[CoffeeBean] Let's Make Two

[CoffeeBean]

A man builds something that's identical to something he already has, but he has no intention of using it. He does this so that a friend of his won't be killed by someone that neither of them have ever met.

[WiZ]

Are both the man and the friend HAMs? Although they've never met the killer, do they know him/know of him? Have they had any interactions? If they don't know the identity of the killer, do they know anything about him (e.g. profession, location, socio-political associations)?

Would the death of the friend be a certainty had he not taken this action? Would it be murder? Accidental? A consequence of legal or medical proceedings?

[Insight]

Was the friend abducted?
Is the something the man builds money?

[Earnest]

build something = literally? constructing something solid? with instruments (hammer? screwdriver?...) did the construction of the "something" take on seconds? hours? weeks? days? months? years? did he want to build the something in order to directly exploit it against the someone who wanted to kill his friend? Was it a weapon? An every day object? Something that anyone can simply reproduce/build up? is it usual to build that something up? To have more than one? Is it smaller than a car? Bigger? Smaller than a basketball ball?

won't be killed = the friend will be able to escape? The "someone" is satisfied and has obtained what he/she wanted? The "someone" is neutralized? The friend will be able to defend himself? the weapon/item used by the someone will be broken?

"someone who wanted to kill the friend" = an authority? Like his friend will be executed? relevant who is he? what he wanted?

was the object he already has inadequate? it did not have some fundamental feature? was too precious? Did he build up a fake? (like a painting for instance) Was it too old? too long? too short?

[CoffeeBean]

Are both the man and the friend HAMs? Yes
Although they've never met the killer, do they know him/know of him? They know of him, yes
Have they had any interactions? It's unknown, but very possible
If they don't know the identity of the killer, do they know anything about him Yes
e.g. profession, Not this, but... location, socio-political associations? ...both of these are known

Would the death of the friend be a certainty had he not taken this action? Yes
Would it be murder? Yes Accidental? No A consequence of legal or medical proceedings? No

Was the friend abducted? No
Is the something the man builds money? No

Build something = literally? Yes constructing something solid? Yes with instruments (hammer? screwdriver?...) Yes
Did the construction of the "something" take on seconds? hours? weeks? days? months? years? Days to weeks
Did he want to build the something in order to directly exploit it against the someone who wanted to kill his friend? I don't think "exploit" is the best word, but this is on the right track
Was it a weapon? No An every day object? It could be considered this based on something else relevant
Something that anyone can simply reproduce/build up? I don't know if anyone could, but these men could do it
Is it usual to build that something up? Better re-word this question, it's a good one but can't be answered yet
To have more than one? Yes Is it smaller than a car? Bigger? This Smaller than a basketball ball? No

Won't be killed = the friend will be able to escape? No, it doesn't mean this
The "someone" is satisfied and has obtained what he/she wanted? No
The "someone" is neutralized? Yes, practically speaking
The friend will be able to defend himself? YES the weapon/item used by the someone will be broken? No

"someone who wanted to kill the friend" = an authority? No Like his friend will be executed? Something like this, yes
relevant who is he? what he wanted? Yes to both

was the object he already has inadequate? Yes it did not have some fundamental feature? Yes was too precious? No
Did he build up a fake? No(like a painting for instance)
Was it too old? too long? too short? None of these

[Earnest]

to be sure...it is not something like the man was forced to build that something (which maybe it is common now but not at the time of the puzzle) in order to free him and his friend? And maybe he build up that something but then use it in order to defend himself and the friend?

was the "potential murderer" a nazi? a rebel of some kind? was it simple for the men to reach the killer and his friend without that "something"?

A man builds something that's identical to something he already has--> to be sure...at the end of the process of construction he ended up with two objects or he just added up the important feature to the one he already had (thus ending up with one modified object)?

was the "something" made of wood? Iron? Plastic? Air (something that can be inflated)? Did the man add up an important feature? important feature = an engine that was missing to the "something" he had? If so was it necessary in order to make the "something" go faster? Fly? to add an armor? call reinforcements? distract the enemy? boost the friend? was the "something" directly used by the friend?

so...bigger than a car and days to weeks for building it up...did he construct it alone?was it a vehicle? Something that could be moved? With wheels? something that is able to fly? Like an hot-air balloon?

Identical to something he already has = the something he has is made of the same material with the same dimensions? Perfectly equal except for a characteristic? Or something like the Trojan Horse (Ulysses reproduced a horse)?

[CoffeeBean]

To be sure...it is not something like the man was forced to build that something No, he wasn't forced to build it
(which maybe it is common now but not at the time of the puzzle) Actually it's the opposite of this
in order to free him and his friend? Not to free them, no
And maybe he build up that something but then use it in order to defend himself No, not himself and the friend? Yes, it was built to defend his friend
Was the "potential murderer" a nazi? a rebel of some kind? Neither
Was it simple for the men to reach the killer and his friend without that "something"? Can you re-word this question?

A man builds something that's identical to something he already has--> to be sure...at the end of the process of construction he ended up with two objects Yes, and... or he just added up the important feature to the one he already had (thus ending up with one modified object)? No, he did not make any changes to the object that he already had

was the "something" made of wood? Yes Iron? Plastic? Air (something that can be inflated)? No to these
Did the man add up an important feature? He didn't add a feature, but this should be explored
important feature = an engine that was missing to the "something" he had? No
If so was it necessary in order to make the "something" go faster? Fly? to add an armor? call reinforcements? distract the enemy? boost the friend? Not any of these Was the "something" directly used by the friend? Yes

so...bigger than a car and days to weeks for building it up...did he construct it alone? No was it a vehicle? No
Something that could be moved? Yes With wheels? Possibly, but indirectly if at all
something that is able to fly? Like an hot-air balloon? No to both

Identical to something he already has = the something he has is made of the same material with the same dimensions? Yes
Perfectly equal except for a characteristic? YES Or something like the Trojan Horse (Ulysses reproduced a horse)? No

[Earnest]

ok...so shape of the object = a plan (like a platform...if so a round platform?)? a sphere? cubic shape? rectangular shape?
can the object be classified as: a box? a reinforcement? a boat? a shield? a statue? a table? a door? a window? is the object pierced in inside?

is the main use of the object: to hide something? to protect? to contain someone/something? is it considered a building? a fence? a piece of furniture?

little WAG: did the man work for the killer but was friend of the one who was going to be killed without that the killer knew their relationship as friends?

little WAG part 2: was A (the one who would be killed) and B in the same place (e.g. B's house) and B constructed something to reinforce the place were they found themselves so that the potential killer would not be able to enter/to reach A?

Perfectly equal except for a characteristic? YES---> characteristic = something he added? or something he removed? (like a door in which he removed the lock) a hole? a sharp object? something made of wood as well? Or of iron? Another material? something to defend from bullets? from shots from a distance? from close shots? from vehicles?

[GalFisk]

Is he building a decoy? Camouflage? Is there a war? Would the friend be killed by a soldier? An explosive? Bullet(s)? Is the friend a soldier?

[CoffeeBean]

ok...so shape of the object = a plan (like a platform...if so a round platform?)? Similar to a platform, yes a sphere? cubic shape? No to these rectangular shape? Yes
can the object be classified as: a box? a reinforcement? a boat? a shield? a statue? a table? a door? a window? is the object pierced in inside?
Reinforcement is closest

is the main use of the object: to hide something? to protect? <-- This to contain someone/something? It also does this
is it considered a building? a fence? THIS a piece of furniture?

little WAG: did the man work for the killer but was friend of the one who was going to be killed without that the killer knew their relationship as friends? No

little WAG part 2: was A (the one who would be killed) and B in the same place (e.g. B's house) and B constructed something to reinforce the place were they found themselves so that the potential killer would not be able to enter/to reach A? Not exactly but this is on the right track. The thing that was built was made so that the killer would not be able to get to the place where A would be.

Perfectly equal except for a characteristic? YES---> characteristic = something he added? Not really "added" but there was a slight change
or something he removed? (like a door in which he removed the lock) a hole? a sharp object? No to all
something made of wood as well? Yes, both the existing item and the new item were made of wood Or of iron? Another material? Nothing else relevant
something to defend from bullets? No but OTRT from shots from a distance? from close shots? Yes to both from vehicles? No, not this

[Earnest]

Are we talking about modern times? Ancient times? Were there vehicles/guns at the time of the puzzle? were there airplanes? Was it possible in general to overstep fences with horses? with "hooked" ropes? If so, was it impossible after the characteristic added in the new fence?

Was it a palisade? A sharp palisade? Did he add sharp peaks to the fence he already had? Barbed wire? Were the two fences carefully distanced one from the other? Was the new fence "higher" than the first one? Was it an electronic modification?
Was the new fence perfectly visible? Could the killer see it at a first glance? were there traps?

killer would not be able to get to the place where A would be = he can overstep the fence but without an important item/animal? (e.g. a sharp palisade which does not allow horses to jump in...or better a double fence so that even if the killer was able to go through the first one he would have been unable to overstep the second?)

[CoffeeBean]

Are we talking about modern times? No, but...Ancient times? ...not really considered this either.
Were there vehicles/guns at the time of the puzzle? Yes were there airplanes? No
Was it possible in general to overstep fences with horses? Not in this case, no with "hooked" ropes? I'm not sure, don't think this is relevant here If so, was it impossible after the characteristic added in the new fence? The new fence was identical to the one that Man B had already built, there was just one difference which did not include putting anything additional on it.

Was it a palisade? A sharp palisade? Yes to both Did he add sharp peaks to the fence he already had? Barbed wire? No, nothing was added to the existing fence
Were the two fences carefully distanced one from the other? Please re-phrase Was the new fence "higher" than the first one? No
Was it an electronic modification? No
Was the new fence perfectly visible? Yes Could the killer see it at a first glance? Yes were there traps? Maybe, but not relevant

killer would not be able to get to the place where A would be = he can overstep the fence No, not possible but without an important item/animal? (e.g. a sharp palisade which does not allow horses to jump in...or better a double fence so that even if the killer was able to go through the first one he would have been unable to overstep the second?) The killer wouldn't have needed to overstep the fence in the past, explore the reason(s) why

[Earnest]

maybe little wag...sorry in advance for the english...so my idea is that the old palisade was build up badly in the sense that the poles were too far one from the other and the killer wouldn't have needed to overstep the fence because he could have simply cross it passing in the hole left by two poles. Hence, the new palisade was build up to cover the holes left by the first palisade

Not sure about that WAG...so I'll continue asking questions: was the old palisade a classic palisade with all the poles posed vertically on the ground? was it ruined?

[CoffeeBean]

maybe little wag...sorry in advance for the english...so my idea is that the old palisade was build up badly in the sense that the poles were too far one from the other and the killer wouldn't have needed to overstep the fence because he could have simply cross it passing in the hole left by two poles. Hence, the new palisade was build up to cover the holes left by the first palisade There's an incorrect assumption here, keep reading...

Not sure about that WAG...so I'll continue asking questions: was the old palisade a classic palisade with all the poles posed vertically on the ground? was it ruined? There was not an old palisade.

[Earnest]

was there an old fence? so the "something that's identical to something he already has" is a fence right? After having constructed a new fence, he man has two fences and A was able to defend, right?

If so, the characteristic that the new fence has and that the old one has not, is what makes the new fence a "palisade"? Or other stuffs like flags? Ensigns? Dye? Emblem? Something that made understand the killer, belonging to a political group that, if the boundary of the new fence were overstep something bad would have happened to him?

Was for the killer physically impossible to overstep the new fence or politically?
E.g. he formalized the presence of an embassy beyond the fence so that if the killer had overstepped it, there would be war?

[CoffeeBean]

was there an old fence? Not really "old" so the "something that's identical to something he already has" is a fence right? It is, yes, but there is a significant difference After having constructed a new fence, the man has two fences No, neither man will have two fences and A was able to defend, right? Yes, A was able to defend himself once the second fence was constructed, but there is an important feature of the newer fence that is still not known

If so, the characteristic that the new fence has and that the old one has not, is what makes the new fence a "palisade"? No Or other stuffs like flags? Ensigns? Dye? Emblem? None of these
Something that made understand the killer, belonging to a political group that, if the boundary of the new fence were overstep something bad would have happened to him? The killer already understood this before the new fence was built

Was for the killer physically impossible to overstep the new fence or politically? Yes, but something important allowed this
E.g. he formalized the presence of an embassy beyond the fence so that if the killer had overstepped it, there would be war? No

[biograd]

Did the "new" fence and the "old" fence combine to create one continuous length of fencing?

[CoffeeBean]

Did the "new" fence and the "old" fence combine to create one continuous length of fencing? No

[Balin]

Was one fence fully inside the other fence?
Did either fence have a gate? If so, the old fence? The new fence?

[Earnest]

No, neither man will have two fences...--> confused about this answer...if there is an "old" fence and a new with an important feature is build up...don't we have two fences? Or the feature is so important that the newer one is no more considered a fence?

ok...do we agree on the fact that without the new fence and with just the "old" fence, A would not be able to defend, right?...so we need just to investigate the feature of the second fence...:

are there holes on the newer fence so that one can shoot with guns?
is the old fence "at design stage" (e.g. it was just on a paper not already constructed)

The new fence was identical to the one that Man B had already built, there was just one difference which did not include putting anything additional on it.-->so did the "old" fence exist? Can it be considered a set of wood poles vertically "planted" on the ground? Poles equidistant one from the other? Or were there just poles and the fence needed to be constructed yet? Is the difference simply the fact that the "old" fence did not exist and the "newer" one existed instead? I mean difference is "old" fence = made just of poles not already planted; "new" fence = made of planted poles?

[CoffeeBean]

Was one fence fully inside the other fence? No
Did either fence have a gate? If so, the old fence? The new fence? Both of them do

No, neither man will have two fences...--> confused about this answer...if there is an "old" fence and a new with an important feature is build up...don't we have two fences? Yes, but neither man will claim both of them
Or the feature is so important that the newer one is no more considered a fence? They are both fences, but the man who has the first one will not use the new one

ok...do we agree on the fact that without the new fence and with just the "old" fence, A would not be able to defend, right? A does not use the old fence, but he would not be able to defend himself without the new fence ...so we need just to investigate the feature of the second fence...: Yes, and your last question gives a big clue to that

are there holes on the newer fence so that one can shoot with guns? Yes, but that's not relevant
is the old fence "at design stage" (e.g. it was just on a paper not already constructed) Not the old fence, no...

The new fence was identical to the one that Man B had already built, there was just one difference which did not include putting anything additional on it. All correct
-->so did the "old" fence exist? Yes Can it be considered a set of wood poles vertically "planted" on the ground? Yes
Poles equidistant one from the other? Yes Or were there just poles and the fence needed to be constructed yet? No, the old fence was entirely constructed
Is the difference simply the fact that the "old" fence did not exist and the "newer" one existed instead? No, it's the opposite
I mean difference is "old" fence = made just of poles not already planted; "new" fence = made of planted poles? NO, the poles of the new fence have not yet been planted (good question)

[GalFisk]

Was the new fence not built? Was materials for the new fence acquired? Is a ruse or trick relevant?

[CoffeeBean]

Was the new fence not built? Not at first, no
Was materials for the new fence acquired? Yes
Is a ruse or trick relevant? No

[Earnest]

NO, the poles of the new fence have not yet been planted--> are the poles going to be planted vertically? Is a new fence constructed with the poles? or are them exploited as "poles" not yet been planted? (e.g. if there was a source of water they builded up a raft with the poles? did they throw the sharp poles against the enemy?) were the poles aligned horizontally? were they equidistant? Ready to be planted? ready to be lifted vertically as soon as the killer pass? Were the poles in front of the old fence? Being it? in between a pole and another of the old fence?
Not already being planted = lying on the ground? Off the ground? inside something? (e.g. a weapon?) posed on something? (e.g. on a wall) were they part of a bigger construction?

Did they took advantage of the fact that the poles had not already been planted? Did they dig holes to plant the poles? If so and if they wanted to plant them, did they put something in the holes prepared to plant the poles?

Are the poles of the "new" fence used alone? Is the "new fence" actually exploited as a "fence" by A or B? were the poles of the new fence "connected" one to the other? I mean...the poles of the new fence not already planted, from a unique structure?

[CoffeeBean]

NO, the poles of the new fence have not yet been planted--> are the poles going to be planted vertically? Yes
Is a new fence constructed with the poles? Yes, same material as old fence
or are them exploited as "poles" not yet been planted? (e.g. if there was a source of water they builded up a raft with the poles? did they throw the sharp poles against the enemy?) No, the new fence has not yet been planted
were the poles aligned horizontally? were they equidistant? Ready to be planted? Yes to all
ready to be lifted vertically as soon as the killer pass? What do you mean by this?
Were the poles in front of the old fence? Being it? in between a pole and another of the old fence? The new fence will not be near the old fence, no
Not already being planted = lying on the ground? Yes, at one time Off the ground? Yes, at one time inside something? (e.g. a weapon?) No posed on something? (e.g. on a wall) No were they part of a bigger construction? Yes

Did they took advantage of the fact that the poles had not already been planted? Who? Did they dig holes to plant the poles? Yes
If so and if they wanted to plant them, did they put something in the holes prepared to plant the poles? No, just dug holes to plant the fence

Are the poles of the "new" fence used alone? Instead of what? Is the "new fence" actually exploited as a "fence" by A or B? A will not use the new fence were the poles of the new fence "connected" one to the other? Yes
I mean...the poles of the new fence not already planted, from a unique structure? Can you ask this another way?

[Balin]

I think you missed this set of GalFisk questions:

Is he building a decoy? Camouflage? Is there a war? Would the friend be killed by a soldier? An explosive? Bullet(s)? Is the friend a soldier?

[CoffeeBean]

Sorry I missed these...

Is he building a decoy? Camouflage? No to both
Is there a war? Of a kind, yes
Would the friend be killed by a soldier? Strictly speaking no, but explore An explosive? Bullet(s)? Neither of these
Is the friend a soldier? Possibly

[Balin]

War of a kind... is there any actual fighting going on? Is there a battle? Is there a war but no fighting? Is the man preparing defenses against fighting?

[CoffeeBean]

War of a kind... is there any actual fighting going on? Yes
Is there a battle? In a sense, yes, but needs to be clarified
Is there a war but no fighting? There is fighting
Is the man preparing defenses against fighting? Yes, in a way

[Earnest]

Sorry for the unclear questions above...I'll forget them for a while and then ask again after having cleared sone points...

To be sure...was there the relevant danger that the one who wanted to kill the friend of the man, dig a hole and "overstep" the old fence easily from underground? Again to be sure...will the poles of the "new" fence be planted upside down? Will the poles be planted as soon as the "killer" appear? As soon as the killer try to do something? Relevant?

Foxholes relevant? Are forts relevant? Was the war mainly in the US? In Europe? Africa? Are tribes relevant? Red Indians? Natives?

Old fence = a circular fence surrounding the main building? Will the "new" fence resemble the old one in the shape?

...not sure about that but I'll try...were A and B inside a building and A build up a sort of wood support for the windows?

A will not use the new fence --> is it because he will leave? Or because it was physically impossible for him to use the "new fence"? Relevant how many poles the "new" fence had? Two? Five? Ten? More? Twenty? More? Fifty? Hundred? More?

[CoffeeBean]

Sorry for the unclear questions above...I'll forget them for a while and then ask again after having cleared sone points...Your questions aren't really unclear, they are good questions but I want to make sure I answer them correctly so as not to mislead anyone.

To be sure...was there the relevant danger that the one who wanted to kill the friend of the man, dig a hole and "overstep" the old fence easily from underground? No, it was never possible to step over any fence
Again to be sure...will the poles of the "new" fence be planted upside down? No
Will the poles be planted as soon as the "killer" appear? No, they won't be able to do this As soon as the killer try to do something? No, they can't do this either Relevant? Yes, both the time when the poles will be planted and the time when the killer would potentially do something is very relevant

Foxholes relevant? No, but... Are forts relevant? ...YES, this is!
Was the war mainly in the US? Yes, this one was In Europe? Africa?
Are tribes relevant? Red Indians? Natives? YES to all of these

Old fence = a circular fence surrounding the main building? Yes Will the "new" fence resemble the old one in the shape? Yes, it will be an exact copy

...not sure about that but I'll try...were A and B inside a building and A build up a sort of wood support for the windows? No

A will not use the new fence --> is it because he will leave? I may be confused about A and B. If B is the man who already has a fence, then B will not use the new fence, A will use it. And yes, A will leave B's location to use the fence.
Or because it was physically impossible for him to use the "new fence"? Either man could have used it, but only one of them needed it
Relevant how many poles the "new" fence had? Two? Five? Ten? More? Twenty? More? Fifty? Hundred? More? Several hundred

[Earnest]

well...again to be sure..."old fence" is not just a model (a diorama), right? Are rivers or mountains relevant?

A and B were in the fort right? Or were them natives?
If A and B were in the fort, were them the only two people in the fort?
A and B were friends...did they belong to different formations formally, but were friends despite that? Was A injured? Unable to move? Alone? Without any shelter? Without the material to build up the fence?

it (new fence) will be an exact copy = same length? Same number of poles and circular?

by someone that neither of them have ever met--> a single man?

ok I'm confused...A and B were together...B build up the new fence for A with a fundamental characteristic (= poles not already been planted)...A will exploit the new fence going away from the place where he was and B will continue to use tho old fence right?
Poles not already been planted is a fundamental characteristic because they needed to be transported from a place to another? If so, did they transport each pole from the place with the old fence to the place where the new fence will be build up?

[CoffeeBean]

well...again to be sure..."old fence" is not just a model (a diorama), right? Right, it's an actual fence/wall/palisade
Are rivers or mountains relevant? No
A and B were in the fort right? When? Or were them natives? No, they aren't
If A and B were in the fort, were them the only two people in the fort? No
A and B were friends...did they belong to different formations formally, but were friends despite that? No
Was A injured? Unable to move? Alone? Without any shelter? No
Without the material to build up the fence? Not exactly but on the right track here

it (new fence) will be an exact copy = same length? Same number of poles and circular? Yes, safe to assume this

by someone that neither of them have ever met--> a single man? Could be this or a group of men

ok I'm confused...A and B were together...B build up the new fence for A with a fundamental characteristic (= poles not already been planted)...A will exploit the new fence going away from the place where he was and B will continue to use tho old fence right? Yes - when the new fence is built, A will go to another place, B will stay where he has always been with the "old" fence
Poles not already been planted is a fundamental characteristic because they needed to be transported from a place to another? YES
If so, did they transport each pole from the place with the old fence to the place where the new fence will be build up? Yes, but they did something with the poles before they were transported (in other words, they did not simply transport numerous singular poles from one place to the other)

[Balin]

Did they damage the poles in any way before moving them? Reinforce them? Cut them in half (or more pieces)?

[Earnest]

in other words, they did not simply transport numerous singular poles from one place to the other --> and the thing they did is in order to facilitate the transport? Or to make them more effectives? To defend from natives weapons? Did they exploit the poles in another way while transporting them? Before transporting them? After habing transported them?

Did they need to defend themselves during the transportation? Did they want not to be noticed by natives? Was the transportation long? Did they carve them in a particular way?
Did they build up a passageway with the poles and disassemble it as they pass along it? Did they make a fire? Did they modify somehow the poles?

Both A and B transported the poles? Or one of them transport the poles and the other stayed to the "new" place to build up the new fence? Were the poles exploited as palisade as soon as they were transported? Relevant who dig the holes to put the poles? Did A and B acted separately and needed to be defended while transporting and constructing the new fence?

[CoffeeBean]

Did they damage the poles in any way before moving them? Reinforce them? Cut them in half (or more pieces)? No, everything about the new fence looked exactly like the existing one, except the new one was not planted in the ground

In other words, they did not simply transport numerous singular poles from one place to the other --> and the thing they did is in order to facilitate the transport? No, they did not transport singular poles
Or to make them more effectives? Yes, in a certain way
To defend from natives weapons? Eventually, yes, but not during transport
Did they exploit the poles in another way while transporting them? Before transporting them? After having transported them? Maybe - what do you mean by "exploit"?

Did they need to defend themselves during the transportation? Yes, and at another relevant time as well...
Did they want not to be noticed by natives? They knew the natives would see them
Was the transportation long? Probably a day or less Did they carve them in a particular way? No
Did they build up a passageway with the poles and disassemble it as they pass along it? Did they make a fire? Did they modify somehow the poles? None of these are relevant

Both A and B transported the poles? No, they both worked together to build the new fence, but only one of them transported it
Or one of them transport the poles and the other stayed to the "new" place to build up the new fence? No, after the new fence was built, one of the men took it to a new place, the other man stayed where he had always been
Were the poles exploited as palisade as soon as they were transported? YES, and this is relevant
Relevant who dig the holes to put the poles? No
Did A and B acted separately and needed to be defended while transporting and constructing the new fence? YES - both men did not travel to te new location, but the man who did travel needed to be defended while constructing the new fence (very relevant)

Nearly done now...

[Balin]

By not planting the poles in the ground, would the fence be easier to set up? Easier to move again if/when needed? Would there be less time for a surprise attack in those cases?

[CoffeeBean]

By not planting the poles in the ground, would the fence be easier to set up? Yes...
Easier to move again if/when needed? ...but they wouldn't need to do this, and...
Would there be less time for a surprise attack in those cases? ...there's only one relevant time when it's important to guard against a surprise attack...

[Grouffe]

Did they more or less assemble the palisade before the transport to protect A also during transport? As a sort of moving fortress? Protecting against such as arrow shots, spear throws or tomahawk throws?

[CoffeeBean]

Did they more or less assemble the palisade before the transport to protect A also during transport? Not during transport, no
As a sort of moving fortress? No
Protecting against such as arrow shots, spear throws or tomahawk throws? At some point yet, but not during transport

[Earnest]

YES - both men did not travel to te new location, but the man who did travel needed to be defended while constructing the new fence (very relevant) ----> did he defend with poles? If so...supposibg he could transport two poles for each travel...did he exploit just two poles to defend himself after the first travel?...hope not for him xD

Did he exploit an old building? The fort?
Did he hide himself? Did he defend with a weapon? Thanks to the relevant characteristic of the new palisade?

Well...stupid...WAG...did he exploit each pole as a weapon? Maybe throwing them?

[CoffeeBean]

YES - both men did not travel to te new location, but the man who did travel needed to be defended while constructing the new fence (very relevant) ----> did he defend with poles? No
If so...supposing he could transport two poles for each travel...did he exploit just two poles to defend himself after the first travel?...hope not for him xD
No, there is more information needed about the travel

Did he exploit an old building? The fort? I don't think so, no
Did he hide himself? No, not possible Did he defend with a weapon? Possibly
Thanks to the relevant characteristic of the new palisade? The relevant aspect of the palisade did assist with defense, but only at a certain point

Well...stupid...WAG...did he exploit each pole as a weapon? Maybe throwing them? No, the poles were never thrown

[Hobbsicle]

So was the second fort built inside of the first fort? Or on top of it somehow?

[Earnest]

well I was thinking the same as Hobbsicle but it was said that the new fence was not inside the first one right? or at least one is not contained in the other?

Quick recap: 1) the man who transported the poles is also the one who build the new palisade right?
2) If so, he need to defend himself both when transporting the poles from place X to place Y and when he build the palisade in place Y, right?
3) We need to figure out how he defended himself while building up the new palisade but NOT how he defended while transporting poles because there was no need to defend, right?
4) we have natives vs US soldiers right?

Calling X the place where there was the old palisade and Y the place that needed a new palisade, did Y belong to US soldiers before it needed a new palisade? Is it always belonged to US soldier or was it a "native's territory"?
Relevant why Y needed a new palisade? Because Y had never had a palisade before and natives were coming? Because Y belonged to natives and now US soldiers conquered it and want to build a new palisade? Because the old palisade of Y was destroyed?

Transport of the poles...was one of the two men physically present at each travel (e.g. If this, did he use a cart? A wheeled vehicle?) of the poles from place X to place Y? Or were the poles transported thanks to some engine (e.g. a rope, a pulley...) which allow the two men not to be present during the transport?
Did the man exploit a weapon to defend himself? Did he counterattack the natives? I mean was the one of the man an active defense (active defense = he shot back and try to kill or at least to "scare" the opponents) or a passive one (passive = just try to avoid the shot, hide or protect himself)?
How many poles for each transport: one per time? Two per time? More?
Relevant? Could the man who remained in place X defend the man who constructed the palisade in place Y? Could the two men see each other?

[CoffeeBean]

So was the second fort built inside of the first fort? Or on top of it somehow? No, the second fort wasn't near the original one

Quick recap: 1) the man who transported the poles is also the one who build the new palisade right? He helped build it, along with Man B
2) If so, he need to defend himself both when transporting the poles from place X to place Y No, not then, but... and when he build the palisade in place Y, right? ...THIS.
3) We need to figure out how he defended himself while building up the new palisade but NOT how he defended while transporting poles because there was no need to defend, right? It's not that important to know how he defended himself, just important to know that defense at a certain time is relevant
4) we have natives vs US soldiers right? Yes, well soldiers as well as other people

Calling X the place where there was the old palisade and Y the place that needed a new palisade, did Y belong to US soldiers before it needed a new palisade? No - good q Is it always belonged to US soldier or was it a "native's territory"? It was native territory
Relevant why Y needed a new palisade? Yes Because Y had never had a palisade before and natives were coming? Mostly yes but a slight false assumption made here
Because Y belonged to natives Yes... and now US soldiers conquered it ...not yet, they hadn't... and want to build a new palisade? ...and they want to build more than a palisade... Because the old palisade of Y was destroyed? ...no, Y had never had a palisade.

Transport of the poles...was one of the two men physically present at each travel (e.g. If this, did he use a cart? A wheeled vehicle?) of the poles from place X to place Y? Yes, and they both may have been present
Or were the poles transported thanks to some engine (e.g. a rope, a pulley...) which allow the two men not to be present during the transport? No, an important aspect of this puzzle is that the palisades had to be transported by men
Did the man exploit a weapon to defend himself? Did he counterattack the natives? Likely both of these at some time, yes
I mean was the one of the man an active defense (active defense = he shot back and try to kill or at least to "scare" the opponents) or a passive one (passive = just try to avoid the shot, hide or protect himself)? There would have been some active men defending all the time, but there was a reason why this wasn't effective (which is the final key to the solution)
How many poles for each transport: one per time? Two per time? More? It doesn't really matter, but it is relevant to note that they were transporting entire palisades, not just poles
Relevant? Could the man who remained in place X defend the man who constructed the palisade in place Y? Could the two men see each other?
No, a man who was in place X would not be able to see a man in place Y

[Earnest]

There would have been some active men defending all the time, but there was a reason why this wasn't effective (which is the final key to the solution)--> relevant the weapon with which they defend themselves? Guns mostly? If so guns shot weren't effective or any defense?

Moreover...the defense wasn't effective all time or just some times? I don't think because of the distance otherwise natives wouldn't be able to attack, right? So excluding the distance...was it for a particular natural condition? A favorable conformation of the territory Y which gave an advantage to natives?
Was it somehow related to the height of the palisade? Or the fact that Y was on a hill and they needed to place the palisade in such a way that the hot were not effective?
If defense = shot...Not effective = shot didn't arrive to natives? they were not able to shoot? something related to gunpowder?

[CoffeeBean]

There would have been some active men defending all the time, but there was a reason why this wasn't effective (which is the final key to the solution)--> relevant the weapon with which they defend themselves? Guns mostly? Yes, assume it was mostly or always guns If so guns shot weren't effective or any defense? It was effective most of the time, but not at the relevant time

Moreover...the defense wasn't effective all time or just some times? There was a certain time when it was not effective
I don't think because of the distance otherwise natives wouldn't be able to attack, right? The distance was not a factor in why the defense was needed
So excluding the distance...was it for a particular natural condition? No
A favorable conformation of the territory Y which gave an advantage to natives? The natives did have an advantage at a certain time, yes, but not because of the territory
Was it somehow related to the height of the palisade? Or the fact that Y was on a hill and they needed to place the palisade in such a way that the hot were not effective? This isn't relevant
If defense = shot...Not effective = shot didn't arrive to natives? they were not able to shoot? something related to gunpowder? Not for any of these reasons. Something else caused the defense effort to be not effective.

[Earnest]

is it due to the palisades transported? Due to the fact that palisades must be build up thus not allowing men to defend?
Advantage = numerical superiority in terms of soldiers? control of relevant items? Weapons? In the relevant time were US soldiers be ale to shoot with guns?
At the relevant time, was place Y occupied by US soldiers or by natives?
Relevant time = before US soldiers conquer Y? After? During?

[CoffeeBean]

Is it due to the palisades transported? Due to the fact that palisades must be build up thus not allowing men to defend? YES
Advantage = numerical superiority in terms of soldiers? control of relevant items? Weapons? In the relevant time were US soldiers be ale to shoot with guns? The fact that there were not enough of them
At the relevant time, was place Y occupied by US soldiers or by natives? By natives
Relevant time = before US soldiers conquer Y? After? During? During

You have all the information that is most relevant now. All that is needed to $poil is to state exactly why two identical fences needed to be built, partly by a man/men who already had one

[Earnest]

ok...sorry for the confusion in questions xD

is the new palisade going to be build up around place Y?
is it for defensive reasons? is it meant to be permanent? is it meant to be burned? is it useful in case of retreat?

[CoffeeBean]

ok...sorry for the confusion in questions xD It's not really confusing, the necessary pieces are all there you just have to put them in the right order...

is the new palisade going to be build up around place Y? Yes
is it for defensive reasons? Yes is it meant to be permanent? Yes, at least as permanent as the palisade at Point X
is it meant to be burned? No is it useful in case of retreat? Yes

[CoffeeBean]

This is nearly done, so a recap may help...

Two men build a palisade at Point X, and it is to be taken to Point Y
Man A lives at Point X and already has a palisade built
Man B will be going to Point Y
The palisade (wall section made of logs) will be carried to Point Y, but will not be used for defense during the transition time
Point Y is considered to be owned/controlled by native Indians
Man B does not expect to have problems defending himself and others while going from Point X to Point Y
There is a point at which Man B knows he will have a problem defending himself, which is why he and Man A built the palisade but didn't put it in the ground permanently

[Earnest]

well...so the fact that they are not permanently put to the ground means that they are meant to be taken away from the ground again? E.g. in case of retreat each men take a log?

or they didn't have the time to permanently fix the palisade on the ground?
I mean did they leave the palisade not fixed to save time?

Does it (they didn't put it in the ground permanently) allow the men to take the guns and defend themselves again?

Had they fixed them to the ground, would it have for them impossible to defend because of the action needed to put them into the ground permanently?

[CoffeeBean]

well...so the fact that they are not permanently put to the ground means that they are meant to be taken away from the ground again? E.g. in case of retreat each men take a log? No, they don't plan to do this

or they didn't have the time to permanently fix the palisade on the ground? CORRECT
I mean did they leave the palisade not fixed to save time? Not to save time, no...

Does it (they didn't put it in the ground permanently) allow the men to take the guns and defend themselves again? Yes, at least they try to do this, but...

Had they fixed them to the ground, would it have for them impossible to defend because of the action needed to put them into the ground permanently? Yes!


*** SPOILER ***

At the original settlement in Jamestown, VA, the colonists constructed a triangular wall/palisade around their homes in order to be protected from the native Americans living in the area. As more settlers arrived, they wanted to build another settlement nearby. As they attempted to do this, they found that while they could survey the area, they could not take time to construct another wall, because the natives were aware of the effort of the settlers to build another settlement. So, when the settlers arrived at Point Y and began collecting materials, the natives would attack. The settlers realized that they could not both defend themselves and take time to completely construct a wall. So, they built wall sections in the already walled settlement, then transported these sections to the new settlement area. Since it took much less time and effort to erect a wall already constructed, they could both work and defend themselves against attacks by Indians. After several attempts, the settlers found that this was the only way they could have any chance to construct other settlements.

Nice work by Earnest on this one!

[Earnest]

Thank you for the nice and stimulating puzzle CoffeeBean!!!