@comeonnow0 I expected you to say you didn't really care about her. I guess I should have directly predicted that last time. Of course you wouldn't admit to wanting to get rid of her, since that would hurt your argument, but since one of the people you are proud to have agreeing with you does so because they prefer the MC with the princess, and thus don't want Tina around, there is more evidence of you disliking Tina than of regular soldiers. Having somebody say she can have the "chance to apply again" is different than her "passing and coming back into the story" and even then, delaying her return allows for more development with Irene before she comes back, thus allowing her to be more sidelined. It also allows Eric to be deployed when she first joins. It keeps her farther from the story. Also, how does failing her help her overcome the issues that Jere noted (without adding in entire groups of people that haven't been mentioned in the manga)? I've shown how accepting her can help her overcome the issues without the need of new groups.
Yes, I do accuse you of that, especially since you stated: "I didn't really think about it before, but I can see your points." I'm not moving the goalposts. I've dealt with your statements each time, and always come back to the fact that the child analogy is deeply flawed. I'm just also pointing out that only taking issue with her, and not even noticing the issue with him, indicates a focus on finding her shortcomings, specifically, not noticing shortcomings and calling them out fairly. It isn't whataboutism, at all. I showed how they were connected.
No, I even addressed the fact that it was less than 13 years, too, but you ignored that part. I did see what you said: "has known and worked with" for 16 years, means worked with for 16 years, which she hasn't done. She wasn't working with him as a child. She has known him for 16 years, but the word "and" means both would have to be true, especially since leaving off the first part, it ends with "worked with him for 16 years" meaning that is the part that definitely has to be true and is the part that isn't true. She has known him for 16 years, and worked with (a.k.a. trained) for 13 years. I'm not misrepresenting what you said, because your statement was wrong, and I pointed that out. If you wrote it wrong, that's not my fault, so you shouldn't blame me for using the real meaning of that sentence. You say the specific time period isn't relevant to your post? So if the time doesn't matter, your response would be "she learned to work well with Erik because she trained with him" as a counterpoint(?) to me saying that if we want her to work well with people she should join them so she can train with them. Obviously the length of time matters, or you wouldn't have said it. Again, I also pointed out that when they were still quite young, she already worked well with him to help Dyan kill 2 Red Bears (one of which she killed on her own). Since Dyan is the strongest hunter in the town, and even he would struggle with a Red Bear, that is quite a feat for her, and a testament to their teamwork.
In the fight with Felix "EVERYONE" talks about her not working well with Erik? Really? First, there are 3 people there. Second, ONLY Felix says that, whereas Erik says "This is the power of friendship" as they win. Third, Felix's comment is after Erik injures, but doesn't kill him on the first strike of the coordinated effort. Fourth, Erik reminisces that they had not succeeded the first time they tried because it was a precise technique that requires great control. Fifth, she is hesitant to try again because of the first failure, which shows this is only the second time they tried, and they succeeded well enough to kill Felix through their coordination. Sixth, Felix states that if she messed up her control, Erik would die, and Erik doesn't die, showing that she kept it under control. Seventh, Felix is mainly criticizing her for not being prepared to kill another person, which is what he means by not being able to fully unleash her power, not her lack of coordination, which is clear as day from his earlier comment ("Both her magic quality and quantity are above mine... But! It's useless!! Your magic is nothing! Those who have never killed anyone like you can never kill me!!). It is obvious from this that, if she were willing to kill, she wouldn't need to coordinate with Erik, because she could just use her magic to overpower him alone. To treat his statement of her not using her magic's full power meaning she didn't work well with Erik is to miss this clear context. He sees them having to work together as a sign of individual weakness by both, because relying on a partner only slows you down. Eighth, Felix, after losing, laments not having friends that could work together with him ("I'm not lucky enough to have friends"), showing that the ONLY PERSON to say they didn't work well together conceded that they worked well together at the end ("If that girl hadn't shown up, I'd have won"). So, I don't know why you thought bringing that up would help your argument about her not being able to adjust quickly, since she succeeded splendidly on her second time attempting a precise technique. Suggesting that I'm the one that missed something in reading that is another example of irony, as I've shown just some of the vast amount you've missed in that encounter.
We don't want her to work with "specific" others? Your points before were that the Magic Knights were the elite of the elite, thus the highest level, and that they were a static group. So now we want her to join the elite group to... *checks notes* not work with the elite group, but with inferior individuals instead? Do you even know what points you are or are not arguing, at this point? If she would be expected to work with multiple groups or formations among or separate from the Magic Knights, then their training should reflect that, and thus she wouldn't only be working with a static group, which allows her to then work with multiple groups which you say she should do. If they only train her to work in one specific group, then that would show the expectation is for her to only work with that specific group, and thus she doesn't need to be as prepared for working with multiple groups. You are interpreting things in the most convoluted way possible, because any other interpretation would show you to be wrong. This isn't about me "missing the point" this is about you not having an actual point. You then give the scenario of her only working with Erik, and ask if it sounds like "good military tactic". So I'll ask you, does having an "elite, static group" not train with other groups, but then expecting them to work with other groups sound like a good military tactic to you? Because that is basically what you have said will happen, if you say her training as part of the "Magic Knights" would leave her unprepared to work with other groups.
Again, see my points above, proving that she did synchronize well with Erik, and that he boasted about it to Felix as he killed him. I said it was better for her to integrate with the "Magic Knights" as a whole, not a "single, static unit in the Magic Knights". You said both the Knights and Magic Knights would be more static groups, making it sound as if you meant the whole group. If there are smaller squads (which is certainly a reasonable assumption for both of us to make as it is how almost every military operates, and seems you are implying here) I would expect her to train more in her specific squad, as the ones she would be working most closely with, as well as with other Magic Knight squads, and the Regular Knight squads, under the expectation that they would sometimes need to work together in group missions. This is also a reasonable assumption, as it is also how almost every military operates. If the smaller squads assumption is reasonable, then this has to be the default assumption, as well, because they are tied together. The fact that, in order to prove your point, you have to expect her to only train with one group if she joins the Magic Knights, while also being expected to work with multiple groups. What "realistic military understanding" do you see that would point to training the Magic Knights in a way that doesn't equip them to work the way you expect them to work? You are being intentionally obtuse, because you know you don't have a leg to stand on.
Actually, no, it isn't "pure speculation" but a statement of fact. If I had said: "That means in no way are there other branches of military" that would be speculation. But the way I said it is a fact. There is nothing there that means there ARE other branches of military. There might be, but not provable so far. So, no, it isn't equally speculative. The fact that Jere seems to have the authority to let people join either the Knights or Magic Knights seems to show a link between the two. If "Knights" can be the overarching term for "Magic Knights" and "Physical Knights", or the term for normal foot soldiers, it could be that they were thinking in terms of foot soldiers. Since he was giving her a combat test, they were thinking in terms of showing strength, and thus might not have been ready to switch to thinking in the broader sense. Again, both having "Knights" in the name and Jere being able to evaluate people for both roles, shows a link between them.
You suggest that I am the one that has massively stretched the reading of the "commoners" phrase? Your reply here seems to indicate another shifting of goalposts. You've been talking about a "contrast" between "Knights" and "commoners" to support another branch of military that is "open to commoners" to defend Knights being elite. But, one, clearly the Knights are open to commoners, as Jere offers him a position, and the only objection the other Knights even suggest is that Erik doesn't have to train, first. You've made it sound like you thought Knights were primarily populated by the aristocracy, and that the regular army was for "commoners".
To get back to who is stretching their interpretation, though. Erik asks about the relationship between the kingdoms multiple times. At first Jere responds that Erik didn't commit a crime, thinking he was worried about legal repercussions for killing an enemy king. But Erik persists in asking specifically about the relationship between the two kingdoms. This is what he wants to know, and wants Jere to tell him. So when I say Erik wants to know that, it is because Erik asks it twice. Jere responds to this with: "You are only a commoner, why do you care so much?" Which is literally what I said he did. Again, my interpretation is directly based on the text of the manga. The obvious connection is that commoners very rarely have to concern themselves in any way with diplomatic relations between countries. So it isn't necessary to be a contrast between Knights and commoners. With Jere, he is not just "a knight" but the leader, and thus should be aware of any potentially military movements and if a war might break out. So it is about somebody who has access to diplomatic knowledge (primarily tied to nobility and royalty and leaders of armies) and a "commoner" (or even a generic Knight that only needs to go where he is told). When Jere hears it is because Erik wants to protect the people he cares about, he offers to let him join the Knights, who he had previous stated are supposed to protect the people of Begonia. The fact that Jere doesn't hesitate to extend an invitation to the Knights to Erik again throws cold water on your idea of a different military group from "commoners" since if a "commoner" wants to "protect the people of Begonia" he is recruited into the "Knights". Once again, my interpretation is the more logical one, but you can't accept it because it reduces the odds of there being some other military wing.
You saying it "does make sense" doesn't mean it actually does. The fact that, to try to say it does make sense, you need to say "from a specific sense" is already admitting that in a broad sense, it doesn't work. As such, you already concede it to be a poor analogy, but want to say that it has a sliver of value. But that is you just not being able to admit it fails completely. The reason it fails is that Jere letting her pass doesn't automatically incentivize bad behavior. She is not rewarded for any bad behavior, but for actual merit. Your argument with the toddler is that, if you reward them for good behavior, after they have behaved badly, they will interpret it as rewarding bad behavior. This is predicated on the child NOT BEING ABLE TO PROCESS what is going on. She IS old enough to process things. So if she is told that she passed based on good thing x, but that she needs to work on and overcome bad things y and z, then Jere isn't incentivizing bad behavior. This is something that anybody over 13 (without a mental handicap of some sort) should be able to process and understand. Passing her without criticizing the bad behavior or making her aware of it, would be incentivizing the bad behavior. But his practical demonstration, combined with the lecture, ensures she doesn't think her bad behavior is rewarded. If the Magic Knights lets her continue to act that way and get away with it, that would be rewarding her impulsiveness, but if they train her to correct it, then it is actually helping her to overcome a shortcoming, instead of rewarding it. You mention somebody in chat saying something about that, but Red225 also recognized that your analogy didn't work, so your attempt to leverage chat in your favor failed again. I guess you needed to try to do that because the actual merit wasn't good enough.
You are really trying to defend the stance that a child would say somebody that just scared them and pointed a sword at them was doing the right thing? Now I know you have no ethics when it comes to trying to avoid admitting you are wrong. No child would do that. Kids even tell their parents "I hate you" on a regular basis, even when they know they are wrong, because they didn't get their way. So, I'm going to continue to assume that either you never interact with kids at all, or you are intentionally and grossly mischaracterizing the maturity of most kids in order to try to win an argument. If a child is old enough to recognize fault, then expecting them to learn from their mistakes is natural, and expecting them to recognize that even if they did something else that was good, that they are still at fault for the other instance is also expected. You can't have it both ways, even though you are trying so hard. Again, it seems like you don't even remember which points you need to defend as you flip and flop all over the place just to not say you were wrong.
I'm not applying it "everywhere" but in the context of "when show error is able to admit error and can be expected to work on it". You say thrown in her face when things go badly, so who is to say that, when training, if the training session "goes badly" that the instructors don't "throw it in her face". Also, "tell her matter-of-factly" becoming "throw it in her face" is hyperbolic by you. You analogy, based on a great misinterpretation of what I said, again misses the mark badly (maybe like your archery attempts). It would be more akin to saying that if you are good at shooting a .22, you would also be good at shooting a BB gun. Or if you were good at painting fruit, you would probably also do well at painting a tree. If she can learn from somebody directly pointing out her shortcomings in battle, then being trained by (in your view) elite soldiers should mean her shortcomings in battle get pointed out regularly, allowing her to learn from them. It isn't a hard concept unless you are "trying to run away and deny basic things to make yourself look better." I'm not trying to make her look at great as possible. She certainly has flaws, but you say "she does not think things through. We've seen that." But we've seen that she can think things through, and make connections, like the last few pages of chapter 13. We've seen she can think things through, but she isn't as experienced at combat as Erik, who lived a life of combat, Felix, who was good enough at combat that he bested the "best swordsman", and Jere, the leader of the Knights (which, according to you, are the elite of the elite). This doesn't mean she's incompetent, though. She was more competent than two Knights (that you think are elite but were easily defeated, so either she is uber-elite, or Knights aren't quite as elite as you think).
Again, you misrepresent my words. I didn't say his points are bad. Saying it is understandable why she didn't expect it from him is not the same as saying he was wrong for acting that way, or that he didn't have a reason to act that way. I had stated that I hadn't disagreed with you about Jere being correct in his assessment, and in the previous reply I stated that I agreed that "Jere's criticism of her was needed." One of his points is that she needs to be on guard, even when she doesn't see an enemy, or thinks victory is at hand, because in those moments, many (even skilled warriors and strategists) get a bit overconfident, and end up losing. She is processing some things, but needs help to continue processing others. So, no, my point is that she is learning additional points, that are also good. The point should have been clear before, but at this point you seem to be trying to find the most obtuse ways to interpret things, because, like I said, you need the strawmen because you can't handle real substance.
I already pointed out why it was a shifting of goalposts, so just saying "wrong" doesn't actually negate that. What you first said was she needed to "reflect" which refers to personal introspection. I stated that wasn't as effective as learning from others that can help you notice blind spots that you would otherwise be "blind" too (thus the name). Then you say you never said she had to do it alone, and then come up with two different groups that haven't been shown to exist, yet, in the manga as "EXAMPLES". The problem is, none of those are based on "reflection" which is what you first stated she should do, but rather on getting outside help, which you didn't reference before. Thus, a shifting goalpost, just like a I said.
First of all, I said significantly tied to, which is different than "directly caused by" which you want to interpret it as being. To point it out the link, I'm going to need to assume that you have the ability to process two different moments, and see a connection between them. I admit, this is a big stretch, because you've shown very little capability of that so far. Erik states that he believes she didn't want to say anything to him because "If I talk to him, he'll disapprove" in this chapter. Why would that be? In chapter 3, she wanted to learn magic, like what he does (and we see it is because she wants to be able to support him and protect him), but he at first says no. As such, she is likely to think he will want to turn this down like he did that time. Why did he act the way he did in chapter 3? Because he was concerned about the future, but didn't want to tell others about it. He wanted to change it, himself, but not rely on others to help change it. As such, it literally comes down to him trying to hide magic in the first place, and trying to keep her from it, which is tied to his failure to communicate with others. So her not telling him now, is likely based on him trying to stop her from learning before, which was tied to his knowledge from the future and desire to hide that knowledge from others. The other thing involved has to do with real life (since you claim to like to compare things to real life, even if you do so poorly), and that is that, when one side doesn't communicate and keeps secrets, and the other side knows it, the other side ends up keeping secrets, too. Trust is a two-way street.
Wait, the guy who made up a regular army and an adventurers guild accuses me of making things up in the story? Really? Have you no shame? The way you talk about her has been largely negative, and your plan for her would take her out of the story for a considerable length of time (at the current rate, being gone for a year could mean an absence of 400 chapters, LOL, but I seriously hope it doesn't stay this slow). Thinking you dislike her is a reasonable assumption. You say that all you are doing is saying Jere has legitimate criticisms and that Tina accepts those, but that isn't all you are doing because you then reject the conclusion. You accused me earlier (falsely) of being "self-contradictory" but you do that, here. You are basically saying, "Jere is clearly very perceptive and has made accurate judgments about Tina's abilities and shortcomings. Thus I find it entirely reasonable to reject his final judgment of passing her because he clearly doesn't understand as much about the situation as I do. If only he didn't lack perception and make poor judgments."
His conversation indicates that if she acquits herself well enough, but loses in a two-on-one scenario, he could still let her pass. Also, he states he wants to see her movements, which were extremely competent in dealing with her (known) opponents. You omitted (probably because you knew it hurt your argument) that he stated THREE TIMES that he was trying to avoid her getting hurt. This shows an expectation that she would be outmatched, and him being curious to see how she would handle herself despite that. Normally, if the threshold for passing is below "winning" then "winning" is usually a guarantee of passing, and thus while we could try to imagine a situation like that, it is implausible. On the flip side, if somebody is told that, even if they win, they can fail if they don't do well enough, if they lose it is expected that it will probably be impossible to pass. He did make observations, that is the situation, but having shortcomings doesn't mean one can't be a soldier. Those two Knights clearly had shortcomings, and at least two years of training, but still lost. To justify my point, all that is needed is to agree that if he stated he was only evaluating her movements to determine whether she could join, and he deemed her movements to be exceptional, that he should pass her (which is exactly what he did). I don't have to submit to your interpretations that you distort to try to make them more favorable to you. As for black and white, if he gave a black and white statement (about evaluating her movements) then he should adhere to that, even if he takes the opportunity to teach her a bonus lesson (that is really just extra credit for the test). However, to justify your point, you have to prove that she is able to get better combat training by being excluded from the Magic Knights, instead of joining them. If it isn't a matter of ability (and it clearly isn't) then it is a matter of discipline. If the Knights and Magic Knights are the elite soldiers you claim, then where could she better learn discipline than with them? You may invent other groups that can help her become more disciplined, but regardless of their potential existence, that doesn't show them as being better equipped than the best Magic soldiers in the land.
I'm just going to emphasize this, you made up entire branches of the military and a guild to justify what you want. Neither of those have any basis in this story, currently (and are only based on, "other stories that share some elements with this one have those things so this one probably does, too"). In contrast with that, I've shown reasons to think you disliked Tina (most notably that people don't normally want to remove somebody from the story for an extended period of time unless they dislike them, and your preferred outcome would almost certainly have resulted in that happening to her), and I have also shown good reasons to believe that Erik's shortcomings in communication (which you have conceded) with Tina, by hiding a lot of information, could be related with her then not always being good at communicating with him about everything (since trust and communication are two-way streets). As such, both of that assumptions are justified, even if you dispute the conclusion.
The original argument still boils down to whether or not she is mentally developed enough to know that when she is told that she is being rewarded for x, but needs to work on y, that it means she is rewarded for x , but needs to work on y, and whether she will be better at becoming more disciplined and better at working with others by joining a highly discipline team, or by "reflecting". I'll take understanding the meaning of words and training with a disciplined team to develop disciplined teamwork any day of the week.
