Wist

These are the best reasons.

Switzerland (same reason as Alb), Iceland (same reason), and... Iran has masses of fascinating historical places, but for various reasons I'd probably end up picking somewhere like Hong Kong... so I'll say Hong Kong (for the city, and family, I guess).

Is it Worcester?

3 3DSs! Are they Fire Emblem 3DSs from different regions?

Switching to a 24 hour clock has meant no more accidentally setting my alarm to the wrong half of the day. I much prefer this.

Sorry, I misunderstood your question. I have no idea how tax money is distributed with respect to Scottish university tuition -- I'm also curious if what you noted some others are claiming is true or not.

http://www.ed.ac.uk/studying/undergraduate/fees-finance/introduction http://www.gla.ac.uk/scholarships/feestatus/ I know citing the tuition policies of two schools is poor proof, but I'm not sure where best to find up to date policy information. Essentially anyone studying in the UK owes tuition. But if you're studying in Scotland and are a Scottish resident or non-UK European Union resident, the Scottish government typically pays in your stead (granted you fulfill a few other criteria, such as not already holding an equivalent degree). It's of course more complicated than this, but --

Indeed.

I agree with Naughx. Political and economic ramifications aside (whatever they may be), I believe what's most important is that this decision will be made by the people. Though if the result is "No", I admit I'll be a little (selfishly) disappointed at not being able to see how Scottish independence would have unfolded.

Wow, there's a lot of variety, both for where people have been and for where they'd like to go. There are many places I'd like to visit, but right now Iceland's topping my list. I spent my savings (what I hadn't earmarked for student loans) on a month abroad last year. Big mistake—I'm itching to do it again.

Let's make sure we're on the same page then. Efficiency equates to turns used to complete a chapter. And it appears many people here would judge a player as "better" than another if they play more efficiently. But it also appears many agree there are other ways to measure skill. So is a player who completes a chapter in fewer turns than another showing they are "better" at Fire Emblem? Evidently I have been unclear. The intended body of my argument was that you can only claim someone is "better" at something if you have a definition of what that "better" is in context, but that "better" is still meaningless as a general qualification. You can say someone is better at beating a chapter in fewer turns; that's measurable. But you can't say someone is intrinsically better at Fire Emblem because they can beat a chapter in fewer turns. What if someone is significantly faster at calculating reasonable unit positions? What if someone plays such that a unit never dies? What if someone plays with fewer weapon uses than anyone else? These factors are completely ignored by the strict "fewer turns equals better play" criteria. But why should they be ignored? I can't tell where you stand on this. On one hand you support the "fast driver is the more skilled driver" argument. On the other hand you agree the chess example is a matter of opinion. In either case your analogy of determining if "murdering innocent children for fun" is unrelated. Wrong in that context is determined by a range of biological and philosophical factors. Better in the context of this thread has nothing defining it beyond arguments by assertion. My position is this invalidates claims made earlier in the thread. You are deliberately appealing to sentiment with emotive language instead of contending with the point I was making: there may be indicators of skill – i.e. how someone may be considered "better" – other than the turn count. If you agree with my position, why are you reproaching my posts? If you disagree with my position, why should Fire Emblem be considered differently? This is how the first few pages of the thread read to me. I hate arguing by analogy, but this should be easier to follow. Capitalizing proper nouns and the first word of any sentence is widely considered a fundamental aspect of good English writing; it's certainly difficult to argue it's not. So it follows that someone who adheres to these rules is demonstrating they're a "better" writer than someone who doesn't. I adhere to these rules. dondon151 does not. I claim not following these rules is a hallmark of a bad writer. So it follows I am a "better" writer than dondon151. Clearly the logic here is absurd, in multiple ways. I haven't proven anything — unless of course your definition of a "better" writer explicitly assumes the demonstrated ability to capitalize letter according to style guides is more important than any other possible factors, and you pretend it couldn't be anything else. "Better" writers are possibly more likely to use capitalization correctly than worse writers, just as "better" Fire Emblem players are possibly more likely to exhibit greater turn efficiency in their play. But even though these claims may makes sense intuitively, it's irrational to assume a black and white correlation unless you can verify the "general rules" you take for granted are demonstrably true. I'm not saying it's not hard or admirable to do a low turn count run. Or that a player who turtles demonstrates more or equal skill than someone who doesn't. I'm saying "turtling is the hallmark of a worse Fire Emblem player" is not a defensible position, and arguments that turn efficiency is indicative of "better" play are irrational. I'm posting in this thread because, when you break it down, the argument doesn't make sense. If someone can show how this position could be logically supported by more than "general rules" pulled out of thin air, I'll be happy to have learned something I hadn't thought of before.

Comparisons suggesting "doing things quickly indicates greater skill" keep popping up in the thread, but they don't make any sense. They're the inapt metaphors I mentioned earlier. Are we talking about low turn counts or real time speed? LTC keeps coming up. Chiki's post seems to suggest real-time completion speed isn't something people consider. You suggest turns are a "better metric". So why the speed comparisons? Does a low turn count have anything at all to do with time? Red Fox supports her position with the argument that a better chess player will make predictions faster than a worse chess player. But can you prove that, or is it just an intuition? It may make sense for Speed Chess, but in standard Chess time is essentially irrelevant. Is someone who plays twice as slowly and takes longer to make decisions a worse player even if they win consistently? There are arguments to be made for turn efficiency being a likely indicator of skill – if all players being judged seek to prioritize turn efficiency – but this is not one of them. This is why we need a solid consensus as to what we're discussing, or to at least define our vocabulary as we use it. What is the argument being made here? A player who turtles is "usually a worse player" is much too broad and ambiguous to draw any meaningful conclusions. Just as a player who turtles is "less likely to remember a good way to go about the chapter afterwards" (the hell...?) doesn't work as a supporting argument because it can't be qualified. Statements like these don't mean anything because there's no attempt to frame them as falsifiable arguments. http://serenesforest.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=48640#entry3204963 Mightn't malpractice better correlate to failing to beat a chapter than beating it more slowly than someone else? At least Narga frames his arguments in a sensible context (by sensible I mean something substantiated by more than a declarative tone of voice). Sure, if you're turtling, you might suck. And if you suck, you might turtle. But turtling doesn't mean you're "worse". And playing with turn efficiency in mind doesn't mean you're "better". Fire Emblem is fundamentally about playing odds. Choosing to play more "quickly" (fewer turns?) and potentially having to consider more odds doesn't make you a "better" player unless you refuse to entertain the idea that "better" may not intrinsically mean someone who prioritizes a low turn count. Are we happy with that definition? I don't know. That just feeds back to my previous post.

What a mess of unqualified assertions, unsubstantiated probabilities, made up statistics, and inapt metaphors. And all in defense of a nebulously subjective abstraction – "better" – no one has made an sincere attempt at defining in a logical or even a relevant context. If we're going to turn this into the discussion topic, let's at least clarify the operating assumption. From what I gather reading this thread, it's roughly that someone who makes as much forward momentum as may be collectively agreed not inadvisably unsafe demonstrates a greater capacity to recognize and overcome strategic risk than someone who turtles when other options are available and thereby sacrificing efficiency (what that is; this needs a real definition too) and demonstrating an inability or unwillingness to calculate and respond to said strategic risks? Which is roughly analogous to the "someone who plays quickly is 'better', someone who plays less quickly is not 'better' " backbone of the discussion, but gives us something of a tangible interpretation to work with. So the real question is, does playing quickly actually typically indicate "better" play? It seems that prioritized efficiency (not using turns as buffers? making as much progress toward the mission objective as odds permit?) is accepted as a fundamental aspect of this "better". So let's stress test this. Let's look at Fire Emblem 7. I like this game. It's pretty easy though. You can do an Eliwood / Marcus / Athos run in a few hours. Eliwood and Marcus don't need babying in the beginning, and aside from the time right before Eliwood can promote, playing with so few units guarantees Eliwood and Marcus remain significantly more powerful than any group of enemies (well, maybe Marcus would welcome a few stat boosting items as they are acquired) you encounter through the game. Eliwood / Marcus runs have always given me fewer headaches than playing with more units. Or how about an Ike solo run in Fire Emblem 9? What a stupidly easy way to play the game, even in hard mode! In either case you quickly become overpowered which makes encroaching on enemy held territory very easy. And even if you refuse to let units die, you can move pretty fast compared to if you're having to drag a full unit load through each turn. These aren't fringe cases. The way these games are set up makes the use of overpowered armies the most efficient approach. Despite reduced experience gains for higher levels, having so few units on the field helps your units level up very quickly and bequeaths rather unbalanced advantages (this last bit is my opinion). But are you demonstrating strategic competence by doing this? You're making the game much easier for yourself, and stacking the odds in your favor much faster than if you were to play normally (I'm defining normally as with a full or near full unit load each chapter, and spreading experience such that units are roughly of equivalent level; object if you would define it differently). Are you a "better" player for recognizing playing with so few units is an efficient manner of play, or are you a worse player for doing as someone does while turtling: subverting risk with a cheap, exploitive ploy. How do we reconcile this apparent contradiction? My compiled definition at the top of this post is obviously not up to the task. What should it be instead? Because without a strong criteria for determining if someone can be playing "better" than someone else, or at least discussion of what the criteria should be beyond "efficiency good, turtling bad", we're just beating each over the head with what we individually intuit as a "better" or "worse" play, and the only insight will gain is the realization that we're good at making long threads that go in little circles.

I've heard of this ability, but I've never found it. Then again, I have a poor history of finding obviously labeled settings. And I don't go on the chat, and don't see why Retired Mods would have that ability anyways. Also, apparently I'm not ignoring anyone. So if I don't respond to people's posts, it means I'm actively deciding to ignore them every single post they make. Edit: Apparently I can't ignore myself.

Couldn't figure out what I wanted to do. Studied the wrong discipline. Having trouble trying to fix it. Also, don't excel at anything, and having trouble fixing that too.

I don't think it's quite fair to say turtling entails unnecessary precautions. It's essentially a risk mitigation strategy. You can plow through chapters quickly, but you might sacrifice control over who gains experience in doing so, and increase your chances of an unlucky or unforeseen death. Turtling trades time for safety and control, or at least it does in Fire Emblem where the AI is easy to read and manipulate (if you're not obscenely overpowered anyways). To elaborate on what people have said about playing defensively, I'd consider holding chokepoints with strong or defensive units a common means of turtling. In doing so you limit how many of your forces are exposed to enemy attack while still baiting enemies such that when your phase begins you can carefully pick off units you've lured forward without exposing yourself to enemy forces beyond the area you've safeguarded. Alternatively it could be moving a strong unit into the range of one enemy unit, letting the enemy have a turn (in which the one enemy moves forward to attack), killing that unit, then bating another unit for the next turn. This takes a lot of turns but gives you more control than you would normally otherwise have. I always think of Terrans in StarCraft when I think of turtling (I don't know about StarCraft II, but certainly in the original), but the dynamics there are a little different and I'm not sure trying to make it a discussion point would help much in this context.

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess four. Edit: Wait, is it true retired moderators can't be ignored? Edit: Also, where is the ignore function? I don't remember where it is, and I can't find it, so I can't check.

It's possible your parents have friends who work at places that could do with a part-timer or a summer intern. Your parents can ask for you much more naturally than you could approaching people you might vaguely half know, and if there are potential openings your chances of getting one will likely be much higher than if you simply send a resume or apply online. I got my first job at 17 this way, and I didn't even know what the place was until I showed up. It was the best paying job I ever had in the US. 8[ But no matter how you go about it, job hunting's a bit of a crapshoot, and this is only one of many possible approaches. Edit: I can't spell.

I lost to Piemanmj online once, back when he was 12 or something, but I don't know how good he is. My dad used to trash the captain of the chess team at his school. I've never taken a fair game from him. But I can beat him if he plays riskily, probably because I take half an hour on each move trying to think about five turns ahead.

When the UK finally began to rid itself of a burgeoning cesspool of tax evading refuse from the civilized continent. Woooo! Obviously I say this in jest. The process began a little earlier.

Learn how to learn. Learn how to take useful notes. Most people think they already know both and never level them up. They grind and grind, trading in lots of time without making nearly as much progress as they could if they simply re-examined their strategies and maybe changed their equipment a bit.

"Better" is a purely subjective qualification. So I'm (probably predictably) going with the boring, safe answer: none.

I was told the universe would implode if I put my finger in a power socket. The explanation sounded plausible when I was four....