Effect: At the end of each round, the teacher can block the nomination of one student from a model student one time.
Graduate
One person
A successful nomination as position holder reduces the opponent’s Life Points by one point, and a successful nomination as graduate reduces the opponent’s Life Points by two points. In the event of an erroneous nomination (including nomination as a position holder), the nominating representative loses two Life Points.
Effect: At the end of each round, the graduate may nominate one student to find out what their role is. However, as for traitors, their identity cannot be discovered, so graduates will perceive them as average students.
Underclassman
One person
A successful nomination as position holder will recover one Life Point, and a successful nomination as underclassman will recover two Life Points. In the event of an erroneous nomination (including nomination as a position holder), the nominating representative loses one Life Point.
Upperclassman
One person
A successful nomination as position holder reduces the opponent’s Life Points by one point, and a successful nomination as upperclassman will reduce the opponent’s Life Points by one point and cause the roles of two random participants to be disclosed to the representative. In the event of an erroneous nomination (including nomination as a position holder), the nominating representative loses one Life Point.
Traitor
Zero to two people
* Each class may only use this role once during the exam.
Representatives can designate one participant from the opposing class participating in the discussion to be a traitor. Each round, the role of one participant taking part in the discussion (excluding model students) is randomly disclosed to the representative who has been designated the traitor. In the event of an erroneous nomination (including nomination as a position holder), the nominating representative loses two Life Points, and the opponent’s right to assign a traitor is restored. If a model student tries to eject a traitor from the room, it will be regarded as blocked, and the student will not be ejected from the room. The traitor will not be ejected from the room except in the event of an erroneous nomination from the opponent or if the representative determines that they are not a traitor in the dialogue.
Individual Role Rewards
If the average students win, all average students will receive 10,000 Private Points.
Model students earn 5,000 Private Points each time a student who is a position holder is nominated. Also, if model students win, they will receive 500,000 Private Points.
If teachers and/or graduates do not leave the room before the end of the discussion, they will receive 50,000 Private Points.
If an upperclassman or underclassman is ejected from the room at the hands of a model student, the student cast in that role will receive 50,000 Private Points.
If the traitor does not get ejected from the room before the end of the discussion, that student will receive their choice of either 5,000,000 Private Points or 50 Class Points.
After explaining the roles of the participants and their effects, Mashima-sensei pulled out a tablet, the kind that would actually be used during the exam, and displayed something on its screen. Shown on the tablet were the names of fourteen participants and an option for passing, as an example of the interface we would be using. If we wanted to select pass, we would have to confirm twice. If we wanted to nominate someone, we would first tap on a name, then select either a position holder or the name of their role (if we wished to name it), and then we would confirm our selection. That was the process. Since there wasn’t any need to nominate average students, there was no option for them.
“You representatives seated here bear an important job, one that will play a key role in whether your class wins or loses, but naturally your classmates will also have a major influence on whether you will win or lose. The rules may look complicated, but you’ve experienced something similar in your first year, in the exam aboard the boat, the Summer Group Special Examination. If you liken it to that, you might understand it more quickly,” said Mashima-sensei.
The Summer Group Special Examination, the exam from our first year. I didn’t know anything about social deduction games like this at the time, but the exam employed a system close to the game Werewolf, where we were to find which students were designated as VIPs. I didn’t know anything about the real world back then, so I had never heard of games like that. I’ve acquired a lot of unexpected knowledge since, something that I would also describe as growth. Come to think of it, Mashima-sensei was also the one who had explained the Summer Group Special Examination to us then. I thought back to that particular event as I listened to him now.
“If both representatives are successful in their nominations, the offset process is carried out. In the case of an underclassman, it’s a bit of a special case. Let’s say that, in this hypothetical instance, Representative A has correctly identified an underclassman, while Representative B nominated a teacher as a position holder, and both are correct. In that scenario, a subtraction is made, and A’s Life Points are restored by one point,” explained Mashima-sensei.
Which meant that your results would be compared with your opponent’s results, and that would be reflected in the final process, huh.
“You representatives may wish to join in the discussion, but during the exam, you can only watch and listen to the discussion over the monitor. You cannot direct it in any way. Also, it is impossible for representatives who aren’t actively participating in the exam to observe the discussions,” added Mashima-sensei.
Participants would discuss among themselves, and a winner would be decided by the fourteen of them. From the sound of it, the representatives, fighting from the other side of the monitor, would watch over the discussion and be given the right to nominate who to eliminate. I found it unusual that only when one of the representatives passed for the first time would the model students participating in the discussion be given the right to decide who to eject from the room, though. If an inherently competent representative were participating in the discussion, that person could use a student’s own responses to seek out anyone suspicious and ask questions to determine the roles of students they suspected, but that wasn’t possible over the monitor. Which meant that the participants were the ones entrusted to do most of the deducing.
“The various roles can greatly affect the representative’s life. The role known as the traitor in particular, a role that can only be used once, may have an even greater impact on the outcome of the exam than the other roles. Suppose, for example, that A designates one of the students in B’s class as the traitor. As long as this traitor remains in the discussion, the role of one student participating in the discussion, with the exception of the model student, will be disclosed only to A each and every round. If you don’t discover the traitor and instead leave them to their own devices, they’ll continue to operate for that time period. If, however, in your haste in trying to eliminate the traitor, you make an erroneous nomination, and the traitor does end up getting ejected from the room, you will not only lose Life Points, but you will also end up reinstating your opponent’s right to use a traitor again,” explained Mashima-sensei.