
Alright, my dear players,
with some slight delay, it is now time to continue our game.
I have received five different riddles, plus one I made up myself,
and I plan to play all of those with you now.
As for the person who deserves the most Congratulations for their entries, that would be Sir Thaws,
who alone provided three of the five riddles that were sent to me.
For that reason, and because they are very well thought out, one of Sir Thaws' riddles shall be the first to be played.
For everyone's information, I will still accept new Touhou riddles, Black Stories or other interesting riddles for this thread at any time.
If any of you has a spark of inspiration, then write it down and send it to me, everything is welcome.
But now, let us begin with our first Touhou Black Story.
Let the curtain rise on the scene of the events.
Twentieth Case: Down to the bottom of Misty Lake!
A girl was flying over the Misty Lake.
She suddenly dove straight down into the lake at high speed.
-
Was Cirno involved?
Was Lily white involved?
Did the girl have some sort of goal in mind?
Did she dive down to the lake to investigate something?
-
Hurrah! Mine get to be played first. :D
So uh, do I get to help you answer questions as well or I just sit back and watch? :P
-
So uh, do I get to help you answer questions as well or I just sit back and watch? :P
Decide for yourself. If you want, I'll leave all the answering to you, which is probably the best choice. Before you've made your decision, I won't answer anything.
-
Was there something in the lake other than water and air?
-
Was Cirno involved?
NO
Was Lily white involved?
NO
Did the girl have some sort of goal in mind?
YES
Did she dive down to the lake to investigate something?
NO
Was there something in the lake other than water and air?
YES
Well, I have no problem with answering questions, I've always wanted to try. :)
But due to timezone differences there's probably going to be quite a number of questions piled up while I'm sleeping so if anyone's having problem with me answering too slowly, they can ask Sakana to answer while I'm offline, if Sakana is okay with this.
-
Did the girl experience something in the past that lead her to the lake?
Is a resident of SDM involved?
Is a resident of Eientei involved?
-
Did the girl experience something in the past that lead her to the lake?
NO
Is a resident of SDM involved?
NO
Is a resident of Eientei involved?
NO
-
Well, I have no problem with answering questions, I've always wanted to try. :)
But due to timezone differences there's probably going to be quite a number of questions piled up while I'm sleeping so if anyone's having problem with me answering too slowly, they can ask Sakana to answer while I'm offline, if Sakana is okay with this.
Got that. Not as if my time-zone was that muh better than yours anyway :V
I'll jump in if too much stuff piles up.
-
Did the girl notice another person at the lake?
Is Kogasa involved?
-
Did the diving girl do so intentionally?
Did anyone die?
-
Did the girl notice another person at the lake?
YES
Is Kogasa involved?
NO
Did the diving girl do so intentionally?
YES
Did anyone die?
NO.
-
Was there something in the lake the diving girl wanted to get?
If yes, was that item not available anywhere else?
-
Was there something in the lake the diving girl wanted to get?
YES
If yes, was that item not available anywhere else?
YES
-
Is it something you normally find in a lake?
Is it a lifeless object?
-
Was the girl a shrine maiden?
-
Is it something you normally find in a lake?
NO
Is it a lifeless object?
YES
Was the girl a shrine maiden?
NO
-
Was the girl Nazrin?
-
Was the girl Nazrin?
NO
-
Is the girl a random fairy or youkai?
-
Is the girl a random fairy or youkai?
Well there's two ways this can be interpreted:
-a non YES/NO question: Which of the two category does the girl belong to. So I won't answer this; Instead I'll answer it separately.
-Is the girl a random fairy? NO
Is the girl a youkai? YES
-
If my question would reveal to much you could cut it down or ignore it, but please tell me if i'm going to far.
> Is the girl from the Windows Touhous or the original Touhous?
> Is the girl Chen?
> Is the girl an animal-related youkai? This means youkai such as Chen, Ran, Utsuho and Orin.
-
Hey guys, did everyone suddenly forget about the YES/NO questions only rule?
> Is the girl from the Windows Touhous?
YES
> Is the girl from the original Touhous?
NO. You mean PC-98 by that, right?
> Is the girl Chen?
NO
> Is the girl an animal-related youkai? This means youkai such as Chen, Ran, Utsuho and Orin.
YES
If my question would reveal to much you could cut it down or ignore it, but please tell me if i'm going to far.
What do you mean reveal too much? The goal of this game is for you to reveal the mystery of the case with the questions. Just ask questions answerable with YES or NO and it'd be okay.
-
Is the
boy girl Wriggle?
Are there more than two people involved?
-
Is the boy girl Wriggle?
NO
Are there more than two people involved?
NO. From what I understand from the way you worded it, you mean to ask that there are at least 3 people involved, right?
-
> Is the animal youkai from Eientei/The place Kaguya lives at?
> Is the youkai Ran?
> Is the animal youkai from the Palace of Earth Spirits/Where Satori lives?
When I said original Touhous, I did indeed mean the PC-98 ones, I just forgot that it was called PC-98
-
Is the item of great importance to her?
Is the item commonly found in the lake?
-
Aya was flying around for a newsworthy article. She dived into the lake for a 'scoop'.
-
> Is the animal youkai from Eientei/The place Kaguya lives at?
NO
> Is the youkai Ran?
NO
> Is the animal youkai from the Palace of Earth Spirits/Where Satori lives?
NO
Is the item of great importance to her?
YES
Is the item commonly found in the lake?
NO
Aya was flying around for a newsworthy article. She dived into the lake for a 'scoop'.
NO
-
Does the item have any relation to the type of animal youkai she is?
-
Is the Girl Momiji?
-
Does the item have any relation to the type of animal youkai she is?
Hmm.....do you mean that she wants the item because she is a certain type of animal youkai? In that case I think I'll answer NO.
Is the Girl Momiji?
NO. Heh, almost every animal youkai has been eliminated from being involved.
Also, I'd like to clarify my definition of "being involved". I'd count someone being involved in this case if she is directly involved with the girl diving, including the diving girl herself of course, causing her to dive, done things that eventually lead her to dive, etc. Any others mentioned in the detailed answer are just cameo/me trying to explain things more thoroughly.
-
Is the girl Nue?
Was she looking for the item in the lake beforehand?
Did she knew the item was in the lake?
-
Is the girl Tokiko?
-
Did she come to the lake with the intention of finding the item?
Are the other people in this scenario related to the item at all?
-
Is the girl Nue?
NO. I never really thought of Nue as an animal youkai though. Just realised that when you asked. :P
Was she looking for the item in the lake beforehand?
Assuming by beforehand, you mean before heading to the lake, NO.
Did she knew the item was in the lake?
YES
Is the girl Tokiko?
NO. The girl is not that obscure...
Did she come to the lake with the intention of finding the item?
NO
Are the other people in this scenario related to the item at all?
NO
-
Is the girl Mystia?
Are frogs involved?
Is the item of great value on its own?
-
Is the girl Mystia?
NO. I believes this leaves only three animal youkai left from Windows Touhou?
Are frogs involved?
NO
Is the item of great value on its own?
UNKNOWN, probably IRRELEVANT as well
-
Someone with an item important to them and is an animal youkai...
Was the girl Shou?
-
Is the second girl at the lake important to the case?
Is the girl Tewi?
Is the girl Yamame?
Is the item inside the lake?
-
Was the girl Shou?
YES. Yay!
Is the second girl at the lake important to the case?
YES. Now we have to do "Is she ____?" round 2. :ohdear:
Is the girl Tewi?
NO. I was thinking of Keine when I said there's 3 youkais left, though she's arguably only half a youkai or something.
Is the girl Yamame?
NO
Is the item inside the lake?
YES
-
Is the other Girl Nazrin?
Did Shou lose her Pagoda?
-
Is the second girl involved also an animal youkai?
(geh, beaten to asking about the pagoda... oh well)
-
Is the other Girl Nazrin?
NO
Did Shou lose her Pagoda?
YES
Is the second girl involved also an animal youkai?
NO, but I encourage this kind of questions, asking one by one would take forever.
You can still figure out some clues before discovering the identity of the second girl, so you don't have to concentrate all questions on that yet.
-
Did the second girl attack Shou?
Was the second girl after the pagoda?
Was the second girl Marisa?
-
Did the second girl attack Shou?
YES
Was the second girl after the pagoda?
NO
Was the second girl Marisa?
NO
-
Was the second girl Kogasa?
If so...
Shou was flying over the Misty Lake when Kogasa came by to scare her and succeeded. Shou wound up dropping her pagoda and flew down to get it.
Edit: D'oh. Thanks, Prody. ...I'll leave this anyway as a testamount to my idiocy. :V
-
Shou was flying over the Misty Lake when Kogasa came by to scare her and succeeded. Shou wound up dropping her pagoda and flew down to get it.
I'm pretty sure I asked whether Kogasa was involved already.
I asked whether "X was involved" to cover for both people but I forgot to maintain that pattern. Woops.
Anyway, is the second girl related to the item?
Did the second girl notice the item?
Is the item the Pagoda?
-
Was the second girl Kogasa?
NO
Shou was flying over the Misty Lake when Kogasa came by to scare her and succeeded. Shou wound up dropping her pagoda and flew down to get it.
NO, but "dropping her pagoda and flew down to get it." is correct.
Anyway, is the second girl related to the item?
NO
Did the second girl notice the item?
IRRELEVANT
Is the item the Pagoda?
YES
-
Was the other girl a playable character in the Windows shooters?
-
Was the other girl a playable character in the Windows shooters?
NO
-
Did she drop the Pagoda by accident?
Did she drop the Pagoda due to the second girl attacking?
-
Did she drop the Pagoda by accident?
NO
Edit : It should be YES, sorry...
Did she drop the Pagoda due to the second girl attacking?
YES
-
Just a suggestion: Reveal identities of all girls of the remaining riddles to reduce "Is this girl X?" questions.
-
Is the second girl Lily White?
-
Just a suggestion: Reveal identities of all girls of the remaining riddles to reduce "Is this girl X?" questions.
NO. This will not be done, simply because revealing the participants of the events is part of solving a riddle. There is a logic behind the events, and the characters fall into it.
What would the very first riddle in this game have been like if I had told you "The man is a lighthouse guard"? It's the same thing. ;)
-
Is the second girl a fairy?
Is the second girl a youkai?
Is the second girl a human?
Is the second girl frequently found at the lake?
-
Is the second girl Lily White?
NO
Is the second girl a fairy?
NO
Is the second girl a youkai?
YES
Is the second girl a human?
NO
Is the second girl frequently found at the lake?
UNKNOWN, but she was there when Shou was for sure.
As Sakana said, there is some kind of logic behind the events even if it's Gensokyo. So besides going "Is she ____?" again, you can also try figuring out what happened to Shou too. So I won't be just getting "Is she ____?" questions only until a random guess got it right, that'd be a lot more boring, wouldn't it? :) I'm not saying you can't ask them though, I just hope there'd be a bit more variety. :P
By the way, am I going to declare the case solved or is Sakana doing that?
-
By the way, am I going to declare the case solved or is Sakana doing that?
You should do it, since you know best how many details you want before it's solved. You can also post your original explanation then. After that, I'll take over to announce the next riddle.
-
Sorry about that. I asked all those "Is she" questions to pin down exactly what type of girl we're looking for.
So far, from what I understand, the second girl is a non animal youkai who happened to be at the lake and caused Shou to drop her pagoda. Anyway...
Was the second girl aiming for the Pagoda?
-
Was the second girl aiming for the Pagoda?
Already been answered NO.
Sorry about that. I asked all those "Is she" questions to pin down exactly what type of girl we're looking for.
It's alright, as I said, it's not like you can't ask them, but as you see from my last post, five out of five questions was "Is she ____?", which is why I'm hoping for more questions on Shou. Though I have to admit it'd be much easier to solve the case if the second girl's identity is found...
-
Is the girl one of the bosses you meet within the first 5 floors of Touhou Labyrinth? (Reimu, Marisa, Remi, Sakuya, Patchy, Meiling, Minoriko, Cirno, Alice, Youmu, Yuugi, Rumia)
Does the second girl wear a hat? Ribbons do not count.
Does the second girl have a named weapon?
-
Oh, that's some nice ways of narrowing down choices. Good job, Pesco ^^
-
Is the girl one of the bosses you meet within the first 5 floors of Touhou Labyrinth? (Reimu, Marisa, Remi, Sakuya, Patchy, Meiling, Minoriko, Cirno, Alice, Youmu, Yuugi, Rumia)
YES
Does the second girl wear a hat? Ribbons do not count.
NO.
Does the second girl have a named weapon?
NO
Whoa, nice question.
I think I overreacted a little, maybe it's the thought that most of these riddles are probably solved when all the characters are recognized that makes me hope for less "Is she___?" stuff. Just forget what I said before. :P Sorry about that.
-
Well, this narrows down the second character to Rumia, Yuugi, Youmu, and Alice... well, Youmu I believe isn't considered a youkai, but I do not know for sure.
But I'll only ask for one.
EDIT: Better wording!
Is the second girl Rumia?
-
Is the second girl Rumia?
YES. :D
-
Okay then! We can get to what happened.
Did Shou provoke Rumia?
-
Did Shou provoke Rumia?
NO
-
I'm probably wrong, but I'll take a guess at it anyway. :V
Shou was flying over Misty lake when Rumia came out of nowhere and attacked her. Shou was so startled by the attack that she dropped her pagoda into the lake. She then dove down into the lake to recover it.
-
Yeah, but why was she startled? She's used to fighting after all. Try to explain that next.
-
I'm probably wrong, but I'll take a guess at it anyway. :V
NOt really wrong, it's just lacking details.
Shou was flying over Misty lake when Rumia came out of nowhere and attacked her. Shou was so startled by the attack that. She dropped her pagoda into the lake. She then dove down into the lake to recover it.
YES after some slight corrections. Not enough details discovered for the case to be declared solved yet.
-
Hmm...
Did Rumia surprise Shou?
-
Did Rumia surprise Shou?
YES
-
Was it Rumia's attack that startled Shou?
If not, was it something else about Rumia that startled Shou?
-
Was it Rumia's attack that startled Shou?
YES
If not, was it something else about Rumia that startled Shou?
I know there's a if not there, but I think it's a YES for this one as well.
-
...Was Rumia in her EX form? (probably NO, but just have to ask)
-
Was Rumia hungry?
Is that so? :V
-
...Was Rumia in her EX form? (probably NO, but just have to ask)
NO, I don't believe in the existence of the EX form. :smug:
Was Rumia hungry?
YES
Is that so? :V
YES, this phrase does appear in the explanation. :V
-
Did Rumia Ambush Shou?
-
Did Rumia Ambush Shou?
NO. It was more like Shou didn't see Rumia coming.
Note: Changed response to "Was Rumia hungry?" to YES.
-
Is the reason why Shou was flying over the lake relevant to the case?
And is Rumia encased in her black ball of darkness the reason why Shou was startled?
-
Is the reason why Shou was flying over the lake relevant to the case?
NO
And is Rumia encased in her black ball of darkness the reason why Shou was startled?
YES
-
Did Rumia say "Is that so?" in response to something Shou said?
-
Did Rumia say "Is that so?" in response to something Shou said?
NO, it's irrelevant to solving the case actually.
-
Did this all occur in the night?
-
Did this all occur in the night?
NO
-
Well, that knocks down one theory. I think there's enough evidence to have the explanation but... I feel as if it still may be lacking details. If my constant stream of questions get annoying I can stop and let other people post if you want.
Did Shou notice Rumia in her black orb when she was in a close distance?
-
Was Shou disturbed to find that her pagoda didn't let her see through Rumia's orb of darkness?
-
Did Shou notice Rumia in her black orb when she was in a close distance?
YES, Shou didn't notice Rumia until she's pretty close.
Wait, you mean to ask if she notice Rumia herself inside the black orb, or notice the black orb with Rumia in it?
Was Shou disturbed to find that her pagoda didn't let her see through Rumia's orb of darkness?
NO
-
As in see the black orb itself.
Did Rumia come out of her black orb when she attacked Shou?
Was the point that Rumia was inside the black orb specifically what surprised Shou?
-
As in see the black orb itself.
Then the answer is still YES.
Did Rumia come out of her black orb when she attacked Shou?
NO
Was the point that Rumia was inside the black orb specifically what surprised Shou?
NO
-
If my constant stream of questions get annoying I can stop and let other people post if you want.
What are you talking about? You're playing the game as it is meant to be, so keep at it as long as you have ideas. :)
-
Did Rumia try to eat Shou?
-
Did Rumia try to eat Shou?
YES
-
Hm... I'm gonna take a guess at what happened:
Shou was flying over the lake, holding her Pagoda, when Rumia showed up and tried to eat Shou. Not noticing Rumia until she was close, Shou was rather surprised and dropped her Pagoda out of sheer surprise and fear. She then dove into the lake below to get the Pagoda back
<Sakana> Changed that to aqua for readability ^^
-
Shou didn't see Rumia coming to bite her, causing the surprise that made her drop the pagoda.
I'm sure the details have all been found but we haven't put it all together yet.
Cut: better said like that.
-
Yeah, I'm pretty sure we have all the details, unless there's just something else out there about her being startled.
But yeah, if not, then I think we have the theory down.
-
Shou was flying over the lake, holding her Pagoda, when Rumia showed up and tried to eat Shou. Not noticing Rumia until she was close, Shou was rather surprised and dropped her Pagoda out of sheer surprise and fear. She then dove into the lake below to get the Pagoda back
YES, except the underlined sentence. She did not drop it out of sheer surprise.
-
Rumia bit Shou's hand?
Please make a new topic for the next riddle.
-
I'll give a little hint: Try to think from Shou's perspective.
Please make a new topic for the next riddle.
Will be done. Yay for Black Stories Part II (^_^)/
-
Did Shou try to defend herself by reasoning with Rumia?
Did Rumia say anything other than that she was hungry and 'Is that so?'?
-
Did Shou attempt to defend herself against Rumia's attack?
If so, was that attempt the reason why she dropped her Pagoda?
-
Rumia bit Shou's hand?
NO
Did Shou try to defend herself by reasoning with Rumia?
NO
Did Rumia say anything other than that she was hungry and 'Is that so?'?
WRONG ASSUMPTION, she never said she was hungry verbally. Anyways, she only said 'Is that so?'.
Did Shou attempt to defend herself against Rumia's attack?
YES
If so, was that attempt the reason why she dropped her Pagoda?
YES
-
Did she drop her Pagoda to free her hand to fire bullets back at Rumia?
Did she swing her Pagoda at Rumia, lost grip of it, and then dropped it?
Did she throw her Pagoda?
-
Did she drop her Pagoda to free her hand to fire bullets back at Rumia?
NO
Did she swing her Pagoda at Rumia, lost grip of it, and then dropped it?
NO
Did she throw her Pagoda?
NO
As Sakana said, it'd help if you try to imagine what would you have done if you were the one flying over Misty Lake, holding the Pagoda, then...
-
Did she try to shield herself from Rumia with her pagoda?
If not, did Shou use the pagoda in any way to defend herself?
-
Did she try to shield herself from Rumia with her pagoda?
NO
If not, did Shou use the pagoda in any way to defend herself?
YES
Try summarizing facts, there's an important fact that has been discovered already but is not being considered.
-
Modifying on the previous theory a little:
Shou was flying over the lake, then Rumia attacked her due to the light of the Pagoda. To prevent further conflict, she dropped it. She then dove into the lake below to get the Pagoda back.
-
Shou was flying over the lake, then Rumia attacked her due to the light of the Pagoda. To prevent further conflict, she dropped it. She then dove into the lake below to get the Pagoda back.
NO. Nice theory though.
-
Did Shou willingly drop the pagoda?
-
Did Shou willingly drop the pagoda?
NO
-
Did she drop the Pagoda by accident?
NO
Contradicts dropping the pagoda willingly.
-
Contradicts dropping the pagoda willingly.
I'm really sorry for the misleading...
I don't know if anyone would still be interested in this after my misleading clue that was not corrected for a few days, but just to make things clear, the whole thing was:
Shou did something in response to Rumia's attack, that action directly caused her to drop the Pagoda. She did not want the Pagoda to drop.
-
Oh don't worry. Makes things more clearer for me and sparks my interests up even more! Aside from that it's clear the main issue we're missing here is the action Shou took to defend herself against Rumia's attack that caused her pagoda to fall without her wanting it to do so as the final detail.
Did her attempt of defense require her to have her hand freed?
-
Did her attempt of defense require her to have her hand freed?
NO. Shou thought she could perform the action without dropping the pagoda.
-
Unlikely, but did Shou try to activate the pagoda's powers?
Did Shou declare a spell?
-
I'll repeat my hint from before, since it seems this one is really hard: Take Shou's perspective. How did the whole situation appear to her? What did she see?
(Sorry if that's too strong of a hint Thaws, but it seems our poor players are slowly getting confused, for good reasons.)
-
Did Rumia's darkness somehow have a very important role in all of this?
-
I'll take over for a moment:
Unlikely, but did Shou try to activate the pagoda's powers?
No
Did Shou declare a spell?
No. And that's the point. Keep at it.
Did Rumia's darkness somehow have a very important role in all of this?
YES
-
... Was Shou going to declare a spell?
-
... Was Shou going to declare a spell?
NO
-
Did Rumia render all Shou could see in darkness?
-
Did Rumia render all Shou could see in darkness?
NO. You had the following facts before: It was not night, so assume bright daylight. Rumia was in her ball of darkness.
-
And she didn't see the ball of darkness until she came near it.
Was Shou trying to use the light coming from the Pagoda?
-
Yes it was daylight but Rumia could have expanded her ball to cover Shou. Shou would think an eclipse happened.
-
And she didn't see the ball of darkness until she came near it.
There is so much truth in those words, but probably in another way than you think. Try to work your way from this quote.
Was Shou trying to use the light coming from the Pagoda?
YES. It appears in the solution. Don't try to read too much into it though.
Yes it was daylight but Rumia could have expanded her ball to cover Shou. Shou would think an eclipse happened.
Whether she expanded the ball or not is IRRELEVANT to the case.
-
:/ Once more:
Shou was flying over the lake, holding her Pagoda, and wandered into Rumia's black orb unknowingly. Shou realised it was dark and used the light from the pagoda to light the darkness. The light agitated Rumia and caused her to bite Shou on her arm that was holding the Pagoda, causing her to drop it. She then dove into the lake below to get the Pagoda back.
-
Shou was flying over the lake, holding her Pagoda, and wandered into Rumia's black orb unknowingly. Shou realised it was dark and used the light from the pagoda to light the darkness. The light agitated Rumia and caused her to bite Shou on her arm that was holding the Pagoda, causing her to drop it. She then dove into the lake below to get the Pagoda back.
NO. Here's another hint: Try thinking why the underlined statement is unlikely to happen.
Remember Sakana's hint: "Take Shou's perspective. How did the whole situation appear to her? What did she see?"
-
Was Shou going toward Rumia intentionally?
-
Was Shou going toward Rumia intentionally?
WRONG ASSUMPTION. Shou never went towards Rumia. Rumia was the one that went towards Shou, but that is not the only reason why Shou would not wander into Rumia's black orb. Perhaps I should not have underlined "unknowingly", that was not the point.
-
Shou was flying over the lake, holding her Pagoda. Nearby, Rumia was heading towards Shou with intention to attack her. Shou did not notice the ball of darkness until it was really close. When Shou noticed her, she used the light from the pagoda to light the darkness. The light agitated Rumia and caused her to bite Shou on her arm that was holding the Pagoda, causing her to drop it. She then dove into the lake below to get the Pagoda back.
-
If the above theory is not correct, did Rumia bite Shou?
EDIT: Typos, thou art annoying.
-
Shou was flying over the lake, holding her Pagoda. Nearby, Rumia was heading towards Shou with intention to attack her. Shou did not notice the ball of darkness until it was really close. When Shou noticed her, she used the light from the pagoda to light the darkness. The light agitated Rumia and caused her to bite Shou on her arm that was holding the Pagoda, causing her to drop it. She then dove into the lake below to get the Pagoda back.
NO. Underlined statements are wrong.
did Rumia bite Shou?
NO. It wouldn't be possible for Rumia to locate Shou that precisely that she can bite her. In fact, Rumia can't see in her ball of darkness so she only attempted to bump into Shou then attack, most probably by biting. However, whether she succeeded or not is irrelevant to the case.
-
Shou was flying over the lake, holding her Pagoda. Nearby, Rumia was heading towards Shou with intention to attack her. Shou did not notice the ball of darkness. Rumia did not know the exact position of the target and attacked the source of light: The Pagoda. This attack caused Shou to drop her Pagoda. She then dove into the lake below to get the Pagoda back.
-
Shou was flying over the lake, holding her Pagoda. Nearby, Rumia was heading towards Shou with intention to attack her. Shou did not notice the ball of darkness. Rumia did not know the exact position of the target and attacked the source of light: The Pagoda. This attack caused Shou to drop her Pagoda. She then dove into the lake below to get the Pagoda back.
NO. It's been answered before (http://www.shrinemaiden.org/forum/index.php?topic=4702.msg267514#msg267514) that the reason Shou dropped her pagoda was due to an attempt to defend herself.
-
What we have to figure out if we wish to solve this is what said attempt of defense is and why Shou did not notice Rumia until she was close.
Did any of the attacks strike Shou?
Did she attempt to dodge the attacks?
-
What we have to figure out if we wish to solve this is what said attempt of defense is?
YES
and why Shou did not notice Rumia until she was close.
NO. She simply did not notice, that's all.
Did any of the attacks strike Shou?
NO
Did she attempt to dodge the attacks?
NO, she opted to defend against it, and that's what caused her to drop the pagoda as said before. This is what's left to be discovered.
In case 4, Sakana also mentioned that we should take the girl's perspective. In that case, we knew she have not eaten iguana meat before but she thought she did. As a result, we couldn't figure the case out for a long time.
Now this is similar, we knew something, but Shou did not.
-
Well, this is going to sound quite odd, but...
Does the fact that we know that Shou does not involve something about her pagoda?
Does the fact involve Rumia?
-
Does the fact that we know that Shou does not involve something about her pagoda?
NO
Does the fact involve Rumia?
Very YES
-
Did the method of defense involve her Pagoda?
Did the method of defense involve words?
Did the method of defense involve disabling Rumia?
Shou did not know Rumia was in the black orb at all and was startled at that fact.
-
Ah, we're getting closer to the truth.
Did the method of defense involve her Pagoda?
NO. Only in that she dropped it involuntarily, as has been discovered already.
Did the method of defense involve words?
NO
Did the method of defense involve disabling Rumia?
NO
Shou did not know Rumia was in the black orb at all and was startled at that fact.
YES for the first part
-
Speculative shot:
Does Shou even know who or what Rumia is?
-
Does Shou even know who or what Rumia is?
NO, this leads to a very important inference.
-
Did Rumia ever showed her face at all?
If so, was this after Shou's act of defense?
Or was it before?
Did the act of defense involve shielding herself?
-
Did Rumia ever showed her face at all?
IRRELEVANT
If so, was this after Shou's act of defense?
See above, if she did, it would only have been afterwards
Or was it before?
See above
Did the act of defense involve shielding herself?
YES
-
Shou was flying over the lake, holding her Pagoda. Nearby, Rumia was heading towards Shou with intention to attack her. Shou did not notice the ball of darkness. With the fact that Shou did not know Rumia was in the ball of darkness at all, she was caught off guard when Rumia attacked her. She managed to defend herself in time by shielding herself with her arm holding the Pagoda. Rumia bumped into the arm, causing Shou to drop the Pagoda. She then dove into the lake below to get the Pagoda back.
...I feel pretty clueless ?_?
-
I'll wait for Thaws to decide if this counts as solved or if he wants something more, but this is pretty much the answer, YES
-
Shou was flying over the lake, holding her Pagoda. Nearby, Rumia was heading towards Shou with intention to attack her. Shou did not notice the ball of darkness. With the fact that Shou did not know Rumia was in the ball of darkness at all, she was caught off guard when Rumia attacked her. She managed to defend herself in time by shielding herself with her arm holding the Pagoda. Rumia bumped into the arm, causing Shou to drop the Pagoda. She then dove into the lake below to get the Pagoda back.
YES for the some parts. NO for the underlined.
My main concern here is that Shou did not exactly shield herself from Rumia bumping into her, and that the significant role of Rumia's darkness ability has not been discovered. I'll declare this case solved if either one of this is discovered. Is this alright?
-
From the facts I've gathered, what I conclude is that Shou somehow made an act of defense which does not involve physically shielding herself or dodging. Is that right?
For the darkness, did it overpower the light from the pagoda or did the pagoda's light overpower the darkness?
-
It seems I've got you thinking in the wrong direction.
From the facts I've gathered, what I conclude is that Shou somehow made an act of defense which does not involve physically shielding herself or dodging. Is that right?
NO, she wanted to shield herself from something physical, but if it wasn't Rumia herself, what can it be?
For the darkness, did it overpower the light from the pagoda or did the pagoda's light overpower the darkness?
UNKNOWN, althought it's stated that she tried to use the pagoda, she never did because she had already dropped it by then, most likely while entering the darkness or not long before entering the darkness.
-
I'm sorry if this was already asked but, was their anyone else involved in this Case besides Shou and Rumia, a 3rd person/youkai/whatever?
if Yes, did this 3rd person do something that Shou would try to block?
-
I'm sorry if this was already asked but, was their anyone else involved in this Case besides Shou and Rumia, a 3rd person/youkai/whatever?
if Yes, did this 3rd person do something that Shou would try to block?
No more than 2 people were involved.
NO, she wanted to shield herself from something physical, but if it wasn't Rumia herself, what can it be?
Unless it was a projectile of some sort, I can't think of any other thing that could be physical. Therefore, she could have only done the act of defense against Rumia, right?
Was this method of defense simple blocking? (I know I am repeating myself but I am pretty lost on this side of the case.)
UNKNOWN, althought it's stated that she tried to use the pagoda, she never did because she had already dropped it by then, most likely while entering the darkness or not long before entering the darkness.
Shou was flying over the lake, holding her Pagoda. Nearby, Rumia, who was in a ball of darkness was heading towards Shou with intention to attack her. Shou noticed it was getting pretty dark so she tried to use her Pagoda to light the area. Rumia attacked her just as soon as she was about to. This attack startled Shou, causing her to defend herself and in the process drop the Pagoda. She then dove into the lake below to get the Pagoda back.
-
I'm sorry if this was already asked but, was their anyone else involved in this Case besides Shou and Rumia, a 3rd person/youkai/whatever?
NO
Unless it was a projectile of some sort, I can't think of any other thing that could be physical. Therefore, she could have only done the act of defense against Rumia, right?
NO, Shou did not shield herself against Rumia herself.
Was this method of defense simple blocking? (I know I am repeating myself but I am pretty lost on this side of the case.)
YES, she dropped the pagoda while she tried to block something. As I said, once that "something" to be blocked is discovered, this case is solved.
Shou was flying over the lake, holding her Pagoda. Nearby, Rumia, who was in a ball of darkness was heading towards Shou with intention to attack her. Shou noticed it was getting pretty dark so she tried to use her Pagoda to light the area. Rumia attacked her just as soon as she was about to. This attack startled Shou, causing her to defend herself and in the process drop the Pagoda. She then dove into the lake below to get the Pagoda back.
NO. Assume the pagoda's light would not penetrate Rumia's darkness. The pagoda's light has nothing to do with the case. Also, assume it was really bright in the afternoon.
You're really close to the truth. What did the situation looked like to Shou? Why would Rumia's ability have a significant role in all of this? Shou wanted to block something physical, but what really was the thing that she's shielding from?
-
Did Shou not know the darkness was being emitted by Rumia?
Did Shou block a bullet thrown by Rumia?
Did Shou block some type of item thrown by Rumia?
Did she even know Rumia was there at all?
-
Did Shou not know the darkness was being emitted by Rumia?
WRONG ASSUMPTION, in fact, there's two wrong assumptions, one is that Shou did not know Rumia was even there. Now, figure out what the other assumption was. :)
Did Shou block a bullet thrown by Rumia?
NO
Did Shou block some type of item thrown by Rumia?
NO
Did she even know Rumia was there at all?
NO
-
Shou did not even notice the darkness at all?
So she was shielding herself from what she thought was an attack but was really Rumia's orb of darkness?
-
Tipofthetonguewealmosthavetheanswer >:( >:( >:( >:(
Only locking this once it's solved.
Brief summary
Working off that Shou doesn't know Rumia at all, she sees a ball of black coming at her while she's minding her own business. Shou thinks it's a harmless physical attack so she blocks it with her arm.
Did Shou see a threat?
Did Shou see an unnatural object?
-
Did Rumia throw projectiles at Shou of some sort?
-
Shou did not even notice the darkness at all?
NO
So she was shielding herself from what she thought was an attack but was really Rumia's orb of darkness?
YES :D Good job.
Did Shou see a threat?
YES
Did Shou see an unnatural object?
Well, you already know what she saw. It's magical so I guess it's not unnatural, so NO.oh wow, did I said not unnatural o_o. I mean it's probably unnatural since it's caused by magic, so YES.
Did Rumia throw projectiles at Shou of some sort?
NO
-
NO, she wanted to shield herself from something physical, but if it wasn't Rumia herself, what can it be?
Ah, I thought her darkness can't be considered physical... it was the first thing that came into my mind.
The pagoda's light has nothing to do with the case.
I also felt quite confused when reading this since Sakana mentioned that this appears in the answer.
Anyway...
Shou was flying over the lake, holding her Pagoda. Nearby, Rumia was heading towards Shou with intention to attack her. Shou did not notice the ball of darkness until it was close. When she noticed the orb, the attempted to defend against by shielding herself with her arm which was holding the Pagoda. Shou did not know Rumia was in the ball of darkness at all, she was caught off guard when Rumia directly attacked her. This attack startled Shou and caused Shou to drop her Pagoda. She then dove into the lake below to get the Pagoda back.
:X
-
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.
Shou was flying over the lake, holding her Pagoda. Nearby, Rumia was heading towards Shou with intention to attack her. Shou did not notice the ball of darkness until it was close. When she noticed the orb, the attempted to defend against by shielding herself with her arm which was holding the Pagoda. Shou did not know Rumia was in the ball of darkness at all, she was caught off guard when Rumia directly attacked her. This attack startled Shou and caused Shou to drop her Pagoda. She then dove into the lake below to get the Pagoda back.
YES
The Byakuren crew has already settled into Gensokyo. So, Byakuren decided to start getting to know other large parties in Gensokyo.
She asked Shou to head towards the Scarlet Devil Mansion and have a chat with the occupants there. Shou brought her spear and pagoda just in case there was going to be danmaku battles.
She was flying over the Misty Lake when she heard a voice from below, right behind her : "IS THAT SO~". She turned her head to look for the source of the voice, instead, she saw a huge, black sphere heading towards her at high speed! If you had a volleyball shot towards you, you'd block it without much thought, right? And that's exactly what Shou did. Since Shou has never seen Rumia before, she had thought Rumia to be some kind of huge cannonball. She sure was surprised when her palms went right into the sphere like there was nothing.
She quickly realise it was just a sphere of darkness, so she tried to light things up with the light from her pagoda, but it wasn't in her hand! You see, when a person tries to block something, she opens her hands and push against it, right? But Shou was holding her spear and pagoda, and the items fell straight through the sphere with no one and no friction to hold onto them!
The pagoda was a extremely valuable treasure, so Shou dove straight into lake in search of her treasures.
And this concludes the first Touhou Black Story.
The details in your answer are a bit-off, but all main points are discovered.
I've had fun being the gamemaster, though the process did not went that smooth, I hope you all enjoyed this riddle I made.
-
Good game! Never again assume all the Touhous know each other ::)
Get your post game comments in before I lock. New topic for the new riddle, which is mine :D
-
Oh, nice job.
I admit that one was a bit mean, but it was totally reasonable and solvable. Thaws did a really good job creating this, and watching you guys dance around the answer was fun :D
Never again assume all the Touhous know each other
That was definitely the best part and also part of the reason why I liked this riddle the most.
Also Thaws: You did well as gamemaster, really. You made extra comments when neccessary and gave correct answers. If you still think you made mistakes somewhere, well you'll have two more tries to do it even better soon, seeing as there are still two of your riddles left. ;)
A very nice finish for the first Black Stories thread, I must say.
See you all in the next thread, my dear players.