…Well, I suppose this outcome was inevitable. Rest in peace, mystery assassin X. You were my favourite until your existence was cruelly denied.
Anyway, it was a fun battle, @pictoshark.
I suppose I should take a look at the information about the actual people on board and come up with theories that actually have a chance at being correct. We’ll see if I can come up with anything today - it’s getting pretty late up here where I live.
Clarification requested: How is “Anti-Mystery” defined in this game?
You probably mean “clarification requested”?
Yeah. Changing it now.
I still expect rebuttals to my old post. Huhuhu.
D’s negligence to lock the victim’s door counts as a non-action! Hence, it is possible for another employee, namely employee A, to have committed the stabbing!
A staffer has left the knife outside the drawer, meaning that D or A had a chance to take the knife! The victim was lured or caught outside his room, and rendered unconscious! He was then attacked! The victim spent his fourth lock/unlock by going back into his room after the assault.
Ummm… okay? Do you… want me to use the red?
No. Just explain it.
Alright, so. At first glance, at least, it seems that all of A, B, C, D, E and F have red protecting them from the finger of suspicion.
It has been stated that A never went in the victim’s room, the victim was stabbed in his room, and the victim was stabbed by someone in the same room as him.
B has never possessed even temporarily the kind of knife that the victim was stabbed with, and the person who stabbed the victim was holding the knife.
C went to sleep before the stabbing happened and only woke up after it had occurred. He did not sleepwalk.
D has the same reds protecting him as A.
E has the same reds protecting him as C.
F has the same reds protecting him as B.
Furthermore, the victim was stabbed by another person and he had no split personalities.
There are probably ways around at least some of those, but for now, let’s go with a different approach.
The victim was stabbed by a member of the staff. After the stabbing, the member of the staff was relieved of duty, perhaps even becoming an employee of the design company. The red truth “The culprit is not a member of the staff.” refers only to the end of the game, and thus doesn’t exclude former members of the staff from being the culprit.
This is anti-mystery right?
A witch did it. Pukukukukuku.
Well, sadly picto’s last counter already included the new and improved “The culprit has never been employed as a member of staff on the ship.”.
Anti-mystery isn’t necessarily fantasy. 
Oh, right, that’s true. Well, disregard that, then.
To answer your question @Antra:
It is anti-mystery because it it is no mystery. One could even say it is the opposite of a mystery.
At the beginning you don’t have the clues you need to solve the case. You constantly interact wrestling back and forth with the gamemaster. Dependent on how you play your cards, you may never get the tools you need to solve it.
It is a battle of starvation. Starvation of fairness.
It is not a mystery. It is a game of information. What else would you call it aside from anti-mystery?
I can tell you’re losing it @midsummer!
AWWWW COME ON @Blackrune… Stealing my fun…
Ooooh!
I just had the most wonderful idea!
What if you guys shot down Funyarinpa’s theories for me by quoting previous reds? If you do that for me then I might throw a little red rope down to give you guys a hand.
Sound good?
I blame the lateness of the hour for that slip-up.
A valid blue, I have yet to rule out magic…
Yet.
There is no magic involved with the outcome of this gameboard.
There, that should stop you from getting any ideas…
Sure.
Let’s throw in some more blue.
…the “no intentional deception” -part kinda makes this blue dead on arrival, but I’ll throw it in anyway. Maybe it’ll give someone an idea.
One or a number of the company employees became non-employees before the murder. If the names A, B, C, D, E and F refer to them only as company employees, then they essentially stop existing if they become non-employees. Thus any reds about them apply only as long as they remain employees. This way, they could bypass the restrictions of the red and stab the victim in any number of ways.
…One could technically argue that the “no intentional deception involving their names” likewise refers to them strictly as company employees and thus the no deception thing no longer applies if they are not employees anymore, but that would be dirty, dirty logic.
I thought those were answered already, but here I go. Antra already took care of one of them, but for the sake of completeness:
The other two blues do not involve the stabbing directly and thus require no answer, I suppose.