第零章
Here is a poisoned apple, and a less poisoned apple.
Now, to avoid starving to death, which one would you choose?
——————————————————————————————
【Important Notes】
The author is not a professional.
The author is not a native English speaker.
The author does not guarantee every plot detail is accurate.
Due to the author's writing style, no matter what is discussed, it may come across as cold.
This is a personal simulation archive. If the reader disagrees, the reader is welcome to write their own articles.
If this isn't your cup of tea, feel free to close the page.
(Note: Due to the time span of writing and translation issues, vocabulary and formatting details may occasionally differ slightly.)
The most time-consuming part of this series was not the deduction itself, but rather how to make it more “visual”. In the end, I decided to ditch the dogma of a full-report format.
【Content Overview】
This is a 【Strategic Deduction】 (details below), not an 【Analytical Article】.
The focus here is not on analyzing the original plot, but rather on using it as a pre-established sandbox for independent deduction (including alternate scenario choices).
This is an unfinished article; additional chapters may be added later.
For example, deductions from other characters' perspectives, or deductions with altered basic conditions and constraints.
——————————————————————————————
【Reading Notes】
1.
Since in strategy deduction, the sole reason for existence and evaluation criterion of “action choices” (means) is “how/whether they serve the set goals (ends).”
Therefore, factors outside this scope—such as everyday morality, ethics, personal comfort levels, etc.—will not be considered.
2.
Due to the excessive detail in the plot, over-deduction of every scenario would significantly increase both the reader's burden and the author's workload. Furthermore, the author considers certain plot points more suitable for separate discussion. Therefore, this article will not cover all “action choice nodes.” It will focus primarily on selecting moments where the POV character [made decisions independently, without influence by other characters].
3.
What is this article: 【Deduction Simulation】
Definition of “Deduction Simulation”:
A deduction constructed under the constraints of the original work, centered around a specific condition (here, “achieving Set Goals”). It need not align with the original work.
Metaphor: In deduction simulation, the “original work” = sandbox background.
What This Article Is Not: 【Analysis】
Definition of “Analysis”:
Dissecting and examining the content provided by the original work. Must strictly adhere to the original work's basics, without deviating from its content.
Metaphor: In Analysis, the “original work” = established laws and regulations.
Includes but is not limited to:
Character analysis
Strategy analysis
Scenario analysis
Plot analysis
Thematic Analysis
Analysis of the original author's intent/writing techniques
————————————
【Reading Prerequisite】
This point was mentioned in a previous article, but it is worth reiterating.
-the real situation the characters are in
1. Being forcibly kidnapped by armed, violent criminals with instant killing capabilities (firearms) ≠ Being invited to participate in a deduction game.
2. Being in an unfamiliar place, belonging to kidnappers, and being held captive here with strangers ≠ The first day of college for first-year students.
3. A psychological war at gunpoint ≠ A university debate competition with safety guarantees.
4. The mastermind who dares to kidnap 16 socially certified elites at once and succeed ≠ Tools and background for advancing the plot.
In other words, the so-called “ greenhouse judgment criteria in everyday life” are completely ineffective in a “ wartime situation.”
If the audience forcibly applies everyday standards to the real crisis situations in which the characters find themselves, they will inevitably arrive at judgments that are divorced from reality.
-- The limited information known to the characters
For them:
1. The present moment ≠ The unknown future.
2. Characters can only act based on the information available at the present moment.
3. The impact of a character's speech and behavior and their consequences can only be logically inferred and judged based on the available information and circumstances.
Therefore, using the assumption that “ people will definitely die in Danganronpa games” as a mindset will cause the audience to lose the basic possibility of understanding the characters' perspectives.
Based on the information we currently have, the characters do not have the ability to predict the future.
Using “ the known future as seen from God's perspective” as a premise to judge “ the characters' current behavior under limited information” is a classic case of hindsight bias.
————————————
【Core Principle 1 of This Article—Irrelevant Factors Will Not Be Considered】
As previously mentioned, this serves as a reminder.
In this article:
During strategy deduction, the sole reason for existence and assessment criterion of “action choices” (means) is “how/whether they serve the set goals (ends).”
Therefore, factors outside this scope—such as everyday morality, ethics, personal comfort levels, etc.—will not be considered.
Many action choices may be judged as entirely different in nature due to serving different set goals.
Many action choices based on a single set goal may conflict with and harm other set goals.
——————
【Core Principle 2: The Existence of Worst-Case Outcomes Cannot Be Ignored】
In strategic deduction, any worst-case outcome logically derivable from an action choice must be considered—it cannot be deliberately ignored.
To formulate potentially constructive strategies and avoid self-destructive choices, “not ignoring logically possible worst-case outcomes” is the foundational principle and baseline.
The theoretical scope for worst-case outcomes deduction is infinite. Due to space constraints, this article will not exhaustively list all possibilities, nor is such exhaustiveness necessary—for even the existence of a single plausible worst-case outcome is sufficient to alter the criteria for determining the nature of action choices.
Even if the author's deductions cannot be infinite and inevitably incorporate subjective perspectives, the fact that even one potential worst-case outcome that threatens set goals can be deduced by humans already demonstrates the risk of this action choice.
——————
【Core Concepts of This Article—“Action Choices” (Means) and “Set Goals” (Ends) 】
Means exist to achieve ends; ends require the Action Implementer to execute specific means.
In this article, “whether it serves the set goal” is the sole criterion for assessing “action choices.”
Action Choices (Means):
Refers to actions actually taken by characters at different points in the original work, as well as hypothetical actions proposed by authors in “if” deduction scenarios, where the sole condition is “serving the current Set Goals.”
Set Goals (Purpose):
Refers to the most logically plausible “goal hypothesis” proposed by the author based on the original work's setting and plot.
(e.g., Personal survival rate/Group survival rate, etc.)
This hypothesis serves solely as a necessary premise for the author's strategic deduction; without it, deduction cannot commence. It does not equate to the actual purpose of the characters within the story.
——————
【Section Concept 1—Current Objective Reality and Author's Deduction (XXX Perspective)】
This section focuses on listing information the author has gathered from the current perspective (POV), along with simulated deductions of the potential realities these details suggest. It is independent of the author's personal views or the character's own judgments.
——————
【Section Concept 2—Determining the Nature of Action Choices】
Throughout this article, the following evaluation format will appear repeatedly. Here, we detail its definition.
【Actual Action Choice of Actor (XXX)】
[Set Goals — XXX]
Worst-Case Outcomes Deduction:
Action Implementer Controllability Deduction:
[Determining the Nature of Action Choices]
Severity of harm to set goals from the worst-case outcomes?
Is this controllable by the Action Implementer?
【Action Implementer (XXX) Actual Action Choice:】
Represents the actual choice made by the character in the original work.
Definition of “worst-case outcomes”:
“worst-case outcomes” refers to the most detrimental possible trajectory that can be deduced from the current plot timeline, based on objectively existing known conditions and the common sense of the original work as a semi-realistic world, which poses the greatest threat to the set goals.
【Definition of “Controllability of the Action Implementer”】
The “controllability” referred to here differs vastly from its everyday intuitive definition.
Key point: ‘Controllability’ and “worst-case outcomes” are inextricably linked. “Whether controllable” refers to “whether the Action Implementer can control the worst-case outcomes.”
“Controllability” ≠ guaranteed safety.
“Controllability” = The theoretical probability that the Action Implementer can influence the worst-case outcomes of this action is not zero.
Example:
“Possessing Basic Controllability”:
In an action choice, if the Action Implementer cannot control any external variables but can control their own words, actions, and physical movements to attempt to influence the worst-case outcomes, it is termed “possessing basic controllability”. This is because the Action Implementer's influence over the consequences of this action choice has a theoretically non-zero probability.
“Complete Uncontrollability”:
Conversely, if an Action Implementer in an action choice has lost even the fundamental possibility and probability of theoretically influencing the worst-case outcomes through their own words, actions, or physical movements, it is termed “complete uncontrollability.”
[Determining the Nature of Action Choices] Criteria:
In this article, determining the nature of action choices involves three dimensions.
1. Safe Strategy.
2. Gambling strategy.
3. Self-destructive choice.
The standard for determining the nature of action choices relies on a dual test: whether the action choice serves the set objective and whether the Action Implementer can control the worst-case outcomes.
Definition:
Safe Strategy:
——Even under the worst-case outcomes, the action choice still effectively serves the set goals, and the Action Implementer possesses basic controllability over it. This action choice constitutes a 【Safe Strategy】
Gambling Strategy:
——Under the worst-case outcomes, the action choice threatens set goals. Yet the Action Implementer possesses basic controllability over it. This action choice constitutes a 【Gambling Strategy】
Self-Destructive hoice:
——Because the action choice fundamentally diverges from Set Goals and lacks any controllability, this action choice constitutes a 【Self-Destructive Choice】 and does not constitute a strategy.
Therefore, 【Derived Actions and Deductions Based on This Self-Destructive Choice】 simultaneously lose their significance for discussion at the strategic level.
More concrete examples will illustrate these concepts in the cognitive test questions below.
———————
【Section Concept 3 — Action Choice Possibility: Author's Deduction (if)】
This represents the author's proposed hypothetical action choices, distinct from the actual actions taken by the original POV character, based on objective reality constraints and information limitations under different POVs.
The action choices in the author's deduction (if) receive the same [Action Choice Nature Assessment] evaluation as the “actual action choices made by the Action Implementer (XXX).”
——————
【Section Concept 4: Special Section in This Article—Perspective Swap Simulation Sketch (Author → Character POV)】
Throughout this article, readers will frequently encounter sections formatted as follows:
【Perspective Swap Simulation Sketch (Author → Character POV)】
【Note】:
Perspective swap sketching ≠ speculating on the character's actual psychology and motives.
Perspective swap sketching = The author “places themselves” in the character's position and conducts quick simulations with the sole condition of “serving the current set goals.”
As stated above. To avoid misunderstanding, further clarification follows:
What this section is:
It is a temporary “placement” of the author into the character's position. Based on the basic current situation and information known to them as provided by the original work's plot, it conducts an independent, sketch-like strategic deduction with “how to achieve the set goals” as the sole constraint and condition.
It is purely a [strategic sandbox deduction simulator]. The first-person “I” within it is a temporary character existing solely for [this deduction], independent of both the original work's characters and the author themselves.
——
What this section is not:
Not speculation about the characters' actual motivations or psychological processes.
Not a personal interpretation of the characters' actual action choices.
It does not represent the author's personal opinions or ideals.
——————
【Key Supplement】
The definition of a “self-destructive choice” is “a fundamental contradiction between means (action choice) and ends (Set Goals) with zero controllability,” which does not constitute a strategy.
Meanwhile, the premise constraint for Perspective Swap Simulation Sketch is “serving the Set Goals.”
These two concepts present a fundamental conflict. Therefore, action choices determined to be self-destructive in subsequent analysis will not receive a Perspective Swap Simulation Sketch.
—————————————————————————————————
Second, to ensure comprehension of the above concepts, readers need to proceed with the following test.
【Cognitive Compatibility Self-Assessment】
（Readers are advised to record their answers independently）
Before commencing the main text, please attempt to answer the following questions:
Part One: [Basic Principles Test]
1.
Within the framework of this article, what is the primary standard for evaluating the nature of an “action choice”?
A. Whether it aligns with common morality and ethics.
B. Whether it serves the current, clearly defined “Set Goals.”
C. Whether it makes the Action Implementer feel good or right.
D. Whether it can be understood and accepted by the majority.
Answer: B
Testing Points: Core Principle 1—“Means Serve Ends.”
The core principle of this article's framework is that “means serve ends.”
The nature of an action choice depends solely on how it serves the currently clearly defined “Set Goals.” Factors such as morality, emotions, or others' acceptance are not within the scope of evaluation.
2.
In strategic deduction, what is the correct attitude toward the “worst-case outcomes”?
A If the probability of occurrence is very low, it can be temporarily ignored, prioritizing optimistic scenarios.
B As long as it can logically be deduced, it must be considered.
C Focus more on the “most likely outcome,” as that is the basis for decision-making.
D Rely on intuition to roughly assess the risk.
Answer: B
Testing Points: Core Principle 2—“Worst-Case Scenarios Must Be Forcibly Considered.”
“Never disregard logically plausible worst-case outcomes” is the ironclad rule of this article’s framework.
Whenever a chain of deduction establishes that “a certain worst-case outcome is logically possible,” its very existence—regardless of probability—can fundamentally alter the nature of action choices. Actively ignoring it is like deliberately erasing cliff markers from the map.
3.
Within the framework of this paper, what does it mean for an action choice to possess “basic controllability”?
A Action Implementer can fully control the situation to ensure a favorable outcome.
B Action Implementer can exert some influence, however slight, over the “worst-case outcomes” through their own words and actions.
C Action Implementer possesses decisive control over whether the “worst-case outcomes” occur.
D Action Implementer feels this action hoice falls within their capabilities.
Answer: B
Testing Point: The true definition of “controllability.”
‘Controllability’ specifically refers to the influence over the “worst-case outcomes.”
“Basic controllability” only indicates that the Action Implementer an attempt certain measures to influence this outcome (such as adjusting position or altering statements), but it absolutely cannot guarantee avoidance or full control. This is counterintuitive yet critically important.
---
Part Two: [Core Tool Application]
4.
Scenario:
You wake up in an unfamiliar locked room with an unconscious stranger beside you.
Your goal is “Personal Survival Rate.”
Action Choice: Approach the person, shake them vigorously, and demand loudly: “Where is this? Who are you?”
According to the framework deduction, which of the following is this action choice most likely to be classified as?
A【Safe Strategy】, because obtaining information is crucial for survival.
B【Self-destructive choice】, because it may immediately trigger an uncontrollable, lethal attack.
C【Gambling strategy】, because it may provoke the other person, but offers a chance for communication.
D Cannot be determined; it depends on the other person's personality.
Answer: B
Test Point: Framework Application
【Actual Action Choice for the Action Implementer】
Approach the person, shake them vigorously, and demand loudly: “Where is this? Who are you?”
[Set Goals—Personal Survival Rate]
Worst-Case Outcomes Deduction:
The stranger is an accomplice of the abductor or has violent tendencies, launching a lethal attack on Action Implementer.
Action Implementer Controllability Deduction:
Action Implementer cannot control the other person's identity, reactions, or behavior.
[Determining the Nature of Action Choices]
Severity of harm to set goals from the worst-case outcomes?
Destruction of set goals.
Is this controllable by the Action Implementer?
Completely uncontrollable.
——As the action choice fundamentally contradicts the set goal and exhibits no controllability, it constitutes a 【Self-Destructive Choice】 and does not constitute a strategy.
Therefore, 【Derivative actions and Deduction based on this Self-Destructive Choice】 simultaneously lose the strategic significance.
5.
An explorer ventures deep into a cave, with the only exit behind them. Their set goal is “to explore the cave and return safely.”
Action choice: Continue deeper into the cave’s core.
Worst-case outcomes: Becoming trapped in the cave.
Regarding the “action controllability” for this choice, which description is most accurate?
A. Fully controllable. He can choose how far to advance and turn back at any time.
B. Has basic controllability. While unable to control the cave's structure, he can influence the probability of the worst-case outcomes (“being trapped”) through cautious progress, marking landmarks, etc.
C. Completely uncontrollable. Once deep inside, risks like geological collapses are entirely random.
D. Depends on the quality of his equipment.
Answer: B
Test Point: The binding relationship between “Action Implementer controllability” and “worst-case outcomes,” along with their definitions.
The worst-case outcomes are “Becoming trapped in the cave.” Although the Action Implementer cannot control the cave, the Action Implementer's own actions (such as marking paths, testing structures, and conserving energy) can influence the probability of these outcomes occurring, thus possessing “basic controllability.”
This definition is crucial for distinguishing between 【Gambling strategy】 and 【self-destructive choice】.
---
Part Three: Criteria for Determining Nature
6.
Set Goals Mandatorily to “Minimize the Total Number of Deaths”.
You stand beside a lever. The trolley is hurtling toward the main track where 5 people are tied, and the side track where 1 person is tied.
Pull the lever, and the trolley will head toward the side track.
Action Choice: Pull the lever.
According to this framework, this action belongs to?
A【Self-destructive Choice】, because your active intervention caused death.
B【Safe Strategy】, because the worst-case outcomes (1 death) remain preferable to the worst-case outcomes of inaction (5 deaths), and effectively serves the objective.
C【Gambling Strategy】, because you might hesitate.
D Cannot be evaluated within a strategic framework; this is a purely moral issue.
Answer: B
Testing point:
The distinction between “moral dilemmas” and “strategic issues.”
[Actual Action Choices for the action implementer]
Pull the lever.
[Set Goals—Minimize Total Deaths]
Worst-Case Outcomes Deduction:
1 person dies.
Action Implementer Controllability Deduction:
The action implementer can independently control whether to pull the lever.
[Determining the Nature of Action Choices]
Severity of harm to set goals from the worst-case outcomes?
1 death, 5 survivors.
The set goal “minimizing total fatalities” is achieved.
Is this controllable by the Action Implementer?
Possesses basic controllability.
——Because even under worst-case outcomes, the action choice still effectively serves Set Goals, and the Action Implementer possesses basic controllability over it, this action choice constitutes a 【Safe Strategy】
The purpose of the Nature Determination Framework is not to answer whether it is morally or ethically permissible to pull the lever.
Its purpose is to demonstrate that once you accept the Set Goals of “minimizing the number of deaths,” pulling the lever becomes the most logically consistent example of a Safe Strategy.
7.
In Question 6, if the Set Goals is changed to “Avoid the moral guilt of killing someone with one’s own hands” what is the most likely change in the nature of the action “Pull the lever”?
A. It changes from a 【Safe Strategy】 to a 【Gambling Strategy】.
B. It changes from a 【Safe Strategy】 to a 【Self-Destructive Choice】.
C. The classification remains unchanged because the physical action remains the same.
D. It cannot be determined because the goal is unreasonable.
Answer: B
Testing Point: Set Goals determines the nature of action choice.
【Actual Action Choice by the Action Implementer】
Pull the lever.
【Set Goals—Avoid the moral guilt of killing someone with one’s own hands】
Worst-Case Outcomes Deduction:
1 death.
Action Implementer Controllability Deduction:
The action implementer cannot control the train’s direction after pulling the lever.
[Determining the Nature of Action Choices]
Severity of harm to set goals from the worst-case outcomes?
Destruction of set goals.
Is this controllable by the Action Implementer?
Completely uncontrollable.
——As the action choice fundamentally contradicts the set goal and exhibits no controllability, it constitutes a 【Self-Destructive Choice】 and does not constitute a strategy.
Therefore, 【Derivative actions and Deduction based on this Self-Destructive Choice】 simultaneously lose the strategic significance.
Under the new set goal, the worst-case outcomes of the same action choice (personally causing one death) directly destroyed the set goal of “Avoid the moral guilt of killing someone with one’s own hands.
Consequently, the nature of the action choice underwent a fundamental shift.
---
Part four: cenario Simulation and Rapid Sketching
8.
In a closed environment rife with suspicion, your objective is ‘Personal survival rate’. You overhear two pieces of information about others:
A. An unverified secret about someone's past disgraceful behavior.
B. A vague clue about the possible location of an escape route.
From a purely strategic perspective, which type of information should you prioritize investigating? Why?
Reference approach: Prioritize investigating lead B.
【Perspective Swap Simulation Sketch (Author → Character POV)】
【Note】:
Perspective swap sketching ≠ speculating on the character's actual psychology and motives.
Perspective swap sketching = The author “places themselves” in the character's position and conducts quick simulations with the sole condition of “serving the current set goals.”
【Set Goals: Personal Survival Rate】
My goal is “personal survival rate.”
Information B may directly aid survival and escape, offering higher potential benefits.
Information A involves others' privacy. The worst-case outcomes could include getting entangled in interpersonal conflicts, facing retaliation, or wasting limited time and energy. It offers no direct benefit to the survival goal and carries potential harm, with uncontrollable risks.
Therefore, I have no reason to prioritize investigating Information A.
Part Five: Defining Distinctions
9.
In “Perspective Swap Simulation Sketch (Author → Character POV),” what is the actual nature and function of the first-person “I” (the temporary deduction character)?
A. To demonstrate the complex emotions and memories the original character might possess within the story.
B. To present how to perform deduction using known information and current circumstances, with the sole condition being “serving the current set goal."
C. To showcase the author’s personal preferences or moral biases toward the character.
D. To present a philosophical interpretation of the story’s overall themes and metaphors.
Answer: B
10. When readers are reading “Perspective Swap Simulation Sketch,” the “I” engaged in the thinking process is best perceived as:
A The character themselves from the original story.
B A decision-making simulation program loaded with specific “Set Goals” and “current known intelligence.”
C The author themselves.
D An omniscient narrator.
Answer: B
9|10 Testing Points:
This section is purely a strategy generation simulator.
The “I” within this section can be understood as a temporary computational program serving this deduction, whose core operational instruction is solely “how to achieve Set Goals.”
It is not a representation of the character's inner thoughts, nor is it the author themselves, nor is it an exploration of the theme. It is a transparent demonstration of real-time decision-making logic deduction.
Even if it may appear to possess a “human-like quality,” this is only a collateral result of its “real-time simulation.”
Part Six: Common Objections
11.
If a reader objects: “Real people would never calculate so calmly and rationally under crisis—this framework is detached from reality, merely idealistic armchair theorizing.”
Given this article's premise, the most reasonable response is:
A You're right—this is indeed just a theoretical model.
B The focus of this article isn't to “Describe” how humans normally think (reality), but to “Deduction” how they could think and make decisions under specific constraints (methods).
C This suggests the characters in the story weren't written smartly enough.
D The framework already accounts for emotional factors by classifying them as distractions.
Answer: B
12.
If a reader criticizes: “This framework treats people like emotionless machines, disregarding humanity, morality, and the value of cooperation. Its conclusions feel cold and uncomfortable."
Which of the following responses best aligns with the true positioning of this article’s framework?
A Human nature is inherently good; your criticism is well-founded.
B This framework is not ”anti-moral” but ”value-neutral.” “Protecting everyone,” “adhering to individual moral codes, ” “eliminating someone,” or “personal survival” can all be established as set goals, and the framework will inevitably show that sometimes “Set Goals Can Not Be Achieved Simultaneously.”
C Morality should not be discussed in desperate situations.
D Your discomfort stems from the analysis touching upon the harsh trade-offs we prefer not to face in real-world decision-making.
Answer: B
13.
If readers question: “Since we're already performing Deduction from the characters' perspectives, why not directly analyze their inner motivations and emotions? Wouldn't that provide a deeper understanding?”
The explanation most aligned with the framework's original intent is:
A Because the author is not skilled at psychological analysis.
B This article is not a character analysis. Psychological motivations fall under character analysis and are not considered in strategic deduction.
C The characters' psychological activities are already described in the original work, eliminating the need for analysis.
D The author does not care about the characters' psychology.
Answer: B
【Ultimate Cognitive Trial】
1.
When 【Perspective-Switching Deduction】 presents content that contradicts everyday moral intuition, it indicates the author:
A Has flaws in their worldview and moral compass.
B Is strictly conducting simulation deduction with “serving the set goal as the sole constraint.”
C Intentionally promotes and encourages controversial/extreme methods.
2. The content in [Perspective Shift Deduction] essentially represents:
A. An approach the author personally endorses.
B. The author is temporarily functioning as a [pure strategic deduction simulation device], producing outcomes consistent with strategic logic.
C. The author is speculating on character psychology.
3.When an author classifies a character's action choice as a “self-destructive choice,” the author is essentially:
A. Belittling/insulting the character.
B. Strictly enforcing the evaluation format framework.
C. Worrying needlessly.
4. When the author classifies a character's action choice as a “Gambling strategy” or “Safe Strategy,” the author is essentially:
A. Defending/praising the character.
B. Strictly enforcing the evaluation format framework.
C. Indulging in fantasy.
5. When the author does not perform deduction on every plot point, the author is essentially:
A. Deliberately avoiding controversy.
B. Preventing increased burden on readers and the author themselves, as well as avoiding content confusion.
C. Deliberately being unfair to characters.
This test is solely for assessing logical consistency and is not an IQ/EQ assessment.
Selecting B for all questions indicates you have understood the logical chain in this text.
Choosing any answer other than B suggests your perspective diverges from the basic logical premises upon which this article is based.
【Important Notice】
The text you are about to read:
Is a sandbox simulation, not a mirror → It does not reflect your personal values
Is an assessment, not a judgment → It does not condemn characters to death
Is a strategic deduction, not a moral war → It does not require you to take sides
If you still feel offended → You may be treating the character as a [self-projection device]
You have the right to maintain a different interpretive framework. In this case, please close this page for your own protection.
Prerequisites for reading this article:
✅ 1: A game of mutual killing ≠ a debate club.
✅ 2: Audience members possess an omniscient perspective ≠ characters' POVs can foresee the future.
✅ 3: The sole criterion for evaluating strategy is “whether means serve ends”; other factors like everyday morality or others' feelings need not be considered.
✅ 4: Any action choice whose worst-case outcomes can be logically deduced must be considered.
✅ 5: Perspective Swap Sketches/Author Deduction ≠ Speculating on Character Psychology.
✅ 6. “Controllability” and “worst-case outcomes” are bound together.
“Controllability” refers to “whether the worst-case outcomes are controllable by the Action Implementer.”
‘Controllability’ ≠ guaranteed safety.
“Controllability” = the actor's influence over the worst-case outcomes of this action choice has a theoretically non-zero probability.
【Discussion Guidelines】
Prohibited Discourse:
🚫 Stigmatizing [Determining the Nature of Action Choices] and [Perspective Swap Simulation Sketch] as [Author Bias]
Example: You're just being hypocritical/biased toward XX!
🚫 Stigmatizing [Deduction content including actions that violate everyday morality] as [Author's personal values are flawed]
Example: You're just a bad person! Only someone with flawed values would think this way!
🚫 Countering verifiable logical chains with “I think”
🚫 Deflecting focus
Example: But they're more.../They said...
🚫 Holding authors accountable for readers' comprehension difficulties
🚫 Demanding authors explain content in [Reading Notes] or [Reading Tips]
🚫 Twisting “Simulation Deduction” as “Analysis”
Including but not limited to:
Character Analysis
Strategy Analysis
Scenario Analysis
Plot Analysis
Theme Analysis
Original Author's Intent/Writing Technique Analysis
🚫 Any content beyond “strategy deduction”
Including but not limited to:
Character's psychological motivations
Subsequent murder cases
Character backstories
Other works by the original author
Fan-created interpretations
【Final Reading Prerequisite Supplement】
If you insist that:
🔹 Analyzing action choices in murder mystery games = taking things too seriously
🔹 Requiring discussions grounded in perspective limitations, objective context constraints, setting realism, and verifiable logic = imposing hegemony
then we have irreconcilable differences in our cognitive dimensions.
Closing this page at this point is a legitimate act of self-preservation for your mental well-being and a valuable contribution to the discussion ecosystem.
If you disagree with the above premises and principles, or if you choose any answer other than B in the ultimate cognitive trial, this work is likely unsuitable for you.
If you agree, please continue reading.
【Any of the following behaviors will be considered malicious responses—distorting concepts or launching emotional attacks】
Including but not limited to:
Personal attacks
Attacking the author's creative intent
Accusing the author of attacking the audience
Refuting the author's viewpoint with “Why overthink anime/games?”
Persisting in distorted interpretations after concepts have been clarified
Distorting the content of the [Reading Notes] or [Reading Tips] after achieving a perfect score on the self-assessment
Using emotional expressions (e.g., “you think/I think”) to replace factual rebuttals
Demanding the author modify the evaluation framework to accommodate personal comprehension abilities
Requiring the author to explain their personal values
【Final Confirmation】
By continuing to read, the reader:
1. Acknowledges understanding and agreement with all premises and principles of this statement.
2. Accepts the analytical framework and evaluation criteria presented herein.
【The author reserves the final right to decline to respond】