The Jeopardies of Journalism - Autopsy

Hey everybody, now that the mystery is over, it's time to announce who out of all the submissions and we got a lot of submissions. Who was our detective of the arc? Thank you everybody who did send something in, they were all really good submissions. Honestly, I think for some reason, I think because we framed it as a mini mystery, I didn't expect as many people to be so invested in solving it. But I really enjoyed going through and reading all of your submissions and your suggestions and it was really lovely. Danny as well, we went through them all together and it was really fun. I think a lot of you are really good at this, you're getting better every mystery. So, but all that aside, we had a submission from someone who after only 15 minutes of episode two. So, episode one and a half, I suppose, sent in their theory and look, I didn't speak to the murderer until right at the end so I don't think they could have gotten much closer. But they were the first person at an earlier stage to start thinking about the key issue in this mystery, the use of AI. They may have got the kill us later on but they talked about using AI to write, having that proven and having that be the key motivation, lining that in to the phone reception and access to chat GPT and the valley compared drop to the top of the hill, really cool stuff that came out before in terms of the timeline of it that I had any idea any that would be relevant. So, congratulations to Detective of the Ark, Asha de Arville. You smashed it Asha, a really good theory. All right, into the full autopsy so you can listen to the full breakdown. Welcome to solve this murder, I'm your coroner, Bill. And I'm your more curiosity, Danny. We just finished the, I know we named it midway through recording. We've just finished the Japanese of journalism. The Japanese of journalism. It was fun, it was still four parts. It was, I really intended it to be smaller. I think that if you heard spoken to people in a different order, it might have been smaller. I suppose, it's just, I mean, yeah, that's always the way, right? Like, I don't know who to talk to. I don't know what Roman's going to say. I don't know when Nicholas is going to say it. When someone says something, I'm left with a choice of do I ignore it and collect more or do I follow it? Because it was mainly, it was mainly backstab. It was his house. I assume that you'd get talking to him faster than part three or whatever. Yeah, he could find the body. That just would have meant that you didn't have to ruminate on certain elements that you did. That's true. That's true. But yeah, it is an issue. There's like a, there's like an issue and it's easy to see in hindsight to be like, oh, you should have done this. You should have done that. But there's always this thing of like, if you go and talk to everybody, you get a good grounding in everybody's opinions and then you can have stuff to talk about. But also, if you follow up on individual people's info, then you are armed with something so that in your next conversation, you can say, what do you think of this? What's your opinion on that? And it saves like, it means that you can have more meaningful conversations. And I think sometimes I like to err on that side because otherwise there's always a risk of a sort of saminess for the listener where parts one, two, and three of a mystery are learning the exact same series of facts from five different people. Yes. And I have no way to push these further because I haven't done any other investigations. It makes this very difficult as far as podcasting goes. Well, exactly. And so I don't think I would have changed my, I kind of think I've learned a lesson from this to change my investigative method because I think I did usually have something new to bring up into these conversations. The worry then is that that new thing is hard to go back. It took me a while to like, like I assumed a lot of Natalie's motivations before going back to her. And knowing that when I finally accused her in front of her face, she was like, yeah, what are you talking about? Of course, that's what that's because she still be with ideas. It's writing. Dummy. Right? Like, because it was like, I got that info, but I've already talked to Natalie. So knowing when to backtrack and when to not backtrack, I think I need to get like, I think I get much more into the rhythm of it when I'm more inclined to go, let me ask one's question to George. All right, let me go ask one question to Natalie. All right, let me go ask one question to to Rowan. Let me go ask one question to like that. I think you start to be able to get a proper thing of like, I've learned a new fact. Let me show it to everybody, you know, and not have to go through this rigmarole of like, no, no, I've talked to them already. I've finished this conversation out. I think maybe I should be more free to be less focused in a weird way. I think might be better not to think let's get everything this person has to say out of the way. And and much more freely think of it as, I've got these five people the whole time. I'm going to ask them random questions as I jump around, you know, and I wonder if that would be better. It's interesting. You can have different approaches. I'm almost thinking that I would be interested in knowing, hey, what does every individual person know about blurb a file and just have it, yeah, be a one sentence answer. And then I say, great, I think I now have the blurb a file side of this. Maybe that is what I should do. And then once you've just got a tiny fragment of all of the pieces, then it's, I don't want to interrogate the people. I don't want to talk to the people. I want to sit here with the facts that I have. Yes, I think maybe that's what I should do. That maybe that's the lesson I should learn for next time or both of us. The idea of not like I very much have been trying to do, you know, and people have admonished me for this before of like, you forgot to ask this question. You've got to ask that question. Oh, you can have that. And think of this feeling of like, I should ask all the questions to the person while I've got them, but I've always got them. And so maybe it is more like I should think, okay, let's talk about movements on the day. I'm going to ask every person just about their movements on the day. But I think what you get, what you lose then is a sense of that person having a character and getting a real feel for who they are. I think who they are does help in a lot of these mysteries. And you know, it's also more interesting for people. So, so that's hard to balance. You know what it reminds me of? The editing and the writing, but it feels like editing decision, even though it isn't of the residents. I said, interesting, because that was very much like that. It would, it would splice together. Yes, that's true. 15 interviews at once based on what they said about a particular issue or question. So she, she, like, she would ask one question and then we would see 10 people's answers. He'd be like, right. Now I know you almost sort of tried to do this at the start because you tried to keep everyone together. And I said, oh, that's going to be difficult for me to just jump between people. We're essentially talking about that, but still individualized. Yeah, but knowing that they can be a bit more controlled. Yeah. So you don't have to run it. I can run it, but it can be all right. You know, I want to know what happened. Let's see what backs is account of what happened. Yes. You just yelled backstaff. And then I said backstaff sentence. Yeah. But then, the, the, the, the, why did that, that gets to. Is that then that starts to feel like Danny, can you give me a series of 20 clues and not actually be me investigating? It's just me being like, you know, ask about movements, enter and in my little text passer. And then I get 15 responses. And I look at my, and I read them and I see what's wrong. It doesn't feel quite the same. Like I do want to feel like I'm doing the investigation. I'm leading it a bit more. And I worry that doing that might be a bit too. Here's a keyword. Give me all the information about this keyword. And then I'll go through it. And it doesn't feel like an actual natural investigation. Yeah. And then so the solution that is largely you have to try to feel out. Have I asked everyone who could have useful information or just by vibes on this topic? Yeah. Does it feel like I have talked about blurb of file to everyone who it would be worth mentioning blurb of file to. I was very happy that you mentioned it to George because his response was essential. I love that. That was that. I really, that was great for him trying to like downplay or being shocked that people know what it is, which makes sense. If he's stealing from it, he doesn't expect to be caught. And kind of be like, oh, I know about it. I don't post it. Like that was that was really good. I really liked that his understanding that site being so important. And I think again, I might have like lost that feeling. If I had just been like, let me ask everybody about blurb of file. What do you know about? Like the idea of as an actual investigator being like, well, I'm having this conversation. Can I recall the things I want to ask? Is more reasonable, more natural to me? Like an actual investigator probably doesn't, is it harder to get like eight people in a room, be like, I'm going to ask you one question and then walk away. They'll be like, what? Come back and they'll be like, I've got a second. Both have their place in the house. I mean, I can't investigate it. It's like, honestly, as someone who is investigating, I could learn that it's a good method of investigation and do it that way. I think there are nice, there can be a nice mix in that because like you did that. You just went up to an ad link and said, hey, tell me about the pervert thing. Well, yeah, as I was saying, like it really helped when I got to that stage. So maybe that is a bit more. It's, you know, I should think less about the cozier who done it where each person gives their whole testimony and then you put them all together and think weirdly going back to what I shouldn't, what I said I need to stop doing. Think more about some of those like the police drama shows, but whether I have like three people in different interrogation rooms, they're walking to one and be like, all right, well, what are you going to tell me? Your friends are in the other room to say this and then go to the next person. You say, all right, well, I heard about this. What do you have to say about that and just keep going in and out of it? And yet it's interesting because I don't have much in here at all. And I rarely do of, okay, if you, if Bill has discovered this information from Natalie and brings it to Rowan, what's Rowan's reaction going to be? I don't have that. I expect you to keep it internalized and maybe ask questions, but not give them new stuff to work with. Yeah. But I mean, it helps. This is just, oh yeah, this is entirely a fault of me with improvising. Yeah. You know, it's just, yeah, it's interesting. It's like knowing about Blurbafile from Nicola does help me then ask about Blurbafile. Now, I do have a problem with this. Is that why have we gone into this really negative? Like, I feel like I've gone into this saying, all right, here's all the ways that this failed. No, I mean, it didn't fail. It went great. It was really enjoyable. I'm just trying to think about like, what I could have done better. You see, would I read more? Yeah. I don't know about this because everyone can't make it fun of me. That's why. Because everybody's mean to me. That's why it feels like, wow, this guy's real bad at investigating. I don't think. I'm trying to get ahead of the comments. I mean, I don't think that happened at all in five little pigs. So you can see why it makes me feel like it's my writing. Oh, no, I feel like I'm not very good at writing this. Oh, I wouldn't think that at all. I mean, all this came together. It made sense. It was good characters with a mystery that fit together. Like, yeah, I don't know. Oh, no, I'm just trying to think of like, I feel like I really got better halfway through and I was trying to figure out what it was that changed. And I think it was being able to like interrogate multiple people at once as a way of approaching it. But I think the mystery comes, it was very nice. Do you know what the element that I really liked? And it was my, it was interesting because it was my thing going into the end. Saying, right before I did the, the, the Danny want to say, I don't know if I read it to this. And I was like, I've got all this evidence about people. But I kind of think Rowan did it. And you sort of laughed that off a little bit, even though it was true. And it was that fact of the, the reception thing because it was who needs this. And, and I knew there had to be something, the whole mystery. One of the things that I was missing, I would not talk about missing something. I knew that had to be something that would get someone to that place. That had to be a reason to go up, right? Yeah. And the two options were either someone who knew Paige had gone up, but okay. Or just, is there anyone who might just be there? And right before we went into the Danny want, that's what I wanted to start dissecting was. I think now the biggest thing I've learned about Rowan is he goes to the top of the hill. That is his thing. So I couldn't quite figure out why. But I went, it must have been him because he's the person who's there. Like, he's been throwing into that situation. How do I resolve this? And I really love that element of it because I knew I was missing it for so long. And to finally be able to find it was just like, okay, now I have to rethink everything. Because now it has surely Rowan must have been at least super involved. And I loved, I love that element of, of. It was really interesting trying not to say it and just saying yes. His prose is fine. It's okay. It's meteor. I'm so used to the idea of this being like, it's not that modern. The idea of that being a thing. Like, how does someone suddenly go from really bad writing to just bland whatever writing? And he's like, oh yeah, it's probably a text part, like a language learning model. Of course. I'd never used chat TPPT. So it's just so far from my actual lived experience that it's hard to recall that it's a thing that people would just do. Of course, I'd, and I wonder if this is more informed by the fact that you're so much more involved in like. People doing school work. Yes. So that it comes up a bit more in your life. Yes, I chewed up school kids and I have to tell them repeatedly like, yeah, chat TPPT will help your writing. If you really suck and then it's not your writing, like it will be better than your writing. Only if you really suck. You are much more capable of than it is. Yeah. And they really have to push at that because yeah, it's frustrating. I've read essays where literally some of the essay and they fully admitted this, like some of it, like the bits that they struggle that were chat GPT. And the bits that they were comfortable with were not chat GPT. And it is just the difference is frustrating. It's sad. So yes, it was definitely for my mind. I thought it would be pretty wild to write a story about writing and not include it. And then I did have some difficulty. I remember at the start knowing that it was the chat GPT who was the murderer was absolutely not a given. I knew that one person was going to call them dummy using LLM dummy play, derizing honest one who thinks they're inferior bad tempered. Author in charge campsite owner nonfiction writer. Yeah. That was what I called them at the start. But yeah, the idea of which one of these people was the one who did the killing was up in the air for a bit. What again, I think another thing that you're quite good at from a performance element is going like, I've got to this stuff pointing at George doing the killing. But I don't believe it. This is George, you know, like. This is a, this can be a worry sometimes looks I can plan about this in who done it TV shows that the actors when when you've got the actors being an innocent person. They can be too innocent or when they're the murderer they can. Often either sure they can be obviously the villain, but more often than not they also come across as too innocent. So by the time you get to the end, you kind of feel silly and it doesn't feel right. It feels like you were a bit emotionally manipulated and not by a human, but by an actor. Yeah, and I think that's that's when it comes off poorly. And I don't think yours do. I think what yours are is like you're you have a nice way of adding a like and what feels like this is a piece of evidence to consider. And that piece of evidence is how they have reacted to ex-wiles. It does also make me worried because I've said this before like multiple times with improving coming up with new stuff and being entertaining. Don't know. Improving realism can potentially do that better, which means that I am worried that it's going to be very obvious in my improving which one of these people is a murder and which ones are innocent because I know the answer. Yeah, and I don't think it was like it's appreciate how much you immediately talked to Rowan and said I don't think you did it. That was that was relaxing. Oh, yeah, I didn't think you did it. No, I think there's like it's it's it's the right level because it's not like a general attitude. It's like I find a fact I can bring that fact to a person and then expect a certain reaction. And if I get it, it doesn't really like add to it. It was like great. This is what it is. But if it changes it, I can be like, oh, wait a minute. But how does that line up with this? And I always have in my head the option of, you know, maybe I'm misreading it. Like I still I didn't just go like, well, I now don't think it's George because he seemed really distraught. But it was like a piece of evidence like, well, how am I going to overcome that? If I want it to be George, would I do something? I certainly didn't feel like he had destroyed his own notes. Exactly. So like it then comes into like, okay, let's say if he didn't do that, maybe he did do this. Like he still would want them like that or, you know, maybe he didn't know when he was destroying. So he destroyed a bunch of stuff and then realized, oh my god, I just wrote my own notes. That's what I'm sad about. Yeah, and like. So it never feels like it is, oh, you've just given this away. It just feels like, okay, I've learned some new confounding element here. How do I justify that? Sometimes it's really cool. Like I like doing it with Natalie and being like, how are people going to react to this book? And like for George's reactions, Natalie's stuff being like, not that bothered and rowing being more bothered. Kind of it colors the picture in a really nice way. I think you'll quite you'll go to that with the performance. That's what I worry about when I'm running them that everyone is just sort of kind of people. And it takes some time. I'm sure this was cut out of the edit, but there were a couple of times where I made you go, wait, hold on a second. I haven't thought about this and I need to think about how this character is going to respond. And honestly, this one of these things sometimes, you know, you used to be that that would then put you in like, oh no, I'm so on the spot. And I have to. And now you're much more comfortable to say, I need to think of how that reaction should go. I'm recording, wait five minutes and I'll tell you when to start again and I'll have the reaction. On that note, you quickly making me write something as Rowan. Exciting stuff. I'm gonna push the boundaries here. I've got to make sure I love that. I thought it was a great bit to do. It was very hard to decide what I should do. I love that. I thought, let's try to come up with something that definitely not going to be good writing, but also is going to sound like something that you would tell an LLM if you wanted to say, hey, write me something that's describing a bedroom, and make it typical, but with a little bit of a different major. I feel like that's something that someone might ask again, haven't used it. It shows he's more, he's more practiced at prompt manipulation than he is at writing. Yeah, exactly. Yeah, I think that's great. I think that sort of stuff is very, it was very cool. But again, that felt like this lovely element of, oh, I can do stuff here. I've got writers. And I felt really fun doing that. Absolutely. I love that. Like, now being able for you to also be able to say, hmm, that is fun. Give me a second. Let me come up with that. And I think we've reached a nice point in not worrying about like, oh, what am I doing in the moment? Like, you don't have to do anything in the moment. Chill. Yes. And it's fun. And I love being able to do that. It does still worry me that I'm going to accidentally derail things in ways. Like, my, I was so happy when you realized the implications that Natalie was giving you that this blend writing means chat GPT. And then immediately going to they were all using chat GPT and I had to go, oh crap. What if I don't know. But yeah, again, like I put it out there, but it didn't, it didn't hold water as an idea is like, oh no, wait a minute, wait a minute. Wait a minute. I don't know if this is going to actually like you would be like, oh, there's like, what no. Like that. Let's actually think this through. The George, the Georgian. The Georgian. was interesting of him, like, he knows about the site. He is better but secretive, doesn't want to show other people. We know that other people here are using blurbophile. And like, the question as well is like, if you are page, what can you notice? That was my big question the whole time. It's like, okay, she saw George's notes. And now she says, says, I have evidence of what? Like, how is that evidence? Like, you see his notes and it's like, what is actually do you see that makes you go, oh, now I understand. But presumably, yeah, it's his, it's like, he's either she recognized individual passages, which maybe she did, or it was like notes of like, where he got this one and what to do. And like, how do I put these two blocks together? You know? Yeah, his handwritten notes probably would have made it very clear that there was some segmentation between them. Maybe it was like, in these sorts of draft notes, some of the more in different text sizes. Yeah, different fonts and just copy them straight. Didn't even control shift V the fool. Yeah, I like, I really like those elements of it. And I like that you had the classic murder mystery double cheat thing, but kind of almost tripled. Like a bunch of them were doing something that is kind of on the surface wrong. And it's just various levels. And which one of these wrong doings is wrong doing enough to lead to murder. You know, it's like, oh, no, no, yeah, I was sneaking ramps because I was just stealing diamonds. I'm not a killer. I'm a diamond thief. You're all right, sure. I love the character who is seeing as like kind of like seems like they are doing something morally wrong. And then absolutely defend themselves as doing nothing wrong. Yes. Do you know the other thing I like that this, this mystery has in a really, which is I think really important when it comes to murder mysteries, which is not what is a motive that is objectively reasonable enough to kill someone, but it is what would a what like, here's a motive. Would that character think that is enough to kill someone? Assume that it's not objective stuff. Assume that you've got a person who has the capacity for killing inside them. What would set them off? Exactly. And I think that's a thing that I've we've talked about this before about there's only like three motives. Yeah. But it's like you can't exactly find the thing that a person would do. That being said, that I feel like caused this late the stakes problem. You seemed uncertain at the end as you were denumanting based on that. Yeah. It was sort of going see for some sort of thing. Is it just for that or is there is there more? But like, which is sad? I don't that's not fun when that happens. Yeah. But like in the end makes it made purpose. I just wanted. I don't think I was unsure that that was like the real motive. I was just unsure that I was missing if there was one other piece of evidence or proof that I could throw in his face. Rather than just be like, is that is like if I got if I got all the things here, I'm is there anything else I need? Is that enough? And it was enough. It feels like when it became an act of like, is it like great, this is this is your world. I just wanted to there was I think maybe I wanted I was I was I was searched or not wanted, but I was wondering if I had missed some other piece of like and the proof of that is this. But it was instead of like, no, no, that is like the proof of that is that it is rather than and he is another thing that will correlate or you know and prove yeah. Will Rowan go to jail? I have no idea. I don't know if there's enough there for that. Yeah, yeah, exactly. That's not what this is about. But I had a lot of fun again. Like the characters all coming together and being people is really nice. The situation is great fun. I like in the I kind of really loved in the end that backstead didn't have much to say. Even I got to him like, I don't know what you want for me. I just I do wish you talked to him. I'm just bad at my job. If I know that you work and I do much talk, no, I just would have like fused him with Simba. Yeah, that's fair. Sim Baxter. No, I had a lot of fun with it. It was really fun. And this was one that you were saying before we started. You wrote this super quickly. Yes. How long to take you to put this on together? Three days. It's pretty good for a self-dress matter. Yeah, I want to say that I think it's roughly the same. It's about the same quality as the ones that I took much longer to write. That's right. I was writing them. You're pretty good. Like, do you think that I don't know? I feel better. How do you know how long do you talk to write the other ones? No, not even slightly. Do you think any of those were only three days? No, definitely not. But I know I take more time on the Ag the Christie's because I read the Ag the Christie's like five times to make sure I've got everything. And I make notes on every single chapter, every single page I do full ones of those. And I specifically seek out Ag the Christie's that I feel are going to be interesting and feel good for our show. But so I think that naturally by the fact that I'm objectively selecting them a bit more, I feel more comfortable with them and they turn out better. But in general, any of the ones that I write, this was a stopgab while you write the next one. I'm back to not feeling particularly comfortable in this role. I'm so shocked because I do think they're fun. They're good mysteries. I think they're good like character driven mysteries that work really well. I think you pick the, when you do a Christy, you find ones that have that same element, I think in a nice way. So clearly something that you're drawn to and enjoy. Yeah. I sometimes feel like I'm not as good as getting that across in my mystery. So I try and find some other things that I can use to fill that gap. I'm like, I don't trust my capacity to give you two distinct characters and allow their motivations to be clear or based on who they are. So instead of like, I'll have to give you some big piece of physical smoking gun thing. Which can be fun. Yeah. I do sound like I need that because I don't trust the subtlety of it. I think you're better at the subtlety of the murder mystery. You're better at the character part of a murder mystery. And being able to be like, here are the people. You should know what happened based on who they are. Whereas I'm much more, okay, I'm going to need to give you better evidence of what they've done so that you can do it based on that. So you can kind of collect their actions a bit more. Because yeah, I don't think I'd like to be better at this sort of stuff that I think you do very well in your mysteries. So the thing is when we combine our skills. I don't know, right? No, we were a lot of characters who didn't do anything. It didn't think anything. And no one wants to talk to you or can't talk to any of them. But yeah, I just like, I think I think you had a character who based on who they were, I could deduce everything about like where they would go each night and, you know, what they like why they were doing it. And the reasoning they might have to kill somebody if they saw them there, right? And that was really encapsulated just in like a fact about who the person was. Whereas I feel I feel uncomfortable. And I think maybe that's why I was looking for something else at the end was just because I went, well, no, it seems like this is true. But like from a writing said, I was like, I kind of feel like I don't have that capacity. So I want to be like, I need a thing that says, and that's when you, that's the physical evidence now you know they were up there. Like here's the person saying, and I saw a blue hat to demand go up the street. And then you, and then he's like, if my name's it like his username would be like Johnny blue hat on and you'd be like, okay, he was the blue hat man. And I feel like I need those things because I don't think I trust my capacity to make it clear in the characterization. Interesting. And so I think that's why I wanted something else like, well, I wouldn't I couldn't do this. I do find it quite rewarding when you, I mean, yeah, because like this is a good thing. And in the end, that's what I, that's all I needed to make it all work to come together. And I think that's something that, yeah, I'm not, I don't trust myself as much in that space that, and you do. And I think it works really well for you because the characters present themselves in a way that makes the, the thing solved will based on, yeah, just on the characters as presented more so than needing to be like, here's the list of things that lead to that. Let's take them all off and go. It's sort of stuff that you like, you know, when we were doing golden idle, you needed a lot more of the, everything must be ticked off and pure, un, you know, like for characters who will be like, and, sorry, I don't know if the sentence finished. Yeah, I don't know if it was like, golden idle was much less like the characters were there, but it was very much, whereas all the individual pieces of physical evidence has seen. And can you then prove it without a shadow of it out in the scene that this must have that way? Whereas I think you would work well with stuff that like, I know that will in those when he was designing would sometimes have these things be a lot more open to the people and then he would have to keep adding in more physical evidence as it was play testing. But I think his initial design thought was a bit more like yours of like, no, no, people can figure it out. And people could, it's just a lot of people had trouble. I think that was why I had fun when we got to do our segments and additions to the overarching story. Like, that was a big character thing. Yes. And I remember me in particular was going, I think we need to really make sure that this has been developed and doesn't come out of nowhere at the end. Right now, I think it's coming out nowhere at the end. So we need to make sure that we sift this in. So it just doesn't even have to be like evidence that this is going on. It just has to make it feel right. And I think we're very good at that throughout goldmine because there were stuff that at the end of it, like, well, here's all the building blocks that you need to build to make this true. It's like, yeah, but it doesn't feel good. So we need to make it long term feel like it reflects a person. Yeah. And I think you like, yeah, that's something I'd like to get better at is this idea of can I make a character who is in themselves evidence because of who they are? And I, yeah, I don't trust myself with that as much. And I think it worked really well in this mystery. I think it has before and I think it's why I'm sometimes bad at solving them. Because I'm like, and maybe I'm misreading this character. Oh no. Do I trust this? This is an alpha and it is enough. It's the only thing that made sense. Yeah, and I, yes, it's interesting. It's interesting difference. I think that's like a fundamental difference in how they end up after we put them together. We keep finding these little differences. Yeah, we're terrible terrible. Couple of these terrible flaws we have. Well, these fundamental differences. Oh, what do you think? Is that a mystery? Yes, I loved it was great. I had a lot of fun with it. Yeah, yeah, it's interesting. Weirdly, I have both that feeling of like, I need to think about the characters holistically, but also I kind of want to stop talking them holistically. It's up breaking them up into how they react. Like, get a better picture of each person based on multiple reactions to different individual things. Like, take an idea and apply each person to that idea rather than take a person and try and get all the ideas. Who can say that? Does that make any sense? I don't think it does. This was a shorter one, four episodes. So whoever was the detective of the arc, they might have gotten really early with it. Yes, entirely possible. Sorry, detective, I didn't speak to Rowan until the end. Like always. Just kept happening and you kept lamp shading it and apologizing for it throughout and I was seething a little bit. You know why? Because the physical evidence is not going to point to the criminal because the criminal is the evidence. The person is the evidence and I'm looking for the evidence to lead into the person. It was explicitly destroyed. Sorry, everybody. I got you again. Wonderful. Thank you so much for running it, Danny and writing it. It was wonderful. Thank you for playing. I really liked it and I'm excited to do the next one. I think there are elements that I say there's stuff I'm not comfortable with. I feel like there are elements of this that I'm learning to work into it and have already a little bit about the way the characters reflect stuff. So hopefully there's a bit more of that strong character process. Well, let me start with things in yours because I will say the very first thing I wrote, literally the words "right is retreat". And as soon as I'd written that, I turned the page and went, "Yeah, I can work with this." So I've written the right is retreat and then gone straight to here are the six characters. I've done very similar mine. Though in the one I'm working on now, I've gone, "Here is the premise of the idea of the type of mystery I want to do." But again, it always feels like I'm writing a puzzle rather than a mystery. So it's like, "Here's the type of mystery that I wanted to have." That's my following paragraph after I've got the people and then I've got "B" has been stealing content from people online, including "A" and "Maybe C" not realizing everyone uses the same site. "D" only swipes ideas, which is rude but not illegal. "F" has realized B's theft and decides to try the hand-investigative journalism, something broken at campsite. "E"'s fault puts "F" in wrong place at wrong time, so "A" thinks "F" is the play-dressing kills them. That was where I. That was my concept of it. But the characters, the archetypes, came first and what I wanted them to act like came first. Well, this is from the one I'm working on now. I've got it. I had a moment of like, "Here's the kind of mystery I want to work on." Again, very much more evidence-heavy, not at the time, but like I thought it might be. And then I went, "Oh, you know what? After I've come up with this idea of what the type of mystery is, it does not inherently create particular characters. So I can right now come up with six characters, not based on like the setting or the idea, but just who are six people? And then I will build the intricacies of the mystery around those six people." But I have this mode of like, "I can just come up with six people." Oh, it's frightening freedom. So I'm just gonna do that. I'm gonna come up with six individual people and now I'm gonna see how they interact and how I can build the mystery out of it. If I wanted to, I could have absolutely built into these characters. They've just come together for a writer's retreat, but their lives in the real world are completely different. And I didn't. I got a little bit more of that on this one. Yeah, cool. That's good. For a proper full-size mystery, I think that's fine. But it'll be interesting to see if it all comes together. I'm pretty hopeful of where I'm at. I've got a lot of it down to most of it's there. I just gotta finalize the details now. And the details. Oh, detail. But thank you so much for running it. It was great. I really enjoyed it. I solved it. Yeah. I'm the king. That's what you want. Thank you both for listening. I hope you all enjoyed it. Yeah, I really hope you all are listening along. And yeah, thank you so much for supporting us on Patreon. Thank you so much. Anyone, if you want to support us at all, feel free to just talk about the show. Talk about online, post about it, spread the word. Tell your friends, tell anyone who's cool about the show. Really, honestly, it really does help. But you can also help support us on Patreon with some actual cash money, which is the only way we make an income through this. So thank you. It keeps us being able to make these shows and keep writing them and doing escape this podcast as well and do all that. And it means that your names may be used for murderers, victims, dirty, dirty cheats. Or books because who are the patrons we use for this, for this mystery? So thank you so much to Ron Borough, George Cruz, Nicola Flappmann, Natalie Ford, Backstabarit, Paige Kaplinsky, and of course, Irodecin Oracle. Yes, you became a book. A stolen, stolen book. I'll be out of anybody who's bought this at any level can appear as an NPC in one of the room, in one of the mysteries. But yeah, there's also bone, there's weekly bonus audio content. There's a whole, for a 10 dollar donors, there's monthly videos as well as a new weekly podcast where we talk about the TV show Charmed. You may notice that it has nothing to do with any of the other work that we do, but it's a really fun show and it's really fun to watch together. And I think some people in our discord are starting like a watch party. Yeah, which is great. That's very cool. So yeah, there's lots of fun. We're trying to put a lot of fun stuff up. They were doing cryptic crosswords and two minute mysteries and play tests and a whole bunch of fun stuff. We got a lot of stuff up there. It's just a nice place to check out all the kind of extra, somewhat a mix of interesting, but also kind of low effort and fun, loose content there. But yeah, go check it out. If you want to help support the show, we really appreciate everybody who does. And it keeps shows like this free for you to listen to. So you can thank him yourself. If you see a patron on the street, thank him for their donations on our, on your behalf, for getting free as Solvus Murder through the grace of their donations. Excellent. Thank you everybody for listening. Thank you again, Danny, for running it. I had a heap of fun and I solved it in a crafty case. Bye everybody. Thank you for listening to Solvus Murder. To support the show, you can sign up for our Patreon and receive weekly bonus episodes, monthly videos and full access to all parts of new Solvus Murder mysteries on day one. Thanks to all our patrons for supporting us. Thanks to advanced sage brush and shootouts for our theme music and thanks again to all of you for listening.