[LP CYOA] 傳

She doesn't have good herbalism, scholarly knowledge or artistic knowledge. Her pressure point skill is also reduced thanks to her current condition.

 

It's already been established that C is our only chance of solving the investigation. (It's written right in the description of the C vote.) If we investigate Fu Xia (the suspected mole and most likely candidate for having ambushed Xiaofang and Du Yao), we can actually solve the case. Otherwise, you're basically calling it a day. The B vote means Youxia City gets fucked royally, our manual investigation lead ends here, and we lose Yunzi in the chaos. The A vote means we let him die in exchange for a peaceful transition of Youxia City.

Kz3r0, could you flop back to C now that we know that a successful persuasion means Tang and the Bandit Kingdom go to war?

Esquilax, care to flop to C?

If you don't like voting A, why not vote C? Worst case scenario Fu Xia gets pinned as an innocent (but a lower-profile constable than Jiang Zheng) and we save Jiang Zheng and reduce the blow to Tang's reputation. Best case scenario we solve the whole investigation.

Kashmir Slippers, care to make a ranked preference vote or switch to C so that we can actually solve the case peacefully? A will hand them Jiang Zheng, but C will turn over Fu Xia.



GreyViper, Azira, archaen, a bear named spigot, Grimgravy, Bloodshifter, Rex Feral, Fangshi, the situation right now is that A will allow a peaceful transition of power; B if it succeeds will basically lead Youxia City into a war because the garrison commander will take Jiang Zheng with him and ignore the other 2 and trial by extension, so he'd do it by force (costing us Yunzi in the chaos, our lead on the martial arts manual here, and basically failing at our job as investigator, but at least Jiang Zheng would live); C is the only chance to solve the investigation (you'd have to reread the posts from the Duck Testimony to see our suspicions in detail); quick summary of suspicious facts below though). With C we stand to succeed at the investigation, save Jiang Zheng, and avoid the chaos of war with Bandit Kingdom (including losing Yunzi and any chances of investigating the manual).

Remember, Fu Xia has no alibi (he left us sometime before the end of xu, shortly after Jiang Zheng in fact, and we all met up in the later half of the hai hour, so Fu Xia was missing during every single crime) during all of this and he could've been at all the crimescenes so far and packs a constable sword which is the weapon that injured Du Yao, plus we have these reasons specifically to fingerpoint Fu Xia over Jiang Zheng:

1. Xiaofang knew the assailant. That makes a coworker the most likely suspect for Xiaofang's attack though. And the only coworker that could be placed there is Fu Xia.
2. Hanbing Needles technique was used with the same poison at both attacks. This means there is a high likelihood it was the same culprit in both cases, which following the last point would mean Fu Xia also attacked Du Yao.
3. We have evidence of the culprit escaping over the wall during the mansion investigation, which Jiang Zheng certainly didn't do.

Aside from that, the fact that we know Fu Xia has been a two-faced person (“Don’t worry,” says Fu. “He tends to operate on his own… he’s something like a loan from the eunuch department.” Something about the look in his eyes tells you that he is not too fond of Xiaofang despite the friendly way they were talking to each other before dinner.) makes him a likely candidate for the mole, which would in turn connect him back to this assassination that was done to protect the manual. Plus he was trying to put us on the trail to the Jinkong framejob (why would an assassin run in wearing Jinkong clothes?). So here we have an extremely dodgy person who could very well have been at every single crime scene (The Xiaofang attack points very strongly to Fu Xia.) with evidence that would fit him while he has zero alibi for what he was up to during those hours.

Fu Xia is literally the only suspect who matches all the details.

I'm voting C, care to join me in this vote?

 

While I disagree with a lot of Absinthe's hyperbole and really biased argumentation (i.e. "he's definitely involved", "we'll lose Yunzi in the chaos", you can't be certain about these things), he makes some excellent points about how Fu Xia could have plausibly been involved. If he is a spy, then his whole shtick is to act a fool and put everybody's guard down so that he can get to work. But let's forget Fu Xia for a second - let's consider what sort of skills that a spy would have and what they would have done up till now.

First, a leak from within the constabulary is a safe bet as to why the constables initially guarding the Jiuyang Divine Manual were killed. There could have been other ways that the manual was discovered, but this seems most likely. Then we have evidence that the mysterious man-in-black who attacked Xiaofang and those who killed the constables guarding the manual both used Jinkong Sect techniques. Strangely, we also had an all-too-obvious trail towards the Jinkong Sect that felt like a red herring, which Fu Xia encouraged us to look into. Then you have evidence that Du Yao's killer also used Hanbing Needles on both Xiaofang and Du Yao, confirming the man-in-black was certainly the same guy, given the way the timelines sync up.

Xiaofang disappeared, along with Fu Xia, but strangely enough, got into an argument with the mysterious assassin:

I find this sort of strange. It seems to me that Xiaofang was at a rendezvous point, being that she encountered the killer at the exact time that they left. Furthermore, the fact that they argued seemed to imply that they knew each other. The killer, likely not wanting anyone to connect him to the crime, attempted to kill the eunuch with the Hanbing Needle technique, which Xiaofang managed to survive.

Based on this, I think that we have to put the pressure on Fu Xia. I'm flopping.

C

 

Well, not so sure a bet and not the only choice that will lead to it:

I basically boils down to this: if you believe Fu Xia is 100% guilty (which I don't), then C is the answer.
If you believe the perp is someone else, not Fu Xia and would like to give the Constables an open opportunity to investigate the case more (something that becomes difficult after A, C and D. If the case is closed, then why investigate it more), then B is right up your alley. That's it.

Oh, and A for "fuck this shit."

 

C is still a better bet than A for resolving the case peacefully, as C can quite possibly actually solve the case, and Fu Xia is still more expendable then Jiang Zheng even if he really does happen to be innocent.

The reason I suspect B will lose us Yunzi is because Yunzi is avoiding us and if B succeeds, shit's going to go down starting from the trial. Since Yunzi isn't with us yet, I figure we still need some more time for her emotions to settle down, but with B we won't have that kind of time. Gears start moving and we need to leave. That's my rationale for why I think B will probably lose us Yunzi for the time being.

I forgot about this, but Xiaofang was attacked with some Jinkong Sect techniques and - according to Fu Xia - Du Yao was ambushed by a man wearing Jinkong Sect colors, supposedly Xi Mukang (except Xi Mukang was knocked out by Song Lingshu at the restaurant brawl at the time, so it couldn't've been him). That makes another point to suspect it was the same framejob agent at both locations (also the agent who confronted Xiaofang was dressed in plain black this time according to the beggar, not Jinkong Sect colors).

Also, it wasn't just the same Hanbing Needles technique. It was also the same poison according to Cao'er.

 

Voting C

I wanted more proof but I think its clear that we need to take Fu Xia in, anymore and he might bolt or kill someone. Shun's aunt suspects Fu Xia or Xiaofang, and I can't see it being Xiaofang unless BOTH Fu Xia and Xiaofang have the ice needle tech or Xiaofang stabbed himself in some weird gambit to cause the war.
I can't see Gao Ying provoking said war either, and Xiaofang is one of Gao Ying's OGs.

Then there's the Child Elder, who could've been a suspect but is depowered (aparently) and wants to essentially hang out Jing because he's her best chance to find that manual and restore herself. The fact she doesn't remember but knows she was depowered by somebody who knew the manual's techniques only makes it worse.

Who's the most likely mole, and therefore one who touched the manual? Fu Xia or somebody over him.
We go to investigate the manual and, surprise surprise, one of our leads is killed and the chief framed.

 

How did Yunzi became a part of the argument here? I don't see why B or any other choice means we have to leave her or she us, but even if it does, ffs we need to stop thinking with our dick and concentrate on the task at hand. The whole argument between B and C rests on whether we have anything on Fu Xia or not. And I do agree with Nevill's assessment on the last page that we don't have anything beyond finding the guy suspicious. And I too value Constabulary and our Imperial ties far more that this place or the bandits. They want to press an issue when they are outnumbered 4 to 1 and we are here as well? Good luck to them, they'll fucking need it.

 

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.

I still might flop back to B, but the point is, things aren't as black-and-white as you're describing.

Flopping back to B for now. This is a tough choice.

 

Actually, this is a pretty valid lead. Whoever did this didn't learn these techniques in Wudang, you know? Even though the sect might not be responsible for this, it is a safe bet that they are/were involved in it somehow, same how Yuhua Hall turned out to be connected to Chanfeng. Maybe we should have investigated it.

But I guess it's too late for that.

You don't understand. In a choice you don't like Zheng dies, Armaiti dies, Yunzi dies, Shun dies, and if you are exceptionally not fond of it, Jing dies, too. That's how we roll.

 

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

 

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).

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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!

 

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

 

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:

 

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."

 

Stop wasting time guys, the duck did it.

 

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?

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.

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

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.

 

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.

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:

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.

 

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:

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:

And is this guy full of awesome or what?

 

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:

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

 

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?

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.

 

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:

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

Yep. My bad.