|
Post by Optimism is my Phil-osophy on Aug 28, 2020 8:40:11 GMT -5
But the movie nonetheless reached theaters? Yes, despite everything. Yes, just that. Yes, this would have affected the published message if Sebald had not taken energetic measures to deal with the problem. Yes, the error has been corrected. No, he was not. The person who spoke the wrong word had not known about VFD. No, he was not.
|
|
|
Post by Dante on Aug 28, 2020 8:58:33 GMT -5
(I think roxy222's question was implicitly answered earlier in the thread, but even so, it should take precedence over this one.) Was the arsonist obliged to destroy the set because their error had been corrected? That is, if the error had not been corrected, would it have been unnecessary to set the fire?
|
|
|
Post by Optimism is my Phil-osophy on Aug 28, 2020 9:15:52 GMT -5
(I think roxy222's question was implicitly answered earlier in the thread, but even so, it should take precedence over this one.) Was the arsonist obliged to destroy the set because their error had been corrected? That is, if the error had not been corrected, would it have been unnecessary to set the fire? No. If the error had been tolerated, the person who spoke the wrong word would not have wanted to set the set on fire. Or if the person who spoke the wrong word had humbly agreed to correct the word, he wouldn't have wanted to set the set on fire either.
|
|
|
Post by Dante on Aug 28, 2020 11:02:36 GMT -5
The arsonist made the error; the error caused the fire; the error was corrected; if the error had not been corrected, the fire would not have been set; if the arsonist had willingly corrected themselves, the fire would not have been set - is that all correct? Therefore, the deliberate error was corrected against the will of the speaker? Was the speaker, in both changing their lines and subsequently burning down the set, motivated by pride? (Again, roxy222 has a question outstanding, bottom of the previous page.) Was the person who spoke the wrong word female?
|
|
|
Post by Optimism is my Phil-osophy on Aug 28, 2020 14:11:36 GMT -5
Was the person who spoke the wrong word female? No, the person who spoke the wrong word is a man.
|
|
|
Post by Optimism is my Phil-osophy on Aug 28, 2020 14:20:10 GMT -5
The arsonist made the error; the error caused the fire; the error was corrected; if the error had not been corrected, the fire would not have been set; if the arsonist had willingly corrected themselves, the fire would not have been set - is that all correct? Yes, you are right yes, it was. Yes, he was
|
|
|
Post by Dante on Aug 29, 2020 2:57:31 GMT -5
At this point, then, it seems to me that we need to consider what exactly a winning answer looks like.
The Case So Far
On the set of Gustav Sebald's Werewolves in the Rain, a curious event occurred. One of the actors, in delivering a major soliloquy, altered the words of the script to suit his tastes; however, Gustav Sebald, in recognising that this would distort an intended coded message in the film, refused to accept the change and ensured that it was corrected. The actor in question was no volunteer and neither understood nor accepted that he had been overruled; and so, his pride wounded, he resolved on preventing the movie from ever reaching theaters. A week later, the errant actor chose a moment when nobody should have been present on set, and torched the entire structure. Unfortunately, one of the volunteer actors, a young man in his werewolf costume, happened to be at the set at the time; and perished in the blaze, leaving a most unusual corpse behind.
This is the truth of this case - is it not?
|
|
|
Post by Optimism is my Phil-osophy on Aug 29, 2020 3:59:03 GMT -5
I can say that you have come extremely close to the truth. I will publish the final result, as I think we will not go any further.
|
|
|
Post by Optimism is my Phil-osophy on Aug 29, 2020 4:02:14 GMT -5
At this point, then, it seems to me that we need to consider what exactly a winning answer looks like. The Case So FarOn the set of Gustav Sebald's Werewolves in the Rain, a curious event occurred. One of the actors, in delivering a major soliloquy, altered the words of the script to suit his tastes; however, Gustav Sebald, in recognising that this would distort an intended coded message in the film, refused to accept the change and ensured that it was corrected. The actor in question was no volunteer and neither understood nor accepted that he had been overruled; and so, his pride wounded, he resolved on preventing the movie from ever reaching theaters. A week later, the errant actor chose a moment when nobody should have been present on set, and torched the entire structure. Unfortunately, one of the volunteer actors, a young man in his werewolf costume, happened to be at the set at the time; and perished in the blaze, leaving a most unusual corpse behind. This is the truth of this case - is it not? The outcome of the case is below.
|
|
|
Post by Optimism is my Phil-osophy on Aug 29, 2020 4:11:06 GMT -5
What did you think of the case and the development? gothicarchiesfan will be the next master in the next round of that game.
|
|
|
Post by twigz on Aug 29, 2020 8:02:44 GMT -5
confusing but cool
|
|
|
Post by Dante on Aug 29, 2020 8:31:02 GMT -5
A quaint story with a curious route to solving it. It's quite difficult to nail down absolute specifics, and there are certain kinds of answer which people may not ask questions about - see the way we never quite cleared up why the victim was there at that precise time, and what was going on with the rain/sprinklers (I would have assumed that rain effects would have if anything doubled as sprinklers) - but I feel like there's a sort of mid-range of detail at which this format can really excel. It will be interesting to attempt a second case.
|
|
|
Post by Optimism is my Phil-osophy on Aug 29, 2020 8:59:16 GMT -5
A quaint story with a curious route to solving it. It's quite difficult to nail down absolute specifics, and there are certain kinds of answer which people may not ask questions about - see the way we never quite cleared up why the victim was there at that precise time, and what was going on with the rain/sprinklers (I would have assumed that rain effects would have if anything doubled as sprinklers) - but I feel like there's a sort of mid-range of detail at which this format can really excel. It will be interesting to attempt a second case. Did you like the card? Did you like that I included you two in the story? Did it look like something Noir?
|
|
|
Post by R. on Aug 29, 2020 9:23:48 GMT -5
I absolutely loved the card, but I’m not sure if I would be a VFD member, and if so, which side of the schism I’d be on.
|
|
|
Post by Dante on Aug 29, 2020 10:36:50 GMT -5
I did like your card, and your incorporation of the lead investigators, Jean Lucio - but it is a fair argument to say that, who knows where we would fall in V.F.D.'s hierarchy? Well, for the purposes of this game, I think it's fair enough to say that we are detectives appointed to investigate.
|
|