[LP CYOA] 傳

[Azira]

Well, yeah, why not? He's not one of the harem. I'm cool with a bit of "moderate physical pressure" to see what Fu Xia knows.

C

 

[Absinthe]

Zero Credibility, eh, I gave my rationale for why the Yunzi point in my last post above. Also, civil unrest is a thing and you're just counting Bandit Kingdom forces and not Youxia City's own fighters (who would likely join the Bandit Kingdom in this conflict).

To be fair, of your three points, only 1 could point to Fu Xia. We know that Jiang Zheng isn't the killer anyways, so that's got nothing to do with Fu Xia. Also, his dislike of eunuchs is hardly incriminating - nobody seems to like eunuchs. If our personal experiences are anything to go by, they're mostly a bunch of cunts. Really, the possibility does remain that he's just an idiot who is a terrible detective. If that's the case, we've thrown an innocent man under the bus, which is exactly what you were hoping to avoid anyways.

Er, what I was pointing out there is that we have evidence that Jiang Zheng could not have committed but Fu Xia was capable of. The first one pins Fu Xia to Xiaofang, the 2nd points out that the same person who did in Xiaofang did in Du Yao (so following the first one, it pins Fu Xia to Du Yao), the 3rd one just points out evidence that Jiang Zheng couldn't've done it while Fu Xia would have done this if he killed Du Yao. We all know we're lacking hard evidence (or the case would've already been solved), but the signs right now say "Fu Xia could've done all of this" and paint a highly plausible narrative. Xiaofang is the sticking point that singles out Fu Xia in particular.

Also, seriously, Fu Xia's lack of alibi is extremely suspicious. Just what was he doing during the whole time that we lost track of him while the crime happened? If he really was brawling with those monks for one or two hours he should've come back with more than just some light cuts and bruises.

 

[skaraher]

Voting C. We came here for a reason, and just dropping everything and leaving won't achieve anything. Better to sacrifice a low ranking constable rather than let the boss die and incriminate the Empire.

 

[Nevill]

To be fair, of your three points, only 1 could point to Fu Xia. We know that Jiang Zheng isn't the killer anyways, so that's got nothing to do with Fu Xia.

Do you know of the Hempel's Ravens paradox? It stems from the logical equivalency of these two statements:

(1) “All ravens are black.”
(2) “Everything that isn’t black, isn’t a raven.”

Logically, every evidence that supports (1) should also support (2) and vice versa. So if we look at a green apple, for instance, this makes the 2nd hypothesis more viable, as the apple is not black and it is not a raven, and therefore it positively affects the chances of the 1st hypothesis to be true.

Even though common sense suggests that making a statement about the color of a raven by looking at an apple is absurd.

So I guess that's how the facts that Zheng, Jing, Lady Suien and zhang manxing aren't killers support the hypothesis of Fu Xia being one.

 

[Absinthe]

Your argument is called the "red herring fallacy" as you are addressing an issue that does not exist in this discussion.

 

[Azira]

He's a witch! He turned me into a newt! Yes he did!

...

I got better..

Weigh him! If he weighs the same as a duck, he's a witch! Everyone knows witches float, and ducks do too!

It's irrefutable!

 

[Baltika9]

Well, this is `7th century, so that might actually work.

 

[treave]

Yeah, that should be a superpower in the Superhero CYOA thing. Logic manipulation powers, where by dodgy reasoning and fast talking the guy does things like turning people into ducks and causing bullets to disappear.

Relevant quote:

`I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, `for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'
`But,' says Man, `The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.'
`Oh dear,' says God, `I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly disappears in a puff of logic.
`Oh, that was easy,' says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.

 

[Absinthe]

Oh good, so we can be like the Nameless One.

EDIT: Dammit, Nevill has me reading Hempel's Raven now. There's a problem in Hempel's Paradox. Proving (2) exhaustively (by accounting for all things which are not black and counting no ravens among them) only proves that non-black non-ravens do not exist. It does not prove that black ravens do exist. Even if we establish non-black non-ravens do not exist, we still need to establish that ravens do exist (here we need to find only a single raven that exists) to conclude that all ravens are black.

It's a damn roundabout way of proving something, but every so often proofs have to work by disproving everything other than the possible scenario.

Actually this breaks up Hempel's Paradox as we can mess with the logical equivalence by examining "ravens do not exist." If we prove "ravens do not exist" then we simultaneously prove (2) "all things that are not black are not ravens" and fail to prove (1) "all ravens are black."

 

[ERYFKRAD]

Stop wasting time guys, the duck did it.

 

[Nevill]

Then we can conclude that all ravens are black, so long as we know ravens exist, ravens have a color, and everything that is not black is not a raven.

Ok, let's assume we have a priori knowledge that ravens exist (which is unnecessary for any statement about all ravens to be true) and that they have a color.

You still have the fact that an observation of a green apple supports the theory of all ravens being black. That's fine by you?

It's a damn roundabout way of proving something, but every so often proofs have to work by disproving everything other than the possible scenario.

Ok, but then you have to admit that an observation of a green apple also equally supports the theories of all ravens being yellow or blue. So the statement seem to confirm the theories that are mutually exclusive with each other. Reason that one out.

Stop wasting time guys, the duck did it.

I blame Xuezi for eating the witness before we could obtain its testimony.

Edit:

Actually this breaks up Hempel's Paradox as we can disprove logical equivalence by examining "ravens do not exist." If we prove "ravens do not exist" then we simultaneously prove (2) "all things that are not black are not ravens" and disprove (1) "all ravens are black."

Nope, (1) stays true. If ravens do not exist, any statement that concerns all of them is true. It is a case of a vacuous truth.

 

[Absinthe]

Ok, let's assume we have a priori knowledge that ravens exist and they have a color.

You still have the fact that an observation of a green apple supports the theory of all ravens being black. That's fine by you?

Yes. You prove that ravens are black by searching for non-black ravens and finding none. You can either do this by checking the set of "everything that is a raven" and searching for a non-black or you can check the set of "everything that is not black" and search for a raven. Either way, by failing to find any non-black ravens (and assuming a priori knowledge that ravens exist) we find that ravens must be black, because they can't be anything else.

Ok, but then you have to admit that an observation of a green apple also equally supports the theories of all ravens being yellow or blue. So the statement seem to confirm the theories that are mutually exclusive with each other. Reason that one out.

There's nothing to reason out. You're correct. A green apple would also support the theory that all ravens are blue or yellow.

The problem is that the support is inconclusive until everything is accounted for. Finding a black raven doesn't conclusively prove all ravens are black either. But a black raven is a greater support that all ravens are black; this is because there are fewer ravens than there are non-black things.

EDIT:

Nope, (1) stays true. If ravens do not exist, any statement that concerns all of them is true. It is a case of a vacuous truth.

Vacuous truths are inconclusive. Yes, you can say "All ravens are black" but I can also say that "all ravens are blue" for this empty set because we are no longer looking inside the set of "things that exist" which we were when analyzing (2). Restricting ourselves to "things that exist," when "ravens do not exist," we can say there "all things that are not black are not ravens" and we can also say "there are no black ravens" (but I'm not sure if that helps us describe the empty set of ravens).

Well, vacuous truths can be used for inductive reasoning, but when we deal in proofs, we're using deductive reasoning, so vacuous truths don't exactly help.

 

[a cut of domestic sheep prime]

Overthought arguments about logical fallacy from the same guy who is voting not to question the dude he agreed was probably a traitor in our midst in favor of trying to convince someone to commit career suicide in admitting he couldn't catch the criminal like he was supposed to:

“Perhaps the city simply is too insecure, allowing the assassin to escape,” says the garrison commander. “But I can see the appeal of obtaining a confession, in the absence of any other possible suspect.”

He doesn't care who gets the blame for this, so long as it's not him and he will be blamed if he can't produce a convincing scapegoat. B would be a tough sell even if we had 9 CHARISMA instead of our measly 7 with a speech skill of 6 (which are probably about the same stats as your average highschool debate team captain...if not less).
Since I can't be bothered to read through page after page of this crap, can someone tell me if ANYONE has come up with a convincing argument for this guy to say, "I'm gonna to let my only suspect go even though this city full of criminals will probably string me up by my balls for failing at my job, kill me, and then hang my rotting corpse on the outskirts of town as a warning to all travellers that morons will not be tolerated in Youxia City."? Because that's the goal in B and that's why the only vote that's not batshit retarded is still C.


edit:

Pang Xiaohu offers no insight, sharpening his axes in boredom.

And is this guy full of awesome or what?

 

[Baltika9]

treave, I have two questions: how exactly is Jing planning to persuade the garrison's commander in B, what is his plan; and given how badly we broke Yunzi this time:

“What?” Yunzi shoots up, slamming her palms on the table in surprise and attracting some looks from the nearby tables. Her fake beard almost drops off, and as she frantically readjusts it, you gesture at her to be more quiet and to sit down. Her expression continually changes as she tries to get to grips with the situation. “I… is he really… You’re lying, aren’t you?”

“We need proof, Holy Maiden. Let me contact Vahista at the Temple,” whispers Armaiti.

Without saying another word, you show Yunzi and Armaiti the ember – the small spark that the Flame had left within you. That finally convinces them.

Yunzi takes a deep breath, a vacant look in her eyes. “If that is the case, then… but… what if…” mumbles the girl unintelligibly, “…that means you are… and I have to… with you…” Life returns to her gaze, and together with it a very obvious blush as blood rushes to her head, the realization of her current circumstances striking home. “Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha.” Letting out an awkward laugh, Yunzi stands up rigidly, knocking over a few dishes as she does so. “T-t-t-this is a bad joke, isn’t it?”

“Wait-“ Armaiti reaches out, but Yunzi has already run out of the restaurant, screaming. Turning to you, she gives you a quick, apologetic bow before going after her mistress.

You guess she won’t be helping you out after all; it looks like that revelation was too shocking and important for her to focus on any investigations at the moment.

Are we going to get ambushed, tied up and whipped before getting raped by her in the near future?

 

[Nevill]

Overthought arguments about logical fallacy from the same guy who is voting not to question the dude he agreed was probably a traitor in our midst in favor of trying to convince someone to commit career suicide in admitting he couldn't catch the criminal like he was supposed to:

I am sorry, I was not aware that capturing criminals is the responsibility of military commanders. I thought he was here to ensure Pang Xiaohu does not attempt anything.

If they escaped, it is not his fault. So why all this talk about blame?

B would be a tough sell even if we had 9 CHARISMA instead of our measly 7 with a speech skill of 6 (which are probably about the same stats as your average highschool debate team captain...if not less).

We get this argument every time there is a tough task at hand. 'Oh, we can't get in the BDS. If only we had Kagemi'. 'Oh, but even with Kagemi we only have sneak at 7. If only we had 9, we could have tried to infiltrate the Fire Temple'.

We always are just 2 points shy of being able to achieve success, and that always means that we are in for a terrible failure.

This is beginning to get old.

 

[a cut of domestic sheep prime]

Stats are stats and 7 and 6 aren't spectacular. No matter how some people might want it, this is an a treave LP, not a LARP and stats do matter. We're talking about one hell of an argument. Baltika has the right idea about asking treave what on earth Jing will come up with.

He's the garrison commander. He is responsible for the security of the city. If:

“Perhaps the city simply is too insecure, allowing the assassin to escape,”

Then it's his fault. Hence why he wants to torture a confession out of him.

Yep. My bad.

 

[Nevill]

He's the garrison commander. He is responsible for the security of the city.

No he is not. The city is not run by him. He is accusing Du Yao's staff with that very sentence. He is replying to him:

“Perhaps a confession is in order,” continues the lieutenant.

“Perhaps the city simply is too insecure, allowing the assassin to escape,” says the garrison commander.

- Maybe we should torture him?
- Maybe you should have done your job!

I am really struggling to interpret it in any other way.

 

[Absinthe]

'Oh, but even with Kagemi we only have sneak at 7. If only we had 9, we could have tried to infiltrate the Fire Temple'.

We always are just 2 points shy of being able to achieve success, and that always means that we are in for a terrible failure.

This is beginning to get old.

Uh, we did fail at sneaking into the fire temple. Ahura spotted us and tried to murder us, remember?

 

[treave]

Two main approaches to be implemented in B:

First approach is the existence of evidence that points to Jiang not being the killer that casts doubt on his guilt. Things like Du Yao's manner of death, the apparent existence of this person in black at the crime scene and that Jiang currently has no motive for Du's death.

Second approach is the political part, where he points out Jiang's rank and importance as the head of what is the practically the Emperor's personal investigators, and whether or not it is safe to convict a man of his stature if the evidence is not concrete.

And the garrison commander doesn't garrison the city, but a nearby base meant more to keep an eye on the city and the bandits.

 

[Baltika9]

Baltika has the right idea about asking treave what on earth Jing will come up with.

And here I thought you were brofisting me for the Yunzi BDSM rape. Which actually sounds kinda hot.

And yeah, Youxia is technically independent from the Empire and the Bandit Kingdom, these parties are here for their own interests. the Commander is here with three thousand men at his beck and call and Jing can take care of Little Tiger.

 

[a cut of domestic sheep prime]

Baltika has the right idea about asking treave what on earth Jing will come up with.

And here I thought you were brofisting me for the Yunzi BDSM rape. Which actually sounds kinda hot.

No.





Well, maybe....

 

[Absinthe]

But if the commander gives the finger to both Youxia City and the Bandit Kingdom by doing this (assuming we even convince him to do all this shit) then we can assume that Youxia City will join the Bandit Kingdom which means there's more than just Pang Xiaohu's dudes for the garrison to worry about.

 

[Baltika9]

Still three thousand disciplined soldiers with Jing backing them up. Against a city of disorganized rabble and Little Tigerbro's bandits.

 

[Nevill]

Uh, we did fail at sneaking into the fire temple. Ahura spotted us and tried to murder us, remember?

Still a success. People were arguing that Vairya will murder us and throw us out - and that is not exactly what happened.

Failing a check does not necessarily mean that rocks will fall and everyone will die. There are quite a few partial successes throughout the LP.

But if the commander gives the finger to both Youxia City and the Bandit Kingdom by doing this (assuming we even convince him to do all this shit) then we can assume that Youxia City will join the Bandit Kingdom which means there's more than just Pang Xiaohu's dudes for the garrison to worry about.

Youxia City will do their best to stay out of this. They are not big enough of a faction to stand up to either of them.

Whether they would be able to stay independent for long is another question.

 

[Baltika9]

Uh, we did fail at sneaking into the fire temple. Ahura spotted us and tried to murder us, remember?

Still a success. People were arguing that Vairya will murder us and throw us out - and that is not exactly what happened.

Failing a check does not necessarily mean that rocks will fall and everyone will die. There are quite a few of partial successes throughout the LP.

Watch: B will result in some ridiculous megabluff by Jing, who ends up usurping all three thousand soldiers from the Commander and leading them to a glorious victory against Youxia and eventually the whole Bandit Kingdom, carving out a new realm for the Cult.
Oh, and +1 SPEECH!