Which meant that their role had effects that could bring about both good and bad trends in the special exam. I supposed that was precisely why each class could only use them once at the start, then. You were free to use it right away as your opening move, to try to get a head start to clinch certain victory, or you could pin your hopes on exercising the ability to use the traitor twice due to a false nomination by your opponent, or you could hold onto it until you’re up against the opposing center or general, to completely turn things around on them and go for the win. However, the part that concerned me was that, according to the rules so far, we couldn’t eliminate a traitor by nomination.
“As for how to discover traitors and remove them from the discussion…this is handled via a special rule that is implemented only when the right to use a traitor has been exercised, wherein at the end of every round, the representative uses their right to call up one student from their own class and engage in ‘dialogue’ with that student, to ask them if they are the traitor,” explained Mashima-sensei.
Dialogue
At the end of every round, if the representative wishes, the representative can engage in one-on-one dialogue with a student in a separate room.
During dialogue, it is forbidden for either party to discuss the progress of the special exam or the details of the rules.
Engage in dialogue
The participant confesses whether or not they are the traitor. In this instance, they will be asked to give their answer first.
The representative chooses whether to declare the participant as the traitor or judge the participant to be innocent.
Results
If the participant is a traitor:
If the participant confesses to being the traitor and the representative declares they are the traitor: The information flow is stopped, but the traitor is stripped of rewards.
If the participant confesses to being the traitor and the representative determines they are not the traitor: The representative loses five Life Points.
If the participant denies being the traitor and the representative declares they are the traitor: The traitor is expelled from school.
If the participant denies being the traitor and the representative determines they are not the traitor: The representative loses five Life Points.
If the participant is not a traitor:
If the participant confesses to being the traitor and the representative declares they are the traitor: The representative loses one Life Point.
If the participant confesses to being the traitor and the representative determines they are not the traitor: No penalty.
If the participant denies being the traitor and the representative declares they are the traitor: The representative loses one Life Point.
If the participant denies being the traitor and the representative determines they are not the traitor: No penalty.
Which meant that the student being questioned said whether or not they were the traitor first, and then the representative gave their answer as to whether or not they were the traitor afterward, if I understood correctly. It seemed fundamentally unlikely that a non-traitor would pretend to be a traitor, but those potential outcomes were probably included as supplementary information, just in case.
“These rules can be viewed by representatives at any time during the exam on your tablets. You may also speak up during the exam at any time if you have questions. The examiner will answer whatever they are able to provide answers for,” said Mashima-sensei.
There was indeed a wide assortment of rules. If a student retained all of that information in their head, they wouldn’t have any questions, but it was a welcome consideration, as I’m sure that some students would appreciate being able to review the rules again.
“If it isn’t a bother…I have a question. Would that be all right?”
The representatives had been listening quietly up until this point, but it was Sanada who broke the silence. Once he got Mashima-sensei’s permission to go ahead, Sanada stood up and lightly bowed to the other representatives.
“Regarding the explanation that you provided earlier, if, for example, I were to assign a traitor to blend in among my opponent’s participants, wouldn’t he or she be exposed immediately? It’s certainly true that it would be great to be able to gain fifty Class Points, if I could keep the traitor hidden until the end. I am also sure that the traitor would want to do their best in playing their role for the sake of their class. Furthermore, putting the question of whether the student seriously wants it or not aside, there’s the motivation of money too. But if students understand that there are significant disadvantages for the traitor to remain in the discussion, I think that the majority of them would come forward and say themselves that they had been assigned the traitor, even if it’s over the monitor. Wouldn’t they?” asked Sanada.
If the discussion can unfold in a battle happening on equal terms, the truth would not be revealed so easily because of the possibility of lies, even if they came forward. But as Sanada said, the traitors alone were in a special category. Considering the rules of how your opponent can exercise their rights, basically, only one person could be called at a time. It would be a different story if there was a real, actual backstabber who was deliberately trying to confuse their classmates, but something at that level wouldn’t even be worth considering.
“That is a fair question, but I can’t imagine it’d play out that way. This is because the participants will receive a somewhat different explanation than what you representatives have received,” explained Mashima-sensei.
“A different…explanation?” asked Sanada.
“Yes. The winning conditions and rules for the delegates, which we’ve disclosed to you here, will be communicated in a more limited way to the representatives, so they will not know the details. From the representative’s point of view, finding the model student is the key to winning, but for the students participating in the discussion, they are only discussing as average students, model students, and other positions, for the sole purpose of debate,” said Mashima-sensei.
In other words, the discussion of this special exam, its content, was essentially meaningless. If the representative’s goal of finding the model students was made known to the participants, then, although this was a bit of an exaggeration, all they’d have to do was make a verbal appeal. Because even if the opposing representative would lie, there would be no benefit for students in your own class to lie. Apparently, the school had put a lid on the real rules in order to resolve that discrepancy. As a result, they adjusted things so that the representatives and participants would fight by their own set of rules. Of course, I’m sure that some of the participants would find this unnatural.
Some of them might be able to guess what the representatives were doing and how they were fighting in the course of the discussion. However, without knowing crucial details like the nominations of the representatives, the Life Point values, and the characteristics of the roles, they couldn’t act carelessly. It was quite conceivable that revealing oneself openly could then bring about a disadvantage. The same applied to the risks and rewards of the traitor. Even if they managed to get all the way to a dialogue with a representative, it would be a serious struggle to avoid being found out in order to get the fifty Class Points.